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.

Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

Maybe. The same people usually complain about "superheavies", etc. I'm not sure what "all costs" is to someone who doesn't keep up on FAQs and brings almost purely rule of cool units.

Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Like I said though "CAAC" is usually what's referred to as "The Scrub": The person who injects their own moral/ethical "way to play" on others when it's not part of the actual game rules, and usually is a sore loser about the fact that not everyone is going to adhere to their own code of conduct in how to build lists/play. To quote David Sirlin's book:

The scrub would take great issue with [saying he is not playing to win] for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

That's basically what Peregrine meant by CAAC. Someone who thinks, for example, "superheavies shouldn't be used" and expects everyone else to follow that unwritten rule or they are a WAAC TFG cheeseweasel etc.

Essentially it's injecting your own morality into what the game "should" be when the rules don't enforce any such thing.

 Peregrine wrote:
A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.

That's a totally different Definition of casual than I would have given and I'd have described me and my group as casual. Casual players are simply people who are more concentrated on the fluff than mathhammering. So "strong" choices aren't that important as "units I like" and an army composition that fits the fluff.

Wayniac wrote:

Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Like I said though "CAAC" is usually what's referred to as "The Scrub": The person who injects their own moral/ethical "way to play" on others when it's not part of the actual game rules, and usually is a sore loser about the fact that not everyone is going to adhere to their own code of conduct in how to build lists/play. To quote David Sirlin's book:

The scrub would take great issue with [saying he is not playing to win] for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

That's basically what Peregrine meant by CAAC. Someone who thinks, for example, "superheavies shouldn't be used" and expects everyone else to follow that unwritten rule or they are a WAAC TFG cheeseweasel etc.

Essentially it's injecting your own morality into what the game "should" be when the rules don't enforce any such thing.

8th ed is basically Bubblewrap: The Game. So that observation seems weird to me.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.

That's a totally different Definition of casual than I would have given and I'd have described me and my group as casual. Casual players are simply people who are more concentrated on the fluff than mathhammering. So "strong" choices aren't that important as "units I like" and an army composition that fits the fluff.

Casual means both. Technically Peregrine is right: A casual, by definition, doesn't put a lot of effort into whatever; it's something they do, but they don't focus on it.

What most of us mean when we say "casual" is really "non-competitive" or maybe "laid back". You aren't casual if you read about the game, read the lore, buy lots of models, etc because you are still putting a lot of investment into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
8th ed is basically Bubblewrap: The Game. So that observation seems weird to me.

Perhaps, but it still doesn't feel like the sort of tactic that belongs in a wargame. Other than Warmahordes and now 8th (and I guess AOS), I can't think of any other tabletop wargame that has rules like that or encourages them, since they aren't rooted in any sort of actual real-world strategy or tactics, they exist solely because of game mechanics. That's what comes off as so odd. You're from the old guard, you said earlier. Surely you remember the time when wargames were more realistic simulations of combat. Bubblewrap and the like feel like incredibly gamey mechanics, rather than legit tactics.

The concepts are still largely foreign to me because they feel so out of place in a tabletop wargame.

Wayniac wrote:

Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.

In 2nd ed, it was even worse, because you HAD to shoot the closest unit. It made the Nids very difficult for most lists to beat.

Daisychaining is not really new, because IG did that with 50 man squads before marines became enslaved to auras.

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.

bubblewrap has always been a thing in 4k to an extent, but it also cut both ways. shooty armies has layers to get through,. the issue with 8th fo most assaulty armoies is that the shooty ones like tau or guard cna just walk away from combat and set up a new screen behind them This not only takes away the protection of not being able to shoot into combat, but incurs no penalty. I think fallign back should at the very least incur the opponent getting another assault phase against the unit falling back but lacking the movement. it seems silly that my orks/eldar/marines are after being fighting letting the opponent politely walk away and not getting in blows as they run away

tricornering ( surrounding one member of a squad so they cannot fall back) is necessary to not just see your elite assault unit be blasted away. I have had people insist tripointing is illegal or be butt hurt about it even as they wipe my orks off the table because they wanted to play against green tide, and had removed 1/2 my army before anythign reached thier first line. one still moved the unit despite it being against the rules to move past my model so i just said "ok well game over, i don't want to play with a cheater ignoring basic rules"

I've had the luck of playing against Brand Grant (the guy who won the ITC the holy grail of the WAAC player according to some of you).

Affectionately referred to as a cyborg the guy mathhammers in his sleep and it was the most pleasant game of 40k I've ever played. Just a really nice guy moving around models with purpose and a plan. Some great cinematic moments happened in the game, there were some tense moments (early in the game, it was a stomp by the end...) and the game ended with a friendly hand-shake. Hell, every game that tournament was fun, engaging and challenging against an opponent I would thrilled to play again or have a beer with (preferably both!!)

On the other hand, playing against a local casual the guy basically "reeeeee'd" when I killed his captain after killing his dread because the cap was the closest. He couldn't fathom how a squad of DA inceptors could kill his redemptor dread (4 plasma inceptors have like a 95% of one shotting the dread w/ a strat and re-roll 1s) He picked-up his models saying something about how I was a WAAC a-hole (wasn't even running that competitive of a list, hell I had 2 units of terminators) and my kind of player was ruining the game. But because he didn't understand the game we had a terrible game (I even warned him about moving his dread where he did but was met with a rather rude dismissal about how I didn't understand his plan...). I've played narative games with made-up scenarios with my friends that have been amazing but against random "casual" players my games have been terrible, unfun, stressful and on several occasions tinged with weird racist undertones (and I've lived in very progressive areas).

Contrast to my game against the king of the WAAC players I know which type of player I'd rather play against any day. Hell the games I've had against other top tier players who have reps as a-holes have been better than my games against the CAAC guys I've played at random open table nights.

I started playing in the 90's as well and it seems a lot of peoples opinions on this have been shaped by their personal interactions around the gaming table. That being said, using mathhammer to figure out that assault marines offer you very little offensive/defensive utility or that 9" charges are not something you can count on has NOTHING to do with your opponent being a jerk.

If GW were to go to PL it would be a mess. The poster with the idea that weapons would come in general groups (close range anti-infantry/tank, mid-range infantry/tank and long range...) is on the right track but it would involve so many factors of the units using those weapons (speed, resiliency, special rules, deepstriking...) that, given GWs track record, there is no way they would get it right (or even close). At least with points the players can exploit the numbers equally and there's often enough options that you can find something close to efficient or at least efficient enough given the right tactics/game plan (although some things are still way out of wack).

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.

In the real world infantry screen tanks by going house to house ahead of the tanks to check for enemy anti-tank units, move from cover to cover while watching for trouble, etc. They don't stand out in the open and literally form a human wall to physically block anything from reaching the tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.

That's a totally different Definition of casual than I would have given and I'd have described me and my group as casual. Casual players are simply people who are more concentrated on the fluff than mathhammering. So "strong" choices aren't that important as "units I like" and an army composition that fits the fluff.

That's because your definition is wrong. Casual means "low investment", not "cares a lot about the fluff" or "bad at winning tournaments". You are a group of narrative players, not casual players.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.

In the real world infantry screen tanks by going house to house ahead of the tanks to check for enemy anti-tank units, move from cover to cover while watching for trouble, etc. They don't stand out in the open and literally form a human wall to physically block anything from reaching the tank.

Fair enough, but you're somewhat missing the point. Infantry may not literally form a semi-circle around a tank but they are used as screens after a fashion. Bubble wrap, which is present in many wargames, abstracts this somewhat but the fact still remains, infantry screening for armour is a thing in modern warfare Grunts running interference for more elite infantry is (or at least was) a thing too. The main point is that I can't believe someone equates using such a simplistic tactic as being some sort of WAAC play.If you're willing to label that as WAAC you're setting the bar very, very low.

Nowhere did he label it as WAAC. It's right there as "gamey", i.e. you're playing to the rules, but not the spirit of the game.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nowhere did he label it as WAAC. It's right there as "gamey", i.e. you're playing to the rules, but not the spirit of the game.

This. It's a bad mechanic from a design point of view, but from a player point of view it's an obvious move and doing it is not WAAC.

The extremism where everything is WAAC, just fine, or CAAC, is very much a TFG attitude.

In reality, (virtually) everyone is somewhere in between.

Those who are willing to win at the highest cost are (virtually always) not willing to die to win their game, so it's not really "at all costs".

Those who hate competitive players the most still aren't likely to burn your house down in response to you tricornering them.

WAAC and CAAC both refer to extremes we never see. Everyone is somewhere else on the continuum. But painting anyone to the left or right of you as one of those is just extremist thinking. In reality, there's a lot more nuance to that.

All that said, I've found the more WAAC-heavy players are almost never in the top quartile of players, skill-wise. Neither are the CAAC-heavy players. I find people who find a healthy balance between competitive and casual *for themselves* to be better balanced, have a better understanding of various factors, and a lot less hateful than people who cleave to either extreme.

Indeed, I never said it was WAAC, but that it was a "gamey" thing to do, which to me indicates something that you do because the way the game rules are it gives you an advantage, but it doesn't seem like the intended way to play as evidenced by the fact that I've never seen a battle report from GW showing something like this. And, while I agree GW themselves are hardly an example of well-played 40k, the fact remains that I don't think bubblewrapping or daisy chaining or what have you is the way they envisioned their game being played, despite it being optimal to do so.

It's certainly not a bad tactic to do, but it feels wrong. Almost like you're playing the rules not playing the game.

But the game is made up of rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But the game is made up of rules.

Yes, and some rules help paint an image in the mind's eye, some are neutral, some cause some 'creative' suspension of disbelief make them fit and others completely break immersion. Each player has their own level/tolerance to where the rules start to break this.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But the game is made up of rules.

Yes, the game is mad up of rules. But IMO there's a difference between the game as it seems to be intended by the "big picture" of the rules and finding some awkward unforeseen interaction between rules and exploiting it. It's where you depart from the high level concept of "armies doing {thing} on the battlefield" and focus too much on the precise details of how much space the arbitrary 1" barrier around your bubble wrap is taking up or positioning your melee models in a perfect triangle to pin an enemy unit in place.

And, again, using strategies that result from this kind of situation is not WAAC TFG behavior, it's just basic strategy. But we can still criticize the mechanic from a design point of view and argue that it should be changed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But the game is made up of rules.

Yes, the game is mad up of rules. But IMO there's a difference between the game as it seems to be intended by the "big picture" of the rules and finding some awkward unforeseen interaction between rules and exploiting it. It's where you depart from the high level concept of "armies doing {thing} on the battlefield" and focus too much on the precise details of how much space the arbitrary 1" barrier around your bubble wrap is taking up or positioning your melee models in a perfect triangle to pin an enemy unit in place.

And, again, using strategies that result from this kind of situation is not WAAC TFG behavior, it's just basic strategy. But we can still criticize the mechanic from a design point of view and argue that it should be changed.

Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.

Well yes, but I don't think anyone here is criticizing the player. Could you point to which person you thought was saying that?

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.

Well yes, but I don't think anyone here is criticizing the player. Could you point to which person you thought was saying that?

General sentiment I'm getting from some people that using "gamey" mechanics makes you unfun to play against.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.

Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.

Then Cmon over and have a game. I mathhammer a lot. I also make fairly fluffy lists with a little bit of this and a little bit of that- My normal pre-8th lists were Calgar, Tiggy, a 10 man Tac w special and heavy, a 10 man scout with snipers, cloaks and ML, an assault squad, a Dev Squad (10 man if I had the points- sticking the Sgt and 4 bolter marines into a Razorback- again if I had the points after---) adding whatever other units struck my fancy. A drop podding Sternguard, Terminators (even though they were less than good to bad) land speeders, thunderfire cannons, or whatever. (or a points adjusted novel inspiration) And I take my cues from my opponent on play style, so if it's a chore to play me...

Hell, I've seen the "hardcore mathhammerer" be the one to teach new players how to play, in the most patient, friendly manner possible. I really don't see an overlap between "people who math out probabilities" and "absolute jerks".

There's a hell of a of confirmation bias against "themmuns" on both sides on this thread. Maybe everyone should just chill the heck out, y'know be more casual

I see what you did there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.

Well yes, but I don't think anyone here is criticizing the player. Could you point to which person you thought was saying that?

Criticize the mechanic for leading to stupid gameplay, as appropriate.

Criticize the opponent for being an asshat, as appropriate.

Two very different categories of problems. They're easily conflated, though. Because stupid mechanics are much more frustrating when you're playing an asshat. And because asshats tend to be more focused on game mechanics / less focused on ensuring both players have fun.

This doesn't mean using stupid mechanics makes you an asshat.
Locally, my favorite opponent actually has an incredibly long "gamer's inch". And has rules understandings I find questionable. But, despite those problems, he's just fun to play against. And even without those problems, he tends to beat me.
My least favorite opponent (former - moved away) was just an asshat. He'd rules lawyer everything, but that's not what bothered me. And, despite his rules lawyering, "questionable" movements and dice rolls, and powergaming - he rarely beat me.

Neither of these people would hesitate to use a "dumb mechanic" in a competitive game. But one's TFG and the other is not.

TFG and "gamey" rules are two very different issues. The problem is they co-occur frequently, and multiply the negatives of each other.