[2000AD]

Originally Posted by HappyJim

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.

I was reffering to the example given, the guy that would tailor lists but also cry beard. IMO that makes him one of two things:
- A hypocrit
- The type of player I was trying to illustrate.

I know a WAAC player wouldn't limit themsleves, I make that point throughout my posts.

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.

You're forgetting one other important part of winning: Pride
You think football players want to play in the Champion's League just for money? Hell no, they want to play because they recognise it as the foremost competition in club football and if they play in it they're testing themselves against some of the best in the world, it's a challenge of their skill.
I've never been payed to play Warhammer, but I have paid for the priviledge to test myself against players in a recognised format.

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.

Bolded for emphasis. As I made clear in my previous post social behaviour is determined by the place. Your presenting one specific example as if it applies to all occasions of playing to win.
If you know in advance that the place your playing is more about fun, but you still play like a GT final, then yes, that would be bad social behaviour, but that is just one situation. It is far far away from declaring totally that playing to win, no matter what the circumstances, is bad social behaviour, as the previous post I was replying to implied.

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.

Army building is one of the main skills in winning at Warhammer. The best victory is one where you didn't have to fight at all, if your list is so good that the opponent stands no chance before the first dice is even rolled then that is still a victory.
Again the challenge of beating a 'unbeatable' list appears, no matter how you choose to go about it, whether it's to change your list, to change your play style or just change your tactics.
I'm not confusing optimised lists with power gaming, I'm recognising optimised lists as one part of power gaming.

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

As mentioned earlier, pride is one reason. The Champions League final could be a boring as hell 0-0 lockout, going down to penalties, but the team that wins will be overjoyed no matter how boring the game was.
Also an example from a doubles tournament a few years ago. Me and my partner squared off against a father son team that brought new meaning to the words 'rules lawyering'. they questioned every decision, took ages to do even the simplest moves and basically made the game hell. Did me and my partner have fun playing that game? No, but when the victory points were totaled and we had a major victory we had such a feeling of satisfaction that it made it worth 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?

I recognise that I play to win and as I pointed out 'moral high ground' does not enter into it. I'm playing with the same rules everyone else does, if they want to assert their own decisions on top of those rules about 'how to play' and 'beard/cheese/etc.' onto their own army then that is their choice, not mine.

please again we compare to sport, warhammer isnt a sport, nor is RISK.

It's a game, and the main difference between a sport and a game is that sports tend to require more athletic ability. In the end they're all games, all with a winner and a loser (or a draw).

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.

And obviously it's an analogy that's gone right over your head.
The people using the drugs are still playing by the rules, just using everything they have available as an advantage.
The people not using the drugs are hampering their own chances of winning by trying to take some percieved moral high ground that the game doesn't recognise. If they refuse to take the drugs and then lose to someone who does, they then have no right to turn around and start declaring their opponent 'beardy' because they used drugs.

And the notion that it's the weaker players that do this is laughable for 2 reasons:
- It's often people just as strong as the competition that do stuff like take drugs. Ben Johnson was a world class sprinter already before he took drugs. In the analogy of the Olympics allowing drugs do you think they're just going to pick someone randomly and give them drugs? Of course not, they're going to pick the best and then try to make them better.
- As your so keen to point out Warhammer is a game not a sport, it has no athletic component, so where does natural ability come into it? For example, one player beats another player solely because the loser didn't study the tactic used because he thought it was 'beardy'. Is the winner a weaker player with less 'natural ability'? Hell no, he brought a tactic to the table that the other player had no knowledge of how to beat it and used it to win. If your opponent decides to blinker themselves by not wanting to use certain tactics due to their own moral code then there's no reason the other player should limit themselves if the rules clearly allow it.

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,

I tend to find the people at the top, the ones playing to win, make less comments about their opponents play style. They're not going to call something 'beardy/cheap/etc' because those same words could most likely be leveled at them.

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 .

My reason for posting is to defend agains the notion that playing to win is a bad thing.
As I've made clear the only play style that you'll have to defend against me is the one where the player tries to force their own way of playing on another. People playing to win and people playing for fun just get on with it. It's the people that say they're playing to win (or sometimes say playing for fun) but then try to impose their own rules on the game by insinuating that certain styles are 'cheap/beardy/etc' to make it look like another persons style of play is somehow worse than theirs that I am attacking.

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.

I never said basic maths skills made a good player. My whole point is that the people playing to win will explore the game to it's full extent and create new tactics and ways of playing.
The people who cry beard will fence themsleves into their own version of how they think the game should be played and when they come up against someone who doesn't play to their own special way will quite likely get massacred by tactics they either dismissed or never even dreamed of.

In fact, how did you translate:
"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."
into:
"people think because they have basic maths skill they are a great player,"
because from where I'm sitting they look like 2 totally different and unrelated statements.

Again your cofused as to what a WAAC player is, the term is pretty simple, i cant understand the confusion.

At the start of my last post i confessed i didn't know what the acronym WAAC meant and guessed it meant Win at all Costs. Is that not correct?
I'm going by assumption that a WAAC player is the same as someone playing to win. Someone that will use every legal means they can to win the game. Someone that doesn't add their own 'code of honour' or 'moral high ground' to the game, someone that will use any and all legal tactics and army lists to win the game.
Is that not what it means?

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.

And this from a guy who insinuated i made cheap shots and then strawmanned my argument.

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

As mentioned earlier, I pay to test my self against the best players. If there was a Risk World Championship I'd bet there's be people paying to play in that too, just so they could say they were World Champion at Risk.
If Warhammer had massive sponsorship and was watched worldwide like other sports then maybe it would be like big sports where your payed to play, but it isn't, it's a minor game and like all others right now the players are paying to have the chance to call themselves the best.

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.

You don't have to be a competative player to be a good one. Like wise playing to win and having fun playing are not mutually exclusive and I never said they were. It seems your confusing the concept of Playing for Fun with having fun while playing.

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

Don't forget building army lists is only one part of the game. I go to GTs not just to face tough lists, but also tough players, players that know good tactics and play styles, players that will be a challnege to beat with only an average list.

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.

Maybe to you they're pointless, but to someone Playing to Win they're fundamental. A player wanting to win will have to think of a way to beat that tactic/list/etc. so that when they play it again they don't lose.

You may think that "playing to win is different" to "WAAC" all costs,

Not really, in fact I switched between the 2 during my earlier post while describing the same people.

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.

I'm not hiding behind anything. If a player brings a superior list and superior tactics to a game and wins consistantly (to minimise luck being a factor) then I think it's clear that that player is the better player at that game.
I've never made any insinuation about who's the better person.

In summation, to make it clear, it's the people that try to make themsleves look like a better player by calling another person (especially one they just lost to) cheap/beardy/etc that I have an argument with.