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.

ccs wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Nah, it goes further than that. Outside the tourney environment you have to fit in with those your playing with. You prove yourself un-fun to play with & you'll have few, if any, games.

I'm not looking for my opponent to entertain me, merely their army.

Wayniac wrote:
CAAC as used here tends to mean "someone who doesn't play competitive and thinks it makes them superior to do so", which I can say I have never encountered. But that's generally the usage, not someone who just plays casual games but someone who takes an air of moral superiority for not "dirtying" themselves with powergame lists.

As opposed to WAAC which is "plays to win and doesn't care about the enjoyment of their opponent"

I always thought that it was someone who plays a good army, whose only explanation that other armies are much weaker or even don't work, is that one shouldn't play in tournament games, and that casual games fix everything as soon as you play them. I guess, I was wrong.

I still have no idea what a casual list is. Everyone I play claims his army is casual, but it doesn't look like casual to me. There is max 1-2 unit difference between their lists and those that are top tournament list.

Re: Slayer-Fan

And if that's the narrow version of the game, and the audience you want to participate, good for you. No one's stopping you. But no one has any responsibility to accept a game with you - a point which you can't contest by your own admission.

You're entitled to play the game in any fashion you choose...whether or not that ends up leaving you devoid of opponents is entirely up to you.

 Elbows wrote:
Re: Slayer-Fan

And if that's the narrow version of the game, and the audience you want to participate, good for you. No one's stopping you. But no one has any responsibility to accept a game with you - a point which you can't contest by your own admission.

You're entitled to play the game in any fashion you choose...whether or not that ends up leaving you devoid of opponents is entirely up to you.

Nobody has to play a game if they don't want to. However, using the reason "My opponent might really beat me" is beyond silly.

Well what if it is not might, but will beat me and the next 1hour isn't going to be fun to play, and the table at the store has to be split paid.

Karol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
CAAC as used here tends to mean "someone who doesn't play competitive and thinks it makes them superior to do so", which I can say I have never encountered. But that's generally the usage, not someone who just plays casual games but someone who takes an air of moral superiority for not "dirtying" themselves with powergame lists.

As opposed to WAAC which is "plays to win and doesn't care about the enjoyment of their opponent"

I always thought that it was someone who plays a good army, whose only explanation that other armies are much weaker or even don't work, is that one shouldn't play in tournament games, and that casual games fix everything as soon as you play them. I guess, I was wrong.

I still have no idea what a casual list is. Everyone I play claims his army is casual, but it doesn't look like casual to me. There is max 1-2 unit difference between their lists and those that are top tournament list.

I mean, it could be. But I'm pretty sure Peregrine came up with as a direct counter to tossing WAAC at people who play competitively (which is the wrong usage, as you can be a competitive player but a WAAC player. The line is drawn when you care about your enjoyment over your opponent's. A WAAC player will curbstomp a new player and then laugh at them for getting beaten, a competitive player might offer suggestions to help them do better or show them tactics to improve). So I think his original definition was someone who doesn't play competitive at all, and uses that fact to claim moral superiority over "those dirty competitive powergamers".

Re: Slayer-Fan

This is a game...played for fun. Granted it's assigned an arbitrary additional value by a lot of overly competitive people, but unless you're paying for and attending a tournament, avoiding a game for any reason is not "beyond silly". Expecting someone to play you regardless of reason is a bit more silly than that isn't it? If you present yourself in person the way you do on Dakka, I wouldn't likely play you - based simply on attitude. Is that any sillier a reason than expecting a trouncing?

To be honest I don't get the distinction at all. Maybe casual people exist. I can imagine someone who only paints, but got forced to play by someone else, could fall under such a description. But everyone else who does care about wining stops being casual, the very moment they do that.

I understand that proper names for stuff are very important, but in the end it seems like sofizm and an argument to have an argument. In the end anything can be used as an insult. Took me heck a lot of time to understand that being a good student, equals hate from co students. And that stuff like asking what the homework for tomorrow is suppose to be, ends up in a beating more often then not. World is heck of a confusing sometimes.

Karol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
CAAC as used here tends to mean "someone who doesn't play competitive and thinks it makes them superior to do so", which I can say I have never encountered. But that's generally the usage, not someone who just plays casual games but someone who takes an air of moral superiority for not "dirtying" themselves with powergame lists.

As opposed to WAAC which is "plays to win and doesn't care about the enjoyment of their opponent"

I always thought that it was someone who plays a good army, whose only explanation that other armies are much weaker or even don't work, is that one shouldn't play in tournament games, and that casual games fix everything as soon as you play them. I guess, I was wrong.

I still have no idea what a casual list is. Everyone I play claims his army is casual, but it doesn't look like casual to me. There is max 1-2 unit difference between their lists and those that are top tournament list.

CaaC in 40K is pretty much scrub. The guys that refuse to take a strong list because that makes them better than competitive players. Often also combined with passive aggressive tools for winning like list tailoring, encouraging shaming of people that bring lists stronger than those they can comfortably beat and can cross over into WaaC tactics like cheating where they think they can get away with it or seeking out new players for an easy win. WaaC/CaaC are two sides of the same coin really - they want to win but without the effort of actually becoming a good player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
To be honest I don't get the distinction at all. Maybe casual people exist. I can imagine someone who only paints, but got forced to play by someone else, could fall under such a description.

There are people on this forum who have claimed that if you make a unit selection decision with any consideration at all to unit effectiveness then you're a powergamer and they would never do such a thing - their armies fluff is everything.

Remember when 40k was a social thing between two people?
Not just a dice rolling dick contest.

ValentineGames wrote:
Remember when 40k was a social thing between two people?
Not just a dice rolling dick contest.

Pepperidge Farms--I mean yes, I remember. And it was no big deal if your opponent was a couple points over or wanted to do something not 100% in the rules (give someone a cool piece of wargear that they technically couldn't take). It was generally sure, go ahead it sounds fun.

Can you imagine being a couple of points over these days?
Or inventing a scenario, unit, rule etc.
My god...

ValentineGames wrote:
Can you imagine being a couple of points over these days?
Or inventing a scenario, unit, rule etc.
My god...

Dirty narrative or *gasp* open play

I played a game today. A 2,000 point game.

I was at 2,004 points. I asked my opponent "Mind if I'm 4 points over?"

He said that was fine.

Shockingly, competitive players aren't inherently dicks.

ValentineGames wrote:Remember when 40k was a social thing between two people?
Not just a dice rolling dick contest.

Wait a second, so you're telling me it's not? damn ive been playing the wrong game.

ValentineGames wrote:Can you imagine being a couple of points over these days?
Or inventing a scenario, unit, rule etc.
My god...

Sheer horror

Oh hey, the same tired old attempts to vilify anyone who wants to play a standard game and pretend that it isn't "fun" if you can't break the rules. I especially love the whole "it's just a few points over" thing. If those extra points genuinely aren't a big deal then why don't you just remove one of those "not a big deal" units/upgrades from your list and play a legal list? After all, they aren't a big deal so you shouldn't miss them. And of course we're supposed to pretend that it's some kind of BCB style over-literalism with RAW to argue that a unit "technically" can't take an upgrade, instead of a "casual" player acting like they're entitled to change the rules to their benefit and any "fun" opponent has to accept it.

Why are you threatened by the possibility of people playing loose with the rules? Are you that afraid they might have some insurmountable advantage you can't defeat? You've gone on long rants that the rules are crap and written by idiots. So why are the rules also sacrosanct if they are garbage?

>Hey you shouldn't be too hardcore you should have fun!
>Adds points to gain an advantage
>Hey this game is about fun! Quit being so strict!

You can remove the upgrade. If being so "fun" is important, surely you can remove the upgrade for a more fair game.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh hey, the same tired old attempts to vilify anyone who wants to play a standard game and pretend that it isn't "fun" if you can't break the rules.

Firstly, can we actually do away with the idea that there's a "standard" game? There's three game modes. One of them, yes it's true, is closest to the style that lists were constructed in previous editions. That doesn't make it the standard. Sure, it's your standard, but it's not mine. So, knowing you, I'll assume you mean Matched Play, and move on.

No, I'm not vilifying you or anyone who plays Matched Play or the "standard game" as you put it. Can't speak for anyone else, but you're welcome to play how you want. I wouldn't have it any other way. All I ask for is that everyone respects that people have their own preferences, and that those preferences be respected, out of decency. How you play isn't something for me, but I respect you and I respect your preference as valid to you.

Unfortunately, too often do I see people not doing that, and calling entire game modes and attitudes to playing as being invalid, or assign toxic values to them. Across the board, can we respect people's preferences?*


*unless they play Ultramarines, of course! Oh, wait, that's me...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
>Hey you shouldn't be too hardcore you should have fun!
>Adds points to gain an advantage
>Hey this game is about fun! Quit being so strict!

You can remove the upgrade. If being so "fun" is important, surely you can remove the upgrade for a more fair game.

Is fairness the only thing that matters? Why is 4 points an issue? Maybe the fun doesn't come from a perfectly balanced game, but rather comes from people taking the models and upgrades they like and treating the points limit as a guideline?

I think another thing that shows the clear disconnect (not a bad thing) between you is that you see 4 points over as a chance to gain an advantage, and not as a consequence of taking something you REALLY like for non-gameplay reasons. There's many reasons you might have those 4 points, and not all of them are to do with leveraging an advantage. The fact you assume that speaks volumes about what you personally see and value in 40k - which is in no way a criticism of that. Just pointing that out.

I would probably say that Power Level is better for that kind of approach, but that's both not my place to enforce and also the two words that put Peregrine into a frenzy, so I won't mention it further.

Suffice to say, fun comes in many forms. Who says being 4 points over destroys fun for everyone in this situation?

Hoo boy, reading this thread has been quite the ride. Can't we just agree that the casual players can stick to playing with like minded hobbyists, and the same for the competitive folks?

The only time issues should arise is if the community is so small as to only accommodate one type of player, in which case people starting out should at least check if their local gamestore/group will be a good fit for their preferred play style.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why are you threatened by the possibility of people playing loose with the rules? Are you that afraid they might have some insurmountable advantage you can't defeat? You've gone on long rants that the rules are crap and written by idiots. So why are the rules also sacrosanct if they are garbage?

I'm not threatened. I'm objecting to the smug attitude that "casual" players are superior and nobody understands how to have fun anymore because they won't allow a few extra points or an illegal upgrade. Do those things if you want, but don't look down on people who say "nah, let's just play by the standard rules."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why is 4 points an issue?

Good question. Why are those 4 points so important that you need to break the point limit to have them, and act like anyone who won't let you do it is being unreasonable? If they aren't a big deal and it's "just for fun" why can't you drop an upgrade to stay within the limit?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why is 4 points an issue?

Good question. Why are those 4 points so important that you need to break the point limit to have them, and act like anyone who won't let you do it is being unreasonable? If they aren't a big deal and it's "just for fun" why can't you drop an upgrade to stay within the limit?

That's a fair response. Why should something being done for fun be less important than a limit on some arbitrary (and honestly not that accurate anyway) "points"?

In answer to the first, those 4 points are important in that I could be a strict WYSIWYG player, and have a storm bolter modelled on my Captain because it looks cool. I would ask why a single storm bolter threatens you in my list of Whirlwinds, heavy bolter Devastators and 10 man Tactical Squads, but I think I know why. It's because 4 points threatens the "idea" of fairness. It threatens the point on the limit. Regardless if it actually DOES affect anything is meaningless, it's the breach of the contract you agreed to. And that's absolutely fine. If merely breaching the line you set up is enough to represent a threat to balance for you, then I think you're well within your rights to not play that way.

At the same time, I personally wouldn't find an issue with that, because the upgrade is so clearly done not to gain competitive power. I'm not that bothered by the idea of the line being breached. That's not how you do it, nice. I respect that. But how you do it isn't the only way, nor even is it the proper way. It's just a different way, a different attitude.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why is 4 points an issue?

Good question. Why are those 4 points so important that you need to break the point limit to have them, and act like anyone who won't let you do it is being unreasonable? If they aren't a big deal and it's "just for fun" why can't you drop an upgrade to stay within the limit?

That's a fair response. Why should something being done for fun be less important than a limit on some arbitrary (and honestly not that accurate anyway) "points"?

In answer to the first, those 4 points are important in that I could be a strict WYSIWYG player, and have a storm bolter modelled on my Captain because it looks cool. I would ask why a single storm bolter threatens you in my list of Whirlwinds, heavy bolter Devastators and 10 man Tactical Squads, but I think I know why. It's because 4 points threatens the "idea" of fairness. It threatens the point on the limit. Regardless if it actually DOES affect anything is meaningless, it's the breach of the contract you agreed to. And that's absolutely fine. If merely breaching the line you set up is enough to represent a threat to balance for you, then I think you're well within your rights to not play that way.

At the same time, I personally wouldn't find an issue with that, because the upgrade is so clearly done not to gain competitive power. I'm not that bothered by the idea of the line being breached. That's not how you do it, nice. I respect that. But how you do it isn't the only way, nor even is it the proper way. It's just a different way, a different attitude.

I couldn't agree more, I never want to TELL anyone how they should play the game. my way, your way, their way, if someone will/not play due to 4 points that's their prerogative. But at the same time if I dont want to play with someone who spams something, vice versa.

As long as we all like the; models, lore, & at least some shred of something about 40k we all have that in common.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why is 4 points an issue?

Good question. Why are those 4 points so important that you need to break the point limit to have them, and act like anyone who won't let you do it is being unreasonable? If they aren't a big deal and it's "just for fun" why can't you drop an upgrade to stay within the limit?

That's a fair response. Why should something being done for fun be less important than a limit on some arbitrary (and honestly not that accurate anyway) "points"?

In answer to the first, those 4 points are important in that I could be a strict WYSIWYG player, and have a storm bolter modelled on my Captain because it looks cool. I would ask why a single storm bolter threatens you in my list of Whirlwinds, heavy bolter Devastators and 10 man Tactical Squads, but I think I know why. It's because 4 points threatens the "idea" of fairness. It threatens the point on the limit. Regardless if it actually DOES affect anything is meaningless, it's the breach of the contract you agreed to. And that's absolutely fine. If merely breaching the line you set up is enough to represent a threat to balance for you, then I think you're well within your rights to not play that way.

At the same time, I personally wouldn't find an issue with that, because the upgrade is so clearly done not to gain competitive power. I'm not that bothered by the idea of the line being breached. That's not how you do it, nice. I respect that. But how you do it isn't the only way, nor even is it the proper way. It's just a different way, a different attitude.

You could drop a tactical squad to 9 men and still be WYSIWYG. And, as you said, those few points don't matter so it shouldn't be a big deal to lose a model. But instead you expect to be allowed to break the rules to get that "no big deal" 10th model, and act like you're the only one playing "for fun".

If the first game is too much I'll take something themed but a bit casual against someone. I'm not going to tone down my list until we've played and seen its pretty clear that you get wrecked by my army, there's way too much downplay and I'm not supporting this defeatist attitude either that players like Karol etc seem to thrive on.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh hey, the same tired old attempts to vilify anyone who wants to play a standard game and pretend that it isn't "fun" if you can't break the rules. I especially love the whole "it's just a few points over" thing. If those extra points genuinely aren't a big deal then why don't you just remove one of those "not a big deal" units/upgrades from your list and play a legal list? After all, they aren't a big deal so you shouldn't miss them. And of course we're supposed to pretend that it's some kind of BCB style over-literalism with RAW to argue that a unit "technically" can't take an upgrade, instead of a "casual" player acting like they're entitled to change the rules to their benefit and any "fun" opponent has to accept it.

It is not braking the rules. The game is played at the agreed point limit. If one player asks whether they can bring 2004 point list an the opponent agrees, then the agreed point limit is 2004.

 Crimson wrote:
It is not braking the rules. The game is played at the agreed point limit. If one player asks whether they can bring 2004 point list an the opponent agrees, then the agreed point limit is 2004.

"Hey, if I shame you into approving my cheating it isn't cheating anymore."

2000 points is a standard level, set because it's a nice round number and neutral in who benefits from it. If you say "2000 point game" and then ask to change it so you can fit another upgrade you're breaking the rule and asking to get it approved. If you ask for a 2004 point game because it benefits your army is not technically cheating, but it sure is poor behavior and much more aligned with WAAC attitudes than anything that deserves to be called "casual".

This topic for the past 20 years has produced the same results every time it is introduced in its various guises on pretty much every forum.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why are you threatened by the possibility of people playing loose with the rules? Are you that afraid they might have some insurmountable advantage you can't defeat? You've gone on long rants that the rules are crap and written by idiots. So why are the rules also sacrosanct if they are garbage?

I'm not threatened. I'm objecting to the smug attitude that "casual" players are superior and nobody understands how to have fun anymore because they won't allow a few extra points or an illegal upgrade. Do those things if you want, but don't look down on people who say "nah, let's just play by the standard rules."

You're projecting. And I would argue, few here are judging you for how you choose to play the game, but instead how you choose to express yourself on Dakka. If you paid attention to what we actually say and not what you projected, you might find more common ground with us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
This topic for the past 20 years has produced the same results every time it is introduced in its various guises on pretty much every forum.

That's because too many posters are WAAC when it comes to arguing on the internet. Doesn't matter how they actually play the game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I played a game today. A 2,000 point game.

I was at 2,004 points. I asked my opponent "Mind if I'm 4 points over?"

He said that was fine.

Shockingly, competitive players aren't inherently dicks.

Our club's rule of thumb is +/-1% which isn't game changing at all. It usually allows you to get that one model shy that you are without breaking the game.