" a piss ant blog" -Rikimaru

"Dethtron, you are...an asshole" - 38% of Dick Move Readers

" I probably won't read unless I'm bored as shit at work" - A. Hack

"I cannot bring myself to actually read this drivel"- anonymous

"pox riddled post coital stain of a blog"- anonymous

Thursday, September 23, 2010

GW Acknowledges WAAC Gamers; The First Rule Can Suck My Balls

Yesterday GW's What's New Today Blog, home of a daily dose of pretty pictures and no useful hobby information, acknowledged and possibly defined what a WAAC gamer is.  If you read far enough into the 9/22/10 Throne of Skulls Survival Guide, you would have run into the following after being bored to tears by the most obnoxious survival guide ever:

the temptation to play to win at all cost can overtake the best of us. However, any unscrupulous play will not earn you many friends and may eventually lead to retribution. If you can't swim I'd be extra friendly just to be on the safe side
There you have it, a WAAC player, according to a published GW contributor, is unscrupulous (a cheater) and acts like a dick. There is no mention whatsoever of bringing a good list, playing by the rules as written, or playing a tight, hard game (no homo, not that there's anything wrong with that). So everyone that I've argued with in comments threads, forums, FNIF's, my mind, in person, or whatever can officially fuck off. Invoking the first rule (have fun, or some bullshit) is likely to earn you a swift kick (or maybe a kwik kick) to your shriveled little testicles. Playing a good game with a good list does not make you a WAAC gamer; being a jerkoff and ruining somebody's "fun" does.


Farmpunk said...

is it just me or did they kind of let all the lil pussies feel free to call anyone and anything 'WAAC' because 'you spoiled my fun' by bringing a balanced all-comers list to a game?

it's kinda like being told you're going to have a rumble, and to pick a weapon... so you choose the Swiss army Carbine, then are promptly mocked because you can handle EVERYONE at the rumble.

why don't people just use Swiss army carbines? They handle all situations, and aren't subject to "ah I see you brought a knife to this gunfight" bullshit, or aren't subject to "ahh I see you brought a sniper rifle to this knife fight"


Damon said...

I'm starting to wonder if everybody that is British really is just plain retarded when it comes to the concepts of "solid tactics" and "intelligent strategy".

Just check out the unjustly hailed tactical prowess of Wade Pryce and his World Eaters CSM army. Especially the bit on this page:


Under the "Exalted of the Blood God" he states that his Daemon Prince gets 4+ cover saves because he's standing behind some Khorne Berzerkers.

Really? On GW's own website? They didn't catch such an obvious rules blunder marketed as tactical acumen?

Of course, they didn't catch Phil Kelly's blunder with Minotaurs either when the "What's New" article focused on PK's own Minotaur models. And PK wrote the damn army book! It took a bunch of emails to force a next-day retraction of something so blatantly wrong ... and even stupid tactically, even if it *would* be legal to build the unit as PK said he did.

If you ever had any faith in GW playtesting or how well they understand the rules to their own games, "What's New" will consistently disabuse you of that notion.

Knowing that, they have no right to accuse people of being WAAC gamers. They don't even play the game by the rules as it is! They must think everybody cheats because they know how to read!

Alex said...

I was kinda surprised to see the WAAC definition on GW's site after Jervis Johnson's little op-ed piece about the nature of wargaming tournaments in the September WD.

I found the "sad girlfriend" picture from the post kinda funny too - but that's another subject altogether.

Anonymous said...

I think you're confusing the first rule, found on page one, with the most important rule, found on page 2.

Hoagy said...

Don't paint all Brits with the GW (dry)brush, please.

Dave G _ Nplusplus said...

Consider the _average_ person who's more concerned about winning than having fun. People who are more competitive are _generally_ more apt to be less fun to play with.

Scruple "a moral or ethical consideration or standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions."

So, he's not referencing a matter of cheating or how good your list or tactics are. It's morals, ethics and actions - aka, how you play the game.

I'd rather lose a fun game than win a stressful game against a highly competitive player.

Aus-Rotten said...

I'd rather you die.

Lord Zorgatron said...

The thing about the British scene is that very few people over here look at the hobby in an analytical light - dare I say few British Warhammer players are analytically minded at all - and the concept of tactics really doesn't do anything for them. They like to *pretend* they understand something about it, hence tat articles like that one, but in truth they aren't fussed - the real joy of Warhammer is imagining a fight between their well-crafted toys, not actually thinking about winning.

Now I'm British, and I cannot stand the sort of tripe passed off as tactics by GW - it's ludicrous ego-strokery without any substance. But I'm rare really, most of the people you find at a GW in England will be there for painting, modelling and nerdy conversations about the fluff, and the odd game between mismatched, poorly (sometimes illegally) built armies with limited rule-maintaining and only the most basic of tactics. People are more likely to make a move based on how cool it sounds in their heads than what it will do.

Alex said...

@Zorgatron - your comment really illustrates the disconnect between GW and the American market, which seems, to me at least, to be more interested in competitive gaming. I don't get why they shun the idea so damn much, competitive gamers are buying products.

Lord Zorgatron said...

Mmmm, I'd say GW is slowly waking up to the truth of competitive gaming, hence the more competitive and interesting release lately. They just don't want to admit it, on the flimsy grounds of not offending the fluff bunnies (as if that term means anything - who doesn't love the fluff?)

Alex said...

Good point.

Maybe a better name for the people who cling to fluff in an unhealthy manner would be "fluffophile"

Sorrowshard said...


Dunno which Brits you have been meeting or talking to but my club is all about beating face.

Just because GW tactics articles and games designers/design is/are Retard McSpackypants does not mean there are not guys over here wired to kill.

Even though I have been struggling with my older Eldar army til recently, many people round here complain that my army is a cheesefest.....

Now my DE army is imminent I'll be breaking out my own 5th Ed Rapecannon

Lord Zorgatron said...

That's great Sorrowshard, but you missed the point. I said MOST of British Warhammer players, I entirely expect there are sects of tactical players like yours throughout our merry land (even if they are only 2-3 heads strong like mine). Conversely, with the exception of deranged old-guard types like JJ I would refrain from calling GW designers retarded - duplicitous maybe, and naive in places, but judging by the last 5 codexes and 8th ed Fantasy it's safe to say at least the designers understand competitive gaming to a greater degree than not.

Damon said...

Sorta-kinda agree with you, LZ. But they did cave to all the Space Marine player whining and released the Tyranids Ultra-nerf FAQ.

I remain unconvinced that GW has any idea how to play their own damn game.

Lord Zorgatron said...

True Damon, they are far from perfect, but they are getting the idea, however slowly.

Sorrowshard said...

I dont really want to hijack the thread any more, 5th , while generally more enjoyable than the previous 2 editions has some stuff in it which is just plain awful/bad/stupid/retarded.

The BA codex is horrible for example. I will be happy to discuss further elsewhere.

As long as GW continues to give marine players a blowjob every time they have a tantrum/new book/xenos faq I'll call 'retarded' ;o)