I'm a relatively new player to 40k (about 4 months) and I'm starting to grow tired of the hobby due to the community and rule interpretation. I actually joined this forum so that I could get some concrete answers on some of the tactics I've fielded and was thinking about fielding.
However, over the past month when I've started to field more specialised tactics, the amount of times that I've had to make sure I had printed FAQ sheets, tabs in the BRB and codex entries memorised not just for Necrons, but Tau, GK, SM, ect.
I'll admit that sometimes I'll push the limits of what should be allowed by the rules, but I generally try to do a reasonable amount of FAQ, BRB and codex reading to insure it's legal before fielding it. I usually make an effort to inform my opponent of what my army is capable of before fielding it (giving them a huge advantage). but I've been starting to encounter more and more resistance to special tactics used in codexes where people start to disagree that x, y and z should work together because "that's too powerful" when all they have to do is break a single link in the chain to neutralise the tactic.
I chose necrons because of all the races they seemed to have the most tactical depth in combining special rules and boosting the power of other units by combining forces. I nearly chose tau before I realised that the majority of high end players just drop riptides in the corners and shoot them till they win.
But honestly, there's now only a handful of players that I enjoy playing against because we go back and forth of trying to outdo each other. But every now and again I'll play someone new and they'll just lose interest in the game as soon as they realise they'll have to work to win the game. Anyone else felt this way at times?
I enjoy playing new players. It means I can go fluff-heavy, and LOSE, and still enjoy the game because I helped bring someone else into the hobby and taught them some aspects of the game.
I'm also really lucky in that we don't have many WAAC players. I mean, we have several guys who are super competitive, but they'd rather play a game than just play against the other two or three guys who also have super tournament stompy lists so if you tell them in advance to bring a for funsies army the next week, they'll do it. We have maybe two TFG at most, and they've tapered off that behavior a bit because we're lucky enough to have enough players who are mostly new to the game rather than bitter old-timers who've been playing and collecting since they were 13, we can just sort of say, "Hey man, don't be that way." Strength in numbers.
SRSFACE wrote: I enjoy playing new players. It means I can go fluff-heavy, and LOSE, and still enjoy the game because I helped bring someone else into the hobby and taught them some aspects of the game.
I'm also really lucky in that we don't have many WAAC players. I mean, we have several guys who are super competitive, but they'd rather play a game than just play against the other two or three guys who also have super tournament stompy lists so if you tell them in advance to bring a for funsies army the next week, they'll do it. We have maybe two TFG at most, and they've tapered off that behavior a bit because we're lucky enough to have enough players who are mostly new to the game rather than bitter old-timers who've been playing and collecting since they were 13, we can just sort of say, "Hey man, don't be that way." Strength in numbers.
Ah, I should have clarified that by "new" i meant someone I haven't played before.
I field many kinds of lists and I don't mind play "for fun" lists against new players which I did today where I fielded a monlith and 2 guys who were new to the game who lacked heavy weapons were constantly trying different tactics to bring it down till eventually a tau player jumped a fire warrior squad off a 3 level building killing 30% of the squad, survived a portal of exile and then assaulted with EMP grenades killing it.
The only time I get tired is when I encounter a bitter vet who isn't competitive at all. Which you'd think was rare, but I'm starting to realise is more common than I realised. There does seem to be some stigma against necrons.
The most fun I had was when I fielded a 3000 point anti-riptide list against a tau player who was known for fielding 4 to 5 riptides in a single list, but it ended with him delcaring the necrons were OP and he wouldn't be playing them again while he was constantly checking the rules I was using.
If you want to know what I fielded it, was a Monolith / C'tan shard heavy list with Time's arrow coupled with a Dark Harvest allied detachment for Charnel Scarabs, Lychgard and Kutlakh the World Killer. In other words, a really nasty AV14 heavy list which tarpits and exploits Tau's low I and ws.
He expected cronair, but I only own a single nightscythe and doomscythe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: I think I'd like to know what you mean by you push the rules before I totally weigh in.
By pushing the rules I mean the 2 rules I've asked questions about recently which is death raying your own lychguard to gain additional hits against a single target or repair barging a cryptek who has lost his squad so he can recover some warriors since he counts as being a warrior squad.
I love when someone declares your whole army is OP because he literally brought 1 type of unit and you exploited it's weaknesses. That cracks me up. "Man, you killed my totally OP units because I don't know how to strategy! You are playing a broken army!"
Laughs were had.
Meanwhile, every strategy my Dark Angels can employ, Tau gets to ignore. Want to bring Banner of Devastation? Too bad, we out-range you so it's actually a negative if you try to green-wing as you'll nerf your own range while slogging down the aisles. Want to bring a lot of ravenwing? Tau have the weapons to handle T5, and get to ignore cover so when they beat your AP, and just kill your really expensive models without breaking a sweat. Also ignores cover makes your new toy for this edition that gives all your guys stealth a waste of 80 points, and it makes all land speeders (which are normally a really solid unit) totally worthless. Want to deep strike in some terminators? Well, half of the Tau army gets interceptor and has AP2 with 8+ strength weapons so you end up losing 200+ points worth of guys on your own turn. Want to bring powerful melee combatants to "exploit" the low weapon skill and iniative of the Tau? Too bad, because Riptides are monstrous creatures and have a 2/3rds chance to gain a 3++ on a T6 W5 SV2+ creature, and so even at WS2 I2 it still inflicts more wounds and kill more dudes than lose wounds against any unit in the DA codex other than maybe Deathwing Knights.
THAT is why Tau are, in fact, a broken army. The joke in our store is they have an army-wide rule called "We ignore all your rules."
BrianDavion wrote: I look forward to the tears of Tau when Imperial players start feilding Knights
And when the Knights beat the Tau, they have to give this speech after every game:
But yeah back to topic, I agree to a certain extent I just played in a tourney and had a Necron player moaning at me for taking 2 Helldrakes and a Vendetta, calling it a "Netlist"...
He proceeded to take first place..
*awaiting my box of soap from said opponent in the form of a quote *
So yeah I can understand the bitter-side of things and how that can get annoying at times, but on the flip side of the coin, why should people feel penalised for taking some units that they may like instead of unit X, Y and Z, that's what I do not like competitive 40k as its too much of you "have" to adapt, which I would be a fan of but the way GW goes about it is poor tbh, they could give said units that were powerful a different role for their army instead of straight out nerfing them that would be a fun and refreshing change of adaption, but GW's attempts is basically buy Model X, Y and Z and sod everything else, which bothers me a great deal as we have what the current meta is now (Tau-dar) imo..
I tend to see Tournament and Normal games as two different kinds of animal, where I do NOT expect to see tournament style cut-throat builds in Normal games.
happygolucky wrote: but GW's attempts is basically buy Model X, Y and Z and sod everything else, which bothers me a great deal as we have what the current meta is now (Tau-dar) imo..
That movie was awesome.
Anyway, I have to agree with you. It's funny how if you remove the singular power unit everyone complains about from a codex, the games tend to be quite enjoyable for both parties involved. Tau are still quite good without riptides, but aren't any longer fielding an unkillable monster that's criminally undercosted. Eldar can still be really good without spending 800+ points on a cheesy HQ deathstar, AND can still be really good without utilizing more than 2 wave serpents, or at least without abusing serpent shield's currently broken firing mode. Tossing out Banshees and Harlequins, they don't have a bad unit in the codex, really, just things you might need a little finesse to utilize which is what Eldar are supposed to be all about.
I feel like need to point out that TFG does not involve whether you prefer competitive gameplay of casual, merely that you're an ***hole of the highest degree, which is a problem that plague both sides.
Dear OP, you should note that not all players want to play competitive games. Many people just want to play casual fluffy games. Bringing a competitive list to a fluff game is not fun and makes you TFG. Before the game, you should discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want play. Bring your most tactical optimised lists to competitve games and your themed fluff lists to fluff games. That will avoid a lot of arguments and increase fun for all players involved.
On a side note: If enjoy playing armies that are really tactical, you should definitely try out the Dark Eldar.
I'm the only nid player at my local game club and general opinion around here is that nidz ( both 5th edition and 6th edition) are overpowered and ridiculous!
There are few people I really enjoy playing as we both try to win and our games are really close ( he runs Eldar/DE against my nidz) and we both have a lot of fun trying to outplay each other.
However, often ( not always ) there is little fun playing against who is simply not trying to win. For example I ran fun list against CSM player. It had only 1 synapse creature at 1250 points and only 2 units of gaunts. Oh, and by the way, it was crusade mission with 5 objectives. Game ended in me winning 9 - 3
Lastly, im not saying that I do not enjoy playing against ALL fluffy gamers, I just don't like playing game where there is no challenge. There is no fun in tabling opponent in turn 3.
AegisGrimm wrote: I tend to see Tournament and Normal games as two different kinds of animal, where I do NOT expect to see tournament style cut-throat builds in Normal games.
This. If you're bringing aforementioned cut-throat tourney lists to a Saturday afternoon pick-up game, or are running triptide/6 serpents at the local club against a bunch of laid back fluff enthusiasts, you are probably tfg. Sorry, but its true. Especially if people have spoken to you about it before.
SRSFACE, bravo on that Tau assessment. My experiences have mirrored your own.
SRSFACE wrote: I enjoy playing new players. It means I can go fluff-heavy, and LOSE, and still enjoy the game because I helped bring someone else into the hobby and taught them some aspects of the game.
I'm also really lucky in that we don't have many WAAC players. I mean, we have several guys who are super competitive, but they'd rather play a game than just play against the other two or three guys who also have super tournament stompy lists so if you tell them in advance to bring a for funsies army the next week, they'll do it. We have maybe two TFG at most, and they've tapered off that behavior a bit because we're lucky enough to have enough players who are mostly new to the game rather than bitter old-timers who've been playing and collecting since they were 13, we can just sort of say, "Hey man, don't be that way." Strength in numbers.
The trick is to take a for-funsies stompy list.
Try 8 BCOK with 7 heralds + karanak and 32 blood letters - it's 'fluffy' because 8's and it's funsies because any flyer whatsoever shuts you down.
sonicaucie wrote:...and they'll just lose interest in the game as soon as they realise they'll have to work to win the game.
That you think that this is the reason people don't like to play games against you is rather telling.
Well said. I also did not get what the OP wanted to say.
Finding loopholes from badly written rules is okay, but complaining about that makes you a TFG?
I think the difference is that I don't believe I'm finding loop holes, but strategies that were intended from the get go.
The difference is, that while most of the guys I play regularly and enjoy playing with will constantly try to outplay my army. I've encountered 2 competitive tau players recently who simply refuse to play me anymore because "Necrons are OP". So, if you say my comment is rather telling. I think they've said their reasons blatantly.
AegisGrimm wrote: I tend to see Tournament and Normal games as two different kinds of animal, where I do NOT expect to see tournament style cut-throat builds in Normal games.
This. If you're bringing aforementioned cut-throat tourney lists to a Saturday afternoon pick-up game, or are running triptide/6 serpents at the local club against a bunch of laid back fluff enthusiasts, you are probably tfg. Sorry, but its true. Especially if people have spoken to you about it before.
SRSFACE, bravo on that Tau assessment. My experiences have mirrored your own.
More likely you're TFG in this case. In my area MEQ armies have always been really rare, and during most part of fifth, all those necron, tau, eldar and daemon armies were evenly matched. The one eldar player has always fielded an armies full of serpents, night spinners, falcons and fire prisms, because that's what his craftworld's tactics is. No eldar of his gets to go on the battlefield without a transport. A new codex dropped and his default list came totally overpowered.
Another guy has been playing tau for ever, and we got him two riptides for his birthday. Totally must be TFG for fielding them.
Yet another player had build a tzeench list way before it was useful at all. He even had a pair of heralds leading screamers, just because both are jetbikes. New codex, and - boom - screamer star.
TFG is a person who is making your unfun to play, because of unnecessary rules arguing, being a sore loser and/or winner, bad sportsmanship, or whatever negative traits you're opponent could have.
If you're whining because your opponent brought a better list than you, while you consciously made the decision of bring a less than optimal list (i.e. "fluffy" list), then you're TFG.
Tell the person you don't want to play against competitive lists and don't play the game. If he doesn't have a less competitive list as well, you are not the right opponents for each other, and neither of you would gain anything for the game.
I do bring "cut-throat" lists to pick-up games, because I am looking for opponents who do the same.
It has been said, if you're not worried about being TFG, you are TFG.
Now being TFG has nothing to do with strategies. It has to do with being the guy to bring a cheese& spam meta breaking lists to friendly games, being a dick toward the other players in game, cheating to win etc.
However if both players were behaving in a civil fashion, and there were a half dozen CTans on one side and 5 riptides on the other... Don't know where I was going with that, but this doesnt seem like a case of TFG to me.
AegisGrimm wrote: I tend to see Tournament and Normal games as two different kinds of animal, where I do NOT expect to see tournament style cut-throat builds in Normal games.
This. If you're bringing aforementioned cut-throat tourney lists to a Saturday afternoon pick-up game, or are running triptide/6 serpents at the local club against a bunch of laid back fluff enthusiasts, you are probably tfg. Sorry, but its true. Especially if people have spoken to you about it before.
SRSFACE, bravo on that Tau assessment. My experiences have mirrored your own.
More likely you're TFG in this case. In my area MEQ armies have always been really rare, and during most part of fifth, all those necron, tau, eldar and daemon armies were evenly matched. The one eldar player has always fielded an armies full of serpents, night spinners, falcons and fire prisms, because that's what his craftworld's tactics is. No eldar of his gets to go on the battlefield without a transport. A new codex dropped and his default list came totally overpowered.
Another guy has been playing tau for ever, and we got him two riptides for his birthday. Totally must be TFG for fielding them.
Yet another player had build a tzeench list way before it was useful at all. He even had a pair of heralds leading screamers, just because both are jetbikes. New codex, and - boom - screamer star.
TFG is a person who is making your unfun to play, because of unnecessary rules arguing, being a sore loser and/or winner, bad sportsmanship, or whatever negative traits you're opponent could have.
If you're whining because your opponent brought a better list than you, while you consciously made the decision of bring a less than optimal list (i.e. "fluffy" list), then you're TFG.
Tell the person you don't want to play against competitive lists and don't play the game. If he doesn't have a less competitive list as well, you are not the right opponents for each other, and neither of you would gain anything for the game.
I do bring "cut-throat" lists to pick-up games, because I am looking for opponents who do the same.
So I'm TFG because I'm not fond of Tau and I don't try to curb stomp my opponent by turn two in casual games? That seems bizarre. Ones an opinion, the other is actually a COURTESY toward other players. Could it be that you're a thin skinned powergamer, and I struck a nerve? No offense, but the latter makes more sense because you derailed this thread to call me TFG because I don't agree with your playstyle.
TFG is honestly more about sportsmanship than anything else. Communicate with your opponent before a game on how munchkiny you're planning on being, be polite and courteous during the game, give the other guy the benefit of the doubt when a dispute/ambiguity comes up, and don't be a sore winner, and it honestly doesn't matter if you built a cheesy list. A guy who kicks my ass with a Jetseers list using the Riptide/Broadsides formation as allies and looks me in the eye, shakes my hand, and treats the game with dignity isn't TFG, someone who does the same and then gloats about how it makes him a better player is.
BaalSNAFU wrote: So I'm TFG because I'm not fond of Tau and I don't try to curb stomp my opponent by turn two in casual games? That seems bizarre. Ones an opinion, the other is actually a COURTESY toward other players. Could it be that you're a thin skinned powergamer, and I struck a nerve? No offense, but the latter makes more sense because you derailed this thread to call me TFG because I don't agree with your playstyle.
That's not what he said, though.
Playing hardcore lists against other hardcore lists is fun for some people. Just as playing casual lists against other casual lists is fun for others. And just as bringing a crap list against a hardcore list can be fun for someone (just to see how long you can survive).
There is an unfortunate sentiment often being thrown around about how playing to win in a game with set parameters for winning is a bad thing. It becomes even worse when it's coupled with the sense of entitlement that a lot of players seem to have. They want to bring crap lists (for whatever reason), they don't want to practice their tactics, and they still want to have a close game. And the responsibility to change is always on the guy with the good list that he knows how to play.
They key to enjoying 40k is not a mystery. Play against like-minded people if you don't want to change anything. Communicate with the guys you're playing with. Give what you expect to get.
I'm in a 40k club with guys of varying skill levels and with varying power levels in their armies. Now, I've been playing 40k for about 15 years, so I have no problem with bringing a silly army to even the odds, but the implicit demand that some people put forward that I should go out and buy a new army just because they insist on using Pyrovores and suck at tactics is just dumb. Of course, on the flipside, insisting that people should just shut up and take the beating from your hobby-killer list is just as dumb.
And @OP: When you push dodgy rules interpretations that just happen to heavily favour you, aren't played like that by anyone else, and require a hefty dose of creative reading, then you're the dick. Then again, when you play Tau with multiple Riptides and get creamed by Necrons you're a dick if you start whining about Necrons being OP. But then again, again, tailoring your list to crush one guy when you know what he's bringing but he does not know what you're bringing is generally seen as behaviour on a spectrum ranging from 'dick move' to 'downright cheating.'
Just grow some social skills. Talk to the guys you play with. How are rules disputes generally solved? Is list tailoring accepted? Is it a casual or competitive environment?
AnomanderRake wrote: TFG is honestly more about sportsmanship than anything else. Communicate with your opponent before a game on how munchkiny you're planning on being, be polite and courteous during the game, give the other guy the benefit of the doubt when a dispute/ambiguity comes up, and don't be a sore winner, and it honestly doesn't matter if you built a cheesy list. A guy who kicks my ass with a Jetseers list using the Riptide/Broadsides formation as allies and looks me in the eye, shakes my hand, and treats the game with dignity isn't TFG, someone who does the same and then gloats about how it makes him a better player is.
Fair enough. Makes sense. I suppose my idea of TFG is a bit cloudy/biased because I've never played a game against an opponent running a netlist who wasn't the type to talk gak turns 1-6 and thumb the nose afterwards. The list/cheating is probably more indicative of WAAC. Sportsmanship and the civility by which a game is played is indeed what defines TFG(if neither trait is possesed). However it could be argued that the Eldar player who takes 6 serpents and 3 WK specifically for the purpose of crushing the new ork player falls under this category.
BaalSNAFU wrote: So I'm TFG because I'm not fond of Tau and I don't try to curb stomp my opponent by turn two in casual games? That seems bizarre. Ones an opinion, the other is actually a COURTESY toward other players. Could it be that you're a thin skinned powergamer, and I struck a nerve? No offense, but the latter makes more sense because you derailed this thread to call me TFG because I don't agree with your playstyle.
That's not what he said, though.
Playing hardcore lists against other hardcore lists is fun for some people. Just as playing casual lists against other casual lists is fun for others. And just as bringing a crap list against a hardcore list can be fun for someone (just to see how long you can survive).
There is an unfortunate sentiment often being thrown around about how playing to win in a game with set parameters for winning is a bad thing. It becomes even worse when it's coupled with the sense of entitlement that a lot of players seem to have. They want to bring crap lists (for whatever reason), they don't want to practice their tactics, and they still want to have a close game. And the responsibility to change is always on the guy with the good list that he knows how to play.
They key to enjoying 40k is not a mystery. Play against like-minded people if you don't want to change anything. Communicate with the guys you're playing with. Give what you expect to get.
I'm in a 40k club with guys of varying skill levels and with varying power levels in their armies. Now, I've been playing 40k for about 15 years, so I have no problem with bringing a silly army to even the odds, but the implicit demand that some people put forward that I should go out and buy a new army just because they insist on using Pyrovores and suck at tactics is just dumb. Of course, on the flipside, insisting that people should just shut up and take the beating from your hobby-killer list is just as dumb.
Just grow some social skills. Talk to the guys you play with. How are rules disputes generally solved? Is list tailoring accepted? Is it a casual or competitive environment?
Exactly. I didn't agree with his competitive play style, he got booty hurt by my interpretation of TFG (remember people, we are arguing internet.semantics here) called me TFG etc..
I wholeheartedly agree that communication is essential. Find people who.enjoy the same kind.of game as you. I never said implied that there is anything wrong with competitive play. I think that is where some of the misinterpretations are coming from. Personally, I'd imagine that 8 or 9 times out of 10, if two people are at a LGS looking for 40k games and one of them whips out screemerstar or Quintuple-tide, the other guy isn't exactly going to be thrilled.
AegisGrimm wrote: I tend to see Tournament and Normal games as two different kinds of animal, where I do NOT expect to see tournament style cut-throat builds in Normal games.
This. If you're bringing aforementioned cut-throat tourney lists to a Saturday afternoon pick-up game, or are running triptide/6 serpents at the local club against a bunch of laid back fluff enthusiasts, you are probably tfg. Sorry, but its true. Especially if people have spoken to you about it before.
SRSFACE, bravo on that Tau assessment. My experiences have mirrored your own.
More likely you're TFG in this case. In my area MEQ armies have always been really rare, and during most part of fifth, all those necron, tau, eldar and daemon armies were evenly matched. The one eldar player has always fielded an armies full of serpents, night spinners, falcons and fire prisms, because that's what his craftworld's tactics is. No eldar of his gets to go on the battlefield without a transport. A new codex dropped and his default list came totally overpowered.
Another guy has been playing tau for ever, and we got him two riptides for his birthday. Totally must be TFG for fielding them.
Yet another player had build a tzeench list way before it was useful at all. He even had a pair of heralds leading screamers, just because both are jetbikes. New codex, and - boom - screamer star.
TFG is a person who is making your unfun to play, because of unnecessary rules arguing, being a sore loser and/or winner, bad sportsmanship, or whatever negative traits you're opponent could have.
If you're whining because your opponent brought a better list than you, while you consciously made the decision of bring a less than optimal list (i.e. "fluffy" list), then you're TFG.
Tell the person you don't want to play against competitive lists and don't play the game. If he doesn't have a less competitive list as well, you are not the right opponents for each other, and neither of you would gain anything for the game.
I do bring "cut-throat" lists to pick-up games, because I am looking for opponents who do the same.
He's just the opposite; a reasonable player. And a reasonable player shouldn't expect to face tourney, FOTM lists in friendly games no matter the circumstances. If you're squaring off against other, similar deathunit lists them sure you're fine. But if you go after the kid with foot slogging conscript-heavy IG, then you're the definition of TFG. It would be worse if you berating such players for not playing you, further solidifying your TFG status, but let's hope you're not that kind of person. One can only be so much TFG.
There is an unfortunate sentiment often being thrown around about how playing to win in a game with set parameters for winning is a bad thing. It becomes even worse when it's coupled with the sense of entitlement that a lot of players seem to have. They want to bring crap lists (for whatever reason), they don't want to practice their tactics, and they still want to have a close game. And the responsibility to change is always on the guy with the good list that he knows how to play.
It happens on both sides. People bring "Poor" lists and complain. People bring competitive lists and look for people they can smash. The responsibility is on both sides to be honest and chose appropriate opponents. There is also a responsibility on experienced players to not abuse less experienced players, because this isn't just about fluffy lists, but also about people bringing power lists to play against players who are not very experienced or don't have a large collection of minis to keep up with the latest meta. It's no fun feeling like you made your best list and played your best only to feel like you never had a chance.
BaalSNAFU wrote: So I'm TFG because I'm not fond of Tau and I don't try to curb stomp my opponent by turn two in casual games? That seems bizarre. Ones an opinion, the other is actually a COURTESY toward other players. Could it be that you're a thin skinned powergamer, and I struck a nerve? No offense, but the latter makes more sense because you derailed this thread to call me TFG because I don't agree with your playstyle.
That's not what he said, though.
Playing hardcore lists against other hardcore lists is fun for some people. Just as playing casual lists against other casual lists is fun for others. And just as bringing a crap list against a hardcore list can be fun for someone (just to see how long you can survive).
There is an unfortunate sentiment often being thrown around about how playing to win in a game with set parameters for winning is a bad thing. It becomes even worse when it's coupled with the sense of entitlement that a lot of players seem to have. They want to bring crap lists (for whatever reason), they don't want to practice their tactics, and they still want to have a close game. And the responsibility to change is always on the guy with the good list that he knows how to play.
They key to enjoying 40k is not a mystery. Play against like-minded people if you don't want to change anything. Communicate with the guys you're playing with. Give what you expect to get.
I'm in a 40k club with guys of varying skill levels and with varying power levels in their armies. Now, I've been playing 40k for about 15 years, so I have no problem with bringing a silly army to even the odds, but the implicit demand that some people put forward that I should go out and buy a new army just because they insist on using Pyrovores and suck at tactics is just dumb. Of course, on the flipside, insisting that people should just shut up and take the beating from your hobby-killer list is just as dumb.
And @OP: When you push dodgy rules interpretations that just happen to heavily favour you, aren't played like that by anyone else, and require a hefty dose of creative reading, then you're the dick. Then again, when you play Tau with multiple Riptides and get creamed by Necrons you're a dick if you start whining about Necrons being OP. But then again, again, tailoring your list to crush one guy when you know what he's bringing but he does not know what you're bringing is generally seen as behaviour on a spectrum ranging from 'dick move' to 'downright cheating.'
Just grow some social skills. Talk to the guys you play with. How are rules disputes generally solved? Is list tailoring accepted? Is it a casual or competitive environment?
Depends what you class as list tailoring. I doubt anyone can fault me for trying to come up with a list that kills riptides when you're going against a player who fields 4 or 5 at least.
As for dodgy rule interpretation, I believe it goes both ways. I've encountered players who have said "That's an interesting list/move" and shook hands after the game, but there are others who stop the game for 20 minutes while they run to the computer to try find an FAQ or a staff member to try and get him to rule against me.
That happened 2 days ago when I death rayed my own lychguard. It allows you to get more hits against a single target because they can reflect hits to an enemy 6" away on a 4+. I asked about its legality on this forum and the concensus was that it was legal, but more often than not I've had someone say "let's throw a dice and see who's right" when I'm showing him the rules from the codex and BRB which don't rule against it. This is not a "for fun" game although we are having fun, but a game where both players are running competitive lists.
Overall, I've made some mistakes since I started the hobby and regularly admit when I've been wrong, but I've also had some cheating done to me before.
The last time I played the tau player, before I came up with the anti-riptide list, I was like 2 months into the hobby whereas he had been playing for years. But he'd fire all his ion accelerators overcharged in one go during interceptor and then fire again in the shooting phase but I didn't have the knowledge to call him out on it back then.
By "one go" I mean, he fired an ion accelerator, saw if it scattered, then fired the next one before rolling for any results.
This means that if say half the squad died after the first one you're getting double the hits on the second, 4 times the hits on the third, 8 times the hits on the fourth, ect...
He made the same mistake again during our last battle, to which I said that if he fires the second accelerator before rolling for the result he'll lose the chance to roll for his SMS and lose the shot from the first one. He naturally disagreed, but eventually conceded that I was correct after calling a staff member over after I read him the rules on interceptor and the shooting sequence.
This was a rant thread because I like to play the game for fun and competitively, but more and more I've been growing tired of having to have a rule debate every time I have a session with someone I haven't played before. The staff are getting tired of it and asked me to start printing out the FAQs and keeping a note of the rules which I was doing as a courtesy to my opponent anyway. And, in a way, I've became TFG in the shop when I know that I probably understand the tau codex more than the two competitive tau players who now refuse to play me.
Playing hardcore lists against other hardcore lists is fun for some people. Just as playing casual lists against other casual lists is fun for others. And just as bringing a crap list against a hardcore list can be fun for someone (just to see how long you can survive).
Quoted for truth.
Like I said in our local game store we've got a number of really competitive guys with super nasty lists who'll take a fun/fluffy list if you ask, but additionally I think it's important to not abuse the good nature of guys like that and engage them on the level they want to play at occasionally, too. Being friends is all about a give and take, you know? The guy who's won our two last 1850 tournaments has a really nasty Chaos Space Marines army that I really can't handle all that well, but I told him one day to "bring a list I couldn't beat." I actually did surprisingly well because he wasn't able to table me even if he did win like 5-2. We had a lot of fun.
In a weird way it felt very 40k. Facing unwinnable odds and doing your best in the face of certain doom? Check.
Anyway, I also wanted to say that I think we've all been TFG. I admit I've got a bit of a temper and have a bad habit of calling people out and not backing down which ends up being a really dumb thing to do most the time. I kind of got into it with a guy back in December I think it was, and when the 40k group met the week after I pulled him aside and apologized for my own boorishness. We're actually a lot better friends for it, go figure. I haven't actually played a game of 40k in 2014 yet because instead of bringing my armies on our weekly game night, I bring my paint table instead and just work on stuff and chat with people. Sometimes taking a step back, even if it's a really long extended step back, goes a long way toward curbing your own TFG behavior and sometimes it helps curb the TFG-ishness of other people down at the shop.
If your having to have a debate on rules in every game, to the point where staff are getting involved, you might want to question where the problem is... If allot of people are questioning something then, even if legal, it is probably not appropriate for pick up games.
Also, on a side note, you shouldn't be printing out rules and FAQs as a courtesy to your opponent, but as a matter of course. Every player should always have all the rules they need, including up to date FAQs, especially when playing pick up games.
I'm generally of the opinion that if EVERY game your in you have to bring out the rulebooks and FAQ repeatedly to justify your tactics you might be doing it wrong. (or your entire group COULD be clueless I suppose it's possiable)
Steve steveson wrote: If your having to have a debate on rules in every game, to the point where staff are getting involved, you might want to question where the problem is... If allot of people are questioning something then, even if legal, it is probably not appropriate for pick up games.
Also, on a side note, you shouldn't be printing out rules and FAQs as a courtesy to your opponent, but as a matter of course. Every player should always have all the rules they need, including up to date FAQs, especially when playing pick up games.
The problem is probably in the necron codex. You can just field an army that will travel from one side to the other, shooting and assaulting. Or you can try and use the more speciailised combinations and tactics to maximise the effectiveness of the army.
So, generally when you inform a guy that your deathmarks now have Hit&Run, on top of relentless with their rapid fire sniper rifles, 4+ resurrection, re-roll of 2 d6, their reaction is "What? That can't be right". Cue pouring over the codex to try and find an entry that says it can't be done.
How about when I give stealth to my nightscythe from zhadrekh, move it flat out and therefore has a 2+ cover safe with a TD that gets triple hits on 6s so snap fire barely affects its effectiveness?
With the regulars, they expect me to pull things like this out of the codex. But with players I haven't played before, they'll generally want to debate every turn especially given how rare necrons are in this store.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm generally of the opinion that if EVERY game your in you have to bring out the rulebooks and FAQ repeatedly to justify your tactics you might be doing it wrong. (or your entire group COULD be clueless I suppose it's possiable)
No one likes a rules lawyer.
Well I disagree, like the OP said a lot of the time it's just people thinking things shouldn't be true, just because they managed to kill off their favorite squad or rendered a weapon ineffective they'll demand to see every single rule that went into the equation. Why should somebody give up a perfectly legitimate tactic that they enjoy just because their opponent gets a bit funny about it
sonicaucie wrote: As for dodgy rule interpretation, I believe it goes both ways. I've encountered players who have said "That's an interesting list/move" and shook hands after the game, but there are others who stop the game for 20 minutes while they run to the computer to try find an FAQ or a staff member to try and get him to rule against me.
That happened 2 days ago when I death rayed my own lychguard. It allows you to get more hits against a single target because they can reflect hits to an enemy 6" away on a 4+. I asked about its legality on this forum and the concensus was that it was legal, but more often than not I've had someone say "let's throw a dice and see who's right" when I'm showing him the rules from the codex and BRB which don't rule against it. This is not a "for fun" game although we are having fun, but a game where both players are running competitive lists.
Playing by the rules is part of a game, that has rules.
That 40k has SO MANY rules is the main problem.
We find rules that need checking every other week, and we get along fine. As I ready your Lychguard 'trick', it just feels off.
If you're playing against tourney gamers, go for it, but have it all printed out if you need to explain it that often.
Against 'normal' gamers, who may play in tournaments at times but aren't 'pro', it might be worth avoiding going in that hard.
If you prefer to play against pro-gamers, good luck finding that many. Most people are unlikely to appreciate a tactic like shooting yourself to get kills.
BaalSNAFU wrote:Exactly. I didn't agree with his competitive play style, he got booty hurt by my interpretation of TFG (remember people, we are arguing internet.semantics here) called me TFG etc..
Actually, you littery blanked-called a bunch of random people TFG, including me. Some one running into a store pointing at everyone who has a riptide on the table and yelling you're that fething guy is being exactly that. Now you continue calling names, which just reinforces that image of you, instead of taking a step back and admit that you were over-exaggerating.
I wholeheartedly agree that communication is essential. Find people who.enjoy the same kind.of game as you. I never said implied that there is anything wrong with competitive play. I think that is where some of the misinterpretations are coming from. Personally, I'd imagine that 8 or 9 times out of 10, if two people are at a LGS looking for 40k games and one of them whips out screemerstar or Quintuple-tide, the other guy isn't exactly going to be thrilled.
So, what makes him TFG? Bringing the army or slamming it on the table against someone who doesn't want to play that kind of game? Form your first post, simply bringing the army suffices. I disagree.
The Airman wrote:He's just the opposite; a reasonable player. And a reasonable player shouldn't expect to face tourney, FOTM lists in friendly games no matter the circumstances.
Why not? What makes that reasonable? This is just an imaginary honor-codex thing that some 40k players have made up and try to shove down everybody's throat. In every other game out there, there is no reason to expect people to play anything less than the best they can, neither in friendly nor in tournament games. In friendly games, poker players aren't ditching their pair of aces, check players don't stop using their queen and in monopoly no one is giving up the rent of a person which just hit their Boardwalk hotel. People do that sometimes, but literally no one expects them to.
Unless we're talking about role-play gaming, off course. But 40k is not an RPG, no matter how much GW claims it to be. For an RPG your would have to have stories available to play - 95% of all games you don't have that, no matter how friendly.
If you're squaring off against other, similar deathunit lists them sure you're fine. But if you go after the kid with foot slogging conscript-heavy IG, then you're the definition of TFG.
Most likely I'd tell him that he is not the kind of opponent I'm looking for. Even if I go play that kid to kill time (replace it with and army of footslogging BA terminators, and you've got a real kid from one of my stores), and for some reason am unable to change my list, I still wouldn't aim to table him turn two.
Just bringing and army or looking for a certain type of game, does not make you TFG. Crying out in pain at the very sight of a perceived overpowered list does.
It would be worse if you berating such players for not playing you, further solidifying your TFG status, but let's hope you're not that kind of person. One can only be so much TFG.
So, just to make sure, if you come up to me and ask me to play against your fluffy gretchin army, and I'm telling you "Sorry, I'm not looking for that kind of game.", I'm TFG?
And if I come up to you and ask for you to play against my wave serpent list, and you're telling me the same, you're not?
Dude, you're comparing 40k to Monopoly and poker and I'm the one over exaggerating? I really don't know how to argue this kind of logic (if you can call it that).
For the record, there is a huge difference between 1 riptide and 4+ riptides . Apparently Jidmah doesn't understand this, but if someone shows up to 40k night at the LGS with 4 tides and a seer council on bikes, there's a pretty decent chance he's not looking for a sporting game. In my experience many guys like that (assuming they aren't there for a pre-arranged highly competitive game) are there to stroke their 40k ego, or to crush some poor sap who doesnt know better.
BaalSNAFU wrote: Dude, you're comparing 40k to Monopoly and poker and I'm the one over exaggerating? I really don't know how to argue this kind of logic (if you can call it that).
For the record, there is a huge difference between 1 riptide and 4+ riptides . Apparently Jidmah doesn't understand this, but if someone shows up to 40k night at the LGS with 4 tides and a seer council on bikes, there's a pretty decent chance he's not looking for a sporting game. My in my experience many guys like that (assuming they aren't there for a pre-arranged highly competitive game) are there to stroke their 40k ego, or to crush some poor sap who doesnt know better.
I.E me when I was learning the game and went up against his 4 riptide list.
That's why I got into reading the rules and special abilities of all my characters and units to see all the possible combinations and bought IA12 for the Dark Harvest codex.
I wanted to come up with an anti-riptide list which someone in this thread said I was TFG for doing so. In the process of doing so, I now pretty much know the necron and tau codex off by heart and thus I don't play against tau unless my opponent is a highly competitive tau player or is okay with the fact that I may just squash him.
In which case I don't think that makes you TFG at all. Lets face it, riptides are good, really good. If you design a list to stomp a riptide centric list, chances are you can handle most other tau lists with little problem. Just because you know both codices and apply strategy accordingly doesn't mean you're TFG, it just means you know the game.
As for the rules conflicts; personally if it were me, in a friendly game, if it couldn't be solved by looking at the BRB or a codex entry for a minute or two, I'd use a different tactic, even uf it is actually legal. If only to keep it fun and minimize the complexity and time spent eyeballing the rules (Cthulu knows there's enough of that in 40k as is). That's what I would do.
I think everyone will state that they are not TFG after reading my example of playing our TFG.
We are currently playing a casual Bloodbowl league and on one of our meets our commissioner added a few extra rewards to make the game more fun. The two in question that made this player TFG were "most casualties caused" and "most TDs scored". You got a "reward" for being the player to do this.
In his game against me, the TFG was causing casualties galore (5 in total). That's not too bad, it's a game & it happens. However, he would literally celebrate everytime he caused a casualty by standing up and cheering. (We've all been there. I cheered when my waveserpent survived a game with only one HP lost thanks to ridiculous cover saves. Love you OP waveserpent!!). After two though, it grew a little tiresome. Problem was he was so busy trying to cause casualties (& throwing in a little bit of cheating here and there to achieve it) that we drew the game 1-1. I really should have lost.
Then comes his second game. Luckily I'm playing another member & having a good time whilst doing it. The TFG was playing another player and having terrible luck which meant that he had taken three casualties. Before his opponent could score a TD, the TFG "rage-quitted". He claimed "there was no way he could finish the game with so little players" even though in the prior game I finished with only 5 players on the pitch and he had eight. He quit before his opponent (who was going for most TDs) could score. Afterwards he took his award for most casualties and joked about how well he played in the first game and left while all other players in the league complained about him.
I think you become TFG when people flat out say "I'm not playing that guy" and you ruin whatever campaign/league you have asked to be a part of. If you can't find a game but a person you think is TFG can, you are more than likely TFG.
So, generally when you inform a guy that your deathmarks now have Hit&Run, on top of relentless with their rapid fire sniper rifles, 4+ resurrection, re-roll of 2 d6, their reaction is "What? That can't be right". Cue pouring over the codex to try and find an entry that says it can't be done.
Can you just run by me exactly what you're combining to get this combo?
From what I can figure out, it's Deathmarks + attached Phaeron Overlord (for Relentless) + 2x Eternity Crypteks for the Chronometron re-roll + Nemesor Zhandrekh somewhere on the table. But that combination can't deepstrike, which limits the utility of the Deathmarks somewhat. Unless Obyron is also attached to the unit, which is starting to get pretty pricy.
I play at a FLGS. There's about 30 regulars who show up there, most of whom are in their 30s - 40s. Most of us have jobs and wives. There's also a larger group of people who show up occasionally for casual games. Most of them are younger and still learning the game.
We get our share of TFGs, some of whom are more challenging than others. This thread - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/571387.page - details one recent experience. We have all felt frustrated at the experience of playing against people like him.
For me, it gets into a question of why play 40k. Everyone has their own perspective on the game, what's fun about it, and someone's reasons for wanting to play can cover a lot of areas. For me, it's more important to respect the other player and understand where they are coming from than condemn them for being a jerk. As some other posters have stated, we have all been too rules conscious at one point or another. I realize that, if I come down too hard on anyone, it's going to shrink the potential pool of opponents and leave me with less variety in a hobby I enjoy. I may even be thought of as TFG, for other reasons.
The way I look at it, TFGs are useful to the point where they are contributing to a community I find satisfying. When I look at it that way, they cease to be annoyances and start to be useful participants. it's really a matter of understanding them and controlling when and where I deal with them. If I let myself get frustrated with their antics, it really means they are in control of a situation, not me, and that's something I need to do something about.
Looking back, I can remember some of the more extreme personalities I have met over the years. They are not around anymore. One thing I have learned is that TFGs never stay around very long, the reason they are arguing so much is that they don't really enjoy the game, this just fills some other role in their life.
Anyways, don't let TFGs get to you. They are there, they only matter to the point they make something you care about less enjoyable. Don't give them that power.
BaalSNAFU wrote: Dude, you're comparing 40k to Monopoly and poker and I'm the one over exaggerating? I really don't know how to argue this kind of logic (if you can call it that).
What's the difference between Monopoly and 40k? Both are board games.
For the record, there is a huge difference between 1 riptide and 4+ riptides .
No there isn't. The guy with the one riptide can be a total donkey cave and unfun to play with. The guy who brought five riptides could realize that he vastly outmatches you try to test his tau close combat skills against your Blood Angel DoA army while neglecting shooting, so you can both have a laugh.
Apparently Jidmah doesn't understand this, but if someone shows up to 40k night at the LGS with 4 tides and a seer council on bikes, there's a pretty decent chance he's not looking for a sporting game.
Why not? Maybe he is looking for a guy who brought a screamer star or a necron crossaint of doom list to prepare for his next tournament.
In my experience many guys like that (assuming they aren't there for a pre-arranged highly competitive game) are there to stroke their 40k ego, or to crush some poor sap who doesnt know better.
Ah, there we go. That's a definition of TFG I can get behind. Someone who seeks to utterly crush his opponents or take advantage of inexperienced players. I can bring an ork army which can totally crush a "my first ultramarines" list, the ridicule the player and tell everyone how bad a player he is. Not riptides, serpents, seer councils or screamers involved.
So, generally when you inform a guy that your deathmarks now have Hit&Run, on top of relentless with their rapid fire sniper rifles, 4+ resurrection, re-roll of 2 d6, their reaction is "What? That can't be right". Cue pouring over the codex to try and find an entry that says it can't be done.
Can you just run by me exactly what you're combining to get this combo?
From what I can figure out, it's Deathmarks + attached Phaeron Overlord (for Relentless) + 2x Eternity Crypteks for the Chronometron re-roll + Nemesor Zhandrekh somewhere on the table. But that combination can't deepstrike, which limits the utility of the Deathmarks somewhat. Unless Obyron is also attached to the unit, which is starting to get pretty pricy.
It's very pricy. I stick them in a night scythe, but it can be a very effective unit so long as you're not alphaing squads that you'll be using as bulletshields.
I'm a little baffled. I mean, I don't see the point of giving them Relentless because it's not going to do anything unless you plan to charge with them. And you wouldn't be able to do that the turn you deploy them anyway. Likewise investing in at least one Eternity Cryptek to be able to Hit and Run semi-reliably due to their Initiative 2 seems like a big investment with minimal payoff.
I can certainly see that if the stars align and the dice all fall the right way it could be pretty nasty, but it looks to me like the odds aren't in it's favour enough to warrant the outlay of points.
Chrysis wrote: I'm a little baffled. I mean, I don't see the point of giving them Relentless because it's not going to do anything unless you plan to charge with them. And you wouldn't be able to do that the turn you deploy them anyway. Likewise investing in at least one Eternity Cryptek to be able to Hit and Run semi-reliably due to their Initiative 2 seems like a big investment with minimal payoff.
I can certainly see that if the stars align and the dice all fall the right way it could be pretty nasty, but it looks to me like the odds aren't in it's favour enough to warrant the outlay of points.
We should probably take this to tactics post I made when I was first fielding this unit. Generally the unit does quite well. There's 18 wounds protected by 2+ and 3++ saves with two rerolls and reanimation. Once you've survived the initial deployment your unit is almost guranteed safety in combat with opportunity to charge another unit 6+5d6 inches away while firing your sniper rifles. It's a very tough unit to kill if you let it get into combat.
As for dodgy rule interpretation, I believe it goes both ways. I've encountered players who have said "That's an interesting list/move" and shook hands after the game, but there are others who stop the game for 20 minutes while they run to the computer to try find an FAQ or a staff member to try and get him to rule against me.
That happened 2 days ago when I death rayed my own lychguard. It allows you to get more hits against a single target because they can reflect hits to an enemy 6" away on a 4+. I asked about its legality on this forum and the concensus was that it was legal, but more often than not I've had someone say "let's throw a dice and see who's right" when I'm showing him the rules from the codex and BRB which don't rule against it. This is not a "for fun" game although we are having fun, but a game where both players are running competitive lists.
Overall, I've made some mistakes since I started the hobby and regularly admit when I've been wrong, but I've also had some cheating done to me before.
The last time I played the tau player, before I came up with the anti-riptide list, I was like 2 months into the hobby whereas he had been playing for years. But he'd fire all his ion accelerators overcharged in one go during interceptor and then fire again in the shooting phase but I didn't have the knowledge to call him out on it back then.
By "one go" I mean, he fired an ion accelerator, saw if it scattered, then fired the next one before rolling for any results.
This means that if say half the squad died after the first one you're getting double the hits on the second, 4 times the hits on the third, 8 times the hits on the fourth, ect...
He made the same mistake again during our last battle, to which I said that if he fires the second accelerator before rolling for the result he'll lose the chance to roll for his SMS and lose the shot from the first one. He naturally disagreed, but eventually conceded that I was correct after calling a staff member over after I read him the rules on interceptor and the shooting sequence.
This was a rant thread because I like to play the game for fun and competitively, but more and more I've been growing tired of having to have a rule debate every time I have a session with someone I haven't played before. The staff are getting tired of it and asked me to start printing out the FAQs and keeping a note of the rules which I was doing as a courtesy to my opponent anyway. And, in a way, I've became TFG in the shop when I know that I probably understand the tau codex more than the two competitive tau players who now refuse to play me.
Yep, it sounds like you started a victim, then became part of the problem. TFG disease, if untreated, can be contagious.
Here's some tips to deal with the symptoms:
-Have fun discussions about hilarious rules loopholes, such as shooting your own lychguard, but DON'T ACTUALLY USE THEM. If you had to start a thread on YMDC to figure out if you could do it in a game, the answer is "you probably just shouldn't."
-Metaphorically, bring your power axe to the ap2 fight, and your chainsword to the others. Play the fluffy guys with varied lists trying out units in the usual friendly manner. Keep spamming low or non-existent, don't rely on strange rulings or anything you have to hand them more than an army list or VERY SIMPLE FAQ for. When one of the other "infected" TFG players targets you as a potential easy curb stomp for his ego boost and asks for a game, ask him if he's bringing casual or competitive to the table. Mention in addition, that you consider say...multiple riptides, re-rollable saves on deathstar units and other such malarky as competitive tier, and if you see any of it during deployment, you're going out to your car to grab your own competitive "WAAC" list.
-When playing the fluffy players, and I know this may be hard, but...LOSE. No one is keeping a record of your win/loss at your little store, nor would the world at large care. Try going for the "cool play" instead of the "slow and steady wins the race" play. When other TFG's see you and your opponent having fun week after week, and start wondering if they're doing something wrong, maybe, just maybe, they'll start looking inwards. Odds are low with that type, but anyone can roll a 6+ invulnerable personality save! Maybe at the least, they'll come here and start a thread to get advice.
For me, it gets into a question of why play 40k. Everyone has their own perspective on the game, what's fun about it, and someone's reasons for wanting to play can cover a lot of areas. For me, it's more important to respect the other player and understand where they are coming from than condemn them for being a jerk. As some other posters have stated, we have all been too rules conscious at one point or another. I realize that, if I come down too hard on anyone, it's going to shrink the potential pool of opponents and leave me with less variety in a hobby I enjoy. I may even be thought of as TFG, for other reasons.
I'm having an issue along these lines. I started with 40k and will probably end my days with some of it around me, but currently its beginning to suck due to the rules being blown out of the water by warmahordes (note this is my opinion), the last 40k game descended into the good old 'you know where this is going' mode and I conceded in the end as it was boring as hell.
This is relevant as 40k can be abused legally by TFGs whenever they appear, yet there has never been a code of conduct unlike the current version of warmahordes and its famous page 5. That is what makes the game very good, you can bring the cheese but your enemy probably has a combo or 2 of their own to play as well.
BaalSNAFU wrote: Dude, you're comparing 40k to Monopoly and poker and I'm the one over exaggerating? I really don't know how to argue this kind of logic (if you can call it that).
What's the difference between Monopoly and 40k? Both are board games.
Really, dude? Really?
...Really?
What's the difference between the Holy Bible and Harry Potter? They are both just books.
What's the difference between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton? They were both just presidents.
What's the difference between the Earth and Mars? They are both just planets.
What's the difference between The Beatles and Miley Cyrus? They are both just musical acts.
Martel732 wrote: This discussion brought to you by GW's horrible codex balancing. And the letters "T", "F", and "G".
At the end of the day, that's the problem. If the rules weren't so damned convoluted and the codices so damned unbalanced, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This kid's ability to have fun is entirely based on making others feel inferior. Competition is not a question. He must win, and he doesn't like to try or gamble. Lose to him and hear about it forever. Beat him and watch him flip back and forth through every rulebook his parents bought him until he finds something proving him right. Every game is a tournament game, unless he doesn't advance to the next round, in which case your stuff is broken OP trollcheese.
I think this is a matter of personality types really. When someone points out rules to me, I'm usually really happy to learn and it's sometimes fun to discuss the murkier ones and come to a consensus rather than flipping a coin or flipping off each other. Someone playing a Riptide isn't "that guy" either. Someone playing 5 is also not. That guy plays 5 Riptides SOLELY because the internet (or a palantir, what-have-you) told him it would work and he doesn't mind having his opinions formed for him so long as he can feel he has accomplished something by tabling you turn two.
Jeez, the regular Dakka TFG discussion-fest where everyone gets heated about what their opinion of TFG is or isn't.
Ultimately, everyone's behaviour changes from opponent to opponent. Some people have personality clashes. Some people disagree. Others get along.
OP, your problem sounds like you're playing in a GW store. Try to find an independent gaming club with like-minded players; If you like exploring the boundaries of the ruleset and playing competitively, go to tournaments. I guarantee you'll find a lot of like-minded, competitive players who don't whine about the ruleset. Cultivate these friendships. Play with people who enjoy playing competitively.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: At the end of the day, that's the problem. If the rules weren't so damned convoluted and the codices so damned unbalanced, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I really don't think that'd fix the issue. Even in games with balance, TFG always finds a way to ruin things.
An unbalanced ruleset just masks the issue. In an RPG you can easily spot TFG because of the tell tale signs. In 40K it's difficult because someone using a "competitive" list doesn't just make them a TFG. It's the experience of being around them. TFG will jump armies and use the quad-Riptide list to abuse the system and get cheap wins. They'll do it with every new army, which is why people generally complain about the latest, greatest meta destroying release. I've seen our local TFG jump from vendetta spam, then to Tervigon spam after he couldn't outflank them anymore, then to Screamerstar, then to IG armored companies because Riptides do fairly bad against BeastHunter shells. It's not the army he's using, it's because TFG will always be TFG.
For example, I was in a simple 1850 point tournament in my FLGS. I had two Riptides and a buffcommander, with one riptide taking the HBC. Before I even unpack my things, this Nid player is talking about how bad Tau is and how much they are broken. Made me feel like crap right when I unpack my Riptides. He even points at me and says "Oh, there's one now." It didn't help when he went on to complain about Eldar allies right when I'm unpacking my freshly painted Wriathguard that I'm finally getting to field. He of course makes a comment to his friend under his breath.
Facing off against a Nid player in Vanguard and some objective mission. Victory points count towards 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place tie breaking.
During deployment I ask about his units just cause I'd never seen them before, I rarely saw nids and this is before the codex drop. He did nothing but complain about my army before the rounds started, so I thought he was familiar it and just named off the units I had. I seize the initiative and gun down a swarmlord turn one with a lucky HBC salvo of rending shots. Guy immediately starts asking what I just did, and I had to start showing him every bit of wargear in my codex to explain what just happened. Guy drops out of the tournament right then and there, saying about how broken Tau is and how he won't support a game with that kind of brokeness.
See, in that situation I don't think I'm being TFG. I don't try to make someone feel like crud for bringing a competitive list to a competitive game. I didn't blame a person for the game being unbalanced, or at least make them feel that way. I also never judge a person based on their army, but on how they play it and treat the opponent.
BaalSNAFU wrote: Dude, you're comparing 40k to Monopoly and poker and I'm the one over exaggerating? I really don't know how to argue this kind of logic (if you can call it that).
What's the difference between Monopoly and 40k? Both are board games.
Really, dude? Really?
...Really?
What's the difference between the Holy Bible and Harry Potter? They are both just books.
What's the difference between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton? They were both just presidents.
What's the difference between the Earth and Mars? They are both just planets.
What's the difference between The Beatles and Miley Cyrus? They are both just musical acts.
Yes, both the Holy Bible and Harry Potter are just books. Unless you dedicate yourself to one or the other, none have any impact on your life other than taking up a couple of days to read.
Yes, if you aren't following politics or just don't care about another nation's commander in chief, Gorge W. Bush and Bill Clinton are just politicians who represented the United States of America. Heck, I doubt the majority of Germans even know that there was more than one George W. Bush in office.
Yes, Earth and Mars are both just planets. We have humans on one and some funky little toy cars on the other. Both still orbit the sun, both have at least one huge chunk of rock orbiting them at more or less the same distance and both would probably be a mess if they are hit by an astroid roughly one thenth their size.
Yes, both have recorded music and I listen to neither. We don't know if Miley Cyrus has an impact music history yet. Also, both are largely irrelevant to deaf people.
Hey, you know what? You are TFG. This is exactly what makes one up. Insulting people, dodging arguments, acting up when called out on it, and refusing to admit that you were wrong.
I didn't realize you were setting an example for the op. Well done, you're a genius.
-When playing the fluffy players, and I know this may be hard, but...LOSE. No one is keeping a record of your win/loss at your little store, nor would the world at large care. Try going for the "cool play" instead of the "slow and steady wins the race" play.
If someone lost to me on purpose, I'd be rather annoyed with them. I don't play to win, I play to compete. Fun, fluffy list or not. If we're playing a fluffy game I'm still going to squeeze as much tactical advantage as possible out of sub-par units, throwing the game isn't satisfying for anyone, and would be insulting to me.
I think this is a matter of personality types really. When someone points out rules to me, I'm usually really happy to learn and it's sometimes fun to discuss the murkier ones and come to a consensus rather than flipping a coin or flipping off each other. Someone playing a Riptide isn't "that guy" either. Someone playing 5 is also not. That guy plays 5 Riptides SOLELY because the internet (or a palantir, what-have-you) told him it would work and he doesn't mind having his opinions formed for him so long as he can feel he has accomplished something by tabling you turn two.
I don't think because someone wants to field 5 riptides that they're "that guy". A bit boring, maybe. But I only find people guilty of being that guy when you do stuff like regularly challenge new players and table them in 3 turns.
But rather than whine about it, I decided I'd build myself an army that could table him with ease by exploiting the weaknesses in his list and with Dark Harvest in IA12, I found a method of reliably doing that. In the end I've merely exposed that his army is flawed now and I'll probably expect to see him next week fielding taudar or something. So, you can probably guess what I'm doing now. But I enjoy this level of meta play in a way.
Wait. So did you build a list for the sole purpose of beating his list or did you build a TAC list that is capable of dealing with a lot of high T and 2+ saves?
Savageconvoy wrote: Wait. So did you build a list for the sole purpose of beating his list or did you build a TAC list that is capable of dealing with a lot of high T and 2+ saves?
2 months into the hobby I was aware of wave serpent and riptide lists and how OP they were.
When I got beat by one, I used them as the benchmark to measure my army's performance. Eventually I came up with multiple lists which I repeatedly play tested and improved. Eventually I created a list separate from the other lists which I aptly named "riptide killer".
Eventually he challenged me again and I tabled him in turn 5. He wasn't expecting this list because I hadn't fielded it before.
But your question is probably "did you list tailor?". Yes, it was tailored specifically to exploit riptides but still very capable of killing other armies.
I have multiple lists that I can field, not one single one.
Martel732 wrote: I think Riptides are actually easier to deal with than Wave Serpents, but they kill you more quickly if you are unprepared.
Maybe it's because I'm necrons, but I find vehicles easier to kill than MCs. Unless you're using a dark harvest list; in which case the crons are going to chew through MCs once they've particle whipped your troops to death because you were oh-so-kind to place them in the corner next to each other.
Most vehicles are easy to kill. But Wave Serpents are DTs, which makes them numberous. And have 60" alpha strike capability. AV 12 with cover bonus is extremely good against most opposing lists.
Not that Riptides aren't very tough, because they are. But they can be IDed, hit by poison rounds, etc. The danger with Riptides, particularly for meqs, is that after 3 turns you have no marines left.
Ok for another thread - here seems to be a good description of some terrible behaviour:
"we have a board that is covered in trenches, 4 by 8 feet board, 6-8 pieces of los blocking terrain including a forest right in the middle (can't shoot through it). Then they bring an ageis that goes between 2 building 24"away from my back field blocking/giving 2+ cover (thanks to zoanthropes that are hidden behind the forest/in it).
Only one board and my opponents get to set it up before i arrive, we roll randomly for deployment type, and game type but purge and relic the opponents say they don't play those games, the person builds his list right their and then after knowing the objective type and zones.... "
Do not see a problem at all with list tailoring or running cheesey lists, and I only play casual games with friends. If it's legal, then we play it, and try to outdo each other by finding cheesey builds. We make lists in complete secret, and never tell each other when we buy a new model, because we know that the other player will then try to find a counter. This makes the buildup to games a lot of fun [at times more fun than the game itself!]
OT - for me, TFG is someone who is prepared to get into arguments with you every turn about every little thing to the point where you can't be bothered to argue and just let them do what they want. Ultimately in this environment someone has to back down and I just don't care enough about a game of toy soldiers. Case in point, I used to play against a Tyranids player who every turn would move his models 10 inches. I would have to call him on it every time, which led to an argument, until I just let him move them as far as he wanted. That'sTFG, and that's why I would never play at a GW and would be reluctant to play PUGs at clubs.
Jidmah wrote: Hey, you know what? You are TFG. This is exactly what makes one up. Insulting people, dodging arguments, acting up when called out on it, and refusing to admit that you were wrong.
I didn't realize you were setting an example for the op. Well done, you're a genius.
Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking about you, sir. Making ridiculous arguments and then when people point out you being ridiculous, you buckle down and turn into a jerk. Well done, friend.
Maybe I should have made an argument within the confines of the game. "After all, what's the difference between a drop pod and a Rhino? Both are just dedicated transports."
To me, TFG is simply someone totally clueless as to their own ridiculousness, that refuse to accept societal standards and norms. It extends beyond gaming. If you think that I'm the one exhibiting that behavior, please place me on ignore and I'll do the same for you.
Mr Morden wrote: Only one board and my opponents get to set it up before i arrive, we roll randomly for deployment type, and game type but purge and relic the opponents say they don't play those games, the person builds his list right their and then after knowing the objective type and zones.... "
Can you believe that they are playing like this?
The thing is though you're not supposed to roll for board deployment and mission type until AFTER the list is created. That is actually the rules. Writing a new list to tailor it to the mission/deployment being played defeats the purpose of random mission types in the first place. :\ I mean I get it if you're playing with friends and you guys agree on it? Last time I played the best player in our FLGS, we rolled the scouring and decided to just reroll til it wasn't that because we played that mission literally the last 3 times we'd gone against each other, but that's still not literally changing your army just to tailor it to the mission type.
Ugh. Man that kind of stuff grinds my gears. I hate to the the rules lawyer, but that fundamentally changes the purpose of the game. Stories like that just make my skin crawl.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's not the army he's using, it's because TFG will always be TFG.
I think everyone agrees that playing a game, by the rules and trying to win is acceptable behavior.
I petitioned a group of my friends a couple years ago to reappropriate the word "newbie" to mean "someone who is constantly chasing the novel". I see this a lot with video gamers mostly. I am always hearing about THE BEST GAME coming out, and it's usually a let down. Sometimes it's a fun game, but in 2 weeks, all the "newbs" are off buying a new game.
Martel732 wrote: Rules lawyering is actually important to preserve what little order there is in this game.
Perhaps but it can also lead to the opposite - with some seeking to exploite every loophole and minor grammatical advantage to the detriment of the game
after reading the thread I think people are confused on what competitive is and the difference between competitive and WAAC:
Competitive and WAAC are both attitudes. Fact.
A trait of WAAC players is that they use the most competitive lists just to win and then bark about it like it was winning a golden daemon, and this is where I think people get confused.
Not all people who play competitive are WAAC, WAAC players will be the one who take the most competitive list and use the philosophy "One size fits all" whilst competitive players will usually take on any challenge even "handicap" (I hate that word in terms of 40k) themselves for other players and refresh themselves with tactics and new ways to play the game.
Similarly if a competitive player likes to play competitive and has an healthy attitude towards his/her games then they are not WAAC, if they don't have a healthy attitude then they are WAAC.
As a casual but also semi-competitive player I will take stuff that I only like, I will always adapt to new situation as I enjoy the tactical challenge, as my lists are never the same (that would be far too boring for me haha )
tyrannosaurus wrote: Do not see a problem at all with list tailoring or running cheesey lists, and I only play casual games with friends. If it's legal, then we play it, and try to outdo each other by finding cheesey builds. We make lists in complete secret, and never tell each other when we buy a new model, because we know that the other player will then try to find a counter. This makes the buildup to games a lot of fun [at times more fun than the game itself!]
OT - for me, TFG is someone who is prepared to get into arguments with you every turn about every little thing to the point where you can't be bothered to argue and just let them do what they want. Ultimately in this environment someone has to back down and I just don't care enough about a game of toy soldiers. Case in point, I used to play against a Tyranids player who every turn would move his models 10 inches. I would have to call him on it every time, which led to an argument, until I just let him move them as far as he wanted. That'sTFG, and that's why I would never play at a GW and would be reluctant to play PUGs at clubs.
The few extra inches here and there that some people try to sneak onto the table don't really bother me.
The only thing that I can't stand really is when someone rolls dice and doesn't call out what it's for. Imagine if I rolled my reanimation protocols and then called out who died.
But I think the only thing that bothered me recently was that I recently went against a daemon army who was constantly hiding in cover and then assaulting me through it. My intuition told me that this couldn't be right as he informed me that I couldn't overwatch him. Not to mention he was striking at full initiative.
I brushed it off as a daemon thing, but no. Turns out that it's not allowed. Still won though.
The few extra inches here and there that some people try to sneak onto the table don't really bother me.
.
Makes a big difference when, if the 'Nids get into CC, it's game over. He would also buff his run move by a couple of inches, and when added together that's a pretty significant boost.
My point is, I hate playing games where every turn brings a rules argument because the other player clearly wants to win so much. Feels like whoever is prepared to argue more is the winner, which isn't in any way enjoyable to me. Some people seem to really enjoy getting involved in rules arguments, and to me they are TFG. My few experiences of this have kept me away from any competitive environments and I can't see that ever changing.
happygolucky wrote: after reading the thread I think people are confused on what competitive is and the difference between competitive and WAAC:
Competitive and WAAC are both attitudes. Fact.
A trait of WAAC players is that they use the most competitive lists just to win and then bark about it like it was winning a golden daemon, and this is where I think people get confused.
Not all people who play competitive are WAAC, WAAC players will be the one who take the most competitive list and use the philosophy "One size fits all" whilst competitive players will usually take on any challenge even "handicap" (I hate that word in terms of 40k) themselves for other players and refresh themselves with tactics and new ways to play the game.
Similarly if a competitive player likes to play competitive and has an healthy attitude towards his/her games then they are not WAAC, if they don't have a healthy attitude then they are WAAC.
As a casual but also semi-competitive player I will take stuff that I only like, I will always adapt to new situation as I enjoy the tactical challenge, as my lists are never the same (that would be far too boring for me haha )
Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?
They're just nebulous terms we use to "other" people we don't like.
Like I said, I think THAT GUY is a d-bag all the time, with any game he plays. My friend Sarah is a WAAC player, though she's super sweet UNTIL something gets competitive, then she must stomp everyone.
So there was a TFG at my local shop who was also super WAAC. The shop highly encourages fun and friendly lists in its leagues. The league is "to test out unique new builds" while the end of league tournament is where you bust out your A game. They encourage this by making winning and losing not worth many points, where playing someone for the first time, or just playing a game is worth more.
Any who, this dude brings the standard Taudar list at ever point level between 750 and 1500, just adding more as he goes. Then brings the 1500 variant of the list to the tournament. He was so.... terrible of an opponent, no small talk, no laughing at jokes, no smiling that a few people just up and left after playing him.
After the tournament, he got out of there like he was late for a doctors appointment. So a lot of the other people just chatted, he came up as a topic and people just agreed to not play him. It was unanimous that it was not fun in any way. So the upcoming few weeks, people just said, "No thanks, I am waiting for a friend for a game" when he asked if they would play him.
Now, in this league, there is no more TFG. We still have some WAAC players, but they are nice people.
happygolucky wrote: after reading the thread I think people are confused on what competitive is and the difference between competitive and WAAC:
Competitive and WAAC are both attitudes. Fact.
A trait of WAAC players is that they use the most competitive lists just to win and then bark about it like it was winning a golden daemon, and this is where I think people get confused.
Not all people who play competitive are WAAC, WAAC players will be the one who take the most competitive list and use the philosophy "One size fits all" whilst competitive players will usually take on any challenge even "handicap" (I hate that word in terms of 40k) themselves for other players and refresh themselves with tactics and new ways to play the game.
Similarly if a competitive player likes to play competitive and has an healthy attitude towards his/her games then they are not WAAC, if they don't have a healthy attitude then they are WAAC.
As a casual but also semi-competitive player I will take stuff that I only like, I will always adapt to new situation as I enjoy the tactical challenge, as my lists are never the same (that would be far too boring for me haha )
Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?
I had to think about this, and from what I gather, I had to look at past experience's to differentiate the line.
The main difference between a WAAC and a TFG is that a WAAC will heat up, but calm down and be less of a dick, a TFG will not.
A good example is that my first 40k opponent was a WAAC player, and he would do a lot of things wrong to win, one of these things is that he would usually be 100pts over the limit however he would point out that both of us would be able to be 100pts over (which confused me as instead of playing 1500pt games we played 1600pt game ), also if you did call him out on it, he would go off in a huff about it, however if you gave him a bit of time and gave him a small reminder that its just a game then he would calm down and apologise for his behaviour.
A TFG would not do that, a TFG would continue to act like an utter man/woman-child, believing that they started and remain in the right.
I think you become TFG when you tailor your list to an opponent and then cheat to win when things aren't going your way.
Happened to me once (he actually waited to see what I put on the table before claiming that he hadn't had time to make his list). I nearly stopped playing 40k afterwards because that guy was the only person in my group playing 40k. Luckily, I've found a group of guys who play and I'm back to having fun again.
My list of what makes a TFG:
- List tailoring
- Cheating
- Complaining (I've messed up my 2+ on three D6. Instead of laughing about it, I'll complain bitterly for an hour or so)
I always felt that a WAAC player would use cheesy exploitation of rules and so on, without moving over into actual cheating, simply taking every possible advantage they could find within the game system.
Whereas a TFG would actually be cheating - fudging dice rolls, moving a few extra inches, pretending they had special rules they don't.
Martel732 wrote: Rules lawyering is actually important to preserve what little order there is in this game.
I don't think I'd go that far. We have a guy in our group who does this and I generally avoid him where possible. It just makes for unfun games. I doesn't help him much that he also has a short fuse when people don't go along with what he wants.
Have a 5 minute conversation with your opponents before playing - ideally before meeting at the local game store - to determine what type of game you guys are interested in playing.
Based on the description that was given by the OP early in the thread it sounds like there are a lot of immature people involved in the problems going on here.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: I still think someone should professionally edit the BRB so it makes sense and isn't so ambiguous. I bet you could cut out 150 pages easily.
I agree. Most gaming systems have professionally edited their rules at some point, and if done right, it went well for every single one. GW is just stubbornly stomping their foot on the ground about being a model company, forging narratives and beer and pretzel games while failing to see that good rules make a more enjoyable game for everyone.
Before anyone winds up in the common "common sense" and "make your own rules" arguments: Think about it, all the dreaded rules-lawyers and people pulling "some really wacky crap in games", as wowsmash fittingly described, would simply cease to exist. Is there really any reason not to do it?
It is really frustrating that GW doesn't want to seem to get with the times. It's like they literally do the minimum amount possible so they seem like they aren't ancient, like all the digital downloads. I actually think it's a cool idea in concept and having used the digital codexes my lone friend with an iPad has, they are neat. It's just when they seem to think every last one of us gamers is rocking another $300+ dollar electronic device to aid in our dice rolling is kind of silly.
Embracing the digital age is not simply releasing a digital product. It's going to social networking. It's talking to the fans. It's being responsive in some way to the actual needs and desires of your clientel. Without the fans of Warhammer, there is no Games Workshop. Ignoring directly speaking to fans for as long as they have is why so many people are fed up and angry with the company, creating more and more unpleasant folks that no one wants to deal with.
That's the thing about good customer service. You have to wade through situations where you don't want to be. You have to cut through the chaff of unpleasant people. Thing is, once you prove you're willing to do that, folks calm down.
Imagine if GW released a MONTHLY errata/FAQ article. Hell, put it in the White Dwarves. They changed the format because they weren't making money on the publication anymore, for God's sake. If they addressed rules concerns and questions in a monthly article, would you buy it? I'd buy it just for that! Everyone gets frustrated with the guy who doesn't remotely enjoy the modeling/painting aspect of the hobby and fields grey plastic marines for four years; why does GW insist on ignoring one of the biggest aspects to the hobby themselves?
BaalSNAFU wrote: Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?
There isn't one, because one is a subset of the other. All WAAC players are TFG, but not all TFGs are WAAC players. WAAC behavior is just one way among many of earning the title "TFG", alongside things like not bathing properly, throwing your models across the room in frustration when you roll badly, etc. In fact, there are plenty of TFGs who will loudly brag about how much they don't care about winning and tell you all about how much you suck because you played a list with more than one Riptide in it.
cvtuttle wrote: Have a 5 minute conversation with your opponents before playing - ideally before meeting at the local game store - to determine what type of game you guys are interested in playing.
Based on the description that was given by the OP early in the thread it sounds like there are a lot of immature people involved in the problems going on here.
Careful with that. There are many people on this forum that argue against communicating with your opponent before the game even if if makes the game more enjoyable.
cvtuttle wrote: Have a 5 minute conversation with your opponents before playing - ideally before meeting at the local game store - to determine what type of game you guys are interested in playing.
Based on the description that was given by the OP early in the thread it sounds like there are a lot of immature people involved in the problems going on here.
Careful with that. There are many people on this forum that argue against communicating with your opponent before the game even if if makes the game more enjoyable.
You just have to go through the usual suspects and clear up grey areas. You'd be surprised the number of people don't understand some of the base mechanics like stunned and shaken on passengers.
As for topic here is the difference. Lets say you can only see the tiniest sliver of a tank, most people don't bother, a WAAC player will try and shoot it, because its the rules and fully allows it. TFGs would demand they get to shoot it and then refuse to let you do the same to them, then raise their voice, accuse you of cheating, and call over a judge. That's the difference.
BaalSNAFU wrote: Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?
There isn't one, because one is a subset of the other. All WAAC players are TFG, but not all TFGs are WAAC players. WAAC behavior is just one way among many of earning the title "TFG", alongside things like not bathing properly, throwing your models across the room in frustration when you roll badly, etc. In fact, there are plenty of TFGs who will loudly brag about how much they don't care about winning and tell you all about how much you suck because you played a list with more than one Riptide in it.
Oh believe me, there is way more TFGs in the FAACer side of this hobby then the WAAC side. You don't mess with peoples special snowflake ideals.
Oh believe me, there is way more TFGs in the FAACer side of this hobby then the WAAC side. You don't mess with peoples special snowflake ideals.
I find this an unfair statement.
The fact is that there is the same amount of TFG's on both sides of the game, both competitive and casual.
Its all about personal experience, but don't think your personal experience's is fact (as your comment heavily implies).
Its all about the area, some may have more WAAC/TFG's/whatever you call them in casual play style's, some have more WAAC/TFG's/whatever you call them in competitive environment's, but fact is that both sides have the same amount and are as bad as each other.
Imagine if GW released a MONTHLY errata/FAQ article. Hell, put it in the White Dwarves. They changed the format because they weren't making money on the publication anymore, for God's sake. If they addressed rules concerns and questions in a monthly article, would you buy it? I'd buy it just for that! Everyone gets frustrated with the guy who doesn't remotely enjoy the modeling/painting aspect of the hobby and fields grey plastic marines for four years; why does GW insist on ignoring one of the biggest aspects to the hobby themselves?
I asked GW about why they were not usingwhite dwarf for FAqs as I thought a) the game needed it and b) it might make the more sales..........
Had a polite reply that amongst other things said:
The issue with printing FAQs in White Dwarf is that, as a weekly magazine, it would quickly become unavailable, meaning we'd either have to constantly reprint FAQs (taking up an increasingly large chunk of the magazine with questions that are unlikely to interest most people), or would just compound the frustration by having answers go out of print almost as soon as they appeared. A weekly magazine just isn't really the forum for that kind of thing. More to the point, there's always a perfectly good way of resolving any question: discussing it with your fellow players and coming up with a reasonable solution. Do feel free to send us any questions you like, and where possible we'll do our best to answer them, though it's more likely to be by email than in the magazine. You'd be surprised how often we get asked questions and the answer is already to be found somewhere in the rulebook.
Yeah, because just moving those FAQs to the homepage after the next WD is released and sorting them by army would totally take four hours of work each month. Totally unacceptable.
Oh, and .pdf is not the file format of choice when adding dynamic content to a webpage.
*
), also if you did call him out on it, he would go off in a huff about it, however if you gave him a bit of time and gave him a small reminder that its just a game then he would calm down and apologise for his behaviour.
