[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by 2000AD

Yeah, they're annoying, but they're a different kind of annoying to what I was trying to illustrate.

I'm guessing WAAC means Win At All Costs, right?
This is more like the kinda player i was trying to illustrate, the player that wants to win, but will hinder themselves by being unwilling to use viable tactics because they think they're 'beard/cheap/etc.' and assume that their own decisions on what's 'beard/cheap/etc.' will apply to everyone.

A waac player wouldnt limit himself by a list, that is restricting your chances of winning, a waac player is the type who going to show up with karl franz on dragon with a few stanks. You are getting the two confused, i personally wouldnt use certain armylists for the pure reason i dont enjoy using them, yes i am limiting myself tactically, but i do this so i can enjoy a game of warhammer.

Well technically rules of social behaviour are outside the purview of Warhammer. They are decided by the location where the game is played and vary from place to place, so as a wide reaching game trying to include such social rules in Warhammer is an exercise in futility.
Is playing to win bad social behaviour? Frankly no, and to suggest so is ridicolous. Warhammer is a game, and as such winning is a fundamental part of playing it. Is trying to run the fastest in a race bad behaviour? Is trying to tactically outclass the opposing team in a football match bad behaviour?
If you're a football manager and you say playing strikers is 'cheap' and you refuse to use them, then you'd be laughed at. So why is Warhammer any different?

Problem is you cant compare warhammer to a game of football, difference is football in say the champions league pays decent money, you paid to win, sorry but when was the last time you got paid to play warhammer. Frankly i cant agree here, clearly it isnt good social behaviour to turn up to someones house minus beer and slap down the most powerful army unless this is the style of play agreed upon. Your getting optimzied lists confused with power gaming which is the huge problem, their is nothing wrong with say bringing a bret army full of knights to a game, its the more extreme builds that create issue.

At the end of the day, what is the point in winning if you had no fun?

Not really, as for most WAAC players moral high ground is irrelevant. They're playing to use win and if the rules say they can do something then they do it.
If in a bizzare world the Olympics allowed performance enhancing drugs to be used, then no doubt the the ones that didn't use drugs would say they had the moral high ground over those that did. Chances are though that the drug users would be the winners and no amount of moral debate is going to change that. They played with the same rules the non-drug users did, that's all the morality that enters into it.

the thing is, this whole posts seems to come from a waac player who just dosnt know he is one, clearly the idea here is that playing to win gives you the moral high ground? please again we compare to sport, warhammer isnt a sport, nor is RISK. I do find the anaogly to drug using to WAAC, its pretty amusing, not far from the truth, indeed, the idea that people need something else win rather than natrual abilty suggest that weak players will play in this mannor.

Kinda. Going back to the scale of [Play to have fun-----Play to win] I was using earlier, again it's the people in the middle causing the problem IMO. The people playing for fun and the people playing to win will not cause much comment on their opponents playing style. The people in the middle however, by callling their opponents cheap/beard/etc are trying to force their own opinion on the opposing player, they're assuming everyone should follow their own 'moral high ground' in addition to the rules of the game.

Your scale is flawed, clearly its not the players in the middle, its players at the top making unfounded and rather arrogant comments on how people play warhammer, my only reason for posting here is defend the way i play warhammer, whats yours exactly? moral hogh ground. Maybe im lucky because i have only meet one person who makes such cheap shots, its not a term generally used .

Arrogant it may be, I wont try to debate that. What I will say is IMO it's the truth.
Take a group of players who solely play to win and a group of players who want to win but will cry beard at stuff they don't like. Restrict them to just playing against their own group for a year and then put the two groups together to play each other. The result is almost a foregone conclusion, the WAAC group will massacre the "cry beard" group.
And that's because during the year the 'cry beard' group were putting up their own fences to hinder their developement as players, the WAAC were exploring the game, experimenting, trying the unknown, finding counters to supposably 'unbeatable' tactics/armies, they looked at what was 'beard' and instead of refusing to use or play against it, they found out how to beat it.
They're going to be using tactics and armies the 'cry beard' group never even considered and no matter how much bleating the "cry beard" group does about 'cheese' or 'we have the moral high ground' it wont change that they got beat by the better players.

Wishful thinking more like, compeletly unfounded more like, its these kind of comments that get me, the problem is people think because they have basic maths skill they are a great player, they clearly are not. Again your cofused as to what a WAAC player is, the term is pretty simple, i cant understand the confusion. I think before this part of the post i actually had a willingness to listen to your opinion and discuss it, obviously your to up your own arse.

Well I can't remember there ever being a Grand Tournament of Risk. Maybe if there were serious competative tournaments we'd see more serious Risk players.

Yeah good one, atleast i made a comparsion to a social game rather than a sport, the most funny thing is your pay for a GT, you get paid to play sports

There's no denying there's not much difference in style there. However if that's a style that they can win the majority of their games with then there's not much pressure on them to change their style.

Maybe i must be a competitive player then because i win most of my games, but im not i just enjoy playing, its funny that if i enjoy playing warhammer i cant be as good as waac player.

However the beauty of Warhammer is that with the infinate variety between armies and regular changes in army rules, it probably wont be long till someone figures out a way to beat those armies. And when that happens you'll have the true test for a player.
Someone playing just for fun will accept defeat, but probably continue playing the same army the same way because that's how they like it, and that's fine because as long as they have fun their goal is met.

Yeah this is true to a point, still i wouldnt class your averege GT army as a test of my skill, nor is list tailoring, this is just a test of common sense, reading and maths. At the end of the day if i wanted to face that style of army i would go to the GT's. The problem is many of these type of one phase wonder lists tend to either win big or lose big

Someone who plays to win will now have the challenge of figuring out how to beat the new army and that's what someone of the WAAC mentality enjoys: A challenge.
Someone who cries 'cheap/beard/etc.' is just making an excuse to try and sooth their ego. They wont accept they got beat fair and square and as such will dismiss it. They wont change, they wont improve, but they'll continue to think that they are playing to win, in their mind they'll think they're better than the player that beat them. The very 'rules' they devised and adhere to will hold them back from being the player they think they are.

Their are challenges i just see as pointless, as i said before, when i was younger i played to win, taking the best of the best units/characters/combos, now, speaking as someone who played on both sides of line i can personally say using things like BT, dragons, etc never makes for a good game, one will come out on top and the destroy the other army (because of huge points sink), same as against a army not prepared.

You may think that "playing to win is different" to "WAAC" all costs, it really isnt, i just wish people would stop hiding behind im a competitive player, taking no brainer choices makes you a better person/player than me, i dont think so.