By "criteria", I mean "What makes 'That Guy'". I know that it can also be "TFG", and I also know that he doesn't stay under the points limit, but that's about it.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/That_guy


This is that guy

Well:
-Whining about other players armies whilst bringing power play lists
-bending the rules to suit ones self
-using Eldar
-Breaking the rules, doubly so against beginners
-cheating in any way, including bringing more points than agreed
-Bringing a Primarch to a none 30K game
-Bringing a LoW to a sub 2K game (Guilty)
-Imperial Knights
-Purposely minmaxing your army solely to beat your opponents list. Doubly so if you are bringing Eldar, Tau, SM or Necrons against one of the weaker armies
-Bringning a 30K list to a 40K game
-Wrath of the Ancients lists
-Using bad language and/or being argumentative
-Bad hygiene
-Trying to impose restrictions on others (Had one opponent try to stop me from bringing tanks)
-Bringing any power unit or Primarch to a fun and fluffy game

There's nothing hard and fast, and often what makes someone "that guy" for one person is different from what makes someone "that guy" for another person.

To me, "that guy" is someone who says that they're playing casual lists, when they know they're tourney lists. It's someone that's trying to get a "gotcha!" on an opponent, as if they've tricked them. No one likes to be tricked, and in a game that takes as long to play and to even collect as 40k, this is a hugely jerkish thing to do. There's nothing wrong with playing Eldar or Tau or other "broken" stuff, so long as you know and are honest about your army's strengths. Some people want to play tournament-style, and tournament lists need to be very strong. Nothing wrong with playing that way. What's wrong is bringing your tourney-beating list against someone just picking up the hobby and humiliating them for "playing the game wrong".

Someone can also "that guy" if they're extremely abrasive. This is a different kind of "that guy". This guy seems to just hate seeing other people play the game. They mock other people's choices, they put players down for playing, they only ever talk about what a bad game it is, they throw models, they throw OTHER PEOPLE'S models. Chances are this guy has other problems in his or her life, and at the moment just wants to watch the world burn.

TFG is all about an attitude for me. Its got less to do with army builds, cheese, competitiveness or suchlike and more to do with are you actually fun/friendly and have a decent attitude towards your opponents - win, lose or draw.
If no to the above, then you likely are TFG.

 Ratius wrote:
TFG is all about an attitude for me. Its got less to do with army builds, cheese, competitiveness or suchlike and more to do with are you actually fun/friendly and have a decent attitude towards your opponents - win, lose or draw.
If no to the above, then you likely are TFG.

For me, I don't really care if it's a win, lose, or draw. If I win, that's great, if I lose, then maybe next time, if it's a draw, it's OK.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/That_guy


This is that guy

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well:

Spoiler:

-Whining about other players armies whilst bringing power play lists
-bending the rules to suit ones self

-Breaking the rules, doubly so against beginners
-cheating in any way, including bringing more points than agreed
-Bringing a Primarch to a none 30K game
-Bringing a LoW to a sub 2K game (Guilty)

-Purposely minmaxing your army solely to beat your opponents list. Doubly so if you are bringing Eldar, Tau, SM or Necrons against one of the weaker armies


-Using bad language and/or being argumentative
-Bad hygiene
-Trying to impose restrictions on others (Had one opponent try to stop me from bringing tanks)
-Bringing any power unit or Primarch to a fun and fluffy game

These are excellent lists of things to avoid. As players, we can all use some personal introspection from time to time.

As an avid Eldar player for some time now, I'm always saddened to see real prejudice against my toy soldiers. Being judged a TFG before I've said or done anything is disappointing to say the least.

Look at the accompanying pic for this guy

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/This_Guy

 Cieged wrote:
As an avid Eldar player for some time now, I'm always saddened to see real prejudice against my toy soldiers. Being judged a TFG before I've said or done anything is disappointing to say the least.

Agreed. I take major exception to some of the above lists and "criteria" for this reason. Being TFG has nothing to do with what army you play and everything to do with...

 Ratius wrote:
TFG is all about an attitude for me. Its got less to do with army builds, cheese, competitiveness or suchlike and more to do with are you actually fun/friendly and have a decent attitude towards your opponents - win, lose or draw.
If no to the above, then you likely are TFG.

Attitude.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Cieged wrote:
As an avid Eldar player for some time now, I'm always saddened to see real prejudice against my toy soldiers. Being judged a TFG before I've said or done anything is disappointing to say the least.

Agreed. I take major exception to some of the above lists and "criteria" for this reason. Being TFG has nothing to do with what army you play and everything to do with...

 Ratius wrote:
TFG is all about an attitude for me. Its got less to do with army builds, cheese, competitiveness or suchlike and more to do with are you actually fun/friendly and have a decent attitude towards your opponents - win, lose or draw.
If no to the above, then you likely are TFG.

Attitude.

I have to agree with all of the above statements here as well. I've felt the struggle to a lesser extent with my Dark Angels now within my current club. I've played Dark Angels for a very long time and, with their current strength through Ravenwing, it's actually somewhat saddening. There are people that will abuse certain aspects of an army, that doesn't mean anyone playing that army is TFG.

Attitude is key. You can have a TFG that plays one of the lesser competitive armies. I agree with some of the listed items in the previous list, but I do disagree with many others.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well:
-Whining about other players armies whilst bringing power play lists
-bending the rules to suit ones self
-using Eldar
-Breaking the rules, doubly so against beginners
-cheating in any way, including bringing more points than agreed
-Bringing a Primarch to a none 30K game
-Bringing a LoW to a sub 2K game (Guilty)
-Imperial Knights
-Purposely minmaxing your army solely to beat your opponents list. Doubly so if you are bringing Eldar, Tau, SM or Necrons against one of the weaker armies
-Bringning a 30K list to a 40K game
-Wrath of the Ancients lists
-Using bad language and/or being argumentative
-Bad hygiene
-Trying to impose restrictions on others (Had one opponent try to stop me from bringing tanks)
-Bringing any power unit or Primarch to a fun and fluffy game

Half the things you said are not 'that guy' behaviour lol.

I saw an adult playing Eldar absolutely crushing a kid who was playing CSM. Wraiths, bikes, etc vs what was clearly multiple starter sets added together. Clearly Eldar was crushing through the game, and the guy leaned down to the table while the kid was rolling dice and whispering "Miss. Miss. Miss".

THAT is TFG. He offered me a game after. I told him no.

-Bringing a LoW to a sub 2K game (Guilty)

I disagree with this. Not all LoWs are made equal. I don't think that anything's wrong with bringing an Avatar of Khaine or Marneus Calgar to an 1850 points game.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I saw an adult playing Eldar absolutely crushing a kid who was playing CSM. Wraiths, bikes, etc vs what was clearly multiple starter sets added together. Clearly Eldar was crushing through the game, and the guy leaned down to the table while the kid was rolling dice and whispering "Miss. Miss. Miss".

THAT is TFG. He offered me a game after. I told him no.

Again, nothing to do with him playing Eldar, everything to do with his attitude towards the game and his opponent.

If you bring 2 wraithknights to a casual game against an orks player, and you can't bring yourself to nerf your army simply because it doesn't make optimal strategic sense...

...you might be TFG.

It very much is attitude, not being able to play a fluff game is a symptom of that.

I have some very competitive friends and sometimes we need to call each other on shenanigans, but the general rule of thumb is can my opponent deal with this threat within reason? If it's a no we won't use it. Sometimes we like to pull out all restrictions, but for the most part we play as a drinking game.

Secondly chirping your friend for a bad roll is one thing, chirping a random in a lick up game is a TFG move.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I saw an adult playing Eldar absolutely crushing a kid who was playing CSM. Wraiths, bikes, etc vs what was clearly multiple starter sets added together. Clearly Eldar was crushing through the game, and the guy leaned down to the table while the kid was rolling dice and whispering "Miss. Miss. Miss".

THAT is TFG. He offered me a game after. I told him no.

Again, nothing to do with him playing Eldar, everything to do with his attitude towards the game and his opponent.

Oh no; he was talking about how bad it was that he had to take jetbikes as core to get his formation bonuses. Yeah...

 master of ordinance wrote:

-Trying to impose restrictions on others (Had one opponent try to stop me from bringing tanks)
-Bringing any power unit or Primarch to a fun and fluffy game

This seems a little contradictory.


TFG is all about attitude nothing about builds

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well:

-using Eldar
-Bringing a Primarch to a non 30K game
-Bringing a LoW to a sub 2K game (Guilty)
-Imperial Knights
-Bringning a 30K list to a 40K game
-Using bad language and/or being argumentative
-Bringing any power unit or Primarch to a fun and fluffy game

I wouldn't call any of those TFG moves unless there is specific circumstances.:
1) Eldar hate is still strong. "Oh, you like space elves? feth YOU, YOU CHEESE MONGER, TFG!"
2) Iffy at best, it can be requested of you, pre-approved, you could be playing a "return of the primarchs" fluff game
3) Depends on the LoW, but generally true. A Malcador in Sub 2,000 games is basically just bringing a slightly larger leman russ that will eventually kill it's own engine, it even has less front armor than a Russ!
4) Again, they are iffy at best as a solo unit, and they drop pretty easily if you can focus fire. Same point as the eldar above
5) so long as it is talked about, there is no issue. Even IF you do it without asking, 40k is generally at an advantage against 30k, DOUBLY so if you play at a 40k standard point level. idk if it's just FW fear, or something else, but doing this is NOT a TFG move.
6) I wouldn't say this is TFG in and of itself. 'Bad language' isn't a TFG thing, however if you're shouting at the top of your lungs, or at least louder than the rest of the store, or talking like that near kids, you're being a bit of a ponce. As for argumentative, that is NOT being TFG unless you argue over everything, even clearly understood rules and the like. Arguing/discussing how stacked rad grenades work is one thing, arguing that your infantry can totally move 7" is another.
7) No, just.... no. Primarchs are strong, and their rules fit fluffy games well. " I wanna play phall!" or "I wanna play the scouring of Istvaan" typically means at least 1 side has a primarch. JUST because you seem to fear them, doesn't make someone using them a TFG. "I'm playing as Mortarion's honor guard, so I'm only bringing terminators on foot, but I can't bring mortarion becuase then I would be cheesing the game." is just stupid.

BTNeophyte wrote:This seems a little contradictory.

It's completely contradictory (it's TFG to impose restrictions...btw, I'm imposing these restrictions). It doesn't make you TFG if you try to "impose" restrictions on your opponents for the purposes of a casual game.

Saying "Wraithknights and scatter bikes are OP; would you mind leaving them at home" is perfectly acceptable, in my view.

If I'm spamming razorbacks and 5 man tac squads for a gladius, that's a different story. If I'm not? Perfectly reasonable for me to ask my opponent to nerf his eldar list.

The player who makes your game experience gakky and doesn't really care about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sadly you don't even have to be a horrible person or have some mental disorder to achieve this in a game of 40k.
The game is so badly balanced that there are lots of possible builds that can really take the fun out of most games.

Completely about attitude. My first time going to a gaming club in my area, one of the regular guys let me play his opponent instead of him so that I could get a game. I had brought a pretty "nice" list, not knowing what kind of play the club did, and he had brought a tournament list, as he wanted to get some practice in. I got completely and utterly demolished, but the guy was a complete gentleman the entire game. He told me all about his rules, he made some recommendations on what I should try getting next, and was just all around a nice guy.

To me, TFG would:
- Throw all his toys out of the pram if the game isn't going his way.
- Cheat
- Lie about what kind of game he wants to play if there's pre-game discussion
- Cheat
- Obfuscate army special rules and equipment for personal benefit
- Cheat some more

Yeah, I was kind of reaching for criteria. Just don't be a dick really.

jup also don't be a rule lawyer during the game and pls never build your army around a really dubious and highly contested interpretation of the rules.

I Always get called 'Beardy' (basically That Guy) when i play at my local GW
what i do and dont do...

DO
-Field 1-2 Powerful units, only on big games
-make a super tough HQ, but nothing akin to Chapter Master Smashfether (this is part of the 'powerful units' mentioned before)
-make sure every rule is correct
-Field a slightly Fluffy list

DO NOT
-Field formations, or detachments (bar alternate FoC detachments
-Bring ALL the powerful units
-Field the best combos
-Field 2 armies that are 'Desperate Allies' or 'Come the Apocalypse'
-only field allies for the best units

Am i That Guy?

 Tarvitz77 wrote:
Completely about attitude. My first time going to a gaming club in my area, one of the regular guys let me play his opponent instead of him so that I could get a game. I had brought a pretty "nice" list, not knowing what kind of play the club did, and he had brought a tournament list, as he wanted to get some practice in. I got completely and utterly demolished, but the guy was a complete gentleman the entire game. He told me all about his rules, he made some recommendations on what I should try getting next, and was just all around a nice guy.

To me, TFG would:
- Throw all his toys out of the pram if the game isn't going his way.
- Cheat
- Lie about what kind of game he wants to play if there's pre-game discussion
- Cheat
- Obfuscate army special rules and equipment for personal benefit
- Cheat some more

Yeah, I was kind of reaching for criteria. Just don't be a dick really.

Same to me. The most fun game I've played so far was a 0-12 asskicking of which I was on the receiving end. The score was horribly lopsided due to a major mistake I made in turn 2 that ended with my 5-strong Wraith unit getting obliterated (fething Tau, man!) and the fact my opponent was drawing tactical objectives like "Secure Objective X" while I was drawing "Defeat an enemy character in a challenge" and "Completely eliminate an enemy unit in the assault phase". I still had a blast because my opponent and I were laughing and joking the whole time about how one-sided the game was and marveling at the unit of Tomb Blades that had been locked in combat with a unit of Mark Drones since turn 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Wanna_Be_the_Guy

commander dante wrote:
I Always get called 'Beardy' (basically That Guy) when i play at my local GW
what i do and dont do...

DO
-Field 1-2 Powerful units, only on big games
-make a super tough HQ, but nothing akin to Chapter Master Smashfether (this is part of the 'powerful units' mentioned before)
-make sure every rule is correct
-Field a slightly Fluffy list

DO NOT
-Field formations, or detachments (bar alternate FoC detachments
-Bring ALL the powerful units
-Field the best combos
-Field 2 armies that are 'Desperate Allies' or 'Come the Apocalypse'
-only field allies for the best units

Am i That Guy?

Quite possible. We can't know if you are an horrible opponent by just some general notes on your army.

Well i always let my opponent reroll a botched up roll, and let them redraw cards if they draw an undesirable one

Like others have said, it's attitude. I've played against guys bringing the hardest, cheesiest lists they can and enjoyed it, because they've been a good sport about it all. I've played against people with un-optimised lists and hated the game, because they've been unbearable.

It's all attitude, just like others have said.

If you don't want to be that guy, just remember the following:

1) If you're conscious you might be that guy, or don't want to be that guy, you're already a good portion of the way there.

2) When you do something, whether in a casual or tourney game, think how your opponent would feel about you doing it. Would you like it if they did it to you? Is it "fair cop" in a tourney?

3) It's a game about plastic (and resin. And metal.) man dollies. It's really not that important.

Kinda want to round off a five point list now.
4) Eat your greens
5) Brush your teeth

There you go. Five points to avoid being TFG. You're welcome Dakka

The last game I played, I got absolutely annihilated. I was playing Thousand Sons with a very light CD allied force, versus the new Ravenwing. But, I had a fun game and me and my opponent had a laugh and a fun game.

At my first game at my club, at 1K pts my pure Thousand Sons list met a Tau list with two Riptides, and I got absolutely destroyed, and I got fed false rules (my opponent claimed one of his relics meant he DtW on a 4+ regardless) so I was even worse off. The guy himself is a nice guy, and I like him outside of battles. but in battles he tends to be kinda WAAC.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that just because someone uses a strong list, doesn't necessarily make them 'that guy', and that people can also be different in and out of games.

I find that I become TFG when playing one. I am all for fun its why I started playing. If however you want to be a rule Nazi I will return in kind. And I have ragequit whilst playing before in a local tourney. Was playing a donkey cave of epic levels. The mod had to pretty much hold his hand as he cried fowl at any movements I made then argued about cover with both myself and the mod. I quit so he would not be able to place with a lack of points for the game. Then waited for the day to finish and had a beer and game at the mod's house with him and was told that, kid/man had been a pain for all other opponents and my buddy the rest of the day.

It's basically just bad conduct in the game. Bad conduct would be general cuntery on a social level and breaking the game on the level of the actual game.

 ThirstySpaceMan wrote:
I am all for fun its why I started playing. If however you want to be a rule Nazi I will return in kind. And I have ragequit whilst playing before in a local tourney.

Guy sounds horrible, but to be fair, its a tourney, and some people are going to take it seriously, being a rule nazi is fine in that setting. The game is made with particular rules, so they should be followed unless house ruled. Also note i'm not saying people should complain about 0.5" extra movement by mistake in a PUG but still, shouldn't label people those guys for just playing the game correctly.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well:
-Whining about other players armies whilst bringing power play lists
-bending the rules to suit ones self
-using Eldar
-Breaking the rules, doubly so against beginners
-cheating in any way, including bringing more points than agreed
-Bringing a Primarch to a none 30K game
-Bringing a LoW to a sub 2K game (Guilty)
-Imperial Knights
-Purposely minmaxing your army solely to beat your opponents list. Doubly so if you are bringing Eldar, Tau, SM or Necrons against one of the weaker armies
-Bringning a 30K list to a 40K game
-Wrath of the Ancients lists
-Using bad language and/or being argumentative
-Bad hygiene
-Trying to impose restrictions on others (Had one opponent try to stop me from bringing tanks)
-Bringing any power unit or Primarch to a fun and fluffy game

The irony is very strong here.

cosmicsoybean wrote:Guy sounds horrible, but to be fair, its a tourney, and some people are going to take it seriously, being a rule nazi is fine in that setting.

No, it isn't. Being a rules nazi almost always makes you a donkey cave. Tournament or not.

The game is made with particular rules

Which are often unclear and should be followed and interpreted according to popular custom and common sense.

There are any number of circumstances in which you can nitpick over rules.

Chances are, the nit-picking rules nazi probably also loaded up his army with cheese and is, furthermore, trying to garner every possible in-game advantage he can independently of in game strategy.

Because he's probably TFG.

Don't be TFG. Don't be a rules nazi.

I have a rules nazi TFG associate. He can be winning by a landslide, and he will insist on an interpretation of the rules or on rules-nitpicking to further his advantage even more, in addition to the cheese that he brought to the table.

"You are about to get tabled, but just so you know, we are going by wounds, not model count. T4, not T3. Roll away!"



Actually, we can add that to the TFG check list:

Are you winning by a lot?

If you are winning by a lot, are you willing to concede an ambiguous rules interpretation to your opponent?

If you are winning by a lot and are unwilling to concede the interpretation, you are probably TFG.

Also note i'm not saying people should complain about 0.5" extra movement by mistake in a PUG but still, shouldn't label people those guys for just playing the game correctly.

Playing the game correctly =/= being a rules nazi.

I saw an adult playing Eldar absolutely crushing a kid who was playing CSM. Wraiths, bikes, etc vs what was clearly multiple starter sets added together. Clearly Eldar was crushing through the game, and the guy leaned down to the table while the kid was rolling dice and whispering "Miss. Miss. Miss".

I find that appaling to be honest. I mean what a fething gakker.

I mean even on the most basic level, that kid might well go away and never play the game again if those are the type of opponents he faces, which means, in the long run the whole hobby suffers, on every level (sales, community, making friends, organising events etc).

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well:
-Whining about other players armies whilst bringing power play lists
-bending the rules to suit ones self
-using Eldar
-Breaking the rules, doubly so against beginners
-cheating in any way, including bringing more points than agreed
-Bringing a Primarch to a none 30K game
-Bringing a LoW to a sub 2K game (Guilty)
-Imperial Knights
-Purposely minmaxing your army solely to beat your opponents list. Doubly so if you are bringing Eldar, Tau, SM or Necrons against one of the weaker armies
-Bringning a 30K list to a 40K game
-Wrath of the Ancients lists
-Using bad language and/or being argumentative
-Bad hygiene
-Trying to impose restrictions on others (Had one opponent try to stop me from bringing tanks)
-Bringing any power unit or Primarch to a fun and fluffy game

-Named chapter masters are all LoW around 250-300pts range.
-30k generally has a harder time against 40k (Unless you're CSM, Orks, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and Guard)
-As someone who knows somebody who started Eldar in 5th (They liked the models) they can no longer get a game with anyone because he plays eldar. Sad really. Not their fault for crap rules.
-Knights, while cool and all, suffer from the CRIPPLING condition that is being a vehicle and then a walker on top, when a Stormsurge with 2 PILOTS is considered a GMC. Melta from Tau/SM/Guard/Eldar keep Knights tame.

Yep, I tried out my Knights in a tournament the other day, my opponents were Eldar with a Fire Dragon Formation, Necrons and a Krieg army.

The Fire Dragons obliterated the Knights, the Necrons got unlucky and didn't focus fire well, and the Krieg army I steam rolled.

I used to frown when I saw Knights, but they really aren't that bad. Three attacks isn't a huge amount, you only have a 1/6 chance of getting a good stomp and an equal chance of nothing.

Obviously don't ambush someone in a pickup game with Knights. Not really fun for anyone, in that case.

I've played against some donkey caves. Had a guy get the Night Fighting rule wrong, call a judge, when the judge told him he was wrong continued to complain, and eventually pulled his models on turn one, all over a single wound on a Venomthrope. Not even one that would ID him, either.

The cherry on top there was the judges decided to not award me a full win, and only gave me the tertiary point for line breaker. Despite me holding the relic, but at that point it was his word vs mine.

More recently, I played my aforementioned Knights vs the Necrons. Guy started complaining turn one, before anything happened. He got first turn, and moved his entire army full speed towards me.

Knights got a turn one charge. After cleaning up what I charged, he unloaded into me, but decided to not focus fire. He would've killed a Knight had he, but...

Anyways, the complaining continued for the entire game, including to anyone nearby. It was an awful, fun sucking experience, that was only made up for by the awesome dude I played afterwards.

I guess people find Centurions more fun to play against, as I've never gotten that from running them.

Anyways, went on a bit of a tangent - I always ask if someone wants to play a tournament list or a casual list, especially if they are new. I generally prefer to play games against harder lists, and with harder lists, but if someone is bringing their fresh from the box Dark Vengeance, bringing Grav Centurions isn't a sporting thing to do.

The biggest thing is being friendly - chat, cheer their successes, groan at either players dice failing them, remind people of things like Coteaz (I will warn people of my Coteaz if they are deep striking, and it's cost me more than a few free kills), let people shoot if they forget, etc. As mentioned before by other people, it's a game about man dollies, and 99% of the time, there isn't really anything on the line.

And, as a side note, if you do run Knights, or Centstars, or Seerstars, or some other hard list, you are not allowed to bitch at whatever your opponent brings or does. I play a Centstar, I don't get to bitch about your Wraith Knight, or his Supremacy Suit, or his Typhon. Maybe one of those WolfScarAngel stars, but that's about it.

.

Being a TFG is just being a jerk to others. I feel like it has nothing to do with how they play and more how they act.

 Jaxler wrote:
Being a TFG is just being a jerk to others. I feel like it has nothing to do with how they play and more how they act.

I agree with this in principle. In fact/in concreto, however, the two are often related.

The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

I think the best way to sum it up is "That Guy" is someone who plays solely to win, without regards for enjoyment of his opponent or to the fluff of the game. So, for example, someone who min-maxes without regard for the "spirit of the game" or the background for their army, and does so *JUST* so they can trounce opponents and as a result feel superior.

However, it's highly subjective. For instance I'd consider someone playing a heavily min-maxed list (all plasma and bikes and the like) to be "That Guy" because they aren't playing in an "appropriate" manner. Someone else might think that if, hypothetically, I play a Decurion I'm "That Guy" even if it's built in a fluffy way and not min/maxing on Tomb Blades or Wraiths or whatnot.

It's 100% subjective, but ultimately it's somebody who doesn't care if they have an enjoyable game experience as long as they WIN; someone who only cares about their own fun, not their opponent's fun too.

 Ratius wrote:

I saw an adult playing Eldar absolutely crushing a kid who was playing CSM. Wraiths, bikes, etc vs what was clearly multiple starter sets added together. Clearly Eldar was crushing through the game, and the guy leaned down to the table while the kid was rolling dice and whispering "Miss. Miss. Miss".

I find that appaling to be honest. I mean what a fething gakker.

I mean even on the most basic level, that kid might well go away and never play the game again if those are the type of opponents he faces, which means, in the long run the whole hobby suffers, on every level (sales, community, making friends, organising events etc).

I spoke with the kid, told him not to be too bothered, as he was facing a really tough challenge (I wanted him to not feel overly upset to the best I could do as an outside person). I then asked what models he liked playing, and when he told me he really likes using cultists, I asked if he ran Typhus to make them zombies. He told me he didn't have a typhus model, but had a spare terminator. I offered to bring in a scythe and some nurgle bitz to convert him one, if he was interested. Hoping he sticks around.

Traditio wrote:
The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

Or... maybe the new person chose Tau or Eldar because those are the models/fluff they liked the most? And whether or not they are TFG is a completely separate issue? No? Just me?

I think we should add "being immediately prejudiced against particular armies and those who choose to play them" to the list of TFG behaviours, personally.

Anfauglir wrote:Or... maybe the new person chose Tau or Eldar because those are the models/fluff they liked the most? And whether or not they are TFG is a completely separate issue? No? Just me?

Sure. That's why he's playing two wraithknights and a ton of scatter bikes.

That's the reason.

I think we should add "being immediately prejudiced against particular armies and those who choose to play them" to the list of TFG behaviours, personally.

If that prejudice is grounded in reality, it's not TFG behavior. It's just being realistic.

Note also my use of the word "probably."

Traditio wrote:
Sure. That's why he's playing two wraithknights and a ton of scatter bikes.

That's the reason.

First thing; that isn't what you said, though, is it? No. There's a world of difference between someone who is truly new to game and the hobby, and picks Tau or Eldar because they want to/like the look/sound of them... and someone who isn't so new to the game/hobby and picks specific builds/units within an army in order to min/max the mathhammer and eek out the highest levels of cheese currently available in the meta. A world of difference that is smashed asunder by your broad strokes of judgement. Second thing; if you really want to start getting pedantic about it, what you're describing is more the WAAC player behaviours, the army-jumpers who don't much care about the models/fluff and are just in it for the mathhammer. I'll clarify now that WAAC and TFG can and often are found within very similar/the same people. But it's not an absolute. Just like being a Tau or Eldar player isn't an absolute.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Sure. That's why he's playing two wraithknights and a ton of scatter bikes.

That's the reason.

First thing; that isn't what you said, though, is it? No. There's a world of difference between someone who is truly new to game and the hobby, and picks Tau or Eldar because they want to/like the look/sound of them... and someone who isn't so new to the game/hobby and picks specific builds/units within an army in order to min/max the mathhammer and eek out the highest levels of cheese currently available in the meta. A world of difference that is smashed asunder by your broad strokes of judgement. Second thing; if you really want to start getting pedantic about it, what you're describing is more the WAAC player behaviours, the army-jumpers who don't much care about the models/fluff and are just in it for the mathhammer. I'll clarify now that WAAC and TFG can and often are found within very similar/the same people. But it's not an absolute. Just like being a Tau or Eldar player isn't an absolute.

I run a foot guardian heavy Eldar army, and pretty much have since I started Eldar.

Anfauglir wrote:First thing; that isn't what you said, though, is it? No. There's a world of difference between someone who is truly new to game and the hobby, and picks Tau or Eldar because they want to/like the look/sound of them... and someone who isn't so new to the game/hobby and picks specific builds/units within an army in order to min/max the mathhammer and eek out the highest levels of cheese currently available in the meta. A world of difference that is smashed asunder by your broad strokes of judgement. Second thing; if you really want to start getting pedantic about it, what you're describing is more the WAAC player behaviours, the army-jumpers who don't much care about the models/fluff and are just in it for the mathhammer. I'll clarify now that WAAC and TFG can and often are found within very similar/the same people. But it's not an absolute. Just like being a Tau or Eldar player isn't an absolute.

Anfauglir, I don't wish to disagree with anything that you've said.

I only wish to note that I used the word "probably." Given the fact that I used the word "probably," your arguments don't really refute anything that I've said.

Back to the OP:

How do you know if you're TFG? I just played against one:

TFG was playing Necrons. He was running 3 night scythes, 3 doomscythes, 4 squads of warriors, a bastion and immotek in an 1850 points list. He characterized his list as "somewhat cheesy" and asserted at the beginning of the game that I was going to "hate him" for how his army works.

On his turn, he fires his S10, AP 1 blast against a tac squad on a wall and hits 2 rhinos. He scores a penetrating hit and explodes result against one of the rhinos. I positioned the rhino to be 50% obscured (roughly) relative to his side of the field. I roll a 4 on a 4+ save. He first insists that I can't get cover because he was using a flying model, and then angrily and vehemently insists that I can only get 5+ cover.

I correctly respond that I had 50% obscurity relative to the firing model, and therefore have a 4+ save, express my unwillingness to debate the matter, and recommend that he move on to the next rhino.

Instead of being a good sport about the issue, he insists on arguing over his (presumably errant) understanding of the rules and...

I decided to say "Feth it. I'm not playing you. Have a nice day."

What's even more amazing about all of this is that, prior to me having any clue what he's playing, list-wise (I only asked him what army he was using in order to determine if I should bring a CAD, and how many free rhinos I should take...I didn't want to have an unfair advantage against anyone), after I set up the table and offer him his pick of sides (as per 4th edition etiquette), he insists that we deploy on long edges and play purge the alien.

Gee. I wonder why, right?

If you find yourself relating more to my opponent than to me, then you ARE TFG.

Edit: I just realized that the death beam is just a regular blast. TFG was using a large blast template, IIRC.

Traditio wrote:
Anfauglir, I don't wish to disagree with anything that you've said.

I only wish to note that I used the word "probably." Given the fact that I used the word "probably," your arguments don't really refute anything that I've said.

You're painting in very broad strokes, though. Like I said in my very first post in this topic; it's this kind of "criteria" that I take major exception to. Because, and it's quite simple, being TFG is about attitude above and beyond all else. That's it. Jumping on newbies to the hobby/game and judging them based purely on their army choice is damaging to the community, plain and simple. It brings us down to TFG's level. Just don't do it. Judge TFG because he's being TFG... NOT because they're playing what happens to currently be a strong army/list. Sometimes those things coincide. Sometimes they don't.

Anfauglir wrote:You're painting in very broad strokes, though.

Yes. That's what the word "probably" means. It means "more likely than not" or "more often than not."

Are you really going to disagree with me that new players who select Eldar more often than not, or more likely than not, are TFG?

If it's even a little bit more than 50% likely, it's "probably" true.

Traditio wrote:
Are you really going to disagree with me that new players who select Eldar more often than not, or more likely than not, are TFG?

Yes. Yes, I am. That's what taking major exception to something means. There are plenty of people who have either A) been playing the current "cheese/overpowered/whatever" armies since RT days and/or since joining the hobby, or B) are completely new to it and choose current "cheese/overpowered/whatever" armies for innocent reasons. Those people don't deserve to be judged or subjected to prejudice because of the TFG minority - yes, I'm stating that the number of decent hearted folks playing wargames with the right attitude outnumber TFG.

TFG is the guy who changes to Eldar because they are the new hotness because before he was playing whatever the hotness was before them. I know a TON of Eldar players who have been playing since last century. It's not their fault that Phil Kelly just can't contain himself.

Anfauglir wrote:Yes. Yes, I am. That's what taking major exception to something means. There are plenty of people who have either A) been playing the current "cheese/overpowered/whatever" armies since RT days and/or since joining the hobby, or B) are completely new to it and choose current "cheese/overpowered/whatever" armies for innocent reasons. Those people don't deserve to be judged or subjected to prejudice because of the TFG minority - yes, I'm stating that the number of decent hearted folks playing wargames with the right attitude outnumber TFG.

Ok. Well, let's just be clear on what you are saying. In order for you to disagree with my claim, you must claim, e.g.,:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Eldar as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

Again:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Tau as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

These propositions may or may not be true. But note that this is what you are committing yourself to claiming.

At the very least, I find them difficult to believe.

Would anyone else reading this like to chime in?

Of the tau and eldar players you know who have started their army NO EARLIER THAN 6TH EDITION, how many of them are TFG?

I know one eldar player offline. When it comes to 40k (or games in general), he has strong TFG/rules-lawyer tendencies.

Don't get me wrong. Generally OK guy that I consider a friend of mine.

I'd still lump him in the TFG category for 40k purposes, though.

By TFG, I mean "Brought 2 wraithknights to play against Orks and non-optimized space marines."

TFG is someone who doesn't understand the difference between min maxing, and optimization. You can take and play fluffy orks, yet optimize your list so that each unit does the most work it can do. The TFG will whine about a list where a unit does what it's suppose to and perpetually earns its points back. Don't be TFG.

Traditio wrote:

Anfauglir wrote:Yes. Yes, I am. That's what taking major exception to something means. There are plenty of people who have either A) been playing the current "cheese/overpowered/whatever" armies since RT days and/or since joining the hobby, or B) are completely new to it and choose current "cheese/overpowered/whatever" armies for innocent reasons. Those people don't deserve to be judged or subjected to prejudice because of the TFG minority - yes, I'm stating that the number of decent hearted folks playing wargames with the right attitude outnumber TFG.

Ok. Well, let's just be clear on what you are saying. In order for you to disagree with my claim, you must claim, e.g.,:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Eldar as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

Again:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Tau as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

These propositions may or may not be true. But note that this is what you are committing yourself to claiming.

At the very least, I find them difficult to believe.

Would anyone else reading this like to chime in?

Of the tau and eldar players you know who have started their army NO EARLIER THAN 6TH EDITION, how many of them are TFG?

I know one eldar player offline. When it comes to 40k (or games in general), he has strong TFG/rules-lawyer tendencies.

Don't get me wrong. Generally OK guy that I consider a friend of mine.

I'd still lump him in the TFG category for 40k purposes, though.

By TFG, I mean "Brought 2 wraithknights to play against Orks and non-optimized space marines."

"OMFG, LOOK AT THAT AWESOME ROBOT, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ONE FROM ALDNOAH ZERO, I WANT TO PLAY IT SO BADLY,"
"Oh, cool, that's a Tau Battlesuit,"
"Tau? That sounds pretty cool, I think that I'll start playing as them, then."
"SCREW YOU, YOU LITTLE WAAC TFG, YOU SUCK!!!"

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:"OMFG, LOOK AT THAT AWESOME ROBOT, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ONE FROM ALDNOAH ZERO, I WANT TO PLAY IT SO BADLY,"
"Oh, cool, that's a Tau Battlesuit,"
"Tau? That sounds pretty cool, I think that I'll start playing as them, then."
"SCREW YOU, YOU LITTLE WAAC TFG, YOU SUCK!!!"

I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

Traditio wrote:

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:"OMFG, LOOK AT THAT AWESOME ROBOT, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ONE FROM ALDNOAH ZERO, I WANT TO PLAY IT SO BADLY,"
"Oh, cool, that's a Tau Battlesuit,"
"Tau? That sounds pretty cool, I think that I'll start playing as them, then."
"SCREW YOU, YOU LITTLE WAAC TFG, YOU SUCK!!!"

I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You are saying that the primary reason that new players play Tau/Eldar is because they are TFG, despite the fact that they are new, and probably have very little idea as to how power levels work in 40k.

 Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:"OMFG, LOOK AT THAT AWESOME ROBOT, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ONE FROM ALDNOAH ZERO, I WANT TO PLAY IT SO BADLY,"
"Oh, cool, that's a Tau Battlesuit,"
"Tau? That sounds pretty cool, I think that I'll start playing as them, then."
"SCREW YOU, YOU LITTLE WAAC TFG, YOU SUCK!!!"

I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You are saying that the primary reason that new players play Tau/Eldar is because they are TFG, despite the fact that they are new, and probably have very little idea as to how power levels work in 40k.

He also doesn't take the fact that some build armies based on the liking of a model into account, but that's a story for another time

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:You are saying that the primary reason that new players play Tau/Eldar is because they are TFG, despite the fact that they are new, and probably have very little idea as to how power levels work in 40k.

I made the claim that this is probably true at least slightly more than half the time.

Furthermore, I dispute the last bit.

In point of fact, my associate was perfectly aware that Eldar were broken when he bought the 6th edition codex, IIRC, when he chose that particular army. That's why he bought bikes, wave serpents, wraithknights and wraithguard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
TFG is someone who doesn't understand the difference between min maxing, and optimization. You can take and play fluffy orks, yet optimize your list so that each unit does the most work it can do. The TFG will whine about a list where a unit does what it's suppose to and perpetually earns its points back. Don't be TFG.

2+ rerollable saves: not OK

Not upgrading tactical marine sergeants to veteran status: OK

If you can't tell the difference, you're probably TFG.

Traditio wrote:

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:You are saying that the primary reason that new players play Tau/Eldar is because they are TFG, despite the fact that they are new, and probably have very little idea as to how power levels work in 40k.

I made the claim that this is probably true at least slightly more than half the time.

Furthermore, I dispute the last bit.

In point of fact, my associate was perfectly aware that Eldar were broken when he bought the 6th edition codex, IIRC, when he chose that particular army. That's why he bought bikes, wave serpents, wraithknights and wraithguard.

And is there any data suggesting that most players do research into power levels prior to choosing an army?

A bad attitude and purposely breaking the rules are the only two things IMO that can make you TFG. You can run 6 WraithKnights for all I care, as long as your are nice and friendly we will have fun Also being a rule nazi.. I get it you want to play by the rules, I want to too, but I don't want to spend 20 minutes every turn arguing about rules and Line of Sight. Just play the game and use common sense/decency.

Traditio wrote:
I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You mean except for here;

Traditio wrote:
The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

Traditio wrote:
Ok. Well, let's just be clear on what you are saying. In order for you to disagree with my claim, you must claim, e.g.,:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Eldar as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

Again:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Tau as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

I couldn't care less about any number of percentages or statistics you feel like pulling out your ass. Being TFG is about your attitude towards the game and your fellow players, not about what army you choose. End of story.

I know one eldar player offline. When it comes to 40k (or games in general), he has strong TFG/rules-lawyer tendencies.

Don't get me wrong. Generally OK guy that I consider a friend of mine.

I'd still lump him in the TFG category for 40k purposes, though.

[...]

In point of fact, my associate was perfectly aware that Eldar were broken when he bought the 6th edition codex, IIRC, when he chose that particular army. That's why he bought bikes, wave serpents, wraithknights and wraithguard.

Okay, great. So you know a guy that happens to be new to the game, that happens to have done some prior research on the maths, picked Eldar as his army, who also happens to be TFG or at least have TFG tendencies (although it still seems you have difficulty identifying the difference between TFG and WAAC, but I digress)... Okay. So, what? Because of your extremely specific example you now feel it's right to tar every new Tau or Eldar player in the hobby with the same brush out of hand? Great job.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Traditio wrote:
I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You mean except for here;

Traditio wrote:
The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

Traditio wrote:
Ok. Well, let's just be clear on what you are saying. In order for you to disagree with my claim, you must claim, e.g.,:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Eldar as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

Again:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Tau as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

I couldn't care less about any number of percentages or statistics you feel like pulling out your ass. Being TFG is about your attitude towards the game and your fellow players, not about what army you choose. End of story.

I know one eldar player offline. When it comes to 40k (or games in general), he has strong TFG/rules-lawyer tendencies.

Don't get me wrong. Generally OK guy that I consider a friend of mine.

I'd still lump him in the TFG category for 40k purposes, though.

[...]

In point of fact, my associate was perfectly aware that Eldar were broken when he bought the 6th edition codex, IIRC, when he chose that particular army. That's why he bought bikes, wave serpents, wraithknights and wraithguard.

Okay, great. So you know a guy that happens to be new to the game, that happens to have done some prior research on the maths, picked Eldar as his army, who also happens to be TFG or at least have TFG tendencies (although it still seems you have difficulty identifying the difference between TFG and WAAC, but I digress)... Okay. So, what? Because of your extremely specific example you now feel it's right to tar every new Tau or Eldar player in the hobby with the same brush out of hand? Great job.

Exalted.

It's an attitude, not an army. You could play the most underpowered list ever, and I could still call you out on being TFG. Alternatively, I could play an Eldar or Tau player, and see them as completely the opposite of TFG.

Also, just because I find the Tau aesthetic and method of war appealing means I'm automatically TFG (considering I don't even play them)?
I think I know who I would be calling TFG in that situation.

Traditio wrote:

Anfauglir wrote:Or... maybe the new person chose Tau or Eldar because those are the models/fluff they liked the most? And whether or not they are TFG is a completely separate issue? No? Just me?

Sure. That's why he's playing two wraithknights and a ton of scatter bikes.

That's the reason.

Wraithknights are cool models; large and very impressive-looking on the table. It shouldn't be at all surprising that a player new to Eldar would want them. I used to feel the same way when I saw wraithlords and war walkers for the first time. People like big models and robots.

The previous Eldar jetbike was very dated-looking, and one of GW's oldest plastic kits, and some people still built massive armies of them, before scatspam, because bike armies are cool (and fluffy for Saim Hann). As for giving them all scatter lasers? It's a legal option in the codex and also clearly the best weapon to arm them with (it's high strength and puts out lots of shots...this isn't rocket science, I knew higher strength = powerful before ever playing a game, and getting to roll more dice is usually a good thing), so a new player could easily figure out scatbikes without necessarily realizing just how broken they are.

Your "associate" is not like everyone else. You can't claim every new Tau or Eldar player picks that faction solely because of the strength of the rules just because you know ONE PERSON who did. With Tau in particular, being one of the most recently updated armies, having a generally cool-looking miniature range (with their own plastic terrain), and also one of the best value starter boxes out of the latest batch GW have put out, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why Tau might be a popular army for new players.

Traditio wrote:

I think we should add "being immediately prejudiced against particular armies and those who choose to play them" to the list of TFG behaviours, personally.

If that prejudice is grounded in reality, it's not TFG behavior. It's just being realistic.

Just thought I'd point out that this is exactly how people try to justify racism. "I'm not being racist, they really are like that!"

Traditio wrote:
Are you really going to disagree with me that new players who select Eldar more often than not, or more likely than not, are TFG?

I would.

From my experience, most new players select an army pretty much entirely based on appearance and general play style, and only develop that knowledge of which units are over- or under-powered later.

But even with that, deliberately choosing a strong army doesn't in itself make you TFG. Just someone with a strong army.

I've played against a lot of opponents with strong armies. Most of those games, even the ones where I got pasted, were still fun games.

TFG is far more rare than these sorts of discussions might lead people to believe.

Traditio wrote:

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:"OMFG, LOOK AT THAT AWESOME ROBOT, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ONE FROM ALDNOAH ZERO, I WANT TO PLAY IT SO BADLY,"
"Oh, cool, that's a Tau Battlesuit,"
"Tau? That sounds pretty cool, I think that I'll start playing as them, then."
"SCREW YOU, YOU LITTLE WAAC TFG, YOU SUCK!!!"

I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You repeated have done so. And then you started moving goal posts when called out on your bs.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Wraithknights are cool models; large and very impressive-looking on the table. It shouldn't be at all surprising that a player new to Eldar would want them. I used to feel the same way when I saw wraithlords and war walkers for the first time. People like big models and robots.

The previous Eldar jetbike was very dated-looking, and one of GW's oldest plastic kits, and some people still built massive armies of them, before scatspam, because bike armies are cool (and fluffy for Saim Hann). As for giving them all scatter lasers? It's a legal option in the codex and also clearly the best weapon to arm them with (it's high strength and puts out lots of shots...this isn't rocket science, I knew higher strength = powerful before ever playing a game, and getting to roll more dice is usually a good thing), so a new player could easily figure out scatbikes without necessarily realizing just how broken they are.

Your "associate" is not like everyone else. You can't claim every new Tau or Eldar player picks that faction solely because of the strength of the rules just because you know ONE PERSON who did. With Tau in particular, being one of the most recently updated armies, having a generally cool-looking miniature range (with their own plastic terrain), and also one of the best value starter boxes out of the latest batch GW have put out, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why Tau might be a popular army for new players.

I will second this, at my FLGS there are a fair amount of new Tau and Eldar players with every single one of them being nice people who want to play a cool looking army. They hear the rep that those armies have and might be a bit concerned about the TFG label but its very obvious that they play to have fun above trying to win at the others expense. They found models that excited them and that's the army they started playing. That being said the old "TFG" that use to play locally was an Eldar player but it wasn't that he played Eldar but that he basically cheated at the game (highly questionable dice rolls, ignoring rules, playing fast and loose with points, etc).

 Anfauglir wrote:

Traditio wrote:
I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You mean except for here;

Traditio wrote:
The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

Again, the key word is "probably." "Probably" just means "more likely than not." "More likely than not" simply means "at least slightly more than half the time."

Clearly, the random guy who walks into a store, sees a wraithknight, and is like "IT LOOKS SO COOL!" doesn't fall under the alleged probability.

That said, I do think that if someone were having a conversation with such a person, it would be entirely reasonable, in the course of explaining the different factions and how they work, to make a (very politely and calmly expressed) note that Eldar and Tau are much-aligned in the current meta because of extreme power imbalances between them and other codices. It also would not be out of place, in the course of so explaining, to make (again, very politely and calmly expressed) a note that the wraithknight, in spite of looking amazing, is generally considered an unfair model in the current meta, although it would, of course, look amazing on a shelf in one's home. Perhaps under a locked glass case.

I couldn't care less about any number of percentages or statistics you feel like pulling out your ass.

Except, that's literally what the word "probably" means. I said that a new Eldar player probably (at least slightly more than half the time) is like that. You chose to respond: "NOT ALL ARE LIKE THAT!" I never claimed that all are like that. I never even claimed that most are like that. I made the claim that at least slightly more than half are.

I could, of course, be in error.

Being TFG is about your attitude towards the game and your fellow players, not about what army you choose. End of story.

I completely agree with you that being TFG is primarily a matter of attitude. That said, to pretend that being TFG has absolutely no bearing on one's choice of armies or that we should not expect a concentration of TFGs choosing certain armies is about on par with saying that being psychopathic/sociopathic has no bearing on one's choice of careers, or that we should not expect a concentration of psychopaths/sociopaths among CEOs (in point of fact, this is actually true).

Okay, great. So you know a guy that happens to be new to the game, that happens to have done some prior research on the maths, picked Eldar as his army, who also happens to be TFG or at least have TFG tendencies (although it still seems you have difficulty identifying the difference between TFG and WAAC, but I digress)... Okay. So, what? Because of your extremely specific example you now feel it's right to tar every new Tau or Eldar player in the hobby with the same brush out of hand? Great job.

How common do you think that people like my friend are?

I fully admit that there are decent, "fun" Eldar players who are not TFG, even among those who use highly competitive lists. Galef is probably one. I've played against one who played blood angels and 6th ed Eldar.

But when we consider probability, we must not consider individual cases, but what is more likely than not.

And if you simply read Dakka forums and you look at the various Eldar and Tau players defending their broken codices and telling other people, in essence, to "learn to play," I'm sure you can understand why I would arrive to my current views.

At any rate, would you like to test my view?

Someone very easily could make a poll with 3 possible answers:

"I do not play eldar."
"I play eldar and would not use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."
"I play eldar and would use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Anfauglir wrote:Or... maybe the new person chose Tau or Eldar because those are the models/fluff they liked the most? And whether or not they are TFG is a completely separate issue? No? Just me?

Sure. That's why he's playing two wraithknights and a ton of scatter bikes.

That's the reason.

Wraithknights are cool models; large and very impressive-looking on the table. It shouldn't be at all surprising that a player new to Eldar would want them. I used to feel the same way when I saw wraithlords and war walkers for the first time. People like big models and robots.

The previous Eldar jetbike was very dated-looking, and one of GW's oldest plastic kits, and some people still built massive armies of them, before scatspam, because bike armies are cool (and fluffy for Saim Hann). As for giving them all scatter lasers? It's a legal option in the codex and also clearly the best weapon to arm them with (it's high strength and puts out lots of shots...this isn't rocket science, I knew higher strength = powerful before ever playing a game, and getting to roll more dice is usually a good thing), so a new player could easily figure out scatbikes without necessarily realizing just how broken they are.

Your "associate" is not like everyone else. You can't claim every new Tau or Eldar player picks that faction solely because of the strength of the rules just because you know ONE PERSON who did. With Tau in particular, being one of the most recently updated armies, having a generally cool-looking miniature range (with their own plastic terrain), and also one of the best value starter boxes out of the latest batch GW have put out, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why Tau might be a popular army for new players.

I don't necessarily dispute anything that you've said. Again, I only wish to note that I've made a probability claim.

Just thought I'd point out that this is exactly how people try to justify racism. "I'm not being racist, they really are like that!"

Yes. I'm going to generalize my claim. A normative claim is never a reasonable rebuttal to a claim alleging a matter of fact. "That's racist" is not a legitimate answer to "Caucasians more often than not like mayonnaise on their sandwiches."

Traditio wrote:
At any rate, would you like to test my view?

Someone very easily could make a poll with 3 possible answers:

"I do not play eldar."
"I play eldar and would not use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."
"I play eldar and would use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."

They could make such a poll. It would tell you nothing useful towards your point, as there is no distinction between choosing to play that army because it is overpowered and choosing to play that army despite it being overpowered.


I played a drop-pod army in 4th edition. People hated the list. I lost more games than I won (because dice hate me), my opponents generally had a good time, and nobody ever tried to stab me after a game.


Once again - using an over-powered list does not make someone TFG. It may well be one possible identifier, but using it as a criteria on its own is kind of like saying 'If it has knees, it must be a camel!'. Sure, camels have knees... but so do an awful lot of other animals.

insaniak wrote:They could make such a poll. It would tell you nothing useful towards your point, as there is no distinction between choosing to play that army because it is overpowered and choosing to play that army despite it being overpowered.

Certainly. Additional pieces of information could be added. E.g.:

"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks because I do not have the models to change my list substantially."
"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks in spite of my having the models because I simply cannot bring myself, psychologically, to nerf myself/play at a handicap."

Other poll options could be added as well.

If enough of the options voted for coincide, I really don't think that it's worth it to have the "Do you think that you're TFG" conversation.

Psychologically, that's just not how people work. People generally (unless they are very religious) don't think of themselves as the villain of their own life story.

Traditio wrote:

Certainly. Additional pieces of information could be added. E.g.:

"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks because I do not have the models to change my list substantially."
"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks in spite of my having the models because I simply cannot bring myself, psychologically, to nerf myself/play at a handicap."

Other poll options could be added as well.

Well, yes... You're still missing the option for 'I would use a wraithknight vs orks because I have the model in my army and I like using it.'

And as an Ork player, I would have absolutely zero issue with that. I wouldn't expect anyone to change their army just because GW can't be bothered to write balanced rules, and I would wait to see how the guy actually behaves rather than making judgements about his character based soley on which toys he chose to put on the table.

insaniak wrote:Well, yes... You're still missing the option for 'I would use a wraithknight vs orks because I have the model in my army and I like using it.'

Why does the player like using it?

Because it looks cool on the table? Then put it on the side of the table, independently of the game, so that we can both enjoy how cool it looks.

Because it confers tactical advantages?

If because it confers tactical advantages, would you be annoyed if GW nerfed wraithknights?

At some point, answer enough of these questions in the appropriate manner, and the objective evidence is going to start pointing in one direction over another.

And as an Ork player, I would have absolutely zero issue with that. I wouldn't expect anyone to change their army just because GW can't be bothered to write balanced rules

My eldar friend doesn't want to use rangers over eldar bikes because, and I quote, it would be like using vanguard veterans instead of sternguard veterans. IoW: because it's a suboptimal choice in a codex where even the suboptimal choices are still pretty fething optimal.

Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

I disagree with all of this. You are not TFG only if (note that I'm noting a necessary, not sufficient, condition) you are willing to play a fair, balanced game while playing in the most common sense way of interpreting the rules. If you attempt to break the game, then you are, ceteris paribus, TFG.

Traditio wrote:


Why does the player like using it?

Because it looks cool on the table? Then put it on the side of the table, independently of the game, so that we can both enjoy how cool it looks.

Because it confers tactical advantages?

If because it confers tactical advantages, would you be annoyed if GW nerfed wraithknights?

At some point, answer enough of these questions in the appropriate manner, and the objective evidence is going to start pointing in one direction over another.

And as an Ork player, I would have absolutely zero issue with that. I wouldn't expect anyone to change their army just because GW can't be bothered to write balanced rules

My eldar friend doesn't want to use rangers over eldar bikes because, and I quote, it would be like using vanguard veterans instead of sternguard veterans. IoW: because it's a suboptimal choice in a codex where even the suboptimal choices are still pretty fething optimal.

You can enjoy tactical advantages, be annoyed that GW nerfed your advantages, and still be a well rounded person who isnt remotely TFG.

Mr. Burning wrote:You can enjoy tactical advantages, be annoyed that GW nerfed your advantages, and still be a well rounded person who isnt remotely TFG.

If by the above you mean "unfair tactical advantages," then no, I disagree. Exploiting unfair advantages makes you TFG. At least in some minor way, it is a violation of justice.

Traditio wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

I disagree with all of this. You are not TFG only if (note that I'm noting a necessary, not sufficient, condition) you are willing to play a fair, balanced game while playing in the most common sense way of interpreting the rules. If you attempt to break the game, then you are, ceteris paribus, TFG.

You are not disagreeing with me at all then????? or are you being obtuse??? It really hard to tell.

GW provides the tools with which the game is to be played. If someone plays with those rules - lets use Eldar as the example - with no intention other than to play the game as it is presented to them - are they TFG?

Or are they TFG if they play with the rules intended and act like they are the motherfething god of the universe and you are scrub who need to git gud??? (Not directed at anyone just an example of TFG behaviour).

I'd say you're definitely TFG if you try and use the rules as an excuse for acting in an unsporting way.

pm713 wrote:
I'd say you're definitely TFG if you try and use the rules as an excuse for acting in an unsporting way.

That is part of what being a TFG is.

It doesn't matter what codex you want to base your army on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:You can enjoy tactical advantages, be annoyed that GW nerfed your advantages, and still be a well rounded person who isnt remotely TFG.

If by the above you mean "unfair tactical advantages," then no, I disagree. Exploiting unfair advantages makes you TFG. At least in some minor way, it is a violation of justice.

I mean tactical advantages as presented by GW and their rules writing staff. GW's rules writing baffles me - always has -so I don't support it but we can only work with what we are given.

If you thinks its a violation of justice the write a strongly worded letter to GW chair.

Traditio wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

I disagree with all of this. You are not TFG only if (note that I'm noting a necessary, not sufficient, condition) you are willing to play a fair, balanced game while playing in the most common sense way of interpreting the rules. If you attempt to break the game, then you are, ceteris paribus, TFG.

Attempting to break the game does not make you TFG. The game is broken whether or not someone attempts to break it.

Traditio wrote:
I correctly respond that I had 50% obscurity relative to the firing model, and therefore have a 4+ save, express my unwillingness to debate the matter

I just want to point out this is wrong. This is not how cover works. You don't get better cover for being more obscured. If you are 25% you get 5+ cover (unless the terrain gives different cover like a ruin gives 4+). That's it. You didn't have a 4+ cover save.

But the worst part is how you responded to the disagreement. You refused to debate him on it. That's incredibly unfair. You refused to even attempt to resolve the issue. You should've looked in the rule book to see how cover works so that both players can see the rule in question. You do that even if you are right. But in this case you weren't even correct. What you did makes you TFG

CrownAxe wrote:I just want to point out this is wrong. This is not how cover works. You don't get better cover for being more obscured. If you are 25% you get 5+ cover (unless the terrain gives different cover like a ruin gives 4+). That's it. You didn't have a 4+ cover save.

The rules, IIRC, are different for vehicles and non-vehicles.

Non-vehicles get a universal 5+ cover unless in ruins or some other special terrain type.

For vehicles, it depends on obscurity. 25% obscurity = 5+ cover; 50% or greater obscurity = 4+ cover.

I could be in error, but last time I checked the 7th ed rulebook, that's what I remember it saying.

Do feel free to go and look.

But the worst part is how you responded to the disagreement. You refused to debate him on it. That's incredibly unfair. You refused to even attempt to resolve the issue. You should've looked in the rule book to see how cover works so that both players can see the rule in question. You do that even if you are right. But in this case you weren't even correct. What you did makes you TFG

1. I didn't have a rulebook on hand.

2. His general demeanor and actions made me incredibly unwilling to debate the matter.

If that makes me TFG in your opinion, then so be it.

For vehicles its just 25% for determining if your obscured or not. The only other rule for vehicles is if the facing be shot at is 100% obscured then it gets +1 cover.

Nothing about 50% obscurment for 4+.

 CrownAxe wrote:
For vehicles its just 25% for determining if your obscured or not. The only other rule for vehicles is if the facing be shot at is 100% obscured then it gets +1 cover.

Nothing about 50% obscurment for 4+.

I may have been in error then. I'll have to check later on.

Again, though, the guy's general demeanor and behavior made me incredibly unwilling to debate the matter either way.

He was being a donkey cave.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
For vehicles its just 25% for determining if your obscured or not. The only other rule for vehicles is if the facing be shot at is 100% obscured then it gets +1 cover.

Nothing about 50% obscurment for 4+.

I may have been in error then. I'll have to check later on.

Again, though, the guy's general demeanor and behavior made me incredibly unwilling to debate the matter either way.

He was being a donkey cave.

You were a TFG and donkey cave even worse so for not allowing the debate.

Actually:

Regardless of the applicability or non-applicability of the 50% rule, the rhino arguably was taking cover behind a terrain piece that provided 4+ cover.

So. Yeah. Null argument.

Traditio wrote:
Actually:

Regardless of the applicability or non-applicability of the 50% rule, the rhino was taking cover behind a terrain piece that provided 4+ cover.

So. Yeah. Null argument.

And yet you still refused to debate him about it.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:You were a TFG and donkey cave even worse so for not allowing the debate.

1. You would have had to have been there, I suppose.

2. It's not like he had his rulebook on hand and was quoting from it. Furthermore, he was being wildly inconsistent and displayed a lack of fidelity to the rules.

"NO COVER! FLIER!"

"Ok, ok. 5+ cover...but that rhino over there gets 4+ cover (not because of obscurity, but because of the terrain piece)."

Plus, again, he was being confrontational and abrasive.

Fact is, he was trying to set up and rules-lawyer a cheap win (even though it was a completely casual game).

It had nothing to do with what he thought the rules did and didn't say.

Sorry. But I'm not arguing with that.

Call me TFG if you want, but that really does say more about you.

OK, folks - general reminder to keep it civil.

BTNeophyte wrote:Attempting to break the game does not make you TFG. The game is broken whether or not someone attempts to break it.

There is nothing in the 40k rulebook that says that you must field Eldar or Tau.

There is nothing in the 40k rulebook that says that you must take a min-maxed cheese list.

GW gives you options. It's your prerogative to use those options to break the game or not.

If someone uses those options to break the game, that doesn't speak ill of GW. That speaks ill of him.

No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

Don't blame players for playing with stuff they want within the rules.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

Or, you know, you take the option because you like the idea? Not everything is done for a strategic advantage.

It really isn't the innocent player's fault if the thing they so happen to like is OP. You absolutely cannot blame an innocent player for that. GW are very much at fault there.

IF they use those options with the express purpose of breaking the game - sure. TFG.
They take those options because aesthetics or fluff, no. Absolutely not TFG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

Don't blame players for playing with stuff they want within the rules.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

QFT

 Blacksails wrote:
No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

The writing of poor rules speaks ill of the company making them.

The exploitation of poor rules speaks ill of the player.

Consider the video game analogy:

Yes, if you walk here and press B, the game will freeze. That speaks ill of the video game company.

But if you keep doing it while we are playing co-op, that speaks ill of you.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

If someone is using the GSF to spam razorbacks to accompany his 5 man tac squads, then by all means, let the same comments by me apply.

Using the rules to make something I want within them is not exploiting.

 Blacksails wrote:
Using the rules to make something I want within them is not exploiting.

This is essentially the same thing as denying that cheese exists.

I disagree.

Define cheese.

 Blacksails wrote:
Define cheese.

You're setting up for a loki's fallacy.

I'm going to go with the classical "definition" of such things: "You know it when you see it."

I figure to keep it simple: "That Guy" is someone who tries to do things at other's "expense".
A complete disregard of people around them, objects to be used for their own selfish needs.
At least if they were socially inept, the intent would not be there.

 Talizvar wrote:
I figure to keep it simple: "That Guy" is someone who tries to do things at other's "expense".
A complete disregard of people around them, objects to be used for their own selfish needs.
At least if they were socially inept, the intent would not be there.

Yes! I vehemently agree with this.

And this can express itself in as many things as army selection, list building, etc.

The opposite of the TFG is someone who will make reasonable accommodation for the person with which he is playing.

Example:

"Oh, you're playing orks? Ok. I'll run a CAD instead of a GSF."

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

The writing of poor rules speaks ill of the company making them.
The exploitation of poor rules speaks ill of the player.
Consider the video game analogy:
Yes, if you walk here and press B, the game will freeze. That speaks ill of the video game company.
But if you keep doing it while we are playing co-op, that speaks ill of you.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

If someone is using the GSF to spam razorbacks to accompany his 5 man tac squads, then by all means, let the same comments by me apply.

The core effort within the game is to win by it's rules.
Adding extra layers beyond the rules is "scrub" behavior and would be unfair to expect others to know your extra rules.
The only game any sane person would want to play is with mutually agreed upon rules.
We tend to delude ourselves otherwise.

With your prior reasoning, it speaks ill of us gamers supporting games with poor rules.
We tend to include other factors associated with a game other than it's rules.

Talizvar wrote:]The core effort within the game is to win by it's rules.
Adding extra layers beyond the rules is "scrub" behavior and would be unfair to expect others to know your extra rules.

And I think that the anti-scrub mentality that you're describing itself is a TFG mindset.

TFG is willing to break the game and exploit bad rules. When met with criticism, his answer is to call his opponent a scrub and tell him to "learn to play."

Someone who is not TFG is willing to make organic adjustments to provide for a fair game, even though the game has rules which can be exploited to make the game unfair and broken.

The only game any sane person would want to play is with mutually agreed upon rules.

I completely agree. However, those rules are not restricted to the ones present in the rulebooks. General custom and opinion has its place.

It's publicly agreed that wraithknights and scatterbikes are unfair.

Traditio wrote:
The opposite of the TFG is someone who will make reasonable accommodation for the person with which he is playing.
Example:
"Oh, you're playing orks? Ok. I'll run a CAD instead of a GSF."

Gah!
Sorry, my first thought is "why should the person make an "accommodation"?".
What is "reasonable" for that matter? Is it in the rules??

I typically want someone to bring their "A" game.
Destroying or being destroyed in short order is no fun for anyone I would agree other than for "That Guy" being the winner.
But, if you want to bring your "fluff" list, you need to agree to these "new rules" (ya scrub! ), we cannot all be mind readers!

This is a typical argument we can get in, the "cheese" does not exist, only in the losing party's mind.

I just do not get into these arguments in X-wing... it is refreshing really.

Talizvar wrote:Sorry, my first thought is "why should the person make an "accommodation"?"
What is "reasonable" for that matter? Is it in the rules??

Only someone with the TFG guy mindset even asks these questions. Someone who is not TFG recognizes the great merit of the old maxim: "It's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game."

He recognizes that:

Fairness > Fun > Winning.

In that order.

The standard of reasonableness, in the context in which I am speaking, is fairness or proportional equality. That's why accommodation must be made.

But, if you want to bring your "fluff" list, you need to agree to these "new rules" (ya scrub! ), we cannot all be mind readers!

There's no "new rules" if we include "rules" to include popular opinion/custom.

If you show up with 5 wraithknights, you've violated unwritten, but still publicly acknowledged, rules of the game.

I have had one encounter with that TFG.

A few years ago in one of my few trips to the local gaming club, I took my Dark Eldar army in the hopes of getting an introduction game. Forward steps our white knight, with his fresh Tau army. Now I realise I was new, and by no means was looking for anyone to take it easy on me. But he straight up made the game a chore for me, questioning my weapons profiles and ranges constantly, complaining that my whole army having night vision was OP (only half his army had it). But he also straight up lied about rules, claiming that his Riptide had my Ravager locked in combat (he only glanced it but claimed that it was now stuck there), all Pathfinders had shrouded and his whole army was base bs4. Granted I was naive, but I don't want my first impression in a club to be the new guy who wants to check your army book, so I went with it.
After my army was pasted by turn 3, he complained that his Riptide losing 2 wounds for the game meant it wasn't as good as everyone said it was, and he would have to buy 2 more.
Now I realise none of this was particularly horrible by itself, but the combination of all of them left a very sour lasting impression of both him, and gaming with strangers in general. I think if you have drove someone to that mentality, you are TFG.

@Traditio: You write like an idealist, I can respect that.
I personally have found growth in taking the rules to the max with like minded players.
Please be assured, I take pleasure in a game well played, close ones especially.
Be polite, shake their hand, be nice, it is our hobby after all.
You are just looking to get something out of games a bit different than me, that is fine.
I like a challenge, oddly, few "That Guy" types play people like me because they value winning to much to risk losing against a competitive player... they look for "victims".

MonumentOfRibs wrote:
I have had one encounter with that TFG.

A few years ago in one of my few trips to the local gaming club, I took my Dark Eldar army in the hopes of getting an introduction game. Forward steps our white knight, with his fresh Tau army. Now I realise I was new, and by no means was looking for anyone to take it easy on me. But he straight up made the game a chore for me, questioning my weapons profiles and ranges constantly, complaining that my whole army having night vision was OP (only half his army had it). But he also straight up lied about rules, claiming that his Riptide had my Ravager locked in combat (he only glanced it but claimed that it was now stuck there), all Pathfinders had shrouded and his whole army was base bs4. Granted I was naive, but I don't want my first impression in a club to be the new guy who wants to check your army book, so I went with it.
After my army was pasted by turn 3, he complained that his Riptide losing 2 wounds for the game meant it wasn't as good as everyone said it was, and he would have to buy 2 more.
Now I realise none of this was particularly horrible by itself, but the combination of all of them left a very sour lasting impression of both him, and gaming with strangers in general. I think if you have drove someone to that mentality, you are TFG.

I think a lot of those things are actually pretty horrible - blatantly lying to someone about rules and complaining about how your units aren't OP enough after wiping the floor with them (especially someone new to an FLGS) is the definition of TFG. You're a stronger man than me, I would have told him to go back and read his codex again... It does suck to be in that position the first time you go to a store though so I don't blame you.

MonumentOfRibs wrote:
I have had one encounter with that TFG.

<snip>
That was unfortunate.
I think the general complaining was of poor grace.
I tend to focus on the player getting the wounds in, smiling and saying something goofy like "Damn you Red Baron!".
People tend to forget if you want opponents to play, you need to be an ambassador of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
If you show up with 5 wraithknights, you've violated unwritten, but still publicly acknowledged, rules of the game.

Oh I wish I could lay my hands on a neat quote that covers this but I cannot remember.
It is something like this:
I went to tabletop gaming because I found going "pew!, pew!, he's dead!, Nah-ah!, Yes he is!" is less fulfilling than having rules cover it.
We all have an opinion and oddly "publicly acknowledged" ones vary person to person.
Usually the details get sorted out by who is more stubborn or louder.
I like rules as written (RAW) I dislike arguments before a game.

Would me claiming you demonstrate "Scrub" behavior be more or less accurate that I demonstrate "That Guy"?
What is making a good point here is that we cannot seem to agree on this so agreeing on unwritten rules applied in gaming culture is a fallacy.

There's nothing in the rulebook saying I have to field Eldar or Tau, no, but likewise there's nothing in the rulebook saying I can't, or shouldn't, if that's the army that I want to play with.

And GW is most definitely at fault for publishing broken rules and giving players the option to break the game, because not only are they obviously doing it to influence sales (like "forcing" players to field less-popular kits in order to get some broken bonus), but in some cases they're even inviting people to do it. Anyone check out their blog post on Saturday, talking about the new Angels of Death release and gushing at the end about all the formations and "dirty, filthy rules which we love!"? GW knows full well what it's doing, and as such they deserve all the blame for what the game has become.

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Define cheese.

You're setting up for a loki's fallacy.

I'm going to go with the classical "definition" of such things: "You know it when you see it."

But when you see it, will your opponent also see it?


Way back in the day, I was accused of running a 'cheesy' army when I took Red Corsairs to a 2nd ed tournament. People saw a Chaos army with jump packs and attack bikes and immediately decided that this was out of line, despite being legal and hideously expensive points-wise. I took those units because I wanted a fast-moving pirate force, and loved the idea of painting up an army with all different marines in it... Actually being able to win games with it (I generally didn't) wasn't a big consideration.

One man's cheese is another man's fluff.

 Sidstyler wrote:
And GW is most definitely at fault for publishing broken rules and giving players the option to break the game, because not only are they obviously doing it to influence sales (like "forcing" players to field less-popular kits in order to get some broken bonus), but in some cases they're even inviting people to do it. Anyone check out their blog post on Saturday, talking about the new Angels of Death release and gushing at the end about all the formations and "dirty, filthy rules which we love!"? GW knows full well what it's doing, and as such they deserve all the blame for what the game has become.

Even without encouraging newbies to take broken stuff specifically because it is broken, it's unreasonable to expect a new player to know when they buy their army how to tell what is and isn't overpowered (and what should or shouldn't be used as a result, since different games' audiences tend to have different approaches to that sort of thing), and even more unreasonable to expect them to not use the models they have bought because you disagree with their choice of army.

Even if a new player can see from his codex that, say, scatterbikes are a powerful option, you can't expect him to know how they compare to every other codex, or to know that some opponents may give him stinkeye if he takes them. Many games are all about taking the most powerful combos that you can come up with. The only reason it's an issue for 40K players is because of the game's inherent imbalance... something that newcomers won't generally have been exposed to when selecting their army.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Anyone check out their blog post on Saturday, talking about the new Angels of Death release and gushing at the end about all the formations and "dirty, filthy rules which we love!"? GW knows full well what it's doing, and as such they deserve all the blame for what the game has become.

Thanks for that.
That is why GW is getting much less money out of me: what is a "competitive build" can be rendered obsolete in months.
It takes time to play a new army list well.

You feel more like a rules lawyer keeping up on all the various formations and multitude of publications.
"Dirty, filthy rules" is their name for it?
Creaking overly patched monstrosity with new model bias thrown in for giggles springs more to mind.

I dont know what the quote started but when it comes to playing eldar/tau.

If you just like playing them that does not make you TFG.

If you come into the store and the first thing you ask is if they have any Warp spiders, eldar bikes, or wraith knights, You are TFG.

However due note, there are different types of TFG, IMO there is the competative TFG, who does the above mentioned, but other then that is a pretty cool guy. Then there is That TFG who is the above and overall dick bag and not fun to be around period.

 Talizvar wrote:
@Traditio: You write like an idealist, I can respect that.
I personally have found growth in taking the rules to the max with like minded players.
Please be assured, I take pleasure in a game well played, close ones especially.
Be polite, shake their hand, be nice, it is our hobby after all.
You are just looking to get something out of games a bit different than me, that is fine.
I like a challenge, oddly, few "That Guy" types play people like me because they value winning to much to risk losing against a competitive player... they look for "victims".

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with everyone playing cheesy, min-maxed lists and going with the most stringent, rules-lawyer interpretation of the rules.

And I have no doubt that you are a positive delight to play with among members of your own group.

The default mentality, however, should be "we are going to play fair unless we explicitly agree to do otherwise, by all common sense accounts of those terms."

If you show up to a random casual game against a complete stranger with 5 wraithknights, you have violated an unwritten, though publically acknowledged, rule of etiquette. At the very least, that game should come with a disclaimer: "Just so you know, I'm running 5 wraithknights. Do you really feel like playing that game?"

Going back to my complaint about TFG I played last night:

Had he flat out told me: "Just so you know, I'm running THIS list and I am a complete rules lawyer," I would have passed on that game before even setting up.

Traditio wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
@Traditio: You write like an idealist, I can respect that.
I personally have found growth in taking the rules to the max with like minded players.
Please be assured, I take pleasure in a game well played, close ones especially.
Be polite, shake their hand, be nice, it is our hobby after all.
You are just looking to get something out of games a bit different than me, that is fine.
I like a challenge, oddly, few "That Guy" types play people like me because they value winning to much to risk losing against a competitive player... they look for "victims".

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with everyone playing cheesy, min-maxed lists and going with the most stringent, rules-lawyer interpretation of the rules.

And I have no doubt that you are a positive delight to play with among members of your own group.

The default mentality, however, should be "we are going to play fair unless we explicitly agree to do otherwise, by all common sense accounts of those terms."

If you show up to a random casual game against a complete stranger with 5 wraithknights, you have violated an unwritten, though publically acknowledged, rule of etiquette. At the very least, that game should come with a disclaimer: "Just so you know, I'm running 5 wraithknights. Do you really feel like playing that game?"

Going back to my complaint about TFG I played last night:

Had he flat out told me: "Just so you know, I'm running THIS list and I am a complete rules lawyer," I would have passed on that game before even setting up.

This guy, this guy gets it, my very first game was up against a guy running a super cheese list, but the thing that did not make him TFG was:

-He told me it was a cheese list
-He knew it was my first game
-he let me take extra points because of his list
-He was not anal about movement
-He was patient and helped with rules.

Running a cheese list does not make you TFG if you just come clean about it and admit its a total cheese list. Running a cheese list and acting like you are an awesome super skilled player when its widely accepted the list is broken to hell, makes you TFG and a non skilled player.

If you got your list of a list building site, that makes you TFG

Furthermore, Talizvar, if you ACTUALLY wanted a challenge, you would play as though you thought that I were correct.

You would play orks and concede ambiguous rules interpretations to your opponent's advantage.

TFG is always a guy or sometimes a girl. Usually between 4'0 and 7'6. Blonde hair or all the way to dark black. Clearly a caucasian or African, possibly asian? Ohh and they are always wearing clothes and sometimes shoes.

I hope you found this helpful

insaniak wrote:But when you see it, will your opponent also see it?

Perhaps "you know it when you see it" isn't the best way of answering BlackSails.

Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

Wraithknights and scatterbikes are publicly admitted to be cheesy.

Way back in the day, I was accused of running a 'cheesy' army when I took Red Corsairs to a 2nd ed tournament. People saw a Chaos army with jump packs and attack bikes and immediately decided that this was out of line, despite being legal and hideously expensive points-wise. I took those units because I wanted a fast-moving pirate force, and loved the idea of painting up an army with all different marines in it... Actually being able to win games with it (I generally didn't) wasn't a big consideration.

One man's cheese is another man's fluff.

1. I think that the bolded is important. You didn't make the list for tactical advantages, nor did it actually confer a tactical advantage.

2. Again, I think that we should put due emphasis on "public." I wasn't playing in 2nd edition, but let's assume dakka forums existed and you put your army list online. Would people complain about it like they complain about free razorbacks for minimum 5 man tactical squads or scatterbikes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
TFG is always a guy or sometimes a girl. Usually between 4'0 and 7'6. Blonde hair or all the way to dark black. Clearly a caucasian or African, possibly asian? Ohh and they are always wearing clothes and sometimes shoes.

I hope you found this helpful

That's racist! You've never seen TFG shouting "allujah akbar"?

Traditio wrote:
Furthermore, Talizvar, if you ACTUALLY wanted a challenge, you would play as though you thought that I were correct.
You would play orks and concede ambiguous rules interpretations to your opponent's advantage.

Oh, I can honorably take a handicap like Backspacehacker had outlined.
A game in is better than not at all, this is where "mutually agreed rules" come into play.
A perceived leveling of the playing field could be negotiated if both are willing.
I think the "ambiguous rules interpretations" are covered in the rules by rolling off.
I am unsure how being a doormat will make me a better player.
I have a sneaking suspicion I would be required to play "your game" with little compromise.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:But when you see it, will your opponent also see it?

Perhaps "you know it when you see it" isn't the best way of answering BlackSails.

Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

Wraithknights and scatterbikes are publically admitted to be cheesy.

Way back in the day, I was accused of running a 'cheesy' army when I took Red Corsairs to a 2nd ed tournament. People saw a Chaos army with jump packs and attack bikes and immediately decided that this was out of line, despite being legal and hideously expensive points-wise. I took those units because I wanted a fast-moving pirate force, and loved the idea of painting up an army with all different marines in it... Actually being able to win games with it (I generally didn't) wasn't a big consideration.

One man's cheese is another man's fluff.

1. I think that the bolded is important. You didn't make the list for tactical advantages, nor did it actually confer a tactical advantage.

2. Again, I think hat we should put due emphasis on "public." I wasn't playing in 2nd edition, but let's assume dakka forums existed and you put your army list online. Would people complain about it like they complain about free razorbacks for minimum 5 man tactical squads or scatterbikes?

I think the whole issue of running an army that is "Cheesy" really boils down to how and why you chose that army, and if you openly admit its cheesy.

For example, im making a deathwing/ravenwing army because i love their lore, and terminators are my fav model. If gods willing they became super viable, and cheesy that would not stop me running them. It really boils down to how you handle it. If you admit its a cheese army, you are not TFG.

If you were running that army, which you totally picked for fluff or play style reasons, and you dont admit its cheese, i could see how someone might think you are TFG when you are really not.

But if say DW/RW became super OP, and you go into the store and the first thing you do is buy 4 DW and 3 RW bikes....You are TFG, like no questions asked.

Running a competitive cheese list, does not make you TFG, acting like you are skilled, the list is not OP, and not admiting its cheese, makes you TFG

Traditio wrote:

Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

No.

The public consists of varied individuals all with different ideas of what they want to play and play against.

Talizvar wrote:Oh, I can honorably take a handicap like Backspacehacker had outlined.
A game in is better than not at all, this is where "mutually agreed rules" come into play.
A perceived leveling of the playing field could be negotiated if both are willing.
I think the "ambiguous rules interpretations" are covered in the rules by rolling off.
I am unsure how being a doormat will make me a better player.
I have a sneaking suspicion I would be required to play "your game" with little compromise.

You're the one who said you wanted a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:I think the whole issue of running an army that is "Cheesy" really boils down to how and why you chose that army, and if you openly admit its cheesy.

For example, im making a deathwing/ravenwing army because i love their lore, and terminators are my fav model. If gods willing they became super viable, and cheesy that would not stop me running them. It really boils down to how you handle it. If you admit its a cheese army, you are not TFG.

Ravenwing is cheesy as cheesy comes. An army of bikes with 2+ rerollable jinks?

I wouldn't be willing to play that game.

Traditio wrote:
The default mentality, however, should be "we are going to play fair unless we explicitly agree to do otherwise, by all common sense accounts of those terms."

Sure.

The difference comes from some people thinking that 'play fair' means 'play by the same rules as the other guy', while other people think that 'play fair' means 'play only with the rules that I consider fair'...

If you show up to a random casual game against a complete stranger with 5 wraithknights, you have violated an unwritten, though publically acknowledged, rule of etiquette. At the very least, that game should come with a disclaimer: "Just so you know, I'm running 5 wraithknights. Do you really feel like playing that game?"

Hell yes, I'd play that game. If it went badly, I might not want to do it again... but as a one-off, that sounds far more interesting than playing against just another bog-standard Eldar army.

Blacksails wrote:No.

The public consists of varied individuals all with different ideas of what they want to play and play against.

So Blacksails writes in English, fully expecting me to understand what he is saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Sure.

The difference comes from some people thinking that 'play fair' means 'play by the same rules as the other guy', while other people think that 'play fair' means 'play only with the rules that I consider fair'...

In game terms, "fair" means "roughly equivalent chances of victory, independently of player skill."

Hell yes, I'd play that game. If it went badly, I might not want to do it again... but as a one-off, that sounds far more interesting than playing against just another bog-standard Eldar army.

Really? It sounds like a visit to the dentist's office, personally. I have better things to do with my time.

Traditio wrote:

Talizvar wrote:Oh, I can honorably take a handicap like Backspacehacker had outlined.
A game in is better than not at all, this is where "mutually agreed rules" come into play.
A perceived leveling of the playing field could be negotiated if both are willing.
I think the "ambiguous rules interpretations" are covered in the rules by rolling off.
I am unsure how being a doormat will make me a better player.
I have a sneaking suspicion I would be required to play "your game" with little compromise.

You're the one who said you wanted a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:I think the whole issue of running an army that is "Cheesy" really boils down to how and why you chose that army, and if you openly admit its cheesy.

For example, im making a deathwing/ravenwing army because i love their lore, and terminators are my fav model. If gods willing they became super viable, and cheesy that would not stop me running them. It really boils down to how you handle it. If you admit its a cheese army, you are not TFG.

Ravenwing is cheesy as cheesy comes. An army of bikes with 2+ rerollable jinks?

I wouldn't be willing to play that game.

What no their jink is only a 4+ and can reroll.

Black nights get a 3+ to save on a jink and can re-roll

They dont get a 2+ jink THAT would be OP as hell

Backspacehacker wrote:What no their jink is only a 4+ and can reroll.

Black nights get a 3+ to save on a jink and can re-roll

They dont get a 2+ jink THAT would be OP as hell

I could be in error about how RW works. Still, though, my impression, the one time I played against them:

1. It's impossible to assault anyone because, apparently, everyone gets to shoot me, not just the unit I'm assaulting.

2. It's impossible to catch them, because they're all on bikes.

3. Welp. I'm getting shot off the table. That's a lot of relentless grav.

4. It's impossible to hurt anyone, because they have rerollable saves.

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

The only way that I'd be willing to play you is if you played a CAD.

Traditio wrote:
Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

Nope, that would be a completely inaccurate answer.

There are some, limited number of things that are widely accepted to be over-powered. There's a much bigger pool of things that are less universally accepted as cheesy, and units from either category are still somewhat tempered by the rest of the army list involved.

1. I think that the bolded is important. You didn't make the list for tactical advantages, nor did it actually confer a tactical advantage.

Your contention all the way through this thread has been that someone simply showing up with a list that you consider to be overpowered results in you considering them TFG.

That's exactly what happened with my Red Corsairs list. People branded it as cheese without having played against it, based entirely on the perception of the army and with no knowledge of me as a player. They were wrong. It was a crap list, and I received a maximum sports score from my opponents.

2. Again, I think that we should put due emphasis on "public." I wasn't playing in 2nd edition, but let's assume dakka forums existed and you put your army list online. Would people complain about it like they complain about free razorbacks for minimum 5 man tactical squads or scatterbikes?

That would depend on who read it. Turned out from later discussions that quite a number of players were strongly opposed to Red Corsairs having access to Imperial gear, not just those at the tournament I went to... I just hadn't been exposed to that point of view prior to the tournie.

But ultimately, Dakka is no less a microcosm of the gaming community than that tournament was... it's just one with participants from a wider area. And the 'community view' of things as often as not is actually just the view of the 'loudest' posters. The fact that some guy on some forum thinks something is overpowered in no way guarantees that the guy standing opposite you at the table agrees with that point of view.

Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:What no their jink is only a 4+ and can reroll.

Black nights get a 3+ to save on a jink and can re-roll

They dont get a 2+ jink THAT would be OP as hell

I could be in error about how RW works. Still, though, my impression, the one time I played against them:

1. It's impossible to assault anyone because, apparently, everyone gets to shoot me, not just the unit I'm assaulting.

2. It's impossible to catch them, because they're all on bikes.

3. Welp. I'm getting shot off the table. That's a lot of relentless grav.

4. It's impossible to hurt anyone, because they have rerollable saves.

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

The only way that I'd be willing to play you is if you played a CAD.

Albit i admit that having hit and run, relentless, and hammer of wrath on one unit can cheese. Not gonna not admit that one.

But yeah they save on only a 3+ for black knights, and 4+ for ravenwing, both get rerolls.

Ill admit that the bikes can get cheesy, but IMO not as bad as eldar bikes x.x

Traditio wrote:

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

Backspacehacker wrote:But yeah they save on only a 3+ for black knights, and 4+ for ravenwing, both get rerolls.

4+ rerollable save gives you roughly 2 X 1/2 chances of a successful save. A a 3+ rerollable save gives you 2 X 2/3 chances of a successful save.

The only army that's going to consistently shoot you off of the table is the Tau.

Seriously ponder that.

The Tau.

I'll repeat that:

The fething Tau.

Ill admit that the bikes can get cheesy, but IMO not as bad as eldar bikes x.x

They don't have overwatch shenanigans and rerollable saves.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

QFT my Ravenwing detachment consists of

1 Lib on a bike
1 Black knight squad, no upgrade
2 ravenwing squads, no upgrades

So total thats only 10 models that save primarily on a 4+ with a re-roll.

Most of my points are in my DW terminators, the ravenwing I put in there to keep from from auto loosing turn one, and to get my terminators closer to them with teleport homers.

insaniak wrote:Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

The cost isn't as prohibitive as it should be. A tactical marine costs 14 ppm. That same tactical marine on a bike costs 21 ppm.

For that additional 7 ppm, he gets:

A. Additional movement
B. Hammer of wrath
C. Relentless
D. Moar guns
E. +1 toughness
F. Jink


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Nope, that would be a completely inaccurate answer.

There are some, limited number of things that are widely accepted to be over-powered. There's a much bigger pool of things that are less universally accepted as cheesy, and units from either category are still somewhat tempered by the rest of the army list involved.

Yes. I want to restrict my comments to the former class of things.

Your contention all the way through this thread has been that someone simply showing up with a list that you consider to be overpowered results in you considering them TFG.

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," then yes, he is probably TFG.

Do you really contest this point?

That's exactly what happened with my Red Corsairs list. People branded it as cheese without having played against it, based entirely on the perception of the army and with no knowledge of me as a player. They were wrong. It was a crap list, and I received a maximum sports score from my opponents.

As I said, I wasn't really around in 2nd edition, so I can't really comment.

For what it's worth, "I feel for you, bro!"

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

The cost isn't as prohibitive as it should be. A tactical marine costs 14 ppm. That same tactical marine on a bike costs 21 ppm.

For that additional 7 ppm, he gets:

A. Additional movement
B. Hammer of wrath
C. Relentless
D. Moar guns
E. +1 toughness
F. Jink

And the squad he is attached to only has 3 models by default, not 5. Additionally they dont get FNP, and cant secure objectives, and cant take cover in a building.

I totally admit that Hammer of wrath, relentless and hit and run all on one guy can be OP, but its not as bad as eldar cheese is right now.

Backspacehacker wrote:And the squad he is attached to only has 3 models by default, not 5. Additionally they dont get FNP

They don't need FNP. They are T5 and can jink. Did I mention relentless?

If you are playing ravenwing, you can reroll those jinks, and you get AUTO-JINK on turn 1. You don't even have to snapfire on the following shooting phase.

It is funny, I think back when I ran a MUD (multi-user dungeon) a long time ago.
The players constantly tried to break and exploit things.
I had to get a friend to help with patches and re-writes and we thought for a while the players were the worst kind of TFG.
We got really good at what we did, it was hard work and in response to their pushing the limits.
Those same gosh-darn irritating people wound up telling us we were awesome and they had a lot of fun.

The natural response to irritating, OP, game breaking "exploits" is to patch them if it is not the intention of the game host/developer.
GW seems OK with this, this is the game as it is intended to be played like it or not.

I will even take broken rules over ill-defined, un-written "guidelines" determined by someone who thinks they know what is right in a game: you have an invested interest, you are automatically biased.

The saving grace for both of us is we do not have to agree to play each other.
In a forum luckily, there are no losers or winners, just differing opinion and facts.

Traditio wrote:

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," then yes, he is probably TFG.

Do you really contest this point?

Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

Because, again, I've been in that situation, and had perfectly enjoyable games despite my opponent's army being hideous.

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," and is a donkey-cave, then yes, he is probably TFG.

Just having said list, though? Nope. 'Probably' is vastly overstating it.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," then yes, he is probably TFG.

Do you really contest this point?

Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

Because, again, I've been in that situation, and had perfectly enjoyable games despite my opponent's army being hideous.

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," and is a donkey-cave, then yes, he is probably TFG.

Just having said list, though? Nope. 'Probably' is vastly overstating it.

QFT

boils down to if you openly admit its cheese IMO, and dont try and say its not

insaniak wrote:Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

At the very least, do you admit that it displays a less than ideal sense of justice?

Because, again, I've been in that situation, and had perfectly enjoyable games despite my opponent's army being hideous.

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Why wasn't he willing to balance things out?

Why wasn't he willing to run a CAD?

Why wasn't he willing to let you have a points advantage?

Why wasn't he willing to impose some kind of nerf on himself for the sake of fairness?

If the answer is:

"Because I just can't bring myself to nerf myself and play at a lower power level than what my codex absolutely permits," then yes, he's TFG, at least in some sense.

Note, there are degrees of TFG. He could be a positive riot at parties, for example. He could be a fantastic social acquaintance.

But when it comes to competitive (and probably cooperative games), his head ain't on just quite right.

Just having said list, though? Nope. 'Probably' is vastly overstating it.

See, this is why I really think we should do a poll. I don't know what questions we could put in it. But again, I do know that, in point of fact, there's an inordinate number of psychopathic/sociopathic CEOs and managers.

I see no reason why the same principle shouldn't apply to table top gaming.

Traditio wrote:

At the very least, do you admit that it displays a less than ideal sense of justice?

No, I think it displays a bunch of toy soldiers, chosen legally from a list of toy soldiers that can be used in a game of science fantasy space opera heroics.

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Sure, you do that.

While you're doing that, I'll be playing toy soldiers.


Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

 insaniak wrote:
Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

QFT
I am responsible for myself.
It is rather presumptuous to demand "accommodation" from others.
My fondest memories are of tough games well played and yes, even ones I lost.
Sometimes delivering a black eye to a tough list is enough.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Why wasn't he willing to balance things out?

Why wasn't he willing to run a CAD?

Why wasn't he willing to let you have a points advantage?

Why wasn't he willing to impose some kind of nerf on himself for the sake of fairness?

If the answer is:

"Because I just can't bring myself to nerf myself and play at a lower power level than what my codex absolutely permits," then yes, he's TFG, at least in some sense.

The problem is you assume that the person with a higher power level of list is somehow obligated to tone down their list.

Yes.

Traditio wrote:
Yes.

100% incorrect. The person with the underpowered army should learn to tone it up, or pick a new army. That's the way the cookie crumbles in today's society. We don't weaken to be on par with the weakest link, we either strengthen that link or get rid of it all together. Looking kinda fragile there, friend.

 insaniak wrote:

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Sure, you do that.

While you're doing that, I'll be playing toy soldiers.


Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

This. It's a fething game, and I'm getting awfully sick of the accusations and bullgak flying around over something as stupid as what faction I picked. The implications that I had malicious intent, that I'm antisocial or that I lack morals or I'm otherwise not a good person because when I was buying into this stupid miniatures game ten years ago, I picked Tau, which have remained my favorite army ever since, and I refuse to shelve them permanently or sell them on eBay like people tell me I should because GW fethed up the rules.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:100% incorrect. The person with the underpowered army should learn to tone it up, or pick a new army. That's the way the cookie crumbles in today's society. We don't weaken to be on par with the weakest link, we either strengthen that link or get rid of it all together. Looking kinda fragile there, friend.

Well, that's one attitude to have.

I wouldn't play someone with your attitude, but hey. That's an attitude to have, guy.

A lot of the issue here also seems to revolve around the idea that list strength is the sole criteria for winning games.

Even in 40K, that's not really the case. I've seen plenty of people lose games with strong lists... and had my butt kicked by good players with weak armies.

If you're having so much trouble having an enjoyable game against certain armies that you're automatically branding anyone using those armies as a horrible person, maybe looking at your own strategies would be a more productive use of time than running around slapping labels on people?

insaniak wrote:Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

It's a game that:

1. Requires a huge time, effort and monetary commitment to play

and that:

2. takes a feth load of time to play.

If I wanted to beat my head against a wall for 3 hours, there are cheaper and more pleasant ways of so doing, and don't require me to drive for half an hour or more to reach a place with suitable tables.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
A lot of the issue here also seems to revolve around the idea that list strength is the sole criteria for winning games.

It's not. But nowadays, it's the primary component.

That's how skewed this game is.

Even in 40K, that's not really the case. I've seen plenty of people lose games with strong lists... and had my butt kicked by good players with weak armies.

That's the exception, not the rule.

If you're having so much trouble having an enjoyable game against certain armies that you're automatically branding anyone using those armies as a horrible person, maybe looking at your own strategies would be a more productive use of time than running around slapping labels on people?

I don't want to brand these people as horrible people. I do wish to cast serious doubt on their motivations for playing the game in the manner that they play it, but I don't necessarily want to accuse them of being horrible people.

My friend can be a donkey cave when it comes to games.

I am still delighted to consider him a friend of mien.

Traditio wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:100% incorrect. The person with the underpowered army should learn to tone it up, or pick a new army. That's the way the cookie crumbles in today's society. We don't weaken to be on par with the weakest link, we either strengthen that link or get rid of it all together. Looking kinda fragile there, friend.

Well, that's one attitude to have.

I wouldn't play someone with your attitude, but hey. That's an attitude to have, guy.

Eh, plenty of people to play. Just simply stating how you can't expect it one way and not the other. Don't push if you can't be shoved

Traditio wrote:
It's a game that:

1. Requires a huge time, effort and monetary commitment to play

and that:

2. takes a feth load of time to play.

If I wanted to beat my head against a wall for 3 hours, there are cheaper and more pleasant ways of so doing, and don't require me to drive for half an hour or more to reach a place with suitable tables.

OK. That's a good argument for choosing to not play against certain types of lists.

It's not a good argument for labelling anyone with those lists a horrible person.

It's not. But nowadays, it's the primary component.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

It's something that people have been saying for as long as I've been playing this game (and that's about 20 years now), and as far as I've seen it's no more true now than it was back then.

That's the exception, not the rule.

Ah, ok.

So, just to confirm: Your anecdotal evidence of a single friend with a bad attitude is enough for you to brand every single Tau or Eldar player as TFG, but my anecdotal evidence, from observations over two decades of playing this game against a fairly broad array of different opponents is clearly not typical?

I don't want to brand these people as horrible people. I do wish to cast serious doubt on their motivations for playing the game in the manner that they play it,

Why?

Being named Ravenous D is a good start, evidently.

Martel732 wrote:
Being named Ravenous D is a good start, evidently.

You got problems buddy.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Being named Ravenous D is a good start, evidently.

You got problems buddy.

Sup guy? Is that a fething space elf in your avatar picture?

 Ravenous D wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Being named Ravenous D is a good start, evidently.

You got problems buddy.

Dang, shots fired! While Dboy was always rather annoying, ravenousD usually has logical advice. May not always present it in the best way, but it's usually accurate.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Being named Ravenous D is a good start, evidently.

You got problems buddy.

Dang, shots fired! While Dboy was always rather annoying, ravenousD usually has logical advice. May not always present it in the best way, but it's usually accurate.

Martel's just pissed because I told him off the other day and he ran to the mods after Ive spent the last year telling him how to fix his junk ass blood angels but he refuses to even attempt anything outside his exceptionally small and closed minded box of options. You cant help people that wont step out of their comfort zone.

He thinks that he cant take libby conclave with his blood angels because its vanilla and therefore allies, something he refuses to take. Its impossible to convince him that 1) You can win with blood angels if you use your brain and 2) eldar can be beaten.

I gave up trying to help but he keeps doing that thing with his face where he opens the dump valve and spews his verbal diarrhea all over the forum. Apparently he took it personally and has started posting about me in other threads. Its cute that I have a hate groupie now.

Ravenous D wrote:He thinks that he cant take libby conclave with his blood angels because its vanilla and therefore allies, something he refuses to take. Its impossible to convince him that 1) You can win with blood angels if you use your brain and 2) eldar can be beaten.

I gave up trying to help but he keeps doing that thing with his face where he opens the dump valve and spews his verbal diarrhea all over the forum. Apparently he took it personally and has started posting about me in other threads. Its cute that I have a hate groupie now.

If your answer to Martel is "Use a different codex" or "change your list," then the problem isn't with Martel. The problem is with the game and the people who intentionally break it.

Traditio wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:He thinks that he cant take libby conclave with his blood angels because its vanilla and therefore allies, something he refuses to take. Its impossible to convince him that 1) You can win with blood angels if you use your brain and 2) eldar can be beaten.

I gave up trying to help but he keeps doing that thing with his face where he opens the dump valve and spews his verbal diarrhea all over the forum. Apparently he took it personally and has started posting about me in other threads. Its cute that I have a hate groupie now.

If your answer to Martel is "Use a different codex" or "change your list," then the problem isn't with Martel. The problem is with the game and the people who intentionally break it.

Aaaaand here we go with the it's not me its you speech. No. As I stated before you are wrong. If you have old models and refuse to update to anything new and then complain that you can't win at all, YOURE TFG

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Aaaaand here we go with the it's not me its you speech. No. As I stated before you are wrong. If you have old models and refuse to update to anything new and then complain that you can't win at all, YOURE TFG

Whatever you say, guy.

Traditio wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Aaaaand here we go with the it's not me its you speech. No. As I stated before you are wrong. If you have old models and refuse to update to anything new and then complain that you can't win at all, YOURE TFG

Whatever you say, guy.

Now you're starting to get it

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:He thinks that he cant take libby conclave with his blood angels because its vanilla and therefore allies, something he refuses to take. Its impossible to convince him that 1) You can win with blood angels if you use your brain and 2) eldar can be beaten.

I gave up trying to help but he keeps doing that thing with his face where he opens the dump valve and spews his verbal diarrhea all over the forum. Apparently he took it personally and has started posting about me in other threads. Its cute that I have a hate groupie now.

If your answer to Martel is "Use a different codex" or "change your list," then the problem isn't with Martel. The problem is with the game and the people who intentionally break it.

Aaaaand here we go with the it's not me its you speech. No. As I stated before you are wrong. If you have old models and refuse to update to anything new and then complain that you can't win at all, YOURE TFG

Never to my opponent of course. Everyone I play with knows anyway. Of course, there's nothing for BA to update to or I'd consider it.

Martel732 wrote:Never to my opponent of course. Everyone I play with knows anyway. Of course, there's nothing for BA to update to or I'd consider it.

Nerf bat, I say. Embrace the nerfs.

Nerf tau.

Nerf eldar.

Nerf tau.

Nerf IG.

Nerf everyone who isn't Space Marines.

...

...

And even among space marines...

NERF WHITE SCARS AND DARK ANGELS!

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Never to my opponent of course. Everyone I play with knows anyway. Of course, there's nothing for BA to update to or I'd consider it.

Nerf bat, I say. Embrace the nerfs.

Nerf tau.

Nerf eldar.

Nerf tau.

Nerf IG.

Nerf everyone who isn't Space Marines.

...

...

And even among space marines...

NERF WHITE SCARS AND DARK ANGELS!

So your answer is to nerf armies to the ground, creating a new top that hopefully has your army in it? And you say you ARENT a TFG? Now I'm laughing...

And yet, the nerf bat's not coming out. In fact, the reverse is happening with the new space marine book.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:So your answer is to nerf armies to the ground, creating a new top that hopefully has your army in it? And you say you ARENT a TFG? Now I'm laughing...

Nerf until strict proportional equality has been effected. If my 15 point missile launcher isn't proportionately equal to whatever heretical 15 ppm upgrade you are using, then MOAR NERFS!

Traditio wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:So your answer is to nerf armies to the ground, creating a new top that hopefully has your army in it? And you say you ARENT a TFG? Now I'm laughing...

Nerf until strict proportional equality has been effected. If my 15 point missile launcher isn't proportionately equal to whatever heretical 15 ppm upgrade you are using, then MOAR NERFS!

That's asinine, a terrible idea. I say if you enjoy playing at the power level of your selected army then by all means enjoy the frick out of it. If you want something more powerful.... Well you know where to look

Pain4Pleasure wrote:That's asinine, a terrible idea. I say if you enjoy playing at the power level of your selected army then by all means enjoy the frick out of it. If you want something more powerful.... Well you know where to look

There shouldn't be a "more powerful." Period.

I think people would be happy if their codex were as dynamic and internally balanced as the Eldar. This means, of course, that everyone gets D-weapons.

Martel732 wrote:
I think people would be happy if their codex were as dynamic and internally balanced as the Eldar. This means, of course, that everyone gets D-weapons.

No

No.

No.

No.

No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No.No. No. No. No. No. No.No. No. No. No. No. No.No. No. No. No. No. No.

Just to be clear.

Did I mention...

"No"?

Yes. For the path GW has set, it's the only way to make things fair.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes. For the path GW has set, it's the only way to make things fair.

I have a better idea: ABOLISH THE D!

Too late for that. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Besides, you need something that GMCs respect.

Martel732 wrote:
Too late for that. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Besides, you need something that GMCs respect.

ABOLISH GMCS!

They've already cast the models and put them on the shelves.

Martel732 wrote:
They've already cast the models and put them on the shelves.

Keep the models. Rewrite their rules.

It's not happening. They haven't handed out nerfs since 3rd ed, and they are counting on never-ending escalation to keep selling things. The primary mystery is why they leave half the armies in the gutter.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not happening. They haven't handed out nerfs since 3rd ed, and they are counting on never-ending escalation to keep selling things. The primary mystery is why they leave half the armies in the gutter.

Move them north!

Are you... Are you guys simply posting nonsense? I see no valuable information from either one of you in the past few posts..

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Are you... Are you guys simply posting nonsense? I see no valuable information from either one of you in the past few posts..

That's the way an Eldar goes.

So... the actual discussion appears to be done here.