[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by Moglun

Those are some crazy long posts! I'll try one too.

I don't think anyone can declare something like "Everyone who plays WAAC is a jerk!" or "People who don't play the best list they possibly can are morons!". Merit comes from the person, not the playstyle.

Well the long and the short is people tend to generalize, obviously you get the good and the bad of every style of play, of course the waac player tend to be abit more than just usinga powerful armylist, they are usual a rules lawyer and sometimes even worse a cheat.

Having said that, my experience is that cries of cheese/beardiness are usually unwarranted. The individuals making these accusations are angry because an opponent's model/unit/item/spell/tactic/army composition/combination thereof helps them lose the game, and they don't believe it is fair. But why do they care? If they are truly 'playing for fun', what does it matter whether the Skaven list is hard to beat? I understand that playing a game where your forces are wiped out by turn 3 is frustrating, but I find it impossible to believe that experiences like this can be blamed solely on a supposedly cheesy enemy army. Luck, compatibility between armies, and other such factors will also strongly influence how the game plays out.

Your right many times this is the case indeed it is unwarranted, if you can look through my short post you will see that i give examples of people do this to me, i think the old story of cry wolf describes this situation the best, you hear it enough times the one time its true you wont listen because you've heard it so many times before.

The one thing that bugs me about people defending the powerbuild style play is that simply dont listen, i think i have said it has nothing to do with losing by turn 3 or even losing at all, its simply about enjoyment of the game. You may find enjoyment usinf a skaven SAD list i simply cant enjoy playing it, it dosnt matter if i win or lose, 9/10 times im bored within a few turns. i already explained this earlier, its about the effect on the game style, it changes from a tactical game of chess to charge forward as quickly as i can like a mindless idiot, yeah great! what a great way to spend two hours

Some people like to make lists which characterful but may be weak. There is nothing wrong with this! However, just as it is not the place of the so-called WAAC player to deride someone for making a list like this, it is also not their place to attack the WAAC for playing to win. There is no moral high ground for either side. Personally, I have never had an objection to a legal list that I've played; the harder the list, the greater the challenge, and the more there is to learn!

Again this is the assumption that if i make a character army it is instantly weak, perhaps compared to a he army with a star dragon and dragon mage or even Karl franz and stanks. I think my main gripe with waac is really the effect on my game, the problem is that when they start to mingle into say your local GW they start to push the power level up, before long everyone is playing at this level because of one guy, great fun! As i said i just cant understand the joy of playing in such a mannor, did it when i was younger, had a break from the hobby, came back in, did the more fluffy approach and suddenly i started to enjoy my games 10 fold. I collect chaos and i couldnt bare using the all mounted Khorne army with max wizards (tried it a few times, actually out did a slaan armies magic phase). Its ok for the odd game, just not every time i take my models of the shelve.

You might think their is more to learn but i have learnt a thing when playing gunlines, i personally find i learn more using a weaker list and beating more powerful lists than using a OTT list.

Finally, I think the term 'WAAC' is insulting. I could be lumped into the group of people that this is being applied to, but I certainly don't try to win at ANY cost - for example, I would never use weighted dice, I will remind my opponent when they forgot advantages, and otherwise play as fairly as I can. But I still play to win, be it Warhammer, Risk, Starcraft, football, or whathaveyou, because that is how I enjoy the game. Whether I win or lose in the end, I want to give it my all. How does anyone have the right to tell me, or anyone like me, that we should not try our best?

if you dont try and win at any cost then obviously you dont fit into that group and have no reason to be insulted I think you miss understand, no one has said not to try playing your best, its up to you how you play warhammer, i personally find i try my best to win with a infantry heavy chaos army, funny since the WD list has come out i've only lost one game

I personally think its a misconception that because i dont use 100 hand gunners, 4 great cannons 4 wizards, two stanks i dont want to win or perhaps Karl Franz + dragon, 2 stanks, 30 handgunner 2 wizards and some great cannons. While i like winning i like to feel i earned it, i just wouldnt feel that way with either of those lists, i also like to see the board filled with troops (and i love the chaos warriors models, the best so far )