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'm seeing this acronym pop up, but what does it mean?

Casual at all cost

Pretty much the opposite of WAAC (Win at all cost)

Casual at any cost?

Thanks, for the quick responses guys and gals!

Yeah, if WAAC players are like... I dunno... crossfit people, then CAACs are like vegans.

Casual At All Costs - Basically inverse extreme WAAC. Putting restrictions on the game to eliminate “competitive” aspects, virtue-signalling about being nice friendly casual players instead of dirty competitive players, etc.

Includes refusal to adapt to the changing game, banning powerful units instead of using counters, and generally digging yourself into a rut and never challenging yourself.

It’s personally difficult to explain, because I gravitate towards more casual play, but it is a thing. I can’t say I don’t suffer from some of its elements myself (changing the way I play is hard).

 Verviedi wrote:
Casual At All Costs - Basically inverse extreme WAAC. Putting restrictions on the game to eliminate “competitive” aspects, virtue-signalling about being nice friendly casual players instead of dirty competitive players, etc.

Includes refusal to adapt to the changing game, banning powerful units instead of using counters, and generally digging yourself into a rut and never challenging yourself.

It’s personally difficult to explain, because I gravitate towards more casual play, but it is a thing. I can’t say I don’t suffer from some of its elements myself (changing the way I play is hard).

It's a term that was floated by some of the WAAC crowd to denigrate those who tried to encourage a healthier game in their communities.

That's really all it is. There's no special meanings to it, it's a term used whenever someone thinks people are trying to 'soften' the game.

Wow there making little boxes for every thing now.

Team WAAC vs. Team CAAC!

Newsflash: We are all on the same team!

That's another common misconception though

Wait, when did this stop being called the Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia?

 notprop wrote:
Wow there making little boxes for every thing now.

Not really. The only times I've ever heard it used has been in contexts of like... like the kind of players who ALWAYS brought 2+/2++ rerollable superfirends lists in 7th, whether it was pickup games, newbie night, or tournie prep Tuesday, using it to refer to players who are like, 'can we NOT do that?'

CAAC is a derogatory term usually wielded by competitive players against players that vocally oppose playing at the min/max level.

Much like WAAC is overused, so too is CAAC.

Honestly i may now use this term for myself in a positive way.

Heck yeah i'm casual

Like others have said, it's Casual At All Costs. Generally used to refer to players who see the idea of playing cutthroat, challenging games with the intention of winning as a moral failing, because enjoying those things is wrong. It shows how polarized gamers have become, and how poorly many games-whether they're GW games, other tabletop games, or video games-are designed, that there are units/characters/races or whatever that are blatantly stronger than all others, and some that are auto -lose, creating an expectation for the different groups on how the game is played, to the point where they aren't playing the same game anymore. Heaven forbid both camps be able to play the same game and still have fun, even against each other.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, if WAAC players are like... I dunno... crossfit people, then CAACs are like vegans.

Love this definition.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Casual At All Costs - Basically inverse extreme WAAC. Putting restrictions on the game to eliminate “competitive” aspects, virtue-signalling about being nice friendly casual players instead of dirty competitive players, etc.

Includes refusal to adapt to the changing game, banning powerful units instead of using counters, and generally digging yourself into a rut and never challenging yourself.

It’s personally difficult to explain, because I gravitate towards more casual play, but it is a thing. I can’t say I don’t suffer from some of its elements myself (changing the way I play is hard).

It's a term that was floated by some of the WAAC crowd to denigrate those who tried to encourage a healthier game in their communities.

That's really all it is. There's no special meanings to it, it's a term used whenever someone thinks people are trying to 'soften' the game.

Basically this. It was coined by Peregrine, to give you and idea.

CAAC are the boogeyman of WAAC players. It only exist on the internet to justify themselves. The kind of players that could be really a CAAC don't play in clubs, they play in their garages with their friends. When WAAC are present in reality constantly, and they are capable of destroying comunities or local scenes. Or at least drive many players away.

They where invented to be able to use whataboutism in warhammer related discussions.

So basically hyperbole as they are only a theory so WAAC have an opposite?

Because I thought that just being a normal casual player who likes to win but doesn't deep-dive the internet for metas to exploit for that win was their opposite.

I like to win occasionally, but no way in hell do I want to mathhammer my way there, because 40k already has enough spreadsheets.

This looks so much like a left v right conversation.

The boogymen of the right (WAAC players) are evil and must be stopped! The boogymen of the left (CAAC players) don't actually exist and are just made up.

They both exist. They're both awful. I can respect WAAC players at least 'cause they're at least not lying to themselves (and everyone else) about not 'playing to win'.

And the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia never went away. They just hide in the shadows. And they're not CAAC players though.

- This message brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia - 'Cause winning is for losers!

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's a term that was floated by some of the WAAC crowd to denigrate those who tried to encourage a healthier game in their communities.

That's really all it is. There's no special meanings to it, it's a term used whenever someone thinks people are trying to 'soften' the game.

As the person who came up with it no, that is not it at all. CAAC refers to "casual" players who whine and cry about anyone who brings a stronger list than theirs, come up with all kinds of arbitrary rules (most of them vague and unwritten) that you're expected to follow, assert moral superiority over everyone who doesn't follow their rules about the "right" way to play the game, and attempt to shun those people from the community. And they assume that "casual" is synonymous with "good", and is the default assumption for everything that isn't competitive. IOW, if a unit/game type/etc is bad for competitive play then it must, by default, be great for "casual" games even if in reality it makes things worse for those games as well. This usually extends to having a poor level of understanding of game design and balance, and even being proud of embracing bad design/balance as proof of how thoroughly they reject the hated competitive style of play.

In short, the term "casual" becomes redefined from its normal meaning of having a low investment in the game and not taking anything seriously to being extremely serious about rejecting the people and play styles they hate. There is nothing at all casual about them, and "CAAC" highlights the absurdity of their chosen label.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
CAAC are the boogeyman of WAAC players. It only exist on the internet to justify themselves. The kind of players that could be really a CAAC don't play in clubs, they play in their garages with their friends. When WAAC are present in reality constantly, and they are capable of destroying comunities or local scenes. Or at least drive many players away.

Not true at all. I have encountered CAAC players both online and in stores.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Casual At All Costs - Basically inverse extreme WAAC. Putting restrictions on the game to eliminate “competitive” aspects, virtue-signalling about being nice friendly casual players instead of dirty competitive players, etc.

Includes refusal to adapt to the changing game, banning powerful units instead of using counters, and generally digging yourself into a rut and never challenging yourself.

It’s personally difficult to explain, because I gravitate towards more casual play, but it is a thing. I can’t say I don’t suffer from some of its elements myself (changing the way I play is hard).

It's a term that was floated by some of the WAAC crowd to denigrate those who tried to encourage a healthier game in their communities.

That's really all it is. There's no special meanings to it, it's a term used whenever someone thinks people are trying to 'soften' the game.

So it is literally the exact same thing as WAAC then, just inverse?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's a term that was floated by some of the WAAC crowd to denigrate those who tried to encourage a healthier game in their communities.

That's really all it is. There's no special meanings to it, it's a term used whenever someone thinks people are trying to 'soften' the game.

As the person who came up with it no, that is not it at all. CAAC refers to "casual" players who whine and cry about anyone who brings a stronger list than theirs, come up with all kinds of arbitrary rules (most of them vague and unwritten) that you're expected to follow, assert moral superiority over everyone who doesn't follow their rules about the "right" way to play the game, and attempt to shun those people from the community. And they assume that "casual" is synonymous with "good", and is the default assumption for everything that isn't competitive. IOW, if a unit/game type/etc is bad for competitive play then it must, by default, be great for "casual" games even if in reality it makes things worse for those games as well. This usually extends to having a poor level of understanding of game design and balance, and even being proud of embracing bad design/balance as proof of how thoroughly they reject the hated competitive style of play.

In short, the term "casual" becomes redefined from its normal meaning of having a low investment in the game and not taking anything seriously to being extremely serious about rejecting the people and play styles they hate. There is nothing at all casual about them, and "CAAC" highlights the absurdity of their chosen label.

This. Another thing I would add is they tend to undermine communities, by trying to ostracise and denigrate those they deem as WAAC, and often turn beginners away entirely for example "this group is full of WAAC gakholes, you're going to get treated unfairly because these guys don't know the definition of fun". What it really means is "these people have a different image of the game to me and I can't accept it" and it tears apart communities, especially in non-GW settings.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
CAAC are the boogeyman of WAAC players. It only exist on the internet to justify themselves. The kind of players that could be really a CAAC don't play in clubs, they play in their garages with their friends. When WAAC are present in reality constantly, and they are capable of destroying comunities or local scenes. Or at least drive many players away.

Not true at all. I have encountered CAAC players both online and in stores.

I've come across a few of these people in my time as well, I've even seen my share of "casual tournaments" (an oxymoron) where you have to take "themed lists" (themes the organiser finds suitable) and can't take "tournament models" (aka good models). It's not restricted to any game, I've seen it in multiple places, and it always comes down to these kinds of people running them. I like my share of casual friendly games, but an event is inherently not the place for it

Technically, it's someone who is a "sore loser" and blames their opponent having a cheese list for everything, usually with the implication of moral superiority for playing a fluffy list. The opposite of WAAC, where instead of arguing dubious rules that border on cheating, they instead take the moral high ground by saying things like "Well you're playing a filthy list"

Too often though, it's used by a few angry people here (not naming names, but we all know who I mean) as a pejorative against anyone who feels that 40k/GW games, in general, aren't meant for cutthroat competitive play and you do not, in fact, have to always bring the best units possible to have fun. So just like you see WAAC thrown around to mean anyone who plays competitively, even if they don't try to rules lawyer dubiously worded rules, you see CAAC thrown around to indicate anyone who doesn't always build the best list they can but actually cares about the background, lore, and tone of the game beyond treating it like a competitive e-sport in every game, tournament or not.

CAAC is basically David Sirlin's definition of the "scrub": Someone who adds their own moral code/restrictions to the game, that they expect everyone to adhere to, and then cry foul when they encounter someone who doesn't. An example might be someone who thinks that under 3000 points you shouldn't field any superheavies. No such restriction exists in the game. So this hypothetical person will pitch a fit and cry cheese if they fight a superheavy below 3000 points, even though THEY were the one who added that arbitrary rule to how the game "should" be.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
CAAC are the boogeyman of WAAC players. It only exist on the internet to justify themselves. The kind of players that could be really a CAAC don't play in clubs, they play in their garages with their friends. When WAAC are present in reality constantly, and they are capable of destroying comunities or local scenes. Or at least drive many players away.

Not true at all. I have encountered CAAC players both online and in stores.

Personal experience then. I have encountered many CAAC players in forums, specially in Spain, the country of the "casual play". Is because of the casual mafia of Spain that Forgeworld is banned in nearly all stores and all tournaments of the country. Thats why I sold my FW Custodes dreadnought.
But then I have never encountered them in person, because they make many noise online but then only play in their garages with their friends.

To be honest I haven't encountered that many WAAC players. 5-10 years ago it was much worse, the community in Spain was much more toxic, people in tournaments whas much more prone to cheating, being angry, shouting, etc... but after the debacle of 7th most of those people stoped playing, or did go to play Warmahordes. At least for now, the enviroment in 8th is much more relaxed. Not in the sense of lack of competitiveness, because in tournaments people brings the strongest lists (as it should be), but you don't see those toxic behaviours that where commonplace years ago.

Anyone that thinks CaaC don't exist has clearly never read a thread where narrative play is mentioned, or games without points.

I'm casual but those guys are intolerable even to me.

CAAC is slang to denigrate non-tournament non-matched-play gamers.

My group and I play scenarios only, so use power levels as a rough guide, as we mostly play historicals when not playing 40k anyway. We don't play a "balanced" Second Battle of Saratoga in Black Powder, so we don't really worry about trying to make 40k into Chess. 40k is not Chess, and competitive balance is impossible, so we play for the ridiculous fun aspect. I appreciate that to many people, building a competitive list and unleashing it to a hopeful victory is where the fun of 40k is. I use other games for that, such as Kings of War, which is infinitely more "balanced" for competitive play. Certainly, some of the players in our little narrative 40k group also play matched and tournaments at the local FLGS, and just play with a different mindset based on where and with whom they play.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's a term that was floated by some of the WAAC crowd to denigrate those who tried to encourage a healthier game in their communities.

That's really all it is. There's no special meanings to it, it's a term used whenever someone thinks people are trying to 'soften' the game.

As the person who came up with it no, that is not it at all. CAAC refers to "casual" players who whine and cry about anyone who brings a stronger list than theirs, come up with all kinds of arbitrary rules (most of them vague and unwritten) that you're expected to follow, assert moral superiority over everyone who doesn't follow their rules about the "right" way to play the game, and attempt to shun those people from the community. And they assume that "casual" is synonymous with "good", and is the default assumption for everything that isn't competitive. IOW, if a unit/game type/etc is bad for competitive play then it must, by default, be great for "casual" games even if in reality it makes things worse for those games as well. This usually extends to having a poor level of understanding of game design and balance, and even being proud of embracing bad design/balance as proof of how thoroughly they reject the hated competitive style of play.

In short, the term "casual" becomes redefined from its normal meaning of having a low investment in the game and not taking anything seriously to being extremely serious about rejecting the people and play styles they hate. There is nothing at all casual about them, and "CAAC" highlights the absurdity of their chosen label.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
CAAC are the boogeyman of WAAC players. It only exist on the internet to justify themselves. The kind of players that could be really a CAAC don't play in clubs, they play in their garages with their friends. When WAAC are present in reality constantly, and they are capable of destroying comunities or local scenes. Or at least drive many players away.

Not true at all. I have encountered CAAC players both online and in stores.

Yep as have I.

I’m a filthy casual, I suppose, but I don’t think I quite hit CAAC levels. Though I do have a burning hatred for 40K tournaments and feel like the competitive air (for many games, not just 40K) has done much to destroy many games that would otherwise be “ a fun pastime” instead of “a way of life”.

I don't think I'm CAAC, but probably lean a little more towards the casual than tryhard. I play to have fun, and I don't find fun in consistent nitpicking and exploiting rules loopholes. That said, I still most often do matched play, because it's easier to get most folks into that who've done non-historicals mostly (which is most of my group). I'm not necessarily adverse to narrative, as that could definitely be fun, but I'm also not really attracted to "pure" open play, since that's, to me, just like green army men from 40 years ago.

Casual player: Tourney play isn't for them, they want to play a fluffy list even if it's not optimal, still plays to win once the models are on the table but doesn't get upset when they struggle to win with said list. Might even politely decline playing a more competitive gamer knowing they'll get their asses handed to them and go find someone else with a fluffy list to play against.

CAAC player: Actively hates the idea of tourneys, feels morally superior for having a fluffy list rather than an optimal one, bitches that their opponent is a jerk for having an OP army when he loses. Probably thinks the hobby would be better if all those people having fun the wrong way at tourneys would just go play chess or something.