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.

Other wargames than 40K do seem to have a problem even consistently existing... Most seem to die after couple of years.

But some of them, even many might indeed have better balance than 40K.. However I don't think that main reason for this is that their writers are more competent or care more about balance than GW ones. 40K has absolutely massive breadth and scope. For example in a historical game there is quite limited selection of units and everyone's stuff is pretty similar. A German WWII tank is more similar to a British WWII tank than a Wave Serpent is to a Carnifex. And many other games are just skirmish games where most units are just infantry or big robots at most. 40K has everything from Gretchin to Knight Titans. That is part of its appeal, but indubitably makes balancing way more challenging.

Now whilst I really like that such a huge variety of units and factions is usable in 40K one way GW makes this even more difficult than it needs to be is introducing all these subfactions, and they have doubled down on that recently. I for one would be perfectly satisfied if different Space Marine chapters etc were merely differentiated by the paint job and the fluff. But among the playerbase I'm probably in the minority in this, people seem to want specialised bespoke rules for everything and GW is complying. But by doing so they make balancing even more difficult, and in many cases completely impossible. Obviously more varieties you write, greater chance there is that some of them will accidentally be too good. And as subfaction rules do not affect the point costs, balancing them becomes simply impossible. For example if one subfaction makes vehicles much more powerful and other one does not, then how do you cost the vehicles properly for the main faction? It simply cannot be done.

 Crimson wrote:
Other wargames than 40K do to have a problem even consistently existing... Most seem to die after couple of years.

Getting a bit offtopic but this is a double-edged sword. 40k is so ingrained that other games have an extremely difficult time getting any traction at all, so without players and store support (at least here in the USA if a game store doesn't stock your product it's unlikely most people are going to know/care about it, even in the age of the internet. I sometimes think most game stores and their patrons live in a different age where only what they see in stock is considered to exist) of course it'll die. 40k is and always has been the comfortable outlier where you can be reasonably certain there is at least one store (independent or GW) that will stock 40k and provide tables, and even more certain there are people who play. Much less so for any other game where there's a good chance not only have none of the locals even heard of it because they never look outside of GW, but if you suggested it you would be told to feth off with trying to "push your pet game" or be told that the store won't let people play it there because they don't stock it, so nobody cares.

Back on topic here, an underlying issue besides bloat (too many factions, units and options but Pandora's box has been opened there and can 't be shut) is that there's no consistency. There is no common profile for a vehicle which gets slightly adjusted so that say an Eldar vehicle has better WS/BS but less W being more fragile, while a SM vehicle has more being more resilient, etc. So everything is seemingly done at random without any baseline that it goes off of, resulting in a huge variety of ways it gets designed that, if rumors are true, each designer decides independently so if Cruddace feels that a marine vehicle should be totes kewl awesome he'll do that, while Grant might think Eldar tanks are a bit too good and tweak them to be slightly weaker but have an extra ability or something. Since there is seemingly no communication you now have a SM tank being way OP and an Eldar tank being nerfed because each designer went off on their own with what they thought it should be without paying any attention at all to what other vehicles are like.

And again, the above may or may not be true but since we are told nothing about the design process, we can only go by what it seems to be which is exactly this.

Man this has drawn on for far too long, and all these points must have been made several times over by now... Oh well, once more unto the breach.

GW is perfectly capable of getting balance right, or at least achieving an acceptable level of balanced gameplay and still having a reasonable amount of customizing available to players. To take an example, the 6e. Ravening Hordes for Fantasy Battle was pretty brilliant (if I remember correctly, been a long time). 30k. before Custodes might be a never example, haven't played it tho.

However, that is not what the current business model is. A slow flow of codexes, a meta game that changes within editions, rules errata and additional important rules you have to buy new books to get a hold of... all that is of course deliberate, and none of that speaks to a particular aim for a balanced gameplay. Balanced here meaning a stable and balanced game system for competitive play and, more importantly at least some degree of stability and between codex comparability within editions/over time. On the contrary, one might conspiratorially suggest that they are smart enough to plan the meta game, in order to maximize player investment and optimize buzz around new codexes, sets and particular models.

I find that you really have to be wearing your rose colored googles to not just plainly accept this on the face of things, (but each to their own opinion, of course). You can totally enjoy the game regardless, and find that more player options, new models, more narrative campaigns etc. are where GW should put their resources, and to some extent, that is just what we have right now (with added meta game chasing). Great.

Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

Personally, I would like a game system with few changes over time, no adjustments or changes for the sake of change, but only to smoothen out gameplay. I would like a total roll back of the gameplay importance of added special rules*, special characters, extra++ saves, funky game changing equipment, optimized and thus bottleneck creating builds and wargear choices and a slight scale back in the scale the gameplay is supposed to represent. 40k. used to be a slightly bigger skirmish level game, although no body were willing to admit it. To some extent it still is, only with flyers, super heavies, über characters and titans... Where did my Epic go? Instead, what I would like is tons and tons of customobility, both within codexes and on units and characters, but with said options having only minor game implications. That could bring balance, but keep it fun and fluffy. Unfortunately, a stagnant game is GW's worst nightmare, and maybe rightly so, since they need people to go out and update and buy new armies again and again.

*EDIT*: Just a stray thought. Some, definitely not all, but some of the imbalances due to special rules might stem from the extremities the designers need to go to in order to make fluff and differences apparent in a D6 based gameplay. Ei. Eldar are faster than Space Marines, so they get fleet of foot, but these space marines are faster than other space marines, so they also get fleet of foot... oh boy, muffed it up again.

 Aestas wrote:


Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:


Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

Yes and no. It's true that it's a self-creating problem: People want to break the game and find the most OP combos to play the "best", and then turn around and complain the game is unbalanced because those things exist. However, it's not unreasonable to expect a game to be played competitively (as all games inevitably are because humans are like that) and as a result the game ought to be better balanced so there's not a huge gap between power levels. So yes it's a problem the competitive players create by trying to break everything, but the fact things are so easy to break and require so little effort to determine which is the "best" option that it's overall a bad thing. Some level of system mastery where you eventually learn the best combos is fine, but with 40k most broken combos are blatantly obvious and discovered within minutes, which means the designers are either so incompetent that they can't even see 2+2=4 combos, it's intentional to create a "meta" which makes more people buy things, they don't have time to adqeuately test or a myriad of other reasons none of which are really putting them in a good light.

To answer your second point the "CAAC" peple seem to get the ire because far too often it's pretending that balance is bad or that somehow good balance means you can't play casually or narratively. So they are arguing from a standpoint that's not only wrong but ignorant as well, since good balance helps the CAAC player more by making more choices viable and NOT having only 10% of a book be good; even if you take the approach that you can't have competitive and narrative in the same game (which is flat out wrong) surely having better balance means you can take more narrative forces and not get the gak kicked out of you by someone playing the more competitive list, because the balance between those lists is suddenly a lot smaller. But again CAAC is thrown out way too often and with too broad a brush to mean anyone who doesn't want to break the game or thinks the game shouldn't be played in a cutthroat competitive manner (the second usually by people who emphasize the competitive aspect to the exclusion of all else) just like WAAC is given to anyone who wants to build a strong list.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Semantics aside, can you?

I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.

By the way…

What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????

There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).

So they're meant to reflect the extremes - WAAC being really obnoxiously hardcore competitive players who are no fun to play with and build lists that just spam the most OP and cost-efficient units, farm CP, and unleash ridiculous combos, and totally ignore stuff like the other player's interests, having a good time, any sense of immersion or narrative sensibility, etc, and CAAC being the obnoxiously casual narrative player who absolutely refuses to take any aspect of the game seriously, just wants to role-play their army while ALSO ignoring stuff like the other player's interests, having a mutually enjoyable good time, and having some genuine sense of excitement and tension to the battle?

But, given that this a webforum for a fandom, and therefore everyone has to fight all the time, the terms get applied universally to everyone, as a hard binary with no outside or in-between positions possible?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:



- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?

But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"

Apparently the caveat needs to be offered several more times…

Not really. WAAC is the attitude, not the list, and the same for CAAC. The main difference is at least some WAAC tool isn't going to pretend balance is even somewhat there compared to the CAAC tool.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:


Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

Maybe? You don't see the regular top tournament players here complaining. There are also a lot of net-listed predictions that didn't come to pass. There is a disconnect between the forums and some parts of the real life equation.

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Semantics aside, can you?

I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.

By the way…

What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????

There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).

And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.

But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.

It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:


Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

Maybe? You don't see the regular top tournament players here complaining. There are also a lot of net-listed predictions that didn't come to pass. There is a disconnect between the forums and some parts of the real life equation.

Name net list predictions that didn't come to fruition. You'll find it VERY small of a list.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Semantics aside, can you?

I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.

By the way…

What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????

There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).

And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.

But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.

It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?

My point is you're saying that just because someone played in a manner that was fun for them, picked units you wouldn't use, they're an extreme CAAC player? It's not a black and white space where you're either a douchey tourney player or some narrative crack pot.

In short, just because your view of the world is limited to narrow perceptions, don't presume others conform to your standards or opinions.

I honestly wouldn't bother engaging with Slayer on this, he seems to think casual play is an insult directed at him personally for some reason.

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Semantics aside, can you?

I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.

By the way…

What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????

There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).

And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.

But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.

It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?

My point is you're saying that just because someone played in a manner that was fun for them, picked units you wouldn't use, they're an extreme CAAC player? It's not a black and white space where you're either a douchey tourney player or some narrative crack pot.

In short, just because your view of the world is limited to narrow perceptions, don't presume others conform to your standards or opinions.

It is pretty clear you didn't read the actual post I was referring to anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I honestly wouldn't bother engaging with Slayer on this, he seems to think casual play is an insult directed at him personally for some reason.

The insult is denying the issues, being pretentious about it, and still giving GW money for their printed products.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Semantics aside, can you?

I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.

By the way…

What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????

There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).

And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.

But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.

It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?

My point is you're saying that just because someone played in a manner that was fun for them, picked units you wouldn't use, they're an extreme CAAC player? It's not a black and white space where you're either a douchey tourney player or some narrative crack pot.

In short, just because your view of the world is limited to narrow perceptions, don't presume others conform to your standards or opinions.

It is pretty clear you didn't read the actual post I was referring to anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I honestly wouldn't bother engaging with Slayer on this, he seems to think casual play is an insult directed at him personally for some reason.

The insult is denying the issues, being pretentious about it, and still giving GW money for their printed products.

The original CAAC comment came when you blindly decided that CAAC players keep GW afloat. Of course I mean anyone who isn't an ITC player is obviously CAAC and nobody exists in the middle or buys anything, likewise the sold out items on the store aren't possibly meta chasing competitive units...

The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

Um… no. Really, really, really no. That is a transparently ridiculous claim.

They buy the models and books they like most. Come on.

Jeez.

So many potential avenues for productive conversation in this thread keep getting cut off by ridiculous nonsense like this…

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?

I´m solely basing my wild claim on anecdotal evidence from forums, I'll gladly concede to that.

 Aestas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?

I´m solely basing my wild claim on anecdotal evidence from forums, I'll gladly concede to that.

I'm not sure Anomander knows what the words "seems to me" mean, or is capable of making a post that isn't indignant hyperbole.

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?

Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.

This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?

Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?

I´m solely basing my wild claim on anecdotal evidence from forums, I'll gladly concede to that.

I'm not sure Anomander knows what the words "seems to me" mean, or is capable of making a post that isn't indignant hyperbole.

Hey, it is juletide, let's be nice

 Aestas wrote:


Hey, it is juletide, let's be nice

I thought it was Sanguinala?

 Aestas wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?

Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim

You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.

Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!

JohnnyHell wrote:I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.

I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
...whenever they have a game/rules person on, it is reiterated over and over again.

it's like those against GW's stated position are standing in an echo chamber of their own creation. They choose to ignore it since it does not fit their narrative(see what I did there). I could understand this viewpoint if (@some point in the past) GW was the bestest, mostest, awesomest balance machine ever. With the tightest most efficient rules and no OP/under overcosted units. Since this is clearly not the case, continuing to complain about something that clearly is not even a moderate priority for GW, is insane.

Newbie who likes Dawn of War comes into a gamestore and says "Hey, I like (this army) and I want to buy a starter box/learn more about the game." The community is then presented with a choice. Do they say "Don't buy that army, the design team doesn't like them and their rules are all incredibly s**t", or do they lie about the state of the game to get the newbie to buy the stuff and then wait for them to discover that everything is grotesquely mis-priced and they're going to lose every game unless they go into games with a large points handicap?

Who wins in this situation? Who is this good for?

Which part of the community are you referring to? The fact that you would automatically dismiss something since it's not the "hotshit" and deride them for their interest in a particular whatever, says a fair amount of how you perceive the community as a whole. which you do not represent. there are many facets to the community, not just the tournament scene. Narrative is an equally valid way to enjoy the hobby and as far as I can tell have no problem with the game as currently featured. Occasional players also have a voice as well as newcomers.

I would talk with them and see which models they like the most, what kind of army style they like, type of game(serious competitive/chill for fun/everything in between)etc. a 5 minute conversation goes a long long way to helping a new player/collector/painter/tourney goer for them to get the most out of their hobby.

Dudeface wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?

Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim

You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.

Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!

Ah yes, Schroedinger's Tournament Player, simultaneously not a large enough demographic to be worth GW trying to balance the game, but also so large it is capable of clearing GW out of stock of the new hotness.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I would talk with them and see which models they like the most, what kind of army style they like, type of game(serious competitive/chill for fun/everything in between)etc. a 5 minute conversation goes a long long way to helping a new player/collector/painter/tourney goer for them to get the most out of their hobby.

Yes, but what happens when after that conversation you have to break it to them that the army/models they like are no good and they'll just lose every game unless they play this other army/take these other models that they may not like as much? Which of the following is the more likely response?

1) Oh okay, I guess I'll pick this other army then if the one I like is no good

2) Oh, really? Well that sucks *puts box back and goes to play a different game where they can play what they like and not be punished for it*

The sheer fact that you may have to discourage a new player from picking up what they like so they don't just constantly lose with little or no chance at winning until they buy an army that doesn't have that issue or get fed up with losing and stop playing is pretty damning. And I suspect that situation (eager new player just keeps getting crushed because the army/models they like are weak and eventually just stops showing up) happens a lot more than people want to believe.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?

Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim

You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.

Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!

Ah yes, Schroedinger's Tournament Player, simultaneously not a large enough demographic to be worth GW trying to balance the game, but also so large it is capable of clearing GW out of stock of the new hotness.

Well… YEAH. We're talking one or two kits out of literally hundreds.

Just like I said much earlier in the thread: "top-selling model" is not indicative of their overall sales.

And as I also said: GW has sales data. They definitely know who's buying what and how often. And you can all rest assured that they're not deliberately ignoring opportunities to make more money. They know where their bread and butter comes from, and that's the breadth of the hobby, not any one particular sub-type of player. Not even just players at all.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.

So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?

Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim

You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.

Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!

Ah yes, Schroedinger's Tournament Player, simultaneously not a large enough demographic to be worth GW trying to balance the game, but also so large it is capable of clearing GW out of stock of the new hotness.

Good one But also; The enigma of the internet. Being simultaneously in agreement and disagreement at the same time.

I do however, need to point out that in (sales) statistics, you look at movements, not only at absolutes. So the two can quite easily exist at the same time. For example, the casual market being the fore, the planned meta game driving extra sales. Also, just to point it out, to even begin to use sold out items as a metric requires a similar starting baseline.

To sum up; I do not know if GW chases the meta, I have no clue, since I do not have the data and haven't looked at it, and even if I had, i'm not sure any conclusive conclusions could even easily be made (since there are a ton of unknown variables behind a miniature sale not easily gleamed from sales numbers). However, overall I see little business sense in making a perfectly balanced game. If it gets to a point where change would be unwelcome - in other words, if you didn't need a new edition, where do you then go with your game IP? I do see a business reason to rig the meta however, since it keeps the game changing.

I do want that game tho. The balanced one. As stated earlier, I'm not happy with the current situation.

EDIT: for lots of typos, non-english speaking errors and some giggles.

EDIT 2: The above shouldn't be understood as if no patterns would be easily detectable. I'm pretty sure you could easily gleam a few trends without breaking a sweat. Just for fun, a few could be "Bigger = better sales", hence scale creep on models and the introduction of primaris and custodes etc. Another one being "overload the s--t on detail = sales" as apart from Primaris, random detail amount seems to creep ever upward, and "sucky codex = less sales" since it is still an outlier to see new codexes plainly balanced to the whole edition without some kind of über build. The last one obviously being the most contestable and hardest to gleam.

I thought I was late to the party, but since we are still talking about CAACs, let me explain the source of the name for those too new to this forum, since I'm one of "the original CAACs" this term was coined against...

Originally it was used by Peregrine to insult all those people who derive their fun and/or intelectual excercise in any game not from solving the system (in other words, try to win the meta-game), but in any other way Peregrine was unable to understand. If, for example, you were open to playing anything other than the strongest builds at the moment and was open about it, or, god forbid, if you were ok with self imposed limitations on lisbuilding in order to accomodate anyone who whished to play with trash tier units because they liked the models, you were filthy, virtue signaling CAAC. If you made in-game moves like what TangoTwoBrawo described above, you were virtue signaling CAAC because it is insulting for your oponent to not play your A game all the time. And so on, you can get the general idea.

Since the very begining of the term it was meant to be insulting and had no usefull or well defined meaning at all. As time passed and the term started circulating a lot of people tried to make at least some sense out of it and that is how we got the now accepted vague meaning of "people who don't know how to be competent at the game but are sore loosers so they hide behind casual/narrative self-description". But as can be seen in this very thread, some people still use it in original way of "I don't like your fun so you must be dumb CAAC".

Hope this helps.

So it has been claimed several times over the last few pages that 40k is "too large in scope" or that there are "too many" factions for the game to be balanced.

40k has:

Space Marines (Loyal and traitor)
Custodes (basically betterer more superer marines +2)
Knight Titans
Sisters
Inquisition
Assassins (all 4 of them)
Mechancus
Guard
Tyranids
Eldar
Tau
Orks
Necrons
Demons
Tyranids

14. 14 Unique factions. That's really all. Lore aside, how different are they, really? Stat profiles? Certainly not doing the "heavy lifting" as GW claimed in 8th ed. previews. The most significant things are USRs, doctrines, stratagems etc. These would be fixed with a more complex core ruleset that accounted for varying numbers in the stat profiles for units and weapons, make those profiles more meaningful, then added on USRs or a unique rule or two per army to make them more distinct.

14 is not a massive difference over other games, either.

Malifaux has 8 factions currently, and all but the Explorer's Society, which is new in M3E, have 8 masters a piece. Masters play differently from each other, more so than BA vs DA vs Smurfs vs IH vs GKs. Yet the game appears pretty well-balanced so far. Story is also one of the pillars of Malifaux, by the way, part and parcel of gameplay.

GW prioritized simplicity, speed of play, and streamlining to such a degree that there is nothing meaningful or distinct left. A more complex core= more choices for players to make when playing, substantive differences between units/armies without massive imbalance, and a richer emergent narrative not based on playing pretend over the few actions units can take.

On the claim that balancing the game better for competitive play would make it less fun for narrative: how?

What about my being able to bring some tac squads, DW, RW, devastators and a libby, and not get creamed by IH or whatever else is the new hotness, without my opponent needing to use different units or give me a handicap, tells a weaker story? The biggest problem with 40k in telling a narrative is that it has become so heavily streamlined and abstract that there aren't many cool things for our units to do. Unlike in Malifaux, or MEDGe, or Infinity, or Zone Raiders, or......... This problem is unique to 40k. Why?

Why on Earth would anyone bring "virtue signalling" into it? What does that have to do with playing a game?

I loathe that term anyway, for a variety of reasons it's best not to get into, but isn't it about like, ethics and politics and altruism, and assuming or projecting disingenuous motivations in them, not… you know… how people prefer to enjoy their recreational activities?

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Why on Earth would anyone bring "virtue signalling" into it? What does that have to do with playing a game?

I loathe that term anyway, for a variety of reasons it's best not to get into, but isn't it about like, ethics and politics and altruism, and assuming or projecting disingenuous motivations in them, not… you know… how people prefer to enjoy their recreational activities?

It’s a hateful term which ironically signals the user’s politics more than whatever they’re trying to project on others.