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.

I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table. The idea that you should bring whatever you want and that you shouldn’t worry about viability is the kind of advice that amounts to telling someone that their way of enjoying the game isn’t acceptable. The idea that you should be telling someone not try and win is rather caustic. I agree this game does have unfun cheese and annoying wombo combos (bobby G and his motorcade comes to mind) but I feel like a lot of people treat anything that’s done in the name of crunch and effcency as cheese. At what point does trying to make a points efficient and competent “take all comers” list considered meta gaming?

The reason I bring this up is because I’ve seen it time and time again where people get mad or annoyed the momment you try to discuss unit viability or effective list building. Its like to some people in this community, trying to become a better player is a sin.

For every person who decries the WAAC player, there's another CAAC player doing the opposite and equally harming to the community.

Ideally everyone could just play what they like and not be accused of being X or Y, but such is the state of balance in 40k that people leap to add labels, even mostly incorrect ones.

Fluffy does not equal a weak list, and a strong list is not automatically unfluffy.

With the way the game is, you really do need to hope you find players who want the same experience, otherwise the game just isn't very good.

Well it also happens in roleplaying - some people actively enjoy stretching the game system to its very limits and beyond in order to "be the best they can be" other just want to "tell a story" - and this applies to gamemasters as much as players.

People are different - thats the joy and dificulty in our interactions.

Boardgames can be similar - eg I absolutely need a "theme" to enjoy and comitt to a game and if there is not one I will make it up - sometime it works sometimes it doesn't.

 Jaxler wrote:
I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table.

Eh. I've seen the same thing in RPG and board game communities.
And related things in Movie/TV/Book discussions (stop thinking about it and just enjoy it!)

Quite a few people firmly believe (because they've been taught) that analysis and critical thinking are the opposite of fun, and they can't exist simultaneously with fun.
It could form the basis of the an interesting critique of society, but this really isn't the place for that.

Its largely a matter of finding people who are willing to discuss it- pursuing it with the people who reject it isn't worthwhile (for anyone involved)

 Blacksails wrote:
For every person who decries the WAAC player, there's another CAAC player doing the opposite and equally harming to the community.

Ideally everyone could just play what they like and not be accused of being X or Y, but such is the state of balance in 40k that people leap to add labels, even mostly incorrect ones.

Fluffy does not equal a weak list, and a strong list is not automatically unfluffy.

With the way the game is, you really do need to hope you find players who want the same experience, otherwise the game just isn't very good.

Honestly what gets me is how people not wanting to play the same way are slammed so hard by certain people. You don’t know how many times I've heard “tournament players are such (insert bad thing here) and I’d never play against them” even though odds are you’ll never have too, and of course they’re gonna try hard to win, it’s a tournament.

Typically when they say that, they mean WAAC players who are just a pain to deal with and are often tournament players.

CAAC players are worse because they don't allow fixing to broken mechanics.

What do you guys mean by CAAC?

Casual-at-all-costs.

It's a derogatory term (much like WAAC) for people who care less about balance than they do about their fun.

EDIT:
Yes, this does mean that some people have fun when the game is imbalanced.

I think the real issue is people don't like to admit that you can be both. If your talking tactics and suggest something that may seem less than optimal then your labeled a casual and should not be bringing that up. Alternatively if your talking and point out a better option to do the same thing you can get told "I don't care, that unit is op anyways only tourney players play them in numbers."

You just can't win lol. Personally I like playing against serious players and using "sub par" options because if I still win then is it really sub par?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Casual-at-all-costs.

It's a derogatory term (much like WAAC) for people who care less about balance than they do about their fun.

EDIT:
Yes, this does mean that some people have fun when the game is imbalanced.

This game is so broken sometimes though that it’s required that you understand it enough for both players to not break things.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Casual-at-all-costs.

It's a derogatory term (much like WAAC) for people who care less about balance than they do about their fun.

EDIT:
Yes, this does mean that some people have fun when the game is imbalanced.

This game is so broken sometimes though that it’s required that you understand it enough for both players to not break things.

Yes, this is true. I'm not sure why you think CAAC players shouldn't have to (or don't) understand the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Casual-at-all-costs.

It's a derogatory term (much like WAAC) for people who care less about balance than they do about their fun.

EDIT:
Yes, this does mean that some people have fun when the game is imbalanced.

This game is so broken sometimes though that it’s required that you understand it enough for both players to not break things.

Yes, this is true. I'm not sure why you think CAAC players shouldn't have to (or don't) understand the game.

It’s not that I’m saying they don’t, but one can assume that if discussing about the meta is frowned upon, then general knowledge and understanding of it will in some ways be limited.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Casual-at-all-costs.

It's a derogatory term (much like WAAC) for people who care less about balance than they do about their fun.

EDIT:
Yes, this does mean that some people have fun when the game is imbalanced.

This game is so broken sometimes though that it’s required that you understand it enough for both players to not break things.

Yes, this is true. I'm not sure why you think CAAC players shouldn't have to (or don't) understand the game.

It’s not that I’m saying they don’t, but one can assume that if discussing about the meta is frowned upon, then general knowledge and understanding of it will in some ways be limited.

I don't know anyone who says discussing the meta is frowned upon. I'm perfectly happy to talk about what is or isn't broken!

Though maybe I'm not CAAC, haha.

WAAC while not always healthy is a fairly logical mindset when it comes to strategy. Its usually the associated attitude and lack of empathy that a WAAC mindset has that tends to cause issues.

CAAC is basically lacking the logical side of things and instead being very subjective about what is acceptable or not while not really giving any basis to work with.

40k is a social game so its always important to come to some agreement over what type of game you want to play and having lists that are roughly in the same ballpark in terms of competitiveness. Funny enough a true TAC list is generally a very competitive list because it needs to be strong enough to be viable against generally anything so bringing the best and most well rounded units tends to be the optimal strategy. Factions that tend to suffer and have major inherent weaknesses are the ones that usually go for hard counter strategies because their codex's TAC potential is more limited.

There is also a problem with TAC:

It's possible to be a TAC and a skew list at the same time (as I recently learned), and being caught between the CAAC and WAAC communities is being in the worst place of all.

For example: myself. I play 3 Baneblades, which is fairly TAC (they're certainly capable of engaging every target profile that exists in 40k with fair efficiency), but in CAAC settings they are considered ridiculous cheese that should never see the table, and in WAAC settings they're not really good enough to compete, especially with my self-imposed narrative restrictions.

I think it's the same as any other argument in current culture. People afraid of admitting what they are, or what they think.

Couple this with trying to force the 40K community to be "one community" and you get a disaster. Rather than WAAC and CAAC just agreeing not to play each other and concentrating on their own enjoyment in the game, there is a need to complain or lament - not the game or GW - but each other. I'm guilty of doing this on occasion when I'm tired or generally annoyed at something. A lot of us do it.

A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.

It's not terribly difficult. The problem is when those lines are crossed unknowingly or intentionally. If you're a WAAC player and you beat up on new players and young kids because it stokes your internet-ego? Go sit on a spike. If you're so casual that you don't bother to learn the rules of the game and don't provide any fun/interest to your opponent, likewise.

The overwhelming rule here; find a likeminded group of players...and do what you want. Don't force yourself into pick-up games with strangers who might be on a different part of that scale than you are - you're bound to have a bad time.

 Elbows wrote:
I think it's the same as any other argument in current culture. People afraid of admitting what they are, or what they think.

Couple this with trying to force the 40K community to be "one community" and you get a disaster. Rather than WAAC and CAAC just agreeing not to play each other and concentrating on their own enjoyment in the game, there is a need to complain or lament - not the game or GW - but each other. I'm guilty of doing this on occasion when I'm tired or generally annoyed at something. A lot of us do it.

A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.

It's not terribly difficult. The problem is when those lines are crossed unknowingly or intentionally. If you're a WAAC player and you beat up on new players and young kids because it stokes your internet-ego? Go sit on a spike. If you're so casual that you don't bother to learn the rules of the game and don't provide any fun/interest to your opponent, likewise.

The overwhelming rule here; find a likeminded group of players...and do what you want. Don't force yourself into pick-up games with strangers who might be on a different part of that scale than you are - you're bound to have a bad time.

The issue comes from GW's bad game design though; I'm like you - I play a trio of Baneblades because I like the narrative and cinematic aspects of these vehicles being awesome. My obsession, if you must know, is born from the Bolo series of books, which is pretty kickbutt if you like big tanks, and very cinematic and narrative.

But I think most "narrative" players don't see it that way - and I think you've come out against the idea in the past.

BUT


To avoid Martel'ing the thread, I'll go back to the original question:
Most CAAC players I've met are willing to discuss the meta.

I'm not sure where truly casual players fit though - the ones that will play anything and everything, aren't worried about W/L, and don't even care about narrative. I'm not sure they exist, I suppose?

I wonder what other forums you visit to come to that observation. Because here on dakka I often get the feeling everything is only about waac, tournaments and the blandest kind of eternal war missions.
If I understand the posts here correctly I'm probably "CAAC", but that doesn't mean I don't see imbalances, on the contrary. In order to have a good casual game you have to know OP units even more - because then you can try to build scenario-rules to balance these out.

 Elbows wrote:

A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.

We had a pretty casual WMH group going with a lot of new players at one point and there was also the usual type of individual that game attracts who would try to muscle in on our games when we were doing something he perceived as "wrong". Once the newer people had got the hang of the rules he backed off a little; so we switched up our attempts at trolling him by whenever he hovered over to our table much like in the Reeves and Mortimer sketch below.




We'd perform seemingly illogical or daft moves "because it's funny" just to see how long it would take to break him and make him go away. It worked every time. Plus we got some great moments when these hail Mary moves actually got pulled off.

Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....

But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.

And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....

But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.

And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.

That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?

I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.

Some people like breaking the game

some people love taking it easy

and ever step inbetween.

what everyone hates is when people complain about it.

 Desubot wrote:
Some people like breaking the game

some people love taking it easy

and ever step inbetween.

what everyone hates is when people complain about it.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?

ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.

()

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Some people like breaking the game

some people love taking it easy

and ever step inbetween.

what everyone hates is when people complain about it.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?

ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.

()

If I compressed your post until it was in its purest most condensed form, you’d have genuine crystallized DakkaDakka.con

Street value for DakkaDakka is on the rise...especially if it's not cut with facts or logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I think it's the same as any other argument in current culture. People afraid of admitting what they are, or what they think.

Couple this with trying to force the 40K community to be "one community" and you get a disaster. Rather than WAAC and CAAC just agreeing not to play each other and concentrating on their own enjoyment in the game, there is a need to complain or lament - not the game or GW - but each other. I'm guilty of doing this on occasion when I'm tired or generally annoyed at something. A lot of us do it.

A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.

It's not terribly difficult. The problem is when those lines are crossed unknowingly or intentionally. If you're a WAAC player and you beat up on new players and young kids because it stokes your internet-ego? Go sit on a spike. If you're so casual that you don't bother to learn the rules of the game and don't provide any fun/interest to your opponent, likewise.

The overwhelming rule here; find a likeminded group of players...and do what you want. Don't force yourself into pick-up games with strangers who might be on a different part of that scale than you are - you're bound to have a bad time.

The issue comes from GW's bad game design though; I'm like you - I play a trio of Baneblades because I like the narrative and cinematic aspects of these vehicles being awesome. My obsession, if you must know, is born from the Bolo series of books, which is pretty kickbutt if you like big tanks, and very cinematic and narrative.

But I think most "narrative" players don't see it that way - and I think you've come out against the idea in the past.

BUT


To avoid Martel'ing the thread, I'll go back to the original question:
Most CAAC players I've met are willing to discuss the meta.

I'm not sure where truly casual players fit though - the ones that will play anything and everything, aren't worried about W/L, and don't even care about narrative. I'm not sure they exist, I suppose?

Oh, I agree...the game design is probably the weakest element of 40K and could be blamed for a lot of things. That's why I'm in heavy favor of house-ruling whatever you need to in order to enjoy the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Some people like breaking the game

some people love taking it easy

and ever step inbetween.

what everyone hates is when people complain about it.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?

ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.

()

I wanted to do something about it. I applied for the rules writing team when that thread was live, but it turned out they want people in England so I don't think I ever stood a chance.

I mean...

In almost every game system, you will have people who complain about people taking the maximally effective route. And that is primarily because there are more things than just trying to win that people enjoy about their hobby, and playing maximally competitive by nature reduces the number of options available.

If your opponent is bringing a tournament level list, your choices are either A) Bring another tournament level list, or B) just lose.

Option A means that if you have a sub-optimal unit you like the look of, or a sub-optimal playstyle you enjoy, like say, a melee army of any description, any of the factions that don't have a codex yet, or 75% of the units in the factions that do have codexes.

Youre going to see these complaints more in Wargaming than, say, Video Gaming because in a video game if you pick a sub-optimal character, all it takes to "git gud" and play the right character is clicking a different character on the screen. In Warhammer that's a minimum 45$ investment and 5-10 hours of painting to get an optimal mini ready, and often by the time you finish your "git gud" choice it's already gotten nerfed into uselessness or some new thing has been added that eats it. I was told to "git gud" with my DE, and I went and bought a set of those Razorwing proxies everyone uses - by the time I got them painted and based on GW 40mms they had been doubled in points cost and so now they are worthless pieces of plastic on a shelf. Now if I want to "git gud" with my Dark Eldar, I have to play...nothing, they're an index army and they're completely outclassed by codexes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Some people like breaking the game

some people love taking it easy

and ever step inbetween.

what everyone hates is when people complain about it.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?

ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.

()

I wanted to do something about it. I applied for the rules writing team when that thread was live, but it turned out they want people in England so I don't think I ever stood a chance.

I didn't even know that was a thing! Oh well. XD I help design wargames for the DoD (well, OAD in the USMC at the moment) and would love to have a go at my favorite hobby. I don't live in England though. :X

I don't believe that CAAC's are really a thing; if someone says to you that they don't care about winning games, then they're lying to you to save face, or they're being disingenuous to themselves. You should always be playing to win - just never at the expense of the fun. I like to call that hardcore-casual


And this is the problem with this argument; the very core ideals of TT wargaming is collecting an army and playing games with it, so it'd be idiotic to say that collecting what you want to collect is the wrong way to go about the hobby. It's just about the only advice that I will give to new hobbyists, because at the end of the day they'll [hopefully] be painting the miniatures they're buying and proudly displaying them on a shelf when they're not playing with it.

Equally, competitive play within the hobby with optimised lists and playstyles should not be shunned by the community; it's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, just like taking what you like and making an army out of it is. As long as people are playing competitively and having fun doing so, then it can't be deemed a problem in the community by others who do not play the same way - the problem comes when these two camps mix.

The easiest solution to avoid any problems within your personal community (if that is the issue the OP is raising here) is to gauge the people you're playing against as people who are looking to play casually, and people who are looking to play competitively. Don't bring a casual list to a competitive game, and vice versa. As for people in the community at large who complain about casual players/competitive players, I think those people are simply missing the one true rule of the hobby - that you can collect and play it however you wish.