Blastaar wrote:
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.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:


Hey, it is juletide, let's be nice

I thought it was Sanguinala?

nou wrote:
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.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
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.

-Grey Knights
-Chaos Marines are a wholly different faction from loyalist marines with wholly different rules and balance considerations
-Death Guard
-Thousand Sons
-Drukhari
-Harlequins
-Genestealer Cults
-Sisters of Silence

Then there's the fact that while similar to basic marines, there's still lots of unique balance considerations for:

-Blood Angels
-Space Wolves
-Dark Angels
-Deathwatch

You're not even remembering all the factions when making this claim!

No one's saying this makes it impossible to balance. But it definitely makes it incredibly difficult, especially in the context of limited time and resources and a constant influx of new models and rules.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
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.

-Grey Knights
-Chaos Marines are a wholly different faction from loyalist marines with wholly different rules and balance considerations
-Death Guard
-Thousand Sons
-Drukhari
-Harlequins
-Genestealer Cults
-Sisters of Silence

Then there's the fact that while similar to basic marines, there's still lots of unique balance considerations for:

-Blood Angels
-Space Wolves
-Dark Angels
-Deathwatch

You're not even remembering all the factions when making this claim!

No one's saying this makes it impossible to balance. But it definitely makes it incredibly difficult, especially in the context of limited time and resources and a constant influx of new models and rules.

Blastaar wrote:
and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And how many of those armies SHOULD be considered separate?

Blastaar wrote:


I forgot nothing.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

Blastaar wrote:

nou wrote:
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.

I think your definition is just colored by personal opinion just a tad. CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).

At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.

That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

The only complexity is in your imagination. Want to know why there's such terrible balance between the Angels, Codex Marines, and Space Wolves? Because GW writes them as separate armies and then doesn't at the same time!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.

That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

Wayniac wrote:

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.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

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.

if you read what I actually said, you should already have discussed the "power" of something relative to current rules and also discussed how those rules change. If you're upfront with what they're looking to get out of the game the player goes with the thing that they like the most. for some, the model is the most important, others how powerful it is, and others still, love the lore/place in their army. The new player may want to build the nastiest tournament netlist out there and be perfectly fine with constantly chasing the dragon. which would also be figured out in that short little conversation.

I mean it's not like rocket science or something. whenever we get a new player interested in the game we try to direct them in the way appropriate for the results of that little social interaction.

nataliereed1984 wrote:


Also, the meta constantly changes. Just cos the army the kid loves best happens to "suck" in Autumn 2019 doesn't mean it's going still be so in Spring 2020 when they've finally gotten it all built and painted and ready to go!

 Aestas wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


Also, the meta constantly changes. Just cos the army the kid loves best happens to "suck" in Autumn 2019 doesn't mean it's going still be so in Spring 2020 when they've finally gotten it all built and painted and ready to go!

But hopefully we can agree that that is kind of a sucky way to even out unfairness? The meta really shouldn't change that much to begin with

 JohnnyHell wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

The only complexity is in your imagination. Want to know why there's such terrible balance between the Angels, Codex Marines, and Space Wolves? Because GW writes them as separate armies and then doesn't at the same time!

Telling me I’m imaging that 35 factions is more complex than 14? Ok, I mean, there’s no logic there at all. It demonstrably is more complex.

Blastaar wrote:

nou wrote:
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.

I think your definition is just colored by personal opinion just a tad. CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).

At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).

But how is that "virtue signalling"??? This doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with ethics or politics, or stating an ethical position.

nou wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

The only complexity is in your imagination. Want to know why there's such terrible balance between the Angels, Codex Marines, and Space Wolves? Because GW writes them as separate armies and then doesn't at the same time!

Telling me I’m imaging that 35 factions is more complex than 14? Ok, I mean, there’s no logic there at all. It demonstrably is more complex.

More than six times more complex to be precise, if you look at faction vs faction level. You have 91 faction vs faction matchups at 14 factions and 595 at 35 (I did not count self-faction matchups as those are balanced at this level by definition). But real balancing must account for unit vs unit comparisons also, which assuming 40 units per faction on average gives you nearly 1mln balance considerations at 35 factions and "only" 150k at 14 factions. Put subfaction rules on top of that, different loadout options, etc.. and you may just grasp how complex 40K is to achieve anything resembling usefull blind balance.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?

Come on...

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.

That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.

Again, whether or not those factions "should" have separate rules is completely irrelevant, and a whole different discussion, AND an example of one of the ways balance and narrative can come in conflict, something y'all keep insisting never happens. These factions DO have separate rules, which makes it more difficult to balance the game. That is the point.

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?

Come on...

Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
WAAC mostly to me is RAW vs RAI argued strictly for their advantage and overall cheating. Cut throat lists are an optional part of the equation after that, but they'll at least a somewhat streamlined army.