40K Book Play vs ITC Play

[CaptainA]

My personal sadness in this is that ITC=WAAC in the minds of many players. The definition of WAAC amongst most tournament players is Win at All Costs - they will cheat, obfusicate, be unclear, ask for takes backs and not give takes backs, etc etc. 

I've played a ton of tournament games and i've played the majority of them against good people that were fun and lenient. Ive played some against jerks..

I've also played a fair shair of pickup and OFCC games. The majority of them against good people that were fun and lenient. I've played some against jerks.

It doesn't matter what system you play in, you will play against these kinds of people. Ive meet narrative fluffly players who were not enjoyable to play against and left a bad taste in my mouth and others that were great.

The guy mentioned by pax above abusing rules and changing things just to win is a WAAC player, but most are not. I'd say the odds are the same both ways in my experience.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lord Hanaur said:

I've agreed with you, I don't love soup.  But if you're at a tournament, there's no reasonable cause to be shocked or dismayed when you have to play one right?  It's like Forge World:  I don't like it but I play against it. I'm not quitting just because the other guy "isnt doing 40K right".  You know?  I won't lie and say it's AS FUN but you gotta' adult about it.  Situation is King and people would play those crazy armies even if it weren't ITC.

No, I was at a league at GG. The only league they have. It's not a tournament. And entry to the league grants a 1/week discount on 40k stuff at GG. And ITC is not exclusively used in tournaments, many players believe that ITC is the only version of 40k that exists and haven't actually tried any other versions.

And we used to have a non-ITC league until our ITC folks gradually pushed away most of the casual players and it became an exclusively ITC league.

I like my store.

 

1 hour ago, CaptainA said:

My personal sadness in this is that ITC=WAAC in the minds of many players. The definition of WAAC amongst most tournament players is Win at All Costs - they will cheat, obfusicate, be unclear, ask for takes backs and not give takes backs, etc etc. 

I've played a ton of tournament games and i've played the majority of them against good people that were fun and lenient. Ive played some against jerks..

I've also played a fair shair of pickup and OFCC games. The majority of them against good people that were fun and lenient. I've played some against jerks.

It doesn't matter what system you play in, you will play against these kinds of people. Ive meet narrative fluffly players who were not enjoyable to play against and left a bad taste in my mouth and others that were great.

The guy mentioned by pax above abusing rules and changing things just to win is a WAAC player, but most are not. I'd say the odds are the same both ways in my experience.

You were the guy running the ITC league at GG that told me that there was nothing wrong with the guy running the league also being the guy winning prizes in the league for playing games. That one really bugged me. (Feels right mentioning that now, but not really sure how it fits in with this discussion.)

ITC players focus on winning. As LH was describing above, even when losing, he's focused on getting the next win. The game breaks down in wins and lesser wins, losses and lesser losses. And winning overall, through multiple games. That's WAAC - it's a focus on winning. That's not always a problem, and it works well with others that have a similar take on the game, it's just not everybody.

And for clarity, I'm not really a narrative player either. I play to have fun as the priority. WAAC/ITC players play with a focus of winning. Narrative players play with a focus on narration. Not sure if my way of playing has a formal group.

The distinction with my approach is that if the game were lopsided, I would attempt to fix it (even by playing at a point deficient). I would also look to call the game if it became clear the opponent wasn't having fun. Winning and losing is not why I play 40k, enjoyment for both players is the goal.

Some ITC players balance fun and winning, and they are pleasant to play against. Our GG league includes these sort of players (as well as the example above), and that's main the reason that I would join such a league, despite the ITC component.

I do agree with sugarlessllama that if the opponent is focused on winning and you want to play a game with another focus, that you should probably leave because you probably won't have fun. Harsh, but fair.

As for ITC equals WAAC, the issue is more that WAAC players consider an even smaller group of players to be WAAC. It's that "other" group. Instead of just owning that you focus overly on winning. And it really isn't an insult.

ITC is a 40k variant where respect is achieved through winning. Sportsmanship is only valued if it applies to your score. You don't need friends at an ITC event, a semi-random opponent will be assigned to you. And if you want to leave a game early because you aren't having fun, we have a system in place to peer pressure you in playing while you don't have fun. What about this doesn't say, "let's make a bunch of WAAC players," to you?

 

[VonVilkee]

19 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

 

ITC players focus on winning. As LH was describing above, even when losing, he's focused on getting the next win. The game breaks down in wins and lesser wins, losses and lesser losses. And winning overall, through multiple games. That's WAAC - it's a focus on winning. That's not always a problem, and it works well with others that have a similar take on the game, it's just not everybody.

 

 

A focus on winning and competition is not WAAC. WAAC is a pretty strong word with cheating and bad sportsmanship included. I hate seeing ITC and WAAC being considered so similar... ITC actively tried to eliminate WAAC as well but they are definitely focused on the win.

I dislike ITC due to the focus on winning and points with missions that are just a little to intense for me. 40k rules do not support that level of competition to me. Can they? Yes ITC proves that is it in a way I want to put my effort into? No. ITC practice is definitely a focus on playing a certain way and one I avoid.

 

But in the end do not discredit the number of ITC players that are as wonderful if not more so than those "narrative" players out there. Do not label someone WAAC based on their preferred gaming style label them based on their behavior with in that construct.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, VonVilkee said:

But in the end do not discredit the number of ITC players that are as wonderful if not more so than those "narrative" players out there. Do not label someone WAAC based on their preferred gaming style label them based on their behavior with in that construct.

Narrative players can be WAAC too, they just do while sticking to narration. I have the same problem there.

But WAAC is definitely a preferred gaming style for some players. And ITC rewards that style of playing.

31 minutes ago, VonVilkee said:

A focus on winning and competition is not WAAC. WAAC is a pretty strong word with cheating and bad sportsmanship included. I hate seeing ITC and WAAC being considered so similar... ITC actively tried to eliminate WAAC as well but they are definitely focused on the win.

A focus on winning is what I would consider WAAC. Especially when, in a non-competive setting, the player is unable to play the game non-competitively. Practice is non-competitive. Practice for a competitive event is not reasonable reason to make the game unfun for the other player.

ITC actively encourages WAAC, while officially denying that they do so. It's a PR thing. If they wanted to not have WAAC players, they would stop focusing on winning.

As for cheating, that really depends on how you look at it. Some people think that stopping at stop signs is important all the time because that is the law. Other people only stop when it relates to their personal safety or when there's a risk of getting caught. If a given ITC setting doesn't enforce certain rules or allows a high margin leniency for "accidental" rules breaking, is it really cheating to take advantage of the setting? It's same as with the stop signs. Different folks, different strokes. I stop at the stop signs because it's the law, but that's self-imposed law enforcement and I'm aware of it.

[Guest]

Anywho, I think we've reached, and passed the point, of meaningful discussion. I have my opinions, you all have your's, but nobody is changing anyone's mind.

Can we just let this one die? Not really a happy topic since we all disagree.

[VonVilkee]

6 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Anywho, I think we've reached, and passed the point, of meaningful discussion. I have my opinions, you all have your's, but nobody is changing anyone's mind.

Can we just let this one die? Not really a happy topic since we all disagree.

Biggest thing is to realize that while you consider them WAAC it is a slur so make sure you intend to enflame the other party when you use it. Regardless of the meaning it holds for you it is a pretty stiff derogatory term in our circle (gaming in general) and it's use should be carefully considered.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, VonVilkee said:

Biggest thing is to realize that while you consider them WAAC it is a slur so make sure you intend to enflame the other party when you use it. Regardless of the meaning it holds for you it is a pretty stiff derogatory term in our circle (gaming in general) and it's use should be carefully considered.

WAAC is a term ITC players use to describe "that other group" as a way to suggest that their players, no matter how unfun they are to play with, are still better than "that other group" and therefore perfectly respectable people.

No other group uses WAAC, we call them ITC players (or tournament players). ITC players just pretend there's a worse group because they don't like admiting that WAAC players exist mainly in their events and their events encourage said behavior.

And it's only an insult to you, because you don't OWN the term. Wear it proudly and it won't insult you.

I only use the term WAAC in this sort of thread because if I call you ITC players you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about. That guy I was describing in the example, I would call a typical ITC player. Maybe even a "Serious ITC player." WAAC is no more a slur than ITC is, in my book.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, VonVilkee said:

A focus on winning and competition is not WAAC. WAAC is a pretty strong word with cheating and bad sportsmanship included. I hate seeing ITC and WAAC being considered so similar... ITC actively tried to eliminate WAAC as well but they are definitely focused on the win.

If you really want to be technical, WAAC is the players, ITC is the format/missions.

Yes, you don't have to be WAAC to play an ITC mission, but ITC players are usually WAAC in either playstyle or list or both.

Exactly the same thing I was saying before:

On 9/18/2019 at 12:58 AM, paxmiles said:

ITC is a mission type, not an army type or attitude.

ITC *players* have both an army type and attitude. 

 

And if anyone brings to the table something that you don't want to play against, you are always welcome to just pack up and leave. It's disappointing, but some games just don't work out.

You object to the term WAAC, but it is the same thing as saying ITC player. Or tournament player - though the difference there is that the ITC isn't just done in tournaments. ITC seems to be about converting the tournament attitude into the only attitude, which is where my exposure exists because I'm not a tournament player so we used to just be able to opt out of playing with you guys by not buying into tournaments. Playing 40k in a casual setting, but being expected to treat each game like a tournament isn't fun.

If you want to prove me wrong, it's simple. Just go to your local ITC gathering and start focusing on something other than winning (like on everyone just having fun, for example) and get everyone else to do the same. Eventually, my opinion will change if ITC changes. Might not happen overnight.

And if ITC becomes a tournament only thing, I'll no longer have any problems with it either. WAAC is a fine attitude when the the players are essentially gambling their $50 entry fees. It's the attitude I'd expect in poker with cash prizes. But for casual play, it has no place.

[VonVilkee]

WAAC is so much older than ITC.

I know there are a number of self described ITC players here that enjoy the leader board but are not WAAC. Please respect them by realizing there are differences and not saying all ITC are WAAC. it is inflammatory and you have been advised of this.

 

Pax your book has been noted as being different and you have in the past asked how you can avoid certain confrontations. This is one of those you should take note of and consider when dealing with others. Your hold on this ITC equals WAAC is starting to even offend me.

 

That example is not a typical ITC player he was a typical WAAC who was using the ITC construct. Does ITC draw those WAAC players? Sure so does war machine.

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, VonVilkee said:

WAAC is so much older than ITC.

I only started hearing the acronym WAAC a few years back, and only to describe people in ITC events (and similar 40k tournaments).

Win at all costs is an older concept, but calling them WAAC is new (or new to me). Win at all costs was more an attitude or playstyle than a term for a specific person.

And again, the tournament attitude (or win at all costs or WAAC) was never a problem when it was isolated to tournaments (because you don't have to go to tournaments). It only became a problem when the casual players started playing only ITC.

[Guest]

Honestly, this discussion may be the first time I've heard a play-style referred to as a slur.

[Guest]

And I did suggest dropping this one, but you felt the need to keep it going. I even called it a "not happy topic".

[Guest]

delete

[WestRider]

I'm fairly certain I ran across that acronym back before the turn of the century, even. And yeah, there is a big difference between Competitive Players (The vast majority of the ITC player base) and WAAC Players. Conflating them is both factually inaccurate and rude.

[Lord Hanaur]

3 hours ago, WestRider said:

I'm fairly certain I ran across that acronym back before the turn of the century, even. And yeah, there is a big difference between Competitive Players (The vast majority of the ITC player base) and WAAC Players. Conflating them is both factually inaccurate and rude.

WAAC players goes back to 4th Edition at least.  It's always meant the same thing:  the guy who "never gives more than 7 out of 10 on sportsmanship scoring" to enhance his own chances.  Its the guy who always sees terrain as NOT in your favor and ALWAYS in theirs.  Its the guy who thought (in 4th Edition) that "Assault cannons IS a theme".  It's the guy who plays the newb and doesn't know enough to use a friendly list.  It's the fellow that conveniently forgets all the limitations on his Psyker powers, like needing line of sight, when it suits.  It's the guy who famously first said "It's i nthe FAQ" brazenly, when it wasn't.  It's the guy who [big bad swear word] talks his opponent, and not in a friendly way.  its the fellow who shall remain nameless who looked at my Daemon Hunters army across the table in 5th Edition when he was playing Blood Angels (when they were busted as [big bad swear word] and when Daemon Hunters were DEFINITELY not a good army) and heartily laughed in my face saying "oh this is going to be good".  It's the fellow who took three Factions, and then CLAIMED his Army was Sisters of battle when it was clearly Space Marines but because one detachment WAS slightly larger by one point with Sisters he did it anyways.  It's the guy who shows up to events and Never brings an army that ISN'T the soup'd'jour, completely posessed of 0% loyalty to his brand and 100% loyalty to domination.  You've never seen that guy NOT play a net list!

WAAC is also the guy who ducks out of the Tournament once he has one loss.  He's the guy who rage quits when he's losing because "there's no point now" and doesnt see improvement as a goal, only only only winning.  He's the guy that gets on forums long after the game is over and is sniping and sniping and sniping some more about something that had nothing to do with his opponent.  He's the guy who blames YOUR DICE repeatedly for his misfortune and wants to remind you of how you never would have won if your dice hadn't cosmically been out to pillage him (in thjat whint way WAAC players do, not the joking way you retell an amazing story).

WAAC does not describe a person who liks to win.  But it does describe a person who hates to lose.  It definitely defines THAT guy.  People who HATE losing are not the same as people who LOVE winning.  Not the same.

ITC has zero to do with any of that.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

WAAC players goes back to 4th Edition at least.  It's always meant the same thing:  the guy who "never gives more than 7 out of 10 on sportsmanship scoring" to enhance his own chances.  Its the guy who always sees terrain as NOT in your favor and ALWAYS in theirs.  Its the guy who thought (in 4th Edition) that "Assault cannons IS a theme".  It's the guy who plays the newb and doesn't know enough to use a friendly list.  It's the fellow that conveniently forgets all the limitations on his Psyker powers, like needing line of sight, when it suits.  It's the guy who famously first said "It's i nthe FAQ" brazenly, when it wasn't.  It's the guy who [big bad swear word] talks his opponent, and not in a friendly way.  its the fellow who shall remain nameless who looked at my Daemon Hunters army across the table in 5th Edition when he was playing Blood Angels (when they were busted as [big bad swear word] and when Daemon Hunters were DEFINITELY not a good army) and heartily laughed in my face saying "oh this is going to be good".  It's the fellow who took three Factions, and then CLAIMED his Army was Sisters of battle when it was clearly Space Marines but because one detachment WAS slightly larger by one point with Sisters he did it anyways.  It's the guy who shows up to events and Never brings an army that ISN'T the soup'd'jour, completely posessed of 0% loyalty to his brand and 100% loyalty to domination.  You've never seen that guy NOT play a net list!

WAAC is also the guy who ducks out of the Tournament once he has one loss.  He's the guy who rage quits when he's losing because "there's no point now" and doesnt see improvement as a goal, only only only winning.  He's the guy that gets on forums long after the game is over and is sniping and sniping and sniping some more about something that had nothing to do with his opponent.  He's the guy who blames YOUR DICE repeatedly for his misfortune and wants to remind you of how you never would have won if your dice hadn't cosmically been out to pillage him (in thjat whint way WAAC players do, not the joking way you retell an amazing story).

WAAC does not describe a person who liks to win.  But it does describe a person who hates to lose.  It definitely defines THAT guy.  People who HATE losing are not the same as people who LOVE winning.  Not the same.

ITC has zero to do with any of that.

Really? None of that sounds like an ITC player to you?

(I don't really associate rage quits with ITC, for the record. Tend to just assume they are just having a really bad day for more reasons than just 40k).

Maybe we just have really different local ITC player attitudes.

Or I have really bad luck with ITC player match-ups.

[WestRider]

2 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Really? None of that sounds like an ITC player to you?

(I don't really associate rage quits with ITC, for the record. Tend to just assume they are just having a really bad day for more reasons than just 40k).

Maybe we just have really different local ITC player attitudes.

Or I have really bad luck with ITC player match-ups.

I can only think of one occasion in an ITC event where I ran into someone who fit any of the criteria LH mentioned. I don't go to them often, because I don't play 40K much at all these days, but I've been to more than a few over the years since they started becoming common. I've probably played 100 or so different people in ITC events. One of them was someone I'd call WAAC. One.

[InfestedKerrigan]

On 9/30/2019 at 6:27 PM, VonVilkee said:

WAAC is so much older than ITC.

I know there are a number of self described ITC players here that enjoy the leader board but are not WAAC. Please respect them by realizing there are differences and not saying all ITC are WAAC. it is inflammatory and you have been advised of this.

 

Pax your book has been noted as being different and you have in the past asked how you can avoid certain confrontations. This is one of those you should take note of and consider when dealing with others. Your hold on this ITC equals WAAC is starting to even offend me.

 

That example is not a typical ITC player he was a typical WAAC who was using the ITC construct. Does ITC draw those WAAC players? Sure so does war machine.

 

 

Just walk away, VV.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I don't go so far as to refuse to play ITC format, but if I'm not playing competitively (which I no longer tend to do), there is no reason to play "40k according to California" over 40k by the book.  I'll play GWs game.  Abuse is going to come from abusers in any system.  Only game I've played with someone I feel blatantly cheated was a GK/IG player at OFCC who deliberately obfuscated his units.  Take that as you will. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

there is no reason to play "40k according to California" over 40k by the book.

Is ITC california based? Never really occurred to me that it was regional. That would make more sense, though.

[Torg]

10 hours ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

I don't go so far as to refuse to play ITC format, but if I'm not playing competitively (which I no longer tend to do), there is no reason to play "40k according to California" over 40k by the book.  I'll play GWs game.  Abuse is going to come from abusers in any system.  

This is basically how I stand on the subject of ITC format.  I don't play competitively ... I play purely to put my painted little minis on the table to justify spending so much time painting them lol.  I don't research strategies beyond building a list that isn't a complete waste.  I want the list I build to be competitive - so the games are not one sided for me or my opponent.  But thats back to the basic theme - I play for the enjoyment of the hobby.  If I see ITC listed as part of a league or a tournament I simply avoid it.  Not that I am trying to avoid WAAC or anything... I just don't care to play in that environment or "level".  Although I think OFCC style of fun environment ... Fav. Opponent type stuff is the higher "level" of the spirit of the game IMO.

I am not being discriminatory to ITC events... it is just not my thing... and I know that.  Those whom enjoy or don't mind ITC either way ... good for them - have fun the way you want to play.

-d

[InfestedKerrigan]

ITC is based out of Bay Area.  They stepped in to fill a gaping hole GW left after the last Ardboyz.

 

I feel as though Ardboyz showed the non-cheating hardcore WAAC players that utilize generalship and playing to the rules (rather than to the 'spirit of the game') that they weren't alone. 

I also feel as though WAAC does not equate to cheating. Cheating is cheating, and dishonesty is just that.  I agree with Cory, though, and would add that it has become the 40k equivalent of Godwin's Law.  

[VonVilkee]

Winning at all cost is just a level above fair play to me. The final cost of the win for some being that fair play. If you will play fair to the extent that it will lose you the game then by definition you will not play to win at all cost. Fair play being too much of a cost.

 

Can you still be cut throat? Absolutely. A jerk to play with? Sure. But if you play a hardcore style to the rules then you aren't WAAC, will others try to disparage you by using WAAC to describe you? Sure but you ain't WAAC if you will take the loss graciously through fair, no matter how cut throat, play. Writing a killer list while not very sporting (depending on community), isn't necessarily WAAC. Shrugs I just know I played pretty competitively once upon a time ( don't anymore) and didn't like being lumped in with cheaters as WAAC cuz it is different. ITC should never equal WAAC are there WAAC there? Yes but there is WAAC everywhere!

[Guest]

Ardboyz, man that was a while ago. That was my Knightfall Games period.

Regarding ITC vs Ardboyz, the big difference to me is that Ard Boyz was a *free* tournament with prizes. It's easier to tolerate unpleasant players when you don't pay an entry fee. Oh, and Ardboyz didn't have a painting requirement - painting is good and the armies were often painted, but it took pressure off the tournament to not require painted models.

Also, Ardboyz was tournament only, while ITC is for "casual play" too.

[VonVilkee]

4 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Also, Ardboyz was tournament only, while ITC is for "casual play" too.

False!

ITC is literally tourney, it stands for Independent Tournament Circuit.

 

It is players wanting to practice so much that has bought it to the weekly what have you games. ITC should never be casual play, saying it is would be like playing Ard Boyz casually. Could it happen yes? Did it in those bygone days? Nope. This is down to the contract between players and that some players want to play ITC and some don't.

 

Edit: and a third group not caring/just wanting a game. The ITC guys just ask more often and then it follows that ITC is played more often.