Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is a CAAC?

I dont play Tournaments. I don`t play to be always the best but when i play i want the game to be as fair as possible. I would never ever consider playing PL. Only points.

Charachter creation is interesting and i am sure if GW would have make points we could use them in Matched Play with some additions from Open Play. Its very sad that they didn`t.

In any case, because this is clearly going to become a "complain about Peregrine" thread, I'll leave it at this:

1) There is no excuse for not including matched play rules (and conventional points) for the new character creation system. It's lazy design, and it amazes me that people are happy with paying for half-finished content and even trying to spin GW's laziness as some kind of virtue. And if the character creation rules are so badly designed and balanced that they don't belong in matched play, well, why is that considered acceptable in a product you have to pay for?

2) Attaching open play garbage aimed at 12 year olds (an audience suggested by someone defending the material) in a product that is a required purchase for everyone else is extremely irritating, especially when that content is being used as an excuse to increase the price on something that should be a free pdf download.

3) The CAAC vs. WAAC double standard is also irritating. Say whatever you like about WAAC players and it's fine, but make a joke about CAAC players not being people and the outrage brigade appears. I would love to see half as much outrage and threats to call in moderators every time someone shows up in a thread about tournament games and starts ranting about WAAC players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey86 wrote:
What is a CAAC?

Causal At All Costs, the "casual" equivalent to WAAC. CAAC players aren't really casual by any conventional definition, they've just hijacked the term to put a pretense of legitimacy over their dislike of tournament-style gaming. They're the sort of "people" who will scream at you about how you're not being casual enough because your list is "too powerful" and wins too much against them. They have all kinds of arbitrary rules about how the game is "meant to be played", most of them unwritten, and if you violate any of them you're a terrible person. And if you happen to win a game against them you should probably expect whatever you used to be labeled as "cheese" and added to the ban list.

(Textbook example: the guy who called all Tau players literal sociopaths because JSJ allowed them to kill his stuff without letting him return fire and that wasn't "fun" enough for him, and defended that label as a 100% serious accusation of mental issues.)

You know you're the one using the double-standard, right?

Your argument is built on the assumption that open play rules only exist for CAAC players, and therefore because you hate these people open play rules shouldn't exist. An equivalent opposing assumption would be saying that point updates only exist for WAAC players, so matched play shouldn't exist.

The truth is that both 'AACs are minority extremists, and their existence shouldn't impact the rules anyone wants to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The argument about paying for something you don't use is also deeply flawed for two reasons:

1) Do you really use every single rule, scenario & unit entry in every rulebook, supplement & codex you buy? Why would you?

2) Character customisation rules are something that can be typed up in a short time by one person. CA is a product that falls into a standard GW priceband, so someone spending maybe a day writing up a few pages on their cool pet idea for others to use has very little cost impact and is absorbed into the overall project. GW aren't going to charge someone say £20.33 instead of £20 for that extra article. They also weren't going to drop the price to £19.67 if it wasn't included.

Fully play-tested, balanced & costed customisation rules are something that requires many staff & play testers, and lots of time investment to review, revise and develop. THAT is what costs money and affects the end product price, because instead of ~5 hours of staff time you need ~500 hours to achieve a slightly better result that won't affect the vast majority of customers. Why, as a profit-seeking business, would they do that?

*deleted*

Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Remember the old vehicle design rules? The were about as broken as you can imagine.

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Can we not have another “Peregrine vs the internet” thread?

I suspect the only way you're going to avoid that is if you manage to find a way to cut him off from t'internet...

Do you remember the time “the bird” quit Dakka? Man...that was great...
Also reported for her negative attitude towards casual players; I REALLY ahold the kids actually take a long look at the bird’s posting history and ask her to leave. There isn’t a single more toxic poster on here.

 zaeroner wrote:


Omg this guy is now 120ppm, me body is ready.

Feeling khorny are we?

 Peregrine wrote:
In any case, because this is clearly going to become a "complain about Peregrine" thread, I'll leave it at this:

1) There is no excuse for not including matched play rules (and conventional points) for the new character creation system. It's lazy design, and it amazes me that people are happy with paying for half-finished content and even trying to spin GW's laziness as some kind of virtue. And if the character creation rules are so badly designed and balanced that they don't belong in matched play, well, why is that considered acceptable in a product you have to pay for?

2) Attaching open play garbage aimed at 12 year olds (an audience suggested by someone defending the material) in a product that is a required purchase for everyone else is extremely irritating, especially when that content is being used as an excuse to increase the price on something that should be a free pdf download.

3) The CAAC vs. WAAC double standard is also irritating. Say whatever you like about WAAC players and it's fine, but make a joke about CAAC players not being people and the outrage brigade appears. I would love to see half as much outrage and threats to call in moderators every time someone shows up in a thread about tournament games and starts ranting about WAAC players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey86 wrote:
What is a CAAC?

Causal At All Costs, the "casual" equivalent to WAAC. CAAC players aren't really casual by any conventional definition, they've just hijacked the term to put a pretense of legitimacy over their dislike of tournament-style gaming. They're the sort of "people" who will scream at you about how you're not being casual enough because your list is "too powerful" and wins too much against them. They have all kinds of arbitrary rules about how the game is "meant to be played", most of them unwritten, and if you violate any of them you're a terrible person. And if you happen to win a game against them you should probably expect whatever you used to be labeled as "cheese" and added to the ban list.

(Textbook example: the guy who called all Tau players literal sociopaths because JSJ allowed them to kill his stuff without letting him return fire and that wasn't "fun" enough for him, and defended that label as a 100% serious accusation of mental issues.)

I've been using LAAC, but CAAC makes sense as well.

Gotta provide the ironic opposite with how overused WAAC is here.

One big inconsistence I see in CA is the difference between the Predator autocannon (40 points) and the whirlwind vengeance missiles(20 points): the predator autocannon has +1 damage, but has a lot less range and need LoS. It still costs 20 points more...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
There isn’t a single more toxic poster on here.

I guess someone had to fill the vacuum after Traditio left.

zinch wrote:
One big inconsistence I see in CA is the difference between the Predator autocannon (40 points) and the whirlwind vengeance missiles(20 points): the predator autocannon has +1 damage, but has a lot less range and need LoS. It still costs 20 points more...

Probably to keep it comparable to the twin lascannon option.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

zinch wrote:
One big inconsistence I see in CA is the difference between the Predator autocannon (40 points) and the whirlwind vengeance missiles(20 points): the predator autocannon has +1 damage, but has a lot less range and need LoS. It still costs 20 points more...

Probably to keep it comparable to the twin lascannon option.

1 damage is fairly significant and 48" isn't horrible. You pay 44% more for a predator that does 50% more damage (and has a couple extra hard points). It certainly makes the WW more interesting though.

Did they fix the Baal Predator vs. AssCan-Razorback points? I always found it hilarious that the Baal Predator had to pay points to lose transport capacity.

Las-Talon is now the same as the Twin-Lascannon, except half range. Really stupid when you have them on the same plattform but one is strictly worse.

the funny thing is that Peregrin actually speaks some truth regarding CAAC players and i find it a reasonable counter to all the vitriol regarding WAAC players

The irony is demanding he explain his definition of CAAC and WAAC when i see the term WAAC tossed around these boards for years in a very liberal manner.

There is no excuse for using the sort of language that they did.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Did they fix the Baal Predator vs. AssCan-Razorback points? I always found it hilarious that the Baal Predator had to pay points to lose transport capacity.

It's inline with other predators, which means it still pays for the ability to have more weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson_ wrote:
Las-Talon is now the same as the Twin-Lascannon, except half range. Really stupid when you have them on the same plattform but one is strictly worse.

Which platform is that?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Did they fix the Baal Predator vs. AssCan-Razorback points? I always found it hilarious that the Baal Predator had to pay points to lose transport capacity.

It's inline with other predators, which means it still pays for the ability to have more weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson_ wrote:
Las-Talon is now the same as the Twin-Lascannon, except half range. Really stupid when you have them on the same plattform but one is strictly worse.

Which platform is that?

Repulsor has twin las hull mount and option for las talon in the turret.

On the repulsor. If I remember correctly, the only other vehicle that uses the las-talon is the Stormhawk?

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Did they fix the Baal Predator vs. AssCan-Razorback points? I always found it hilarious that the Baal Predator had to pay points to lose transport capacity.

Ass can razorbacks have been fixed a year ago with CA17. They were OP, now they're ok. I still bring all the 3 I own in pretty much every game I play with SW.

 Peregrine wrote:
In any case, because this is clearly going to become a "complain about Peregrine" thread, I'll leave it at this:

1) There is no excuse for not including matched play rules (and conventional points) for the new character creation system. It's lazy design, and it amazes me that people are happy with paying for half-finished content and even trying to spin GW's laziness as some kind of virtue. And if the character creation rules are so badly designed and balanced that they don't belong in matched play, well, why is that considered acceptable in a product you have to pay for?

Same reason we did not get matched play rules for create your own tank. It inherently leads to people min/maxing and gaming the system to create potent characters. The reason it is acceptable in open and narrative campaigns is because you are forced to talk with your opponent more and establish solid baseline expectations that you both agree to, or the campaign in which you are playing in expects everyone to slowly develop a powerful character (again, everyone agrees to the system). The system is simply not designed for use in tournaments because there is no way for GW to give open and narrative gamers the breadth of options they want while making it balanced and fun for matched play players. Additionally, GW already has trouble balancing their material, I shudder to think how they would balance a character (or tank) with every available weapon and upgrade option.

 Peregrine wrote:
2) Attaching open play garbage aimed at 12 year olds (an audience suggested by someone defending the material) in a product that is a required purchase for everyone else is extremely irritating...

Ah, the tired old refrain of "if it is not designed for the specific manner in which I play the game, then it must be designed for losers."

 Peregrine wrote:
In any case, because this is clearly going to become a "complain about Peregrine" thread, I'll leave it at this:

1) There is no excuse for not including matched play rules (and conventional points) for the new character creation system. It's lazy design, and it amazes me that people are happy with paying for half-finished content and even trying to spin GW's laziness as some kind of virtue. And if the character creation rules are so badly designed and balanced that they don't belong in matched play, well, why is that considered acceptable in a product you have to pay for?

2) Attaching open play garbage aimed at 12 year olds (an audience suggested by someone defending the material) in a product that is a required purchase for everyone else is extremely irritating, especially when that content is being used as an excuse to increase the price on something that should be a free pdf download.

The Chapter Approved was going to be 35 bucks whether it included the referenced material or not. I'd rather they flesh it out with printed pages, even if it's for Open Play/Narrative Play, than leave the whole book shorter and then split up a bunch of random free PDF downloads that Open Players would have to then print out on their own. It makes perfect sense when you step down from the Pedestal of Entitlement.

Games Workshop has embarked on a mission with 8th edition to support all three types of their game. Open, Narrative, and Matched. They've been vocal about this from the beginning, reiterating that they will continue to support these forms of play for not only 8th edition, but for Age of Sigmar as well. This is because there are lots of different kinds of players of the game and enjoyers of the hobby. If you want to play Matched Play, then go play that. By sheer necessity, custom character and vehicle creation systems will need to be left out because of the damage it could be done to the meta. Could it be more balanced? Possibly, but we all know GW's track record. You really trust them to try to balance something as vague as vehicle customization rules, and then keep up with that through the year? No, what would happen is someone would find the best form of Land Raider or Looted Wagon and that's ALL that we would see in the competitive meta until Chapter Approved 2019. Or, better yet, all of the options wouldn't be worth their increased points and then you'd be complaining about how worthless GW is about balancing rules.

Your argument literally boils down to "Waaaaah!! I get extra content in my book!! Now it's like 3 pages longer and is too heavy for me to carry!!! Waaahhhh!!!"

Cut it out. Let people enjoy the game the way they want to enjoy it and maybe we wont have cause to pick on you so much.

 Crimson wrote:
There is no excuse for using the sort of language that they did.

- Clearly .. and why it was removed.

Hey guys, let's get back to proper discussion of Chapter Approved and just ignore that annoying poster, okay?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Repulsor has twin las hull mount and option for las talon in the turret.

Well, you don't really have the option to do a TLC over the LT. It's annoying, but not a false choice in any case.

can't find any leaks but are GSC going to get any cost reductions in CA? I'm playing in a tournament next weekend and it would be cool if I could throw all my acolytes in a chimera that costs 20 points less like AMs Chimera is going to cost.

Responding to Peregrine,

Yeah, it's really lazy that they didn't do points. Similar thing to AoS's launch, it's essentially an incomplete rule set. It probably would never be a tournament-fit set of rules and would probably be smarter to have an older-style "everyone agree on their use if you want to play them", but, without basic points, I sure know those rules will never see the table with my group.

The other points systems are just terrible. I fully believe that 40k could have been reduced to an abstracted system closer to power level in which upgrades etc. were broken into broader categories (no, I don't believe GW has figured out balance to .1% of a standard army composition), but their practiced system in which upgrades arbitrarily are or aren't factored in to costs is absurd.

I think it's a shame; even if a customization price were imprecise, it would see a lot more play if it had points attached.

 zedsdead wrote:
The irony is demanding he explain his definition of CAAC and WAAC when i see the term WAAC tossed around these boards for years in a very liberal manner.

The board tells you what the acronym WAAC means, it doesn't explain CAAC - it's not bias, it's just an acronym not commonly used and not automatically translated by dakkadakka.

Once again my only "beef" with CA is that the mandatory point updates should also be available as a free download. They're nothing more than errata. I don't use my CA2017 for points anyway, I use it mainly for the missions (which I think are great) nowadays, so it doesn't affect me (especially since I'm using BS anyway), but I think the right move would be to have CA stand on it's content, not just on the mandatory point changes, as it's selling point.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Then that proves the system is bad if it can be broken that easily, and therefore it needs to be redone.

Remember how a poster here made a "Create Your Vehicle" system, and it was quickly broken by creating a NEGATIVE point value unit? Their response was "Well nobody is gonna do that".

It's a bad excuse and means the system needs to be redone.