Went down to GW last night for a quick game. Got paired up against a guy who i knew was notorious for being "that guy".
I've played him before and he ran 3 Tervigons at 500pts in 6th edition. He's taken 3 Wraithknights unbound in a 750pt tournament. I've seen him run apocalypse formations at 1500pts against beginners.
Last night I played him at 750pts as I only had an hour. I ran a fairly uncompetitive, bound Tau army as I wanted to test out darkstrider. After asking me what army i was using he wrote a list with an imperial knight and 2 squads of sternguard with one sergeant as the warlord.
Before the game started he refused to tell me what he had in reserves although i suspected it was marines in a pod. He spent the whole game trying to use his knight as a monstrous creature then called me picky when I corrected him. He then tried to tell me that my Riptide was a walker and had to obey the same rules as his knight.
I played it through and I was picky towards him cause if he's gonna run a knight and unbound list at 750 i think he deserves it but short of constantly just refusing to play him is there anything i can do without stooping to his level? If not should the game be changed to prevent this type of behaviour?
Sorry this is mostly just a big rant but I'm sick of his attitude.
Don't tell him your list, or have him show you his list as well to prevent list tailoring. Tell him he is not fun to play against and dont play him again.
Nor really if you are playing "The complete rules as written", but pointing out that you will not play against a cheater is a start. As for the "refusing to tell you about his reserves", read pg 135 in the big rulebook, this tells him that he has to specify what his reserves look like. Also, Apocalypse formations are not ok in regular games, if he does that, call him out. Make sure to have your rules ready to show him things like "the Riptide is not a Walker", and continue to be picky. I would continue to call his bogus out.
You could try to implement a set of house rules, that are comparable to tournament rules where you play and simply say "I play against people who follow X and Y" (Only CAD+Ally for example). If everyone does it, he will have no choice but to change his ways around. As far as I have heard this is a bigger problem at GW stores than FLGS, since GW stores are about selling products and using things "As is" and not modifying it. I would refuse to play against him, if he does not get games, he will be gone after or change after a short time.
Taffy17 wrote: ... is there anything i can do without stooping to his level? If not should the game be changed to prevent this type of behaviour?
Sorry this is mostly just a big rant but I'm sick of his attitude.
To be honest - just don't play with him. Don't feed the troll. Trust me, it is better to have one person to play less than to struggle with That Guys. And you may think of it as it won't change anything, but truth is that "Many a mickle makes a muckle" - if other people will get your attitude towards him and he'll have no one to play with, then either he will change or dissapear from your hobby centre.
to repeat what others have said don't play him. Tell him to learn the rules or he won't be played against. I've dealt a lot with this kind of player in my time with various tabletop games. They don't learn except the hard way and even then they usually won't.
Taffy17 wrote: I've played him before and he ran 3 Tervigons at 500pts in 6th edition.
Using the 6th edition codex? Not even close to legal. Minimum 705 points.
Using the 5th edition codex? Not even close to legal. Minimum 530 points.
After asking me what army i was using he wrote a list with an imperial knight and 2 squads of sternguard with one sergeant as the warlord.
Knight + 2 minimum squads of sternguard + a pod means only 100 points left for extra dudes and toys.
I played it through and I was picky towards him cause if he's gonna run a knight and unbound list at 750 i think he deserves it but short of constantly just refusing to play him is there anything i can do without stooping to his level? If not should the game be changed to prevent this type of behaviour?
How should the game be changed to prevent cheating?
For me, no gaming is preferable to bad gaming. People like that aren't worth the hassle and the less people play him, the sooner he and his smelly neckbeard gets ostracised.
In every hobby, there will be TFG. Just don't play with them, or make it very apparent that their lack of rules/play style/whatever simply does not jive with your view of the game.
First off guy sounds like a dumbass
But you dont sound that much better riptide in that low a points game is bordering on a bit of cheese in my opinion unless you took it because he took a knight.
So how many marker lights did you take?
How many smart missle systems did you have ?
Tau is a very over powered army and its very hard not to spam something with tau.
So what did you have in your army? And did you show him your list before hand or just say I am taking tau because I know a few people who's first thoughts would be "oo great pointless game wonder what is spamed this time".
But it did sound like he was trying to cheat a bit with the rules but then tau just throw the rule book away lol. :p.
Avoid power gamers unless you want to try an overpowered list or you want a massive challenge
Please don't conflate "power gaming" with cheating... fielding illegal lists and using the rules incorrectly isn't power gaming, it's cheating. Flat out.
I can't really recommend anything, because we don't have "that guy" in our area. I can only say that not playing him seems like the best option.
I suppose the closest we've got is a guy who has a all 30k army with horus (all beautify painted by him)
Automatically Appended Next Post: But he's never a dick about it.
In my LGS, I'm probably the closest one to TFG status.
And by that I mean I use optimized lists. I'm currently teaching a SM player how to 40k.
He went from fielding Vanguard Vets to running invisible grav centurions!
No one runs optimized lists in GW stores except me...
Verviedi wrote: He went from fielding Vanguard Vets to running invisible grav centurions!
No one runs optimized lists in GW stores except me...
I´d say invisible Grav Centurions ( presumably in a deathstar since they´re invisible ) isn´t optimized, it´s more along the lines of "abusing the most broken combination you can come up with in the game."
Regarding the OP, I also haven´t met a true TFG myself, yet. In my country it is heavily against culture to act like that anyway, you´d be a social outcast in an instant with whom anyone would be embarrased to be seen with. I guess that alone cuts it back quite a bit. In general people also talk very directly and on point here, to your face, so a person like that would probably have to deal with a lot of gak on a daily basis if he went around acting like you describe.
I always kinda dream about having backup armies with me that completely crush these kind of guys. But it´ll never be a reality, as I don´t wish to use that much money just to put some random douchebag back in his corner, and dragging 4 armies with you would be a drag in itself.
"I´m gonna play 3 Knights against you."
"Ah, glad I brought my 30 Unbound singular Obliterators/Haywire-spam/something equally ridicilous."
10penceman wrote: First off guy sounds like a dumbass
But you dont sound that much better riptide in that low a points game is bordering on a bit of cheese in my opinion unless you took it because he took a knight.
So how many marker lights did you take?
How many smart missle systems did you have ?
Tau is a very over powered army and its very hard not to spam something with tau.
So what did you have in your army? And did you show him your list before hand or just say I am taking tau because I know a few people who's first thoughts would be "oo great pointless game wonder what is spamed this time".
But it did sound like he was trying to cheat a bit with the rules but then tau just throw the rule book away lol. :p.
Avoid power gamers unless you want to try an overpowered list or you want a massive challenge
Not much better than a dumbass? Thanks
I do run a riptide but he has fusions and no FNP as i figured FNP on a riptide is a bit much. I also had Longstrike so I did have my share of cheese. I only had one squad of 5 Pathfinders and one lot of smart missiles on Longstrike's hammerhead. I also had two squads of fire warriors, one with EMPs outflanking with Darkstrider who i was testing out.
I didn't show him my list but my local GW has a lot of regulars and most people only have 2 or 3 armies and everyone knows what everyone plays so he knew that I'd probably bring my Tau. I don't have more than one unit of anything normally other than Firewarriors and Pathfinders, so I don't really spam.
Thanks for the replies guys. I'll try and avoid being paired up with him again and if I do end up against him I'll insist on him being bound
What is wrong with telling people they are A holes? Or be nice and say "You are that Fing Guy."
Be honest. Why does someone have to do your work? You are grown up, so tell the person the truth. Maybe he doesn't realize his attitude. Why not give him the chance to change? If he doesn't realize he is TFG, how can he change.
If you tell him and he still doesn't change, do you really want to "play" with him? (I still get a kick, us grown men have to ask to Play. ) We are grown ups or most of us. Even if you are in your Teens, teens think of themselves as grown up as well, so talk to him.
If he doesn't change, then he is a person who is not worth playing with. So the power is in your hands.
Davor wrote: What is wrong with telling people they are A holes? Or be nice and say "You are that Fing Guy."
Be honest. Why does someone have to do your work? You are grown up, so tell the person the truth. Maybe he doesn't realize his attitude. Why not give him the chance to change? If he doesn't realize he is TFG, how can he change.
If you tell him and he still doesn't change, do you really want to "play" with him? (I still get a kick, us grown men have to ask to Play. ) We are grown ups or most of us. Even if you are in your Teens, teens think of themselves as grown up as well, so talk to him.
If he doesn't change, then he is a person who is not worth playing with. So the power is in your hands.
I'm not asking anyone to do my work for me, i'm not saying anyone including myself should do something, i'm just wondering if anyone can provide me with a mature solution.
I'm in my 20s and he's an old man who's very stubborn from my experience. Sounds like the solution is not to let him waste my time.
Why isn't the 40k community more active in policing douche-canoes like the OPs opponent. Just refuse to play him and in no uncertain terms spell it out to him that he's a total ORCNOB-head.
You don't 'owe' anyone a game, least of all a WAAC twit like that guy.
Davor wrote: What is wrong with telling people they are A holes? Or be nice and say "You are that Fing Guy."
Be honest. Why does someone have to do your work? You are grown up, so tell the person the truth. Maybe he doesn't realize his attitude. Why not give him the chance to change? If he doesn't realize he is TFG, how can he change.
If you tell him and he still doesn't change, do you really want to "play" with him? (I still get a kick, us grown men have to ask to Play. ) We are grown ups or most of us. Even if you are in your Teens, teens think of themselves as grown up as well, so talk to him.
If he doesn't change, then he is a person who is not worth playing with. So the power is in your hands.
I'm not asking anyone to do my work for me, i'm not saying anyone including myself should do something, i'm just wondering if anyone can provide me with a mature solution.
I'm in my 20s and he's an old man who's very stubborn from my experience. Sounds like the solution is not to let him waste my time.
I wasn't sure when you said "If the game should be changed" I thought you wanted the rules changed or something like that. That is why I made the "do it yourself comment"
I suggest talk to him. Doesn't matter that he is older. If he is stubborn that is his problem not yours. If his stubbornness prevents you from playing him, then it's all on him, not on you. If he doesn't want to change, don't let him waste your time. If you don't want to talk to him, (understandable, never know if the guy will go bonkers) just do a polite "No thankyou". If he asks why, then just say why. You don't like list tailoring. You don't like his stubbornness and if he keeps up, just say you are becoming That Guy nobody likes to play against and that he has offended you and you don't want to play him no more since he will not change.
We can condemn the op's opponent for cheating, we can't really condemn him for gw's terrible stewardship of this terrible game we play: IE jervis et al paving the way for this [particular brand of "having fun".
Clearly you should bang his wife, mother, sisters (of age!!) and even his grandmother, if she's a hot enough gilf. Pull no punches. Donkey punches, that is.
dementedwombat wrote: I'm waiting for Peregrine to come in and say how we shouldn't be depriving this guy of his idea of fun just because you want to play a bad army list.
If his only "crime" was bringing Knights at low points, there's nothing wrong.
This guy, however, actually cheats as well - which is a problem.
When he says your Riptide is a walker, say yes indeed he is. He also has a 4+ invulnerable save by default and his nova reactor bumps it to 2+ and you overheat your reactor only on a 1.
Your Tau pathfinders have 4+ armor saves, Darkstrider has another optional special rule which gives +1 to the strength of your pulse rifles and removing 3 markerlight tokens placed on a unit voids their armor saves.
Lets see how long till he gives up his little game.
Apart from being old and stubborn, is there anything else to know about this guy? Is he friends with key people at the store? Is he a big, scary guy? Is there anything (other than the feeling of being rude) that keeps people from banding together and letting him know that he's the least fun person in the area to play against?
Remember...he's the one that's cheating and being rude first...feel free to let him know how un-fun spending time across the table from him is. If he still doesn't take a look in the mirror after enough people tell him that, then just quit playing him...
Voidwraith wrote: Apart from being old and stubborn, is there anything else to know about this guy? Is he friends with key people at the store? Is he a big, scary guy? Is there anything (other than the feeling of being rude) that keeps people from banding together and letting him know that he's the least fun person in the area to play against?
Remember...he's the one that's cheating and being rude first...feel free to let him know how un-fun spending time across the table from him is. If he still doesn't take a look in the mirror after enough people tell him that, then just quit playing him...
I don't think he's cheating, he's just ignorant and too stubborn to be told otherwise. I regularly tell him when he's wrong and if he's not gaming at the time he'll spend half an hour flicking through the rule book to prove me wrong. The latest example of this was when he tried to claim that if a model had skyfire and interceptor together, like on a quad gun, it could shoot at non-flyer/skimmer targets normally.
He's pleasant enough to talk to when he's not gaming. The manager at the store doesn't question it, he's just looking to set people up with games and help people enjoy the hobby afterall. This guy's not big and scary, he's a little, grey haired, sweat pants wearing 50 or 60 year old who spends most of his time watching other people game and trying to come up with power lists for the latest army to see if they're worth adding to his collection. I've never heard him discuss the fluff, he usually only talks about which armies/models he thinks are viable/cost effective.
I just think he comes across as too stubborn, ignorant and uncaring of what other people think for people to attempt to talk to him.
I don't think he's cheating, he's just ignorant and too stubborn to be told otherwise.
Running over the points limit (without permission), trying to play vehicles as MCs / GMCs, and refusing to tell you what units he's using / what is in reverse / look at his list is cheating.
Don't play him, or if you do, call him on cheating every time. If he refuses to accept it, show him the rulebook, get a neutral third party, and pack up mid game if he continues to cheat. Games take too much preparation to be wasted on TFGs like him.
Wow, just wow.
i didn't think people like this existed outside of hyperbole.
so there's a technique called 'cutting at the edges' - long story short, people are always more likely to do something you say if you make it sound like everybody else thinks that way and that you are just a kindly messenger. kinda tapping into 'herd mentality'.
"you would win the respect of [insert group] if you did this..."
"we all think that's the coolest thing, you should buy it.."
etc etc
i pity 'that guy' imagine not realizing that everybody hated you the whole time you've been somewhere and then having that all revealed to you in public..
but i pity the poor dude who suffers their bu[|$¬!+ more...
jreilly89 wrote: Don't play him, or if you do, call him on cheating every time. If he refuses to accept it, show him the rulebook, get a neutral third party, and pack up mid game if he continues to cheat. Games take too much preparation to be wasted on TFGs like him.
Agreed. Let him get red faced and puffy when you call him out on each issue. A little public shame can work wonders in either fixing or eliminating TFG.
Taffy17 wrote: I don't think he's cheating, he's just ignorant and too stubborn to be told otherwise. I regularly tell him when he's wrong and if he's not gaming at the time he'll spend half an hour flicking through the rule book to prove me wrong. The latest example of this was when he tried to claim that if a model had skyfire and interceptor together, like on a quad gun, it could shoot at non-flyer/skimmer targets normally.
That was at least true in 6th edition.
But coming in severely over the points limit and attempting to use the GC rules for a Walker (or vice versa) is demonstrably cheating.
dementedwombat wrote: I'm waiting for Peregrine to come in and say how we shouldn't be depriving this guy of his idea of fun just because you want to play a bad army list.
If his only "crime" was bringing Knights at low points, there's nothing wrong.
This guy, however, actually cheats as well - which is a problem.
The is no cheating in w40k. the rule book stats that players can change the rules anywhere they want. check. That if two players can't decide on a ruling or find it in a rulebook, and how would they if the rule was made up on the spot, they should roll for it.
But then again I think that something like the game OP had, happens if a community decides that unbound is ok. One can not play "that guy", but why keep the unbound rule then, if it and not the people are the source of the problem.
dementedwombat wrote: I'm waiting for Peregrine to come in and say how we shouldn't be depriving this guy of his idea of fun just because you want to play a bad army list.
If his only "crime" was bringing Knights at low points, there's nothing wrong.
This guy, however, actually cheats as well - which is a problem.
The is no cheating in w40k. the rule book stats that players can change the rules anywhere they want. check. That if two players can't decide on a ruling or find it in a rulebook, and how would they if the rule was made up on the spot, they should roll for it.
But then again I think that something like the game OP had, happens if a community decides that unbound is ok. One can not play "that guy", but why keep the unbound rule then, if it and not the people are the source of the problem.
Makumba, There is a big difference between mutually agreeing to some house rules and making stuff up and doing whatever you fancy on the spot... The former is changing the rules, the latter is cheating. Grown up, mature people do the former...
dementedwombat wrote: I'm waiting for Peregrine to come in and say how we shouldn't be depriving this guy of his idea of fun just because you want to play a bad army list.
If his only "crime" was bringing Knights at low points, there's nothing wrong.
This guy, however, actually cheats as well - which is a problem.
The is no cheating in w40k. the rule book stats that players can change the rules anywhere they want.
Incorrect. The rules in 40k say, and I'll quote them so you know I'm not making things up:
Usually, both players will use the same points limit, but this does not need to be the case and is entirely up to you.
It was obvious from the post that the points limit was 500 points. And equally obvious that this person went over that limit - which means he broke the rules. Breaking the rules is cheating.
In addition, I'd love for your to find justification for pretending a walker is a monstrous creature. Especially when only one player decided that. roll for it.
But then again I think that something like the game OP had, happens if a community decides that unbound is ok. One can not play "that guy", but why keep the unbound rule then, if it and not the people are the source of the problem.
The games had literally nothing to do with Unbound. It was not the source of the problem.
I enjoy the challenge myself. If you know what he is like why would you tell him what you are taking other than maybe the race.
I remember playing against Cardiffs TFG back in the day he used to carry all the rulebooks around with him but would never pull one out when you told him a rule would just deny it, also made me take a terror test for my frenzied chaos lord on a chariot as the juggernaughts pulling the chariot weren't frenzied.
When i still killed his lich in cc and his army crumbled it was very funny and left me with a warm fuzzy feeling inside!
Do like me; Grab your stomach, begins to twist and turn on your feet, all the while saying loud enough (or yelling for more effect) "CALL AN AMBULANCE!! I'M HAVING A ALLERGIC REACTION TO 'isert his name here' 'S LIST! MY INTOLERATE TO LACTOSE CANNOT STAND THAT MUCH CHEESE!"
Then if he doens't get it, draw him a picture, or just pack your things and say GG.
Seriously, I enver met anyone who plays unbound, mostly to NOT too the objective secure Troops gets..but that feels too much unbound, even for me; an extra heavy support ok, but a list that makes no sence? no..
TFG at my FLGS runs an all kroot tau list, and has made his own all kroot codex. he rules lawyers when he isn't winning, and calls every other list super cheesy. that and he butts in other peoples games with rules corrections that half the time are wrong. in summary, feth that guy.
Brennonjw wrote: TFG at my FLGS runs an all kroot tau list, and has made his own all kroot codex. he rules lawyers when he isn't winning, and calls every other list super cheesy. that and he butts in other peoples games with rules corrections that half the time are wrong. in summary, feth that guy.
Take 2 or 3 Land Raiders and watch him cry when he can't hurt them
The groups I play, Unbound in general has this "amateurish" stigma to it. You´re basically considered a newbie/just derping around for fun if you play Unbound.
To be honest I find it´s great that it´s so, as in my opinion Unbound shouldn´t have been added to the game. I am also glad it seems that it hasn´t really taken hold pretty much anywhere as a common way to play.
I think Unbound is fine and allows for a lot of fun lists. Seriously, as long as you're not running all Riptides or something, Unbound can be a lot of fun, i.e. tons of Grotz
Point of unbound is to brake the game. Gw did so people can be tfg and waac players and ther list is leagal my last game i used 5wk and 8ws no troops that's it gw wants to promote power gaming so all play along with there new ideas
zilka86 wrote: Point of unbound is to brake the game. Gw did so people can be tfg and waac players and ther list is leagal my last game i used 5wk and 8ws no troops that's it gw wants to promote power gaming so all play along with there new ideas
You are so wrong its not even funny.
Also work on that spelling fella its not like you are in a race to post something.
The intention (point) of unbound is to be able to play with your "collection" without that pesky Force org. This is paraphrasing the WD article when it was first introduced.
You are free to say it allows for "some" people to "abuse" it but the game is already abusable without unbound.
dementedwombat wrote: I'm waiting for Peregrine to come in and say how we shouldn't be depriving this guy of his idea of fun just because you want to play a bad army list.
zilka86 wrote: Yes it was abused before but with gw say unbound is a legal way to play they are promoting more abuse of the game
This only works if you assume GW know or care about competitive play, they have said repeatidly that this to them is a game to forge a narrative, to tell a story. A story about eight wraithknights just stomping Ork boys lacks depth, character and largely isnt a fun way to play, it goes against the core theme of unbound. Unbound is a sandbox, dont blame the maker because someone throws sand in your face every now and then.
Taffy17 wrote: Went down to GW last night for a quick game. Got paired up against a guy who i knew was notorious for being "that guy".
short of constantly just refusing to play him is there anything i can do without stooping to his level?
If not should the game be changed to prevent this type of behaviour?
That sucks.
And no, there isn't anything you can do, so you should simply refuse to play him. Period.
The only change to the game should be packing up your minis when things get stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: "I've seen him run apocalypse formations at 1500pts against beginners."
Nope nope nope nope nope.
Depends on the formation. If it's one of the buy the regular models and pay extra +XX points for a couple special rules, it might not even be close to "broken".
Suppose there was a CSM formation that required 6 units of Possessed, but counted them as Troops. Would that be unfair against noobs? Probably not.
Desubot wrote: The intention (point) of unbound is to be able to play with your "collection" without that pesky Force org. This is paraphrasing the WD article when it was first introduced.
You are free to say it allows for "some" people to "abuse" it but the game is already abusable without unbound.
ergo the person who has the bigger collection will abuse it more . In smaller games he doesn't have to pay the HQ or troop tax, or what ever happens to be not optimal, but an army has to take or can't take, because of FoC.
It maybe, and I say maybe because people with better armies would just get an even better edge over those with weaker ones, works in places where everyone owns multiple armies of above normal size.
It was obvious from the post that the points limit was 500 points. And equally obvious that this person went over that limit - which means he broke the rules. Breaking the rules is cheating.
The rules say "usualy", if the rules said Both players will use the same points limited then it would be cheating. In fact thanks to how awesome clear english is you don't know if the you in the "entirely up to you" is ment for you the player or you the two players. Add the usually and it is more or less free game to do what ever you want. Of course your opponent can say he won't play you, but he can't say your cheating, if your playing it by the rules.
The games had literally nothing to do with Unbound. It was not the source of the problem.
Let me check. Apo formations in non apo games. That is unbound. Unbound riptide lists. That is unbound. Sternguard and knights, seems unbound too. But maybe it is just FW.
zilka86 wrote: Point of unbound is to brake the game. Gw did so people can be tfg and waac players and ther list is leagal my last game i used 5wk and 8ws no troops that's it gw wants to promote power gaming so all play along with there new ideas
GW don't write rules for WAAC players. Unbound was intended to encourage people to buy a wider range of models instead of just the one army. The fact that it allows abusive lists is just a side-effect, and not one that GW considers to be important since they don't consider playing to win an appropriate way to play the game.
zilka86 wrote: Point of unbound is to brake the game. Gw did so people can be tfg and waac players and ther list is leagal my last game i used 5wk and 8ws no troops that's it gw wants to promote power gaming so all play along with there new ideas
GW don't write rules for WAAC players. Unbound was intended to encourage people to buy a wider range of models instead of just the one army. The fact that it allows abusive lists is just a side-effect, and not one that GW considers to be important since they don't consider playing to win an appropriate way to play the game.
I love how GW hates competitive play. Would be funny if the executive board had a internal 40k tournament to get the chairman position...
The first ever unbound tournament, with no netlists.
zilka86 wrote: Point of unbound is to brake the game. Gw did so people can be tfg and waac players and ther list is leagal my last game i used 5wk and 8ws no troops that's it gw wants to promote power gaming so all play along with there new ideas
GW don't write rules for WAAC players. Unbound was intended to encourage people to buy a wider range of models instead of just the one army. The fact that it allows abusive lists is just a side-effect, and not one that GW considers to be important since they don't consider playing to win an appropriate way to play the game.
Which begs the question of why the game has rules for determining who wins.
My people on this thread have suggested not playing That Guy when he comes to the table. Play him.
As frustrating as it can be, you learn a lot when you play That Guy. Take the time to go through a game, soak up the bad rules interpretations, the cheating, and the win at all cost attitude and use it to your advantage next time.
There was a time when people would have called me That Guy, or at least a WAAC player. I was good at it with my 5th edition CSMs. Things settled down once 6th edition came out, but I really loved messing with people's understanding of an otherwise tedious set of rules.
I would spam Khorne Berzerkers all over the table and wipe out 3 units a turn while my twin warptime DPs would smash whatever armor my opponent brought. If it was a low point game, I would still bring them all as part of an illegal list. If someone challenged me on it, I would use the "The Blood God Demands' USR that I completely made up and would sometimes pretend to read from the CSM Codex. I had a store manager convinced it was a real rule to the point where he could cite the specific wording to other players. There were a small group of CSM players who would use it all the time without getting challenged. People at my FLGS would argue about the specific wording even though it was never written.
I started playing a list that consisted of a Chaos Lord, 2 min sized CSM squads, and 33 spawn. The list dominated, there were games where I did not lose a single model. This happened precisely because everyone always moves their models towards the middle of the board, and no one really knew what kiting was or how forced movement gave them an advantage. But that kind of cheese was thick and smelly, partly because people thought spawn sucked. They sucked individually but were awesome en masse especially against 5th edition tactics.
On the being a jerk front, I would force people to look stuff up throughout a game to challenge me. Do that enough times and someone is going to give up and start rolling off for whether or not the rules actually work the way you say. Start with a series of trivial claims that can be easily disproven then make more audacious claims that only benefit you when it comes time to roll for them - you have a 50% chance of getting an unfair advantage with no downside. Once, I convinced a guy his IG did not get a shooting phase because of some special rule that comes along with Doombolt, we rolled for it and I had no shooting against me for like 3 turns. Once, I convinced a guy that he could not shoot winged DPs because there were no rules for attacking flying walkers (even though the DP was an MC, not a walker). I forced him to look up the rules in the BRB, which did not exist, and my DP suddenly became invulnerable to shooting attacks. Once, I convinced someone that the AP3 warpflame attacks from my possessed also took away fleet from his models for the turn after the attack (which was straight up invention - possessed did not have a shooting attack, I only had regular CSMs in my list, and there was no special rule that took away fleet in all of 40k.) Turned his squishy Eldar into sandwich spread.
While none of this was good, it was entertaining. Other players knew what I was up to and we would spend time figuring out what the actual rules were after a game. There were people who wanted to play me just to see if they could keep the rules straight. There were other people who felt violated and would make accusations, but I never really felt like I was being a jerk because I would always cop to whatever it was I was doing and did not mind if someone walked away. A couple times, grown men cried, which was sad. I would buy them a soda, tell them it's just a game and do what I could to make them feel better.
But I never really looked at it as the worst thing in the world. Either we had a fun, unique game or someone learned a lot about the rules. That Guys are not all bad.
techsoldaten wrote: My people on this thread have suggested not playing That Guy when he comes to the table. Play him.
As frustrating as it can be, you learn a lot when you play That Guy. Take the time to go through a game, soak up the bad rules interpretations, the cheating, and the win at all cost attitude and use it to your advantage next time.
There was a time when people would have called me That Guy, or at least a WAAC player. I was good at it with my 5th edition CSMs. Things settled down once 6th edition came out, but I really loved messing with people's understanding of an otherwise tedious set of rules.
I would spam Khorne Berzerkers all over the table and wipe out 3 units a turn while my twin warptime DPs would smash whatever armor my opponent brought. If it was a low point game, I would still bring them all as part of an illegal list. If someone challenged me on it, I would use the "The Blood God Demands' USR that I completely made up and would sometimes pretend to read from the CSM Codex. I had a store manager convinced it was a real rule to the point where he could cite the specific wording to other players. There were a small group of CSM players who would use it all the time without getting challenged. People at my FLGS would argue about the specific wording even though it was never written.
I started playing a list that consisted of a Chaos Lord, 2 min sized CSM squads, and 33 spawn. The list dominated, there were games where I did not lose a single model. This happened precisely because everyone always moves their models towards the middle of the board, and no one really knew what kiting was or how forced movement gave them an advantage. But that kind of cheese was thick and smelly, partly because people thought spawn sucked. They sucked individually but were awesome en masse especially against 5th edition tactics.
On the being a jerk front, I would force people to look stuff up throughout a game to challenge me. Do that enough times and someone is going to give up and start rolling off for whether or not the rules actually work the way you say. Start with a series of trivial claims that can be easily disproven then make more audacious claims that only benefit you when it comes time to roll for them - you have a 50% chance of getting an unfair advantage with no downside. Once, I convinced a guy his IG did not get a shooting phase because of some special rule that comes along with Doombolt, we rolled for it and I had no shooting against me for like 3 turns. Once, I convinced a guy that he could not shoot winged DPs because there were no rules for attacking flying walkers (even though the DP was an MC, not a walker). I forced him to look up the rules in the BRB, which did not exist, and my DP suddenly became invulnerable to shooting attacks. Once, I convinced someone that the AP3 warpflame attacks from my possessed also took away fleet from his models for the turn after the attack (which was straight up invention - possessed did not have a shooting attack, I only had regular CSMs in my list, and there was no special rule that took away fleet in all of 40k.) Turned his squishy Eldar into sandwich spread.
While none of this was good, it was entertaining. Other players knew what I was up to and we would spend time figuring out what the actual rules were after a game. There were people who wanted to play me just to see if they could keep the rules straight. There were other people who felt violated and would make accusations, but I never really felt like I was being a jerk because I would always cop to whatever it was I was doing and did not mind if someone walked away. A couple times, grown men cried, which was sad. I would buy them a soda, tell them it's just a game and do what I could to make them feel better.
But I never really looked at it as the worst thing in the world. Either we had a fun, unique game or someone learned a lot about the rules. That Guys are not all bad.
Not sure why you are even playing, if that is your style.. That's like going into the LGS thinking "how big a jerk can I be today".. Using the "it was a unique game" excuse, is only to make it sound better in your own head
It sounds like the only person having fun in those games was you.
Nothing to be proud of there, you acted like a bell end and got away with it because those around you were too trusting to call you out.
You didn't do any one any favours, and reading that, it appears that you believe you were bringing something to the game to enhance it.
I agreed with you at the start, you should play people like that, as I am a firm believer that you should challenge yourself to improve. But "that guy" will never improve as an actual general, and will only ever be successful at a low level, they would not get away with that sort of behaviour in more serious competition. There is no real victory in cheating, or "interpreting" the rules to your advantage as you will rely on that to win.
Not sure why you are even playing, if that is your style.. That's like going into the LGS thinking "how big a jerk can I be today".. Using the "it was a unique game" excuse, is only to make it sound better in your own head
Nah. The measure of a jerk is whether or not that person has friends afterwards. It was just fun to mess around with people who took the game too seriously, I am not someone with a real addiction to winning.
I doubt anyone was ever hurt by anything I ever did on a tabletop, but I can say for sure people at my FLGS know the rules better as a result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: It sounds like the only person having fun in those games was you.
Nothing to be proud of there, you acted like a bell end and got away with it because those around you were too trusting to call you out.
You didn't do any one any favours, and reading that, it appears that you believe you were bringing something to the game to enhance it.
I agreed with you at the start, you should play people like that, as I am a firm believer that you should challenge yourself to improve. But "that guy" will never improve as an actual general, and will only ever be successful at a low level, they would not get away with that sort of behaviour in more serious competition. There is no real victory in cheating, or "interpreting" the rules to your advantage as you will rely on that to win.
Trust is a strong word and should not be used as a substitute for understanding the rules / applying some common sense. And it's not safe to assume I acted that way in a vacuum, other people bring their own creative interpretations of the rules too.
My post was really to point out the fact you can learn something from That Guy, and it was a response to all the people saying don't play him. I am saying have fun with it, it's a game between two people.
With regards to competition, I have never seen the point of a tournament and don't understand those who do.
Killing and eating people made a lot of sense to Jeffrey Dahmer, and he could probably spin quite a delightful yarn about how he prepared his favorite dish, but it doesn't mean you want to invite him to the dinner party.
Kudos to you for bragging about crapping all over social contracts and wasting people's time. You must have a black belt in Forum-fu.
techsoldaten wrote: My people on this thread have suggested not playing That Guy when he comes to the table. Play him.
As frustrating as it can be, you learn a lot when you play That Guy. Take the time to go through a game, soak up the bad rules interpretations, the cheating, and the win at all cost attitude and use it to your advantage next time.
There was a time when people would have called me That Guy, or at least a WAAC player. I was good at it with my 5th edition CSMs. Things settled down once 6th edition came out, but I really loved messing with people's understanding of an otherwise tedious set of rules.
I would spam Khorne Berzerkers all over the table and wipe out 3 units a turn while my twin warptime DPs would smash whatever armor my opponent brought. If it was a low point game, I would still bring them all as part of an illegal list. If someone challenged me on it, I would use the "The Blood God Demands' USR that I completely made up and would sometimes pretend to read from the CSM Codex. I had a store manager convinced it was a real rule to the point where he could cite the specific wording to other players. There were a small group of CSM players who would use it all the time without getting challenged. People at my FLGS would argue about the specific wording even though it was never written.
I started playing a list that consisted of a Chaos Lord, 2 min sized CSM squads, and 33 spawn. The list dominated, there were games where I did not lose a single model. This happened precisely because everyone always moves their models towards the middle of the board, and no one really knew what kiting was or how forced movement gave them an advantage. But that kind of cheese was thick and smelly, partly because people thought spawn sucked. They sucked individually but were awesome en masse especially against 5th edition tactics.
On the being a jerk front, I would force people to look stuff up throughout a game to challenge me. Do that enough times and someone is going to give up and start rolling off for whether or not the rules actually work the way you say. Start with a series of trivial claims that can be easily disproven then make more audacious claims that only benefit you when it comes time to roll for them - you have a 50% chance of getting an unfair advantage with no downside. Once, I convinced a guy his IG did not get a shooting phase because of some special rule that comes along with Doombolt, we rolled for it and I had no shooting against me for like 3 turns. Once, I convinced a guy that he could not shoot winged DPs because there were no rules for attacking flying walkers (even though the DP was an MC, not a walker). I forced him to look up the rules in the BRB, which did not exist, and my DP suddenly became invulnerable to shooting attacks. Once, I convinced someone that the AP3 warpflame attacks from my possessed also took away fleet from his models for the turn after the attack (which was straight up invention - possessed did not have a shooting attack, I only had regular CSMs in my list, and there was no special rule that took away fleet in all of 40k.) Turned his squishy Eldar into sandwich spread.
While none of this was good, it was entertaining. Other players knew what I was up to and we would spend time figuring out what the actual rules were after a game. There were people who wanted to play me just to see if they could keep the rules straight. There were other people who felt violated and would make accusations, but I never really felt like I was being a jerk because I would always cop to whatever it was I was doing and did not mind if someone walked away. A couple times, grown men cried, which was sad. I would buy them a soda, tell them it's just a game and do what I could to make them feel better.
But I never really looked at it as the worst thing in the world. Either we had a fun, unique game or someone learned a lot about the rules. That Guys are not all bad.
This is actually pretty funny, if maniacal. Although I think it points to exactly how bloated the rules are that people would take things like that at face value, since finding the exact thing you were speaking of could be akin to looking up pathology for an exotic disease.
Not that I really agree with it, but in the context of reading this story on a forum, I'm not feeling the need to get riled up.
techsoldaten wrote: My people on this thread have suggested not playing That Guy when he comes to the table. Play him.
As frustrating as it can be, you learn a lot when you play That Guy. Take the time to go through a game, soak up the bad rules interpretations, the cheating, and the win at all cost attitude and use it to your advantage next time.
There was a time when people would have called me That Guy, or at least a WAAC player. I was good at it with my 5th edition CSMs. Things settled down once 6th edition came out, but I really loved messing with people's understanding of an otherwise tedious set of rules.
I would spam Khorne Berzerkers all over the table and wipe out 3 units a turn while my twin warptime DPs would smash whatever armor my opponent brought. If it was a low point game, I would still bring them all as part of an illegal list. If someone challenged me on it, I would use the "The Blood God Demands' USR that I completely made up and would sometimes pretend to read from the CSM Codex. I had a store manager convinced it was a real rule to the point where he could cite the specific wording to other players. There were a small group of CSM players who would use it all the time without getting challenged. People at my FLGS would argue about the specific wording even though it was never written.
I started playing a list that consisted of a Chaos Lord, 2 min sized CSM squads, and 33 spawn. The list dominated, there were games where I did not lose a single model. This happened precisely because everyone always moves their models towards the middle of the board, and no one really knew what kiting was or how forced movement gave them an advantage. But that kind of cheese was thick and smelly, partly because people thought spawn sucked. They sucked individually but were awesome en masse especially against 5th edition tactics.
On the being a jerk front, I would force people to look stuff up throughout a game to challenge me. Do that enough times and someone is going to give up and start rolling off for whether or not the rules actually work the way you say. Start with a series of trivial claims that can be easily disproven then make more audacious claims that only benefit you when it comes time to roll for them - you have a 50% chance of getting an unfair advantage with no downside. Once, I convinced a guy his IG did not get a shooting phase because of some special rule that comes along with Doombolt, we rolled for it and I had no shooting against me for like 3 turns. Once, I convinced a guy that he could not shoot winged DPs because there were no rules for attacking flying walkers (even though the DP was an MC, not a walker). I forced him to look up the rules in the BRB, which did not exist, and my DP suddenly became invulnerable to shooting attacks. Once, I convinced someone that the AP3 warpflame attacks from my possessed also took away fleet from his models for the turn after the attack (which was straight up invention - possessed did not have a shooting attack, I only had regular CSMs in my list, and there was no special rule that took away fleet in all of 40k.) Turned his squishy Eldar into sandwich spread.
While none of this was good, it was entertaining. Other players knew what I was up to and we would spend time figuring out what the actual rules were after a game. There were people who wanted to play me just to see if they could keep the rules straight. There were other people who felt violated and would make accusations, but I never really felt like I was being a jerk because I would always cop to whatever it was I was doing and did not mind if someone walked away. A couple times, grown men cried, which was sad. I would buy them a soda, tell them it's just a game and do what I could to make them feel better.
But I never really looked at it as the worst thing in the world. Either we had a fun, unique game or someone learned a lot about the rules. That Guys are not all bad.
I imagine you also like to play paintball against 10 year olds.
If there's no house rule that bans unbound, then he's perfectly within his right to field most of the stuff. What gets me is that he knows he's cheating and dismisses everyone who informs him about this as pushy. Also, you're not allowed to bring apocalypse formations in normal. I know he will defend this on the basis of him trying to have fun, but he is someone that has so little of a life, that he gets his satisfaction from fielding ridiculously OP lists against new players.
Basically, he's clearly a dick. Try finding out who else is sick of him and agree to boycott playing him.
natpri771 wrote: If there's no house rule that bans unbound, then he's perfectly within his right to field most of the stuff. What gets me is that he knows he's cheating and dismisses everyone who informs him about this as pushy. Also, you're not allowed to bring apocalypse formations in normal. I know he will defend this on the basis of him trying to have fun, but he is someone that has so little of a life, that he gets his satisfaction from fielding ridiculously OP lists against new players.
Basically, he's clearly a dick. Try finding out who else is sick of him and agree to boycott playing him.
I bet he likes trolling people on Counter Strike or League of Legends because "the lulz".
I imagine you also like to play paintball against 10 year olds.
Uh, no.
Over the last 7 years, I have mentored at least 100 people in how to play the game, organized the community at my FLGS to the point where there's about 250 active players, and generally tried to have a positive impact on the people around me. I regularly loan models to people who need them for games, have conducted modelling and painting workshops and even lent people money to get ideas to the kickstarter phase.
These are all pretty positive contributions, I would think. If anyone wants to call what I did cheating and accuse me of scumbaggery, go ahead.
But first, consider the idea that you probably cheat too. Either deliberately or passively through a lack of knowledge about the rules, I don't know many people who have not creatively interpreted something, moved a model a little more than 6 inches when it matters, rerolled something they claimed was 'cocked,' organized their assaults to that they can conveniently forget an important leadership check, forgotten that a squad was all firing something with Gets Hot, etc.
It's not like I don't notice when these 'honest' people are doing this crap and pretending like they have short memories or never read that rule. If ragequitting a table is the right and proper response to someone not being squeaky clean is the only solution, like this thread suggests, that suggests to me you guys don't have the right and proper perspective on the game yourselves.
I met a guy in a gaming store in Ohio who insisted that his Scarabs firing the ADL Quad Gun would hit with Entropic Strike. This was after playing one of the most rules lawyersy games I've ever played in my life. Needless to say we haven't played again.
Met another guy who "forgot" his codex conveniently, and all of his Annihilation Barges were equipped with TWO twin-linked tesla cannons. After the game a casual observer informed me that he was playing that all wrong. Strange how both these guys were Necron players...
You aren't under any obligation to game with idiots. Don't game with him...it's really that simple.
zilka86 wrote: Point of unbound is to brake the game. Gw did so people can be tfg and waac players and ther list is leagal my last game i used 5wk and 8ws no troops that's it gw wants to promote power gaming so all play along with there new ideas
First of all, doesn't this forum have a rule about spelling and grammar? I have yet to read a single post by this guy that's actually coherent. Second, you cheated. Unbound means you can ignore FOC, it doesn't mean you can take a wave serpent with no troops in it. 2 weeks ago in another thread you were complaining that you couldn't afford to spam the new power units and keep up with all the TFG players. In that time you've apparently managed to purchase, build and game with 5 WK and 8 serpents (an illegal list of about $1000 in models). Either you're lying to make a point or somehow put that list together recently. I have a hard time believing someone who isn't even capable of writing a coherent short sentence drops $1k/month on 40k.
Play him and rules lawyer him, when you do, since you know he'll cheat.
Don't play him.
We've had one version of TFG, at least when it comes to the whole cheating aspect. When the entire community started checking him on everything he was cheating on his army, he quit coming around. Also, since it is a GW store, you can't be using anything other than current rulesets, codices, and anything on the table has to be a GW product or so much % of GW product (like model conversions..other than say, tape measures and dice...they're not quite that picky.)
It may be a lot hard to rules lawyer your TFG to get him to change, since he seems to run multiple codices however. It may not be worth your time and effort.
You may be better off just not playing him, if you're going to be spending all your time fighting over the books.
I imagine you also like to play paintball against 10 year olds.
Uh, no.
Over the last 7 years, I have mentored at least 100 people in how to play the game, organized the community at my FLGS to the point where there's about 250 active players, and generally tried to have a positive impact on the people around me. I regularly loan models to people who need them for games, have conducted modelling and painting workshops and even lent people money to get ideas to the kickstarter phase.
These are all pretty positive contributions, I would think. If anyone wants to call what I did cheating and accuse me of scumbaggery, go ahead.
But first, consider the idea that you probably cheat too. Either deliberately or passively through a lack of knowledge about the rules, I don't know many people who have not creatively interpreted something, moved a model a little more than 6 inches when it matters, rerolled something they claimed was 'cocked,' organized their assaults to that they can conveniently forget an important leadership check, forgotten that a squad was all firing something with Gets Hot, etc.
It's not like I don't notice when these 'honest' people are doing this crap and pretending like they have short memories or never read that rule. If ragequitting a table is the right and proper response to someone not being squeaky clean is the only solution, like this thread suggests, that suggests to me you guys don't have the right and proper perspective on the game yourselves.
There's also a limit. I am in general a pretty straight guy when it comes to rules. Sure, I may forget something by accident, but I have never intentionally scammed my opponent and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting. I've definitely misinterpreted/misplayed rules when I was knew, hell, sometimes I still do unknowingly until I'm corrected and play the "correct" way. If I do something out of turn or by mistake and it's recent, I absolutely go back and fix it, or I make a note to not do that again.
What you're suggesting is outright anarchy and scummyness. I don't care if you built 5 LGS and donated thousands of dollars to players to support their armies, you play like a cheat and I shall call you as such. You make up rules only to gak on others, you pull the wool over other peoples eyes, and intentionally ruin the spirit of the game.
So forgive me for accidentally missing rules, but stow your holier than thou attitude. You're nothing more than a 4th grader who picks on 2nd grader.
I've definitely misinterpreted/misplayed rules when I was knew, hell, sometimes I still do unknowingly until I'm corrected and play the "correct" way. If I do something out of turn or by mistake and it's recent, I absolutely go back and fix it, or I make a note to not do that again.
I really doubt that, based on years of observation against thousands of players. You are really doing a lot to make yourself sound like a saint, and I wonder why you are working so hard at it.
What you're suggesting is outright anarchy and scummyness. I don't care if you built 5 LGS and donated thousands of dollars to players to support their armies, you play like a cheat and I shall call you as such. You make up rules only to gak on others, you pull the wool over other peoples eyes, and intentionally ruin the spirit of the game.
I said you can call me whatever you want, I am pretty secure and can deal with your antics.
But I asked that you be honest about how you play the game. The way you describe your actions is a little too close to the ideal for me to believe you. Maybe if you could get some other players to vouch for the fact you are such an honest, puritan player, that would lend some credibility to your claims.
But you are putting a lot of effort into making me out to be a bad guy, and I really don't think there's any clear black and white when you are talking about complying with the rules of 40k. Regardless of someone's actions.
techsoldaten wrote: If anyone wants to call what I did cheating and accuse me of scumbaggery, go ahead.
But first, consider the idea that you probably cheat too. Either deliberately or passively through a lack of knowledge about the rules,
I don't know many people who have not creatively interpreted something, moved a model a little more than 6 inches when it matters, rerolled something they claimed was 'cocked,' organized their assaults to that they can conveniently forget an important leadership check, forgotten that a squad was all firing something with Gets Hot, etc.
It's not like I don't notice when these 'honest' people are doing this crap and pretending like they have short memories or never read that rule. If ragequitting a table is the right and proper response to someone not being squeaky clean is the only solution, like this thread suggests, that suggests to me you guys don't have the right and proper perspective on the game yourselves.
You are a cheater, and I would not play you. If we did play, it would be because I had no other choice (i.e. tournament play) I'd be on you like a hawk, and I wouldn't be cutting you any slack. Try to pull any of that gak, and expect ZERO Sports from me.
There is a very big difference between deliberately, actively screwing your opponent, versus making a mistake. In your case, you are choosing to be a dick to your opponent. You suck as a player.
Those are also cheats, and I'll call you on all of them.
The difference is that an "honest" player makes a real effort to play the game clean. You don't. You are "that fething guy".
jreilly89 wrote: There's also a limit. I am in general a pretty straight guy when it comes to rules. Sure, I may forget something by accident, but I have never intentionally scammed my opponent and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting.
Like most cheaters, he thinks everybody else cheats. On purpose. Because he actively chooses to cheat people on purpose. That's how he tries to justify his behavior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: Edited by Manchu. Please seem my comment above.
@ - technosoldaten, it don't matter how much one have done for his/her LGS to apologize for being a dick.. Deliberately cheating, just to see how far one can get, and using "education" as an excuse, is a bastard move.. Had it been at our LGS, no one would have trusted the cheater after such a high scale scam move..
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is quite a fun saying in my country, which directly translated reads "thief thinks every man steals" which comes to mind since you ask other players to get their friends or LGS players to vouch for them.. If that is how your LGS experiences have made you see the gamer community, I pity you
Probably right :-) just hit that certain spot you know :-p on topic, "that guy" is a difficult scenario and always will be, so the best thing I can come up with is read through the advice people give, and make up a decision that you feel all right with
jreilly89 wrote: There's also a limit. I am in general a pretty straight guy when it comes to rules.
You protest a lot for someone who has done nothing wrong and not been accused of anything. Your accusations are insulting.
He is trying comparison, where to draw the line of "intent" vs "accident".
I doubt you are all that insulted yet...
jreilly89 wrote: Sure, I may forget something by accident, but I have never intentionally scammed my opponent and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting.
No, I just think 40k has a big, complex ruleset and everyone breaks the rules at some level. You choosing to taking that fact personally is silly.
But the context is your intention of breaking rules, you seem to infer that knowingly breaking them is less a crime than being ignorant of them.
To say "oh well, the game is too complex to play right" seems pointless, so to infer "you most likely knowingly cheat" is what he would be left with.
jreilly89 wrote: I've definitely misinterpreted/misplayed rules when I was knew, hell, sometimes I still do unknowingly until I'm corrected and play the "correct" way. If I do something out of turn or by mistake and it's recent, I absolutely go back and fix it, or I make a note to not do that again.
I really doubt that, based on years of observation against thousands of players. You are really doing a lot to make yourself sound like a saint, and I wonder why you are working so hard at it.
"Thousands of players..." your social studies are unparalleled.
<edit> Almost forgot: this is called "projection" to assume your own motivations are the same as others: if you cheat, you think everyone else does... pretty straight forward stuff.
I have corrected many a person and been corrected on rules and most do their best to play by the rules.
Some people like to at least make the attempt to do the right thing, Sainthood is unnecessary, again it can be inferred you cannot be bothered.
A game is made with rules, it is what provides the challenge.
If one cannot be bothered to follow them, a whole different kind of game is being played without mutual consent.
jreilly89 wrote: What you're suggesting is outright anarchy and scummyness. I don't care if you built 5 LGS and donated thousands of dollars to players to support their armies, you play like a cheat and I shall call you as such. You make up rules only to gak on others, you pull the wool over other peoples eyes, and intentionally ruin the spirit of the game.
I said you can call me whatever you want, I am pretty secure and can deal with your antics.
But I asked that you be honest about how you play the game.
The way you describe your actions is a little too close to the ideal for me to believe you.
Maybe if you could get some other players to vouch for the fact you are such an honest, puritan player, that would lend some credibility to your claims.
But you are putting a lot of effort into making me out to be a bad guy, and I really don't think there's any clear black and white when you are talking about complying with the rules of 40k. Regardless of someone's actions.
"Puritan" hehe... quite the baiting of others.
The black and white is intent: mess with other person, "gas-light", intentionally misrepresent rules, feel the person deserves what he gets for not knowing them well enough to "fight you" on it.
Whatever is excuse enough to justify not doing the right thing.
All that is required is to follow the rules and be as evil as you want to be within them.
jreilly89 wrote: So forgive me for accidentally missing rules, but stow your holier than thou attitude. You're nothing more than a 4th grader who picks on 2nd grader.
Ah. That's the second time you accused me of beating up on people smaller than me.
Sorry you were bullied as a child and for the emotional scars it left.
But I am not your enemy.
I think it is more an accusation of bullying.
He kinda missed the attitude, it is of unjustified "superiority" not holy.
People do perfectly fine without needing lessons handed out in the form of misinformation and mind games.
It is a game of man-toys and is a hobby, a time to pass some time, have some fun... not at the expense of others.
I had a card-carrying narcissist for a mom, yep, makes you pretty damn tough and independent too.
Makes it real easy to see when someone is looking for some attention.
My notes are for the benefit of jreilly89:
You have some better ways to spend your time.
Yes, learn the rules well and have faith in what you know and do not question it because someone is using a loud voice full of confidence (= bluffing).
You are a cheater, and I would not play you. If we did play, it would be because I had no other choice (i.e. tournament play) I'd be on you like a hawk, and I wouldn't be cutting you any slack. Try to pull any of that gak, and expect ZERO Sports from me.
There is a very big difference between deliberately, actively screwing your opponent, versus making a mistake. In your case, you are choosing to be a dick to your opponent. You suck as a player.
Those are also cheats, and I'll call you on all of them.
The difference is that an "honest" player makes a real effort to play the game clean. You don't. You are "that fething guy".
For some reason, namecalling on this forum doesn't offend me and seems kind of cheap.
jreilly89 wrote: There's also a limit. I am in general a pretty straight guy when it comes to rules. Sure, I may forget something by accident, but I have never intentionally scammed my opponent and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting.
Like most cheaters, he thinks everybody else cheats. On purpose. Because he actively chooses to cheat people on purpose. That's how he tries to justify his behavior.
No. I have played 40k since 1989 and noticed most people don't stick to strict interpretations of the rules.
Not sure what's controversial about that. You can find plenty of threads about how many points can you go over when building a list, for instance, and plenty of battle reports where 'someone got it wrong.'
I realize someone could draw distinctions between that kind of behavior and what I described earlier in the list. But if that's not cheating, please explain what makes it legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daemons bane wrote: @ - technosoldaten, it don't matter how much one have done for his/her LGS to apologize for being a dick.. Deliberately cheating, just to see how far one can get, and using "education" as an excuse, is a bastard move.. Had it been at our LGS, no one would have trusted the cheater after such a high scale scam move..
Your LGS sounds like a pretty judgemental environment. I am more about inclusion and community, and accept people despite their faults.
If you read through some of those posts, you will see the kind of tolerance it takes to build large communities of players even for people who are bringing the cheese.
Before I moved last year, we had about 250 active players who would show up at least once a month. I probably played about 100 of them and no one ever quit a game over anything I did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is quite a fun saying in my country, which directly translated reads "thief thinks every man steals" which comes to mind since you ask other players to get their friends or LGS players to vouch for them.. If that is how your LGS experiences have made you see the gamer community, I pity you
Calling people names on the Internet then quoting a proverb as though you were wise - which speaks louder?
I'm going to give this as my only reply to you, then you're going on Ignore.
You're damn right I'm calling you a cheater. But the funny thing is that it's not name-calling when it's accurate. Let's be very clear. You go into a game trying to deceive your opponent. You knowingly take an illegal list with extra points. You deliberately attempt to confuse the rules. And so on. You admitted to all of that gak above. That is cheating, plain and simple. Me calling you a cheater is simply calling a spade a spade. Or a rock a rock. Using the correct word is correct. You are a cheater.
As poster boy for "That fething Guy," you should at least have the intellectual honesty to understand and accept that you really are "That fething Guy."
Also, pretending that it's mere name-calling is even more dishonesty and misdirection. It's more lies and deceit on top of lies. It's self-deception at it's worst.
But I'll give you this, it is entirely consistent with what I would have expected from you. Someone has the balls to call you on your gak, you're still trying to redirect things at the other guy. This is why you're getting ZERO Sports from me.
As for strictness of play, players may choose to play tight or loose, and there is a certain consistency to be expected in their play. That is something that both players may choose to agree with. The difference is that, by default, players have to play by the rules. Players agreeing to something different as House Rules or mutual agreement doesn't change what the rules say.
There are no threads about legally going over. And mistakes can be made.
The difference is that a forthright, honest player owns the mistake. In my case, if I make a mistake that affects the game, I am more than willing to let the actual rules resolve the question. If I find out after the fact, I automatically concede the "win" to my opponent. I have that kind of personal integrity. You do not. I don't need to cheat to "win". I'd rather lose an honest game.
DaKKaLAnce wrote: Guys stop feeding the troll. This is the internet, Just laugh and walk away.
Eh, not trolling anyone. Let's just remember, what I originally said is that cheating has it's place. We all know the #1 rule of 40k.
Like with the "Because The Blood God Demands" USR - the way it read: "Each model with the Mark of Khorne organized into squads of eight must bring double its number or cannot be fielded. These additional units can be included in any Codex: Chaos Space Marines Army at no additional points cost." What was funny was the idea I had more credibility than the Codex, which was sitting on a shelf within arms reach of any of the playing tables at the FLGS. All the CSM players knew it was BS, but it was about a year before anyone else realized the rule made no sense.
Cheating or not - that was a lot of fun for a lot of people.
techsoldaten wrote: My people on this thread have suggested not playing That Guy when he comes to the table. Play him.
As frustrating as it can be, you learn a lot when you play That Guy.
...If it was a low point game, I would still bring them all as part of an illegal list. If someone challenged me on it, I would use the "The Blood God Demands' USR that I completely made up...
...The list dominated, there were games where I did not lose a single model....
...I would force people to look stuff up throughout a game to challenge me...
...While none of this was good, it was entertaining....
Yeah, uhh, this is a by-the-books example of That Guy kind of behavior, I'd say it would be worth immediately halting a game and not playing with that person anymore ever if I played against someone like you (unless I HAD to, like in a tournament).
And there's a difference between not knowing the rules or having house rules that everyone agrees to and CHEATING. Deliberately cheating like that is crazy, it's not fun, and it's really ruining the game for everyone.
I guess I'm glad I don't know anybody at my local FLGS who's like this.
daemons bane wrote: @ - technosoldaten, it don't matter how much one have done for his/her LGS to apologize for being a dick.. Deliberately cheating, just to see how far one can get, and using "education" as an excuse, is a bastard move.. Had it been at our LGS, no one would have trusted the cheater after such a high scale scam move..
Your LGS sounds like a pretty judgemental environment. I am more about inclusion and community, and accept people despite their faults.
If you read through some of those posts, you will see the kind of tolerance it takes to build large communities of players even for people who are bringing the cheese.
Before I moved last year, we had about 250 active players who would show up at least once a month. I probably played about 100 of them and no one ever quit a game over anything I did.
Your LGS sounds like quite the den of thieves. Note I used LGS and not FLGS.
You're damn right I'm calling you a cheater. But the funny thing is that it's not name-calling when it's accurate. Let's be very clear. You go into a game trying to deceive your opponent. You knowingly take an illegal list with extra points. You deliberately attempt to confuse the rules. And so on. You admitted to all of that gak above. That is cheating, plain and simple. Me calling you a cheater is simply calling a spade a spade. Or a rock a rock. Using the correct word is correct. You are a cheater.
Somehow, even with the childish name calling, the inky blackness in my heart just fails to stir. I think they call that not caring.
As poster boy for "That fething Guy," you should at least have the intellectual honesty to understand and accept that you really are "That fething Guy."
I really don't see you as a credible authority for telling me what to think, feel or understand. The fact I will not be dealing with you anymore brings a little joy, but not much.
Also, pretending that it's mere name-calling is even more dishonesty and misdirection. It's more lies and deceit on top of lies. It's self-deception at it's worst.
One could argue that pretending that spending thousands of dollars on little plastic men, spending time painting them and hovering around a 6x4 table for endless hours debating a set of flawed / imperfect rules is worthwhile is self-deception. But I won't go there.
Getting all bent out of shape about it and insisting that people label themselves a certain way is taking it to a whole new level.
But I'll give you this, it is entirely consistent with what I would have expected from you. Someone has the balls to call you on your gak, you're still trying to redirect things at the other guy. This is why you're getting ZERO Sports from me.
You must know me so well outside this forum to make claims like that. Is it you God?
As for strictness of play, players may choose to play tight or loose, and there is a certain consistency to be expected in their play. That is something that both players may choose to agree with. The difference is that, by default, players have to play by the rules. Players agreeing to something different as House Rules or mutual agreement doesn't change what the rules say.
There are no threads about legally going over. And mistakes can be made.
Here are the first three I found in a Google search. Happy to point at others on the topic, as well as other 'cheater' threads if it will help. You commented on many of them.
The difference is that a forthright, honest player owns the mistake. In my case, if I make a mistake that affects the game, I am more than willing to let the actual rules resolve the question. If I find out after the fact, I automatically concede the "win" to my opponent. I have that kind of personal integrity. You do not. I don't need to cheat to "win". I'd rather lose an honest game.
The great irony here is that it's against the rules of the forum to call people names.
But what if someone owns the cheating? Like, I don't really care about winning so much as having fun.
Like, when I remind someone to take Gets Hot rolls on a bolt pistol, is that cheating or just getting a laugh? When they do it, fail and remove a model, and then I tell them about splash damage and it gets the whole unit, what then? When I then tell that person, who claimed to have been at NOVA a couple months before and placed in the top 30, that all units in 12 inches need to take a leadership test counting the models lost as casualties, and that person has the entire army is running off the board, are we still in the realm of wins / losses or something else entirely?
Sometimes, when two people do something as pointless and stupid as playing the same game for a decade or two, you just need to laugh. Lighten up.
