To keep stuff brief, my friends frankly told me I play minmaxing and its unfun to fight my army. Im not gonna get into their inability to read the new 8th rules or the fact one of them plays AM, but is Khorne Daemons + WE meta? Am I cheese for playing that combo? Im asking honestly and not rehotricaly, because as a newer player I simply picked the army up because it looks cool.
Are these real friends or people you occasionally game with? That should be your first indication. If they're people you're occasionally gaming with and they're just being whiny because you win on occasion that's one thing.
If they're actual friends? They may be on to something.
Perhaps. Do you easily curbstomp other players? Or do you give them a hard time at winning?
The first option mught be TFG-y because the other guys rather play fun lists, instead of optimized ones. If it's the second... they're just lazy and want easy wins
That's not a lot of info to go on, but the general idea is that playing an army you enjoy does not make you TFG.
The grey areas get into where you deliberately a strong army in a very weak meta and stomp everyone repeatedly (likewise, the opposite is equally true).
TFG is any behaviour that is socially unacceptable. Winning a few games with a strong list isn't TFG. Winning every game with the same strong list repeatedly despite people calmly asking you to tone your list down would be TFG behaviour.
Its so weird having to discuss social behaviour on a forum. Just don't be dicks to people. A list isn't an indicator of being TFG on its own. Context is important and every social situation is very different.
Building a good list should never be a point of contention at a club. Building a good army list is part of the playing the game no matter if its a "net list"*or something you spent months designing and building up.
So first point out - good lists are NOT BAD.
Now second point - do you win every single match easily. This could be a result of you either having a very powerful list and/or being better at playing than the rest of the players. If you are always winning then chances are others in the group are feeling like you're winning too much - or rather that they are not winning enough. Taking part counts; but losing every time isn't fun and saps the fun out of the game.
Third part is attitude whilst you play. This is a hard area because its so easy to get the wrong end of the stick and to blow up small behaviours into huge problems (esp online where if you describe how you behave you'll only note a few tiny instances of general behaviour).
In general if you're really bigging up how you're winning and how your opponent is looooosing then some might interpret that as poor sportsmanship; which when coupled with you always winning might well be seen as a bad attitude.
Note that behaviour is always a point of interpretation so you might well not be doing anything bad; but its interpreted as such by those you are playing with.
Ways to resolve this:
1) Get new friends; go play somewhere else.
2) Take a different army list. Esp if you've been using the same list for ages; just try something new. Doesn't have to be weak/strong just use something different.
3) If the issue is less lists and more the fact that you can clearly see that you're a better player whilst the others keep losing because they do stupid tactical choices with what they have then consider helping/teaching them.
You'll have to balance your attitude (you suck here let me show you how its really done - not good!) in how to approach this; but in theory if you can offer to help others learn better and teach so that you advance the local skill then everyone wins. They get to improve their game and you get better improved gamers to play against.
Note - TFG tends to be the kind of thing that gets thrown around lightly. The term should only be used for the very rare exceptions who have major attitude problems. But sometimes people just get salty at losing to that "one good player" even if that good player is doing nothing wrong and is behaving perfectly fine.
*honestly there's no such thing as a "net list" its a myth created by people who are very bad at building lists and refuse to accept any help/advice.
"Im not gonna get into their inability to read the new 8th rules"
Without knowing anything about your list, if you're insulting thees people off handed to a bunch of strangers while asking if you're being a dick.. You may not be that guy but you're probably an ass.
1. Out of the dozen or so games ive played, ive won 5 of them.
2. I was quite upbeat and never rubbed it in, in fact I rarely get salty in defeat either. Its just a dang game.
3. The list I built didnt even get to melee the last game. He conceeded turn 2 after I attacked him with a bunch of stuff first turn, because he exepected melee footslog and I brought deepstrike and fast units to cover my assault.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MattKing wrote: "Im not gonna get into their inability to read the new 8th rules"
Without knowing anything about your list, if you're insulting thees people off handed to a bunch of strangers while asking if you're being a dick.. You may not be that guy but you're probably an ass.
He played a few basilisks and lemun russes covered by guardsmen and light artillery. I brought bikes, heldrake, forgefiend and termies to go up front in front of a mass of Bloodletters. Without doing a full battle report, that was the short and sweet of our two armies.
See? I point out the fact that you're insulting your "friends" behind their back and you continue to talk about how dumb they're being in order to justify your statement. It doesn't exactly scream "plays well with others".
In general, being fun to play against is a tough thing to gauge, and is honestly more important than taking a strong list or not. My closer friends that play 40k tell me I play a tough game, and they enjoy the challenge of going against me. Beating me is something they really want to do, because it doesn't happen often. Outside my closer friends, I'm just an average player, and there are lots of players that play much better lists than I do and play those lists much better than I would play them. But none of them are people I don't want to play against, so none of them, to me, are TFG.
There's a lot of discussion on these forums about what a TFG is, but that's really not the question that should be asked here. The question should be, "Am I someone that people like to play against?". Are they upset because you always win? I don't think so, because you've said you've lost more than half your games. Are they upset because you're min-maxed? Possibly, but that could just be a frustration more than anything. Or are they upset because there's something about the way you're playing that makes you someone they don't want to play against?
If it's that, have a chat with them. Ask them what really bothers them, and that you're looking to change. Maybe you constantly chastise them for something, and then unknowningly do it yourself. Maybe you're bringing the same lists over and over, and they just want some variety. Maybe there are some house rules that need to be included to make the game play more like how you want, like playing ITC faq's and terrain to help create LoS blockers. Of course, maybe house rules are a problem, and need to be cleaned out, despite how much it helps or hurts you.
In any case, ask them, and listen and respect their responses. Don't try to fix things or gloss over them or "correct" them right away. Let them finish talking, say you're going to try to do better, and then think about those things that night before coming up with a solution that makes both of you happy.
MattKing wrote: See? I point out the fact that you're insulting your "friends" behind their back and you continue to talk about how dumb they're being in order to justify your statement. It doesn't exactly scream "plays well with others".
Its hardly behind their backs. My group and I had this discussion over the topic as I said, but I wanted an outsiders opinion. It does frustrate me that a few of them seem to not even try to learn the newer rules, and thats why I seem almost aggressive about it.
You can accrue a fair chunk of points in not a great deal of time. I've managed to do it myself.
In regards to the OP: are you building minmaxed lists? It doesn't sound like it if you're 5/12 in games. Ask your friends to build a list for you and see what they come up with.
It may have something to do with the game itself. Me and a friend both find that the game type drastically changes our fortunes on who wins. I Play a very assault heavy Night lords army where he prefers a boots on the ground Space marine army. In a straight up killfest, I always come out on top as my guys are made to do that punchwork, however in an objective game, I really feel the pinch as my guys just can't hold the objectives well enough for that period of time. Try playing some different game types (Open war cards are great for this) and see if the game dynamic changes somewhat to a more mutually gratifying game where it can swing either way.
Frankly, from your attitude here, I can absolutely see why some see you as TFG.
You don't seem "almost aggressive", you are insulting your friends and acting in a very aloof and arrogant way with their "inability to get the rules". If you have a stronger grasp of the rules than your friends, help them learn the game, don't just smash them and then gloat about their inability on the internet.
curran12 wrote: Frankly, from your attitude here, I can absolutely see why some see you as TFG.
You don't seem "almost aggressive", you are insulting your friends and acting in a very aloof and arrogant way with their "inability to get the rules". If you have a stronger grasp of the rules than your friends, help them learn the game, don't just smash them and then gloat about their inability on the internet.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
One of the hardest things to learn in a game with alternate turn activations is how to adapt to a changing battle.
In game with unit alternate activations adapting on the fly is more intuitive because each step one person takes the other gets to take a reply step.
However with alternate turns one player tends to get a better chance at at least starting their core game plan (whatever that is). If your opponent hasn't quite yet learned how to adapt on the fly to a changing battle it can seem really punishing if you blast a hole in their idea and they feel like you've already won.
That said turn 1 combat tends to scare a lot of people in any game.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
Then, as I said, teach them. You're doing exactly the same thing I just mentioned even in this post. you could have advised your friend what was coming, or explained that it was the rules, but instead you just said "it's your fault" to them (either in their face or here) and proceeded to smash them. Plus, judging by how you talk about this, you didn't spend any time teaching them game or new rules to them, instead you came straight to Dakka to effectively blame them. That's TFG behavior.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
Then, as I said, teach them. You're doing exactly the same thing I just mentioned even in this post. you could have advised your friend what was coming, or explained that it was the rules, but instead you just said "it's your fault" to them (either in their face or here) and proceeded to smash them. Plus, judging by how you talk about this, you didn't spend any time teaching them game or new rules to them, instead you came straight to Dakka to effectively blame them. That's TFG behavior.
Id argue more, but this is beyond deconstructive to the original point and just piss throwing. Im done replying to you.
"he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules."
You continue to insult someone we don't know and claim that this person's ignorance justifies assholeish behavior. It seems from your posts that you think that as long as we think someone else is a moron you're not "that guy".
When you find you're in a hole you nearly can't climb out of, put the shovel down.
curran12 wrote: Frankly, from your attitude here, I can absolutely see why some see you as TFG.
You don't seem "almost aggressive", you are insulting your friends and acting in a very aloof and arrogant way with their "inability to get the rules". If you have a stronger grasp of the rules than your friends, help them learn the game, don't just smash them and then gloat about their inability on the internet.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
While true, against more casual players I find doing this often results in a "gotcha" moment that make for a bad game. I think it is very important that if you have that ability, you should make it clear to your opponent that you can do so. Then if your opponent still loses 2 things should happen.
1.) Depending on the player, give them some tips on how they can counter said deepstrike/turn 1 assault.
2.) Especially if said players army doesn't have a great answer to the deepstrike, don't do that again, until you feel like they are able to handle it.
As one of the more experienced players in my group I always view it as my responsibility to help to improve players in my community.
As for learning the rules, not all people learn things at the same rate, or the same way as others. Plenty of people I know don't really learn things until they actually play them in the game.
Ask if you're a TFG, then argue when your behavior is marked as TFG. I suppose your interest wasn't in your behavior, you just wanted a pat on the back and assurance that you were all perfect.
Rebuild your list. CSM squads as troops. Take a few units of those. Then add a couple FA/HS/whatever. And if you want demons too, take a detatchment. Focus on having a couple troops.
This time, for now, don't have a central plan. Just throw units in the list. Try to be fairly general about it.
Play a few games. Yes, there's a good chance you'll lose a couple. That's not a bad thing.
Now your regular opponents know the game better. Start using more of your knowledge.
Start adding shenanigans. Little by little. Game by game. Exploiting each one until they've caught on and figured out how to counter.
They'll enjoy playing you more. You'll get more games. You could even retain a positive W/L/D that way.
And then they'll understand, and better enjoy, the game more.
While true, against more casual players I find doing this often results in a "gotcha" moment that make for a bad game. I think it is very important that if you have that ability, you should make it clear to your opponent that you can do so. Then if your opponent still loses 2 things should happen.
1.) Depending on the player, give them some tips on how they can counter said deepstrike/turn 1 assault.
2.) Especially if said players army doesn't have a great answer to the deepstrike, don't do that again, until you feel like they are able to handle it.
As one of the more experienced players in my group I always view it as my responsibility to help to improve players in my community.
As for learning the rules, not all people learn things at the same rate, or the same way as others. Plenty of people I know don't really learn things until they actually play them in the game.
These are all excellent suggestions!
To the Original Poster. Worry less about how people perceive you and more about how to be an actual friend to your friends.
To answer if you are TFG, I would need the testimony of 3x people and consult my flow chart.
MattKing wrote: "he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules."
You continue to insult someone we don't know and claim that this person's ignorance justifies assholeish behavior. It seems from your posts that you think that as long as we think someone else is a moron you're not "that guy".
When you find you're in a hole you nearly can't climb out of, put the shovel down.
I dont consider not reading the rulebook to be moronic, stop trying to put words in my mouth. Its just frustratingly lazy for a person whos had months to do so.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
Then, as I said, teach them. You're doing exactly the same thing I just mentioned even in this post. you could have advised your friend what was coming, or explained that it was the rules, but instead you just said "it's your fault" to them (either in their face or here) and proceeded to smash them. Plus, judging by how you talk about this, you didn't spend any time teaching them game or new rules to them, instead you came straight to Dakka to effectively blame them. That's TFG behavior.
Id argue more, but this is beyond deconstructive to the original point and just piss throwing. Im done replying to you.
Whilst you might have taken the comment as hostile its in fact just trying to get you to approach things from a different angle. Instead of focusing on annoyance at what the others don't know; focus instead on teaching what you do know and encouraging them to learn. Not everyone approaches Warhammer 40K by reading the rules inside and out and many learn as they play ; which can be why they'd be arguing over very basic points - because they are still learning the very basic points and they choose to learn whilst playing. It's a hobby so its not like they are taking the rulebook home to memorise for a test.
Look, here's where we stand. You came here to ask weather or not you're being a duche.
Several people told you they didn't have enough information. Two guys gave you excellent summaries of how not to be a duche and I, and others, pointed out you're behaving like child right here and now. I think the vote is in. If you don't like it you shouldn't have asked.
I dont consider not reading the rulebook to be moronic, stop trying to put words in my mouth. Its just frustratingly lazy for a person whos had months to do so.
Calling someone lazy is just as rude as calling them a moron.
Less name calling and more being a supportive friend.
curran12 wrote: Frankly, from your attitude here, I can absolutely see why some see you as TFG.
You don't seem "almost aggressive", you are insulting your friends and acting in a very aloof and arrogant way with their "inability to get the rules". If you have a stronger grasp of the rules than your friends, help them learn the game, don't just smash them and then gloat about their inability on the internet.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
Hate to ask it, but did he realize that each unit that struck in only had a 24% chance of actually charging into combat?
Hold on, you are calling out vaklor for being arrogant/aloof and a true TFG, when I see his "friends" being petulant children.
But go ahead, take the moral high ground, because heaven forbid that sometimes, people need to be told to "get good" rather than blame others for being a poor player, learn 8 pages or rules or simply employ their brain while Wargaming.
curran12 wrote: Ask if you're a TFG, then argue when your behavior is marked as TFG. I suppose your interest wasn't in your behavior, you just wanted a pat on the back and assurance that you were all perfect.
Dr. Mills wrote: Hold on, you are calling out vaklor for being arrogant/aloof and a true TFG, when I see his "friends" being petulant children.
But go ahead, take the moral high ground, because heaven forbid that sometimes, people need to be told to "get good" rather than blame others for being a poor player, learn 8 pages or rules or simply employ their brain while Wargaming.
Let's be honest here; how much does any of us actually know about the situation? We only have one side of the story, and the details aren't spelled out.
Dr. Mills wrote: Hold on, you are calling out vaklor for being arrogant/aloof and a true TFG, when I see his "friends" being petulant children.
But go ahead, take the moral high ground, because heaven forbid that sometimes, people need to be told to "get good" rather than blame others for being a poor player, learn 8 pages or rules or simply employ their brain while Wargaming.
This (outside of a tournament) could not be further from the truth. If his friends are looking to play just for kicks, and are not concerned with optimizing their list, and playing a tight tactical game, it is a perfectly fair statement to tell him that they don't enjoy playing against his lists that are min-maxing.
Here's the thing to remember about TFG - it's a label applied when people are frustrated with some aspect of playing against someone. It can be applied to anything - how you roll the dice, construction of your lists, tendency to win, etc. Whatever someone says is the problem, that doesn't mean it is.
Truly appreciate your desire to be a better player and have more courtesy for those around you. But my experience has been it's impossible to stop the criticisms once they start. See if you can steer clear of the people saying this.
Dude you are probably playing the only remaining elite melee army that actually works.
Anywho, its a game, and both are supposed to have fun, so if your opponents decide to charge with their leman russes into combat because they are 'bad', tone stuff down. If they are whineing constantly stand your ground, hope they wisen up.
vaklor4 wrote: To keep stuff brief, my friends frankly told me I play minmaxing and its unfun to fight my army.
Well if they are willing to tell you this straight-up they seem to think you are receptive to "criticism".
Now, "minmaxing" is the default method for I dunno, actively trying to win a game.
Is there some "house rule" that they use for selecting their armies that they have not informed you about?
Im not gonna get into their inability to read the new 8th rules or the fact one of them plays AM, but is Khorne Daemons + WE meta?
It can get into uptight situations if friends do not do "their homework".
I tend to get a bit upset when people blame their loss on their opponent "being cheesy" rather than their inability to adapt.
I would have to dig in a bit to see what that army can do, it is not "meta" that I know of yet.
The trick is to NOT GET IN MELEE though the Orks may appreciate it, just barely.
Am I cheese for playing that combo? Im asking honestly and not rehotricaly, because as a newer player I simply picked the army up because it looks cool.
I guess the real question is how many games have you played with that army?
How many wins?
Did your opponents come back with a variation to their lists?
Maybe I am a masochist but I truly like taking a good thumping and then coming back with something nastier.
It can be... unfortunate if my list was assuming too much and my opponent brings a knife to a gun fight.
So from time to time I have a game where I feel like TFG. Generally they are bad matchups, and when I repeatedly have bad matchups against the same person, they start to view me as overly competitive.
Some players, especially newer ones, seem to grasp onto a feeling, or point of view, and have trouble letting go. For example, in 7th edition I faced a fellow with no transports or mobility. Very few heavy weapons, and he spammed cultists in blobs of 20. I had 4 quad mortars in my list, as well as a few large blasts of various strength and AP. I felt bad about, he got frustrated on turn 2 and we called it. So a few weeks later, I face the same dude and he has the EXACT SAME LIST. This time I have my Space Wolves with Blackmanes great company supported by some TWC. Again, turn 2, he gets frustrated and we call it. I hear the dreaded accusation that I run min/max lists, but the reality is that he was running a TERRIBLE list. I couldn't convince him that he needed to change his tactics if he wanted to win, he played what he thought was cool, even though it sucked.
So now in 8th, I face the same dude twice. He has a well rounded list, and the first game he beats me with my SW. It was the month the edition dropped so we were both learning. I play him again later, we try an open war mission, it leans heavily in his favor. Basically the relic, and it's in his deployment zone. Thought tactical use of falling back, piling in, and target priority, I squeaked a win out at the end of the 6th turn. He was dominating pretty hard until turn 5. There were very obvious times when he should have fallen back and shot at the unit with a different model, but chose not to. The dreaded accusation came again, that I was playing an OP list (nurgle daemons with epidemius) Even though he had stomped me hard in our previous game, he only could blame losses on me, and not himself. It was one of the closest games I have had in awhile, and I had a blast, he seemed to as well, until the end of turn 5 when the tables turned.
Sometimes it isn't you, sometimes it is them. All you can do is change your list, be polite, and have as much fun as possible.
While I don't think you're a TFG, I think there's a real issue here.
Your friends aren't reading/understanding basic rules, and then are reacting strongly when they realize it. That creates a feeling of perceived unfairness, so they're upset.
You aren't playing in an unfair manner, so them being sad at a "non-issue" impacts you, making you feel upset.
Whose responsibility is this whole kerfuffle? Well, I think it's theirs initially. 75% of the blame goes to them. Not only for responsibility for not reading the rules, but then reacting badly at the reasonable effects of not reading the rules.
Now to the other 25%. This part I'm allocating to you. The reason I'm allocating it to you us that you, also, need to control your emotional state. As others have posted, there are more productive ways to react to people.
Tbh, I hate the idea of TFG... seriously, the game is made so you can pretty much make any headfluf work. Field whatever you want. The game is centered on you as a player and your opponent having fun. For instance, I love fielding certain models because they look cool. What’s wrong with buying the models you think are cool, building them, painting them, and wanting to field them because you put the money, time, and effort in them? No one is putting a gun to your opponent’s head and forcing them to play with you. Use whatever you want, if your opponent agrees to play with you and they rage shame on them, you didn’t force them.
Now there is a difference between this and just crushing a 15 year old kid that knows no better....
We get into these discussions and it seems to need some urban dictionary meaning.
Competitive Gamer: This is someone who will play by the rules, including taking them to the max. They will take great pains to stay within the rules and yes, leverage an exploit if it is not firmly in the grey zone.
Now they tend to get confused with:
TFG: As best I understand it always seems to boil down to that person being incredibly irritating either for that moment (adjective) or consistently (noun).
What we typically call a friend when he decides to play an exploit to the max IN the grey-zone and chuckle the whole time while playing it.
Now they tend to get confused with:
WAAC: Which is "Win at all costs" where we need to remember that does include cheating.
With friends, we at least do not like them to be unhappy playing.
Look into the problem together.
If someone decides for some reason to NOT play an optimal army, you all need to get together some "house rule" to get you all to a level playing field: you cannot read minds.
I found this would typically fail on occasion and I would design a scenario with an eye for balance.
The problem is the game is expensive and it may take some time to round-out the options for each person's army.
Talizvar wrote: We get into these discussions and it seems to need some urban dictionary meaning.
Competitive Gamer: This is someone who will play by the rules, including taking them to the max. They will take great pains to stay within the rules and yes, leverage an exploit if it is not firmly in the grey zone.
Now they tend to get confused with:
TFG: As best I understand it always seems to boil down to that person being incredibly irritating either for that moment (adjective) or consistently (noun).
What we typically call a friend when he decides to play an exploit to the max IN the grey-zone and chuckle the whole time while playing it.
Now they tend to get confused with:
WAAC: Which is "Win at all costs" where we need to remember that does include cheating.
With friends, we at least do not like them to be unhappy playing.
Look into the problem together.
If someone decides for some reason to NOT play an optimal army, you all need to get together some "house rule" to get you all to a level playing field: you cannot read minds.
I found this would typically fail on occasion and I would design a scenario with an eye for balance.
The problem is the game is expensive and it may take some time to round-out the options for each person's army.
I think there is some grey area between your definitions. For instance a competitive gamer, that takes a tournament tuned list and beats face on new players, or super casual players (on a regular basis) is IMOTFG because he is unwilling to take the other players enjoyment into account. If you cannot hold back your competitive side best to not player people that don't have the same idea of fun as you. If your idea of fun is beating face on people that are not trying to tune their lists, you are not a competitive player you are TFG>
OP, of course you're TFG. You won a game that your opponent was entitled to win, and how dare you do anything but line up some punching bags for them and walk everything across the table 6" at a time while the IG gunline mows them down. You should feel bad about yourself for not considering how your opponent would feel about losing.
Breng77 wrote: I think there is some grey area between your definitions. For instance a competitive gamer, that takes a tournament tuned list and beats face on new players, or super casual players (on a regular basis) is IMOTFG because he is unwilling to take the other players enjoyment into account. If you cannot hold back your competitive side best to not player people that don't have the same idea of fun as you. If your idea of fun is beating face on people that are not trying to tune their lists, you are not a competitive player you are TFG>
On the other hand, you could say that those "super casual players" are TFG for constantly bringing weak lists and not taking other players' enjoyment into account.
Peregrine wrote: OP, of course you're TFG. You won a game that your opponent was entitled to win, and how dare you do anything but line up some punching bags for them and walk everything across the table 6" at a time while the IG gunline mows them down. You should feel bad about yourself for not considering how your opponent would feel about losing.
Breng77 wrote: I think there is some grey area between your definitions. For instance a competitive gamer, that takes a tournament tuned list and beats face on new players, or super casual players (on a regular basis) is IMOTFG because he is unwilling to take the other players enjoyment into account. If you cannot hold back your competitive side best to not player people that don't have the same idea of fun as you. If your idea of fun is beating face on people that are not trying to tune their lists, you are not a competitive player you are TFG>
On the other hand, you could say that those "super casual players" are TFG for constantly bringing weak lists and not taking other players' enjoyment into account.
Not so much, I always put the honus on the "better" player to be the one to adjust, or not play. You are making an assumption that the "super casual" player is capable on a moments notice of turning his intensity, list building, and tactical acumen to competitive levels. Also that they own the models necessary to make a better list. I don't find this suggestion realistic, where as easing up is much more realistic. Your suggestion is akin to saying "If Lebron is stomping on a casual pick up player, that player should step it up so LeBron can have a fun game." That simply does not work. If LeBron wants a better game he either needs to handicap himself against a lesser player, or seek better competition elsewhere.
As unfair as it may seem it is incumbent on the best player to play to his or her environment.
Now if you have a super competitive club, and a new player joins, then the responsibility lies with that player to improve to meet the level of competition if they want a good game, though still at first it is better for the good players to tone it down a bit while the new player learns.
Peregrine wrote: On the other hand, you could say that those "super casual players" are TFG for constantly bringing weak lists and not taking other players' enjoyment into account.
It is a "choice" made in fluff or scrub gaming that there is this unreasonable expectation that their opponent must find your level of play with rules not in the rulebook.
Competitive gamers do not add a blessed rule to the game, it is played as written, for better or worse.
EVEN THEN if you are willing to write down a rule to add, they will cheerfully accept it (and possibly beat you to death with it). A close game is wanted.
Having a game handed to you without giving it an honest go is lackluster.
<edit> I think the "irritation" is the expectation that the better player needs to handicap their game as the first choice, rather than the other player learn from the game and improve.
Plus the ease for a fluff player to then play their "A" game is no less work for the competitive player to bring their "C" game since of course they will need to buy sub-optimal models.
Breng77 wrote: Not so much, I always put the honus on the "better" player to be the one to adjust, or not play. You are making an assumption that the "super casual" player is capable on a moments notice of turning his intensity, list building, and tactical acumen to competitive levels. Also that they own the models necessary to make a better list. I don't find this suggestion realistic, where as easing up is much more realistic. Your suggestion is akin to saying "If Lebron is stomping on a casual pick up player, that player should step it up so LeBron can have a fun game." That simply does not work. If LeBron wants a better game he either needs to handicap himself against a lesser player, or seek better competition elsewhere.
No, that's not a valid comparison at all. Competing with LeBron is literally an impossible task. Unless you are lucky enough to have the one in a million genes to be the kind of elite athlete that can even attempt (probably unsuccessfully, since he's one of the top ~5 players in the entire world) to compete but somehow haven't bothered to use your potential no amount of effort invested will allow you to succeed. You simply do not have the physical ability to get to that level of skill and athleticism.
In 40k, on the other hand, being good at the game is a low bar and largely about choices you make. A good army is no more expensive than a weak army, and the skill threshold to play it well is fairly low (a state that is aggressively encouraged by GW's game design). Weaker players are not bad at 40k because they are unable to compete, they're bad at 40k because they have deliberately chosen to play weak armies. So you have a situation where the "casual" player is allowed to limit their spending to only the exact models they want to use and never has to invest effort into learning better strategy, while the "competitive" player is obligated to carry the full burden of buying extra models to play a second, weaker, list against the "casual" player and invest effort into deliberately throwing the game so that the "casual" player feels better. The only reason this happens is that certain narcissistic "casual at all costs" players have decided that their approach to the game is the norm, and everyone else needs to join the rest of the group.
We had a TFG at our FLGS who really wasn't any good. I won the majority of times we went head to head, but never enjoyed it. Always a headache. Always shenanigans. Always a bad time.
Another guy I play regularly usually beats me. And has a massive gamer's inch. I'll get rocked, but we'll both have a fun time.
Most of the TFG that I know don't even play competitive. They are just awful human beings that smell bad, have bad social skills and don't try to change one or the other.
I don't know if op is a TFG, it doesn't sound like it to me, but maybe your giving your opponents too much credit, or not enough.....
What I mean is my normal opponent is my wife, and 8th ed was the first time she had played any 40k. We have played over a dozen games since 8th came out and I read the rules and watched a lot of batraps before our first game. She enjoys it well enough but she hasn't read the rules. She knows them from what I tell her, and as such we started small and have gotten further into the game the more we play. We didn't even use command points at first, and just recently with her codex coming out (nids) have gotten into warlord traits, Relics, and advance stratagems.
I don't hold it against her for not reading the rules, she isn't that interested in that aspect of the hobby. She enjoys the stories in the codexes and the models and how they look but looking at the technical aspects of the units, their stats and stuff, she isn't really good at seeing it and understanding how it would work without actually trying it on the board first or talking about it.
So if your opponent doesn't understand the rules as well as you do before you do something maybe explain what your doing if it's going to lead to them making a big mistake? Granted I don't know how receptive they will be of that, some people are open to learning how things work like that others will tell you that they know what they are doing. So yeah.
Like most things, its probably half truth. You already said your opponents doesn't like to play against you, so you either tone down your minmax list or find other players that run minmax lists. If you can't find any, then you are left with 1 option, which is to tone down your WAAC list and play a more friendlier RPG list, if you can't or don't want to do that, then play another game.
TFG isn't about your list, or wins, its the attitude, attempt to cheat for their benefit, rule lawyer beyond the average. From your OP, you seem like a WAAC tourney player, so I suggest you find and play others trying to do the same, not bashing your friend's RPG list.
curran12 wrote: Frankly, from your attitude here, I can absolutely see why some see you as TFG.
You don't seem "almost aggressive", you are insulting your friends and acting in a very aloof and arrogant way with their "inability to get the rules". If you have a stronger grasp of the rules than your friends, help them learn the game, don't just smash them and then gloat about their inability on the internet.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
I can understand your point. It is in the rules.
That said, switching to a new edition takes some time, also the turn 1 alpha strike CC monster list for 8th is a bit TFG just because there are not a lot of ways to deal with it.
But hey, I play Thousand sons in 30k so what do I know? lol
Breng77 wrote: Not so much, I always put the honus on the "better" player to be the one to adjust, or not play. You are making an assumption that the "super casual" player is capable on a moments notice of turning his intensity, list building, and tactical acumen to competitive levels. Also that they own the models necessary to make a better list. I don't find this suggestion realistic, where as easing up is much more realistic. Your suggestion is akin to saying "If Lebron is stomping on a casual pick up player, that player should step it up so LeBron can have a fun game." That simply does not work. If LeBron wants a better game he either needs to handicap himself against a lesser player, or seek better competition elsewhere.
No, that's not a valid comparison at all. Competing with LeBron is literally an impossible task. Unless you are lucky enough to have the one in a million genes to be the kind of elite athlete that can even attempt (probably unsuccessfully, since he's one of the top ~5 players in the entire world) to compete but somehow haven't bothered to use your potential no amount of effort invested will allow you to succeed. You simply do not have the physical ability to get to that level of skill and athleticism.
In 40k, on the other hand, being good at the game is a low bar and largely about choices you make. A good army is no more expensive than a weak army, and the skill threshold to play it well is fairly low (a state that is aggressively encouraged by GW's game design). Weaker players are not bad at 40k because they are unable to compete, they're bad at 40k because they have deliberately chosen to play weak armies. So you have a situation where the "casual" player is allowed to limit their spending to only the exact models they want to use and never has to invest effort into learning better strategy, while the "competitive" player is obligated to carry the full burden of buying extra models to play a second, weaker, list against the "casual" player and invest effort into deliberately throwing the game so that the "casual" player feels better. The only reason this happens is that certain narcissistic "casual at all costs" players have decided that their approach to the game is the norm, and everyone else needs to join the rest of the group.
I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly. Further you talk
About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.
That said if you cannot be bothered to do any of that the best response is not to play, not play, stomp
The lesser player, then say "lol get good newb"
To the OP, maybe you are just a lot more passionate about the game than your friends. Which results in you have much more models, more options, and much clearer about how rules work than they do.
Maybe they don't put in half the amount of time you do. And maybe they don't watch youtube videos of 40k for fun like you do. Maybe they don't spend hours making up a list like you do. And maybe they buy models which look nice and "cool" to them rather than look for models which they want in a good list.
Yours is a world eaters army? I am impressed you are being seen as TFG. Because assault armies have it tough this edition. But everything is relative. If your friends are still in the stage of collecting just two heavy support options in their army, and prefer to play with lots of mixed units. Any well constructed army this edition would probably wreck them.
Maybe they don't know how to bubble wrap, because they are playing marines and they don't have sufficient models for it. Or they insist on playing pure marines and refuse to use IG chaff to bubble wrap. Maybe they don't have Gulliman, Azreal, Celestine or any of the powerful named characters. Maybe they are not playing imperial soup. Even the way the board is set up matters. Maybe you guy play on smaller tables. So, melee always gets within charge range on turn 1 by default. Or maybe you are playing forge world models.
I can think of a lot of ways a space marine player could end up being playing a very easy list. And this applies to CSM players too (don't play any named characters, don't play a lot of heavy support choices, dont bubble wrap enough because don't have enough cultists or flat out don't play cultists and don't play forgeworld).
If they are still considered at "newbie" tier while you are at "expert" tier already, then you are going to stomp them every time. Even though they simplified the rules somewhat, there are still lots of rules. If you are passionate about the game, you will remember every rule beneficial to you. While if they are nowhere near as passionate about the game, they will forget half of the special rules applicable to their army even while they are playing the game.
Case in point. I always forget the special rule "death to the false emperor" when I am playing. I just don't play games frequently enough. lol
My advice, join a tournament. Then you will see where your true level is at.
vaklor4 wrote: To keep stuff brief, my friends frankly told me I play minmaxing and its unfun to fight my army. Im not gonna get into their inability to read the new 8th rules or the fact one of them plays AM, but is Khorne Daemons + WE meta? Am I cheese for playing that combo? Im asking honestly and not rehotricaly, because as a newer player I simply picked the army up because it looks cool.
I don't like the TFGcr power-gamer concept/label, but communication is a good idea to ensure mutual understanding of the nature of your game. In a tournament or open game night I expect to meet powerful, well-constructed lists. In a game of Garage Hammer with friends and family I have different expectations.
Your list is fine and I don't like accusations of min maxing, but if these are friends outside of gaming then perhaps they have different expectations of the game? I find the idea of someone toning their list down for me a little patronizing, but perhaps your friends are different?
They could just be venting, so maybe talk with them outside of the game over a beer and find out if they are really upset.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.
You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.
Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.
Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?
A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Big Mac wrote: Like most things, its probably half truth. You already said your opponents doesn't like to play against you, so you either tone down your minmax list or find other players that run minmax lists. If you can't find any, then you are left with 1 option, which is to tone down your WAAC list and play a more friendlier RPG list, if you can't or don't want to do that, then play another game.
TFG isn't about your list, or wins, its the attitude, attempt to cheat for their benefit, rule lawyer beyond the average. From your OP, you seem like a WAAC tourney player, so I suggest you find and play others trying to do the same, not bashing your friend's RPG list.
Why are you assuming that there are "RPG lists" involved, rather than just bad players? Nothing at all in any of the OP's posts suggests that their opponents are playing extremely lore-friendly lists that lose because they sacrifice on-table performance to meet some fluff goal. This seems like yet another case of assuming that if a list or player is bad at winning then they must be "narrative" players with an awesome story behind everything, not just bad at the game.
I agree with Peregrine: The opponents are probably venting or complaining of being beaten.
I mean, blood letter demons and World Eater Marine's and that is considered TFG? I'm sorry, but if I overheard that I'd call them out on their amazingly ignorant statement.
While it's important to help people learn and to ensure enjoyment, it's the responsibility of BOTH players to understand the rules, know their armies abilities etc. Getting all butthurt over getting stomped by an assault army because you refuse to adapt is not anyone else's fault but your own.
It speaks volumes when a well thought out list is considered min-maxing and their random assortment of units is explained away as either fluff or RPG lists - but is probably in all honestly a bad list, using units just gotten because reasons.
It just strikes me of the age old argument "a coherent list won a no thought list and the looser is salty accusing the winner of TFG while the actual reason is the losing list was just bad or played badly"
curran12 wrote: Frankly, from your attitude here, I can absolutely see why some see you as TFG.
You don't seem "almost aggressive", you are insulting your friends and acting in a very aloof and arrogant way with their "inability to get the rules". If you have a stronger grasp of the rules than your friends, help them learn the game, don't just smash them and then gloat about their inability on the internet.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
I can understand your point. It is in the rules.
That said, switching to a new edition takes some time, also the turn 1 alpha strike CC monster list for 8th is a bit TFG just because there are not a lot of ways to deal with it.
But hey, I play Thousand sons in 30k so what do I know? lol
If he's losing more games then he's winning is the problem really his list?
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.
You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.
Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.
Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.
Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?
A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.
You only see it as condescending because you are a highly competitive person, I find that casual players who just want to have a fun game often have no issue playing games like that. Further, choosing not to infiltrate my units is not forgetting anything it is making a choice not to play in a certain way. If I am playing a casual player, who tells me they want a light fun game, and all I have is my hardcore list I don't think it is showing zero respect to say to them, well I only have this super hard list, are you ok if I play x points down to try to make this a better game? IF they say no, then you don't play points down, then if they get stomped that is on them, if they get stomped quickly maybe you re-rack points down and play again.
As for the burden....yes it is on the better player to ensure the experience of the not as good player. That is the only way you are getting a good game, you cannot control the actions of another person. SO either you don't play that person, or you adjust your play to make it a good game. Playing them repeatedly and stomping them (unless they enjoy getting stomped) is being TFG.
Sure the ideal way to handle it is to have "soft" lists for when you don't play competitive players, but you didn't want to spend extra money and only owned your hardcore list
. You also miss the point that it isn't about the other player getting to win, it is about them getting to enjoy the game. IF your hard core list is - turn 1 I assault your whole army with Khorne berserkers and you remove it from the table. That isn't a fun game. If you are actually a good player you will recognize that it won't be a good game when you see your opponents army or at worst deployment.
The bottom line is - you can never have control over other people and their choices. So you either, only play people who have the same attitude toward the game that you do, adjust your style of play to the player you are facing, or you are TFG, and that may mean people don't want to play against you.
Another solution is to find other players who know the rules. I think you should not have to change your army to make them happy. I remember when I first started playing... I won exactly two games the first six months - then things started to click and I began winning more often. I then started to receive complaints about my army. They were more than happy to consistently beat me all those months, they never changed up their lists to make it any easier for me. I found a new group of players and never looked back.
Primark G wrote: Another solution is to find other players who know the rules. I think you should not have to change your army to make them happy. I remember when I first started playing... I won exactly two games the first six months - then things started to click and I began winning more often. I then started to receive complaints about my army. They were more than happy to consistently beat me all those months, they never changed up their lists to make it any easier for me. I found a new group of players and never looked back.
Absolutely, if your group isn't to your liking finding another group is probably the best choice for your happiness.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.
You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.
Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.
Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.
Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?
A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.
You only see it as condescending because you are a highly competitive person, I find that casual players who just want to have a fun game often have no issue playing games like that. Further, choosing not to infiltrate my units is not forgetting anything it is making a choice not to play in a certain way. If I am playing a casual player, who tells me they want a light fun game, and all I have is my hardcore list I don't think it is showing zero respect to say to them, well I only have this super hard list, are you ok if I play x points down to try to make this a better game? IF they say no, then you don't play points down, then if they get stomped that is on them, if they get stomped quickly maybe you re-rack points down and play again.
As for the burden....yes it is on the better player to ensure the experience of the not as good player. That is the only way you are getting a good game, you cannot control the actions of another person. SO either you don't play that person, or you adjust your play to make it a good game. Playing them repeatedly and stomping them (unless they enjoy getting stomped) is being TFG.
Sure the ideal way to handle it is to have "soft" lists for when you don't play competitive players, but you didn't want to spend extra money and only owned your hardcore list
. You also miss the point that it isn't about the other player getting to win, it is about them getting to enjoy the game. IF your hard core list is - turn 1 I assault your whole army with Khorne berserkers and you remove it from the table. That isn't a fun game. If you are actually a good player you will recognize that it won't be a good game when you see your opponents army or at worst deployment.
The bottom line is - you can never have control over other people and their choices. So you either, only play people who have the same attitude toward the game that you do, adjust your style of play to the player you are facing, or you are TFG, and that may mean people don't want to play against you.
You guys are aware, that IQ curve bell is a thing, right? Genetic/epigenetic, nature or nurture discussion aside, there is an observable discrepancy in functional inteligence in the world and there are no "entry tests" into 40K, so there are people all over this curve in our community. What some people find "trivial and uncomplicated" in 40K some find borderline challenging.
One other thing - I agree, that 40K is relatively easy game, but it is not tic-tac-toe trivial. As in any game, proficiency comes with experience. It may come from direct tabletop mileage, it may come from endless hours of watching batreps and mathhammering things. But from what I see, there is a very strong belief in this community, that playing only a couple times a year counts as "being an invested player". Many people have a hard time memorising their own faction stats and rules at first and for even "solid entry level" proficiency you need to understand not only how your own army work, but also how your opponent army work. In the world of random pickup games dozen times a year it is very common to have just a single game against some particular faction under your belt. I call it no practical experience at all... Add in a mix of "lore bias" (every codex depicts a faction as bordearline awesome), "instant gratification culture" and in effect you have absurd proliferation of unrealistic expectations within 40K community.
@OP: you call not reading 8 pages of rules "lazy", but there is HUGE difference in relative understanding how this game works between someone who does not read dakka on a daily basis and someone who just picks up their collection of painted minis once a week and head to FLGS to have a game. From what I see from discussion in this tread you are not "an interwebz scale of TFG", but locally you seem to be way ahead the rest of your friends in involvement into 40K. Perhaps it is time for you to step up and find other people to play against, that are on more adequate level? Or as others suggested, embrace a teacher's role?
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.
If there is any genetic component to playing Warhammer 40k, it would be a factor in less than 1% of 1% of games, which is to say that it's a non-factor. While some people may be more capable than others at learning or picking up the game, such differences are almost entirely going to be the result of other factors, such as level of interest, socio-economic standing, and experience. In other words, it's more likely for a rich kid who has gone to good schools and had the safety to learn valuable lessons from good parents to win a game than a less fortunate child who hasn't received much education and learned bad lessons that do not provide them with proper life skills. Saying that someone is more or less able to a significant degree based on their genetics is disrespecting that person's and not acknowledging the challenges they and/or their family has faced to have the pleasure of having a match against you.
nou wrote: You guys are aware, that IQ curve bell is a thing, right? Genetic/epigenetic, nature or nurture discussion aside, there is an observable discrepancy in functional inteligence in the world and there are no "entry tests" into 40K, so there are people all over this curve in our community. What some people find "trivial and uncomplicated" in 40K some find borderline challenging.
One other thing - I agree, that 40K is relatively easy game, but it is not tic-tac-toe trivial. As in any game, proficiency comes with experience. It may come from direct tabletop mileage, it may come from endless hours of watching batreps and mathhammering things. But from what I see, there is a very strong belief in this community, that playing only a couple times a year counts as "being an invested player". Many people have a hard time memorising their own faction stats and rules at first and for even "solid entry level" proficiency you need to understand not only how your own army work, but also how your opponent army work. In the world of random pickup games dozen times a year it is very common to have just a single game against some particular faction under your belt. I call it no practical experience at all... Add in a mix of "lore bias" (every codex depicts a faction as bordearline awesome), "instant gratification culture" and in effect you have absurd proliferation of unrealistic expectations within 40K community.
@OP: you call not reading 8 pages of rules "lazy", but there is HUGE difference in relative understanding how this game works between someone who does not read dakka on a daily basis and someone who just picks up their collection of painted minis once a week and head to FLGS to have a game. From what I see from discussion in this tread you are not "an interwebz scale of TFG", but locally you seem to be way ahead the rest of your friends in involvement into 40K. Perhaps it is time for you to step up and find other people to play against, that are on more adequate level? Or as others suggested, embrace a teacher's role?
Not to mention people simply don't enjoy playing style being super competive requires. I literally puke at the idea of playing lists you can see on competive games. Unless 40k rule system changes radically enough that by some miracle competive lists go around the style of armies I enjoy the look of I won't be winning in competive games. Not worth paying money to buy armies to play with that only make me puke.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.
If there is any genetic component to playing Warhammer 40k, it would be a factor in less than 1% of 1% of games, which is to say that it's a non-factor. While some people may be more capable than others at learning or picking up the game, such differences are almost entirely going to be the result of other factors, such as level of interest, socio-economic standing, and experience. In other words, it's more likely for a rich kid who has gone to good schools and had the safety to learn valuable lessons from good parents to win a game than a less fortunate child who hasn't received much education and learned bad lessons that do not provide them with proper life skills. Saying that someone is more or less able to a significant degree based on their genetics is disrespecting that person's and not acknowledging the challenges they and/or their family has faced to have the pleasure of having a match against you.
I don't think the genetic component is as small as you think it is. I agree experience and interest level play a higher role, but most people playing this game are not in a place where they are effected hugely by socio-economic standard (either they are in a situation where mom and dad had/have enough money to afford the game, or they themselves have earned their way there in either case they have little to blame on socio-economy in this case). That said people learn in different ways, and so saying that someone who learns by doing, rather than by reading is in the same boat as the opposite if we say neither plays very often is just not true. IQ is a real thing, it doesn't make it such that your average person cannot become good or better at the game, but it will take the other person more effort. The same is true with talent in sports. It is not disrespecting anyone to acknowledge that some people are more predisposed to learning new things than other are, no more so than saying some people are able to dunk a basket ball and others cannot or will have to work considerably harder to do so. Our society is far too caught up in the idea that anyone can do anything if they only try really hard. It simply isn't true. As far as that applies to 40k there are some people that can never even learn to play the game, fewer that can become truly good. Now I will say that war gaming and gaming in general tends to attract mostly higher IQ people, so it typically is not the largest factor to success, but if we are making the assumption that some people don't play all that often, they won't be as good as those who do. Especially if they are not quick at picking up on rules.
nou wrote: You guys are aware, that IQ curve bell is a thing, right? Genetic/epigenetic, nature or nurture discussion aside, there is an observable discrepancy in functional inteligence in the world and there are no "entry tests" into 40K, so there are people all over this curve in our community. What some people find "trivial and uncomplicated" in 40K some find borderline challenging.
One other thing - I agree, that 40K is relatively easy game, but it is not tic-tac-toe trivial. As in any game, proficiency comes with experience. It may come from direct tabletop mileage, it may come from endless hours of watching batreps and mathhammering things. But from what I see, there is a very strong belief in this community, that playing only a couple times a year counts as "being an invested player". Many people have a hard time memorising their own faction stats and rules at first and for even "solid entry level" proficiency you need to understand not only how your own army work, but also how your opponent army work. In the world of random pickup games dozen times a year it is very common to have just a single game against some particular faction under your belt. I call it no practical experience at all... Add in a mix of "lore bias" (every codex depicts a faction as bordearline awesome), "instant gratification culture" and in effect you have absurd proliferation of unrealistic expectations within 40K community.
@OP: you call not reading 8 pages of rules "lazy", but there is HUGE difference in relative understanding how this game works between someone who does not read dakka on a daily basis and someone who just picks up their collection of painted minis once a week and head to FLGS to have a game. From what I see from discussion in this tread you are not "an interwebz scale of TFG", but locally you seem to be way ahead the rest of your friends in involvement into 40K. Perhaps it is time for you to step up and find other people to play against, that are on more adequate level? Or as others suggested, embrace a teacher's role?
Not to mention people simply don't enjoy playing style being super competive requires. I literally puke at the idea of playing lists you can see on competive games. Unless 40k rule system changes radically enough that by some miracle competive lists go around the style of armies I enjoy the look of I won't be winning in competive games. Not worth paying money to buy armies to play with that only make me puke.
True. You can have huge difference in game understanding between casual players, one of which has all the necessary knowledge to "go competetive" but just chooses to play fluffy armies or likes a challange of playing underdog units and squeeze "maximum effort" out of himself vs someone, who has all the minis from latest netlist but doesn't understand how exactly 8th ed morale works or what are 7th ed deathstars good for and looses by objectives, because he is just a casual, weekend player that read too much "meta gossip".
The only thing that true competetive level assures is that you HAVE to know all this stuff and have to use "well built tournament list" to not be behind the curve. So in effect it does flatten the curve a little by something akin to "entry test", and if you loose it's entirely your fault (or bad luck) because you know what you're getting into. In effect it does provide a somewhat "healthier" environment for "sworn competetive players". Narrative/casual players do not have a luxury of having such "self organised environment" and must rely on personal social skills to assure pleasurable experience. And as we all know, the last thing we can say about 40K community as a whole is that it is socially well-evolved and made out of perfectly inter-personally skillfull individuals...
The entire crux of why I so dislike people saying they should handicap their game to "match" fluff-play is there is no balance mechanic, no written rules to do that: they are playing a different game than the rules as written and stubbornly cannot/will-not define it but expect others to read their minds. It all seems to boil down to "If I lose, you were TFG, if I win, it was because I played the game as intended."
On the topic of aptitude and intelligence to win at 40k:
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.
You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.
Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.
I would have to say that it is easier to not be an expert at the game and have a chance of winning.
A newbie has zero chance of beating an expert in chess because it is a purely decision based game with no element of chance.
40k has rolling of dice for EVERYTHING except your army selection so most decisions are based on increasing your odds / reducing risk.
On the topic of the responsibility of the "better" player to ensure a good time:
Spoiler:
Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.
Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?
A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.
You only see it as condescending because you are a highly competitive person, I find that casual players who just want to have a fun game often have no issue playing games like that. Further, choosing not to infiltrate my units is not forgetting anything it is making a choice not to play in a certain way. If I am playing a casual player, who tells me they want a light fun game, and all I have is my hardcore list I don't think it is showing zero respect to say to them, well I only have this super hard list, are you ok if I play x points down to try to make this a better game? IF they say no, then you don't play points down, then if they get stomped that is on them, if they get stomped quickly maybe you re-rack points down and play again.
As for the burden....yes it is on the better player to ensure the experience of the not as good player. That is the only way you are getting a good game, you cannot control the actions of another person. SO either you don't play that person, or you adjust your play to make it a good game. Playing them repeatedly and stomping them (unless they enjoy getting stomped) is being TFG.
Sure the ideal way to handle it is to have "soft" lists for when you don't play competitive players, but you didn't want to spend extra money and only owned your hardcore list
. You also miss the point that it isn't about the other player getting to win, it is about them getting to enjoy the game. IF your hard core list is - turn 1 I assault your whole army with Khorne berserkers and you remove it from the table. That isn't a fun game. If you are actually a good player you will recognize that it won't be a good game when you see your opponents army or at worst deployment.
The bottom line is - you can never have control over other people and their choices. So you either, only play people who have the same attitude toward the game that you do, adjust your style of play to the player you are facing, or you are TFG, and that may mean people don't want to play against you.
]As was stated, you cannot know how the game will play itself out or how well the person is going to do so all the suggestions of not deep-striking is silly since they occur early on in the game so it is also an obvious handicap ploy.
For example: I taught my wife how to play cribbage and on her first game she double-skunked me (lost horribly and I never had it happen before) on her first game, she was pulling near perfect hands.
Part of teaching a new person is to demonstrate how to play well.
It is important to show good sportsmanship, to teach, to make it fun and not too serious through interaction while playing the game since it IS a social hobby.
The most sportsmanlike "handicap" you can give is to remind your opponent when they miss things, to genuinely help them, let them take back a move if they just remember part way through their turn an error they made.
The game's design provides the opportunity for anyone to win a game, it is not the responsibility for your opponent to give one to you however.
With any win or loss there is an opportunity to identify what worked and what did not.
We all will eventually have to agree to disagree but I genuinely think "bad games make bad players", expect more and the game will get better, not worse.
For those who cannot be bothered to learn the game: you get out of it what you put into it.
I will not support lazy people who will not respect people's valuable hobby time and am more than happy to give them a pass for their lack of caring.
Talizvar wrote: The entire crux of why I so dislike people saying they should handicap their game to "match" fluff-play is there is no balance mechanic, no written rules to do that: they are playing a different game than the rules as written and stubbornly cannot/will-not define it but expect others to read their minds. It all seems to boil down to "If I lose, you were TFG, if I win, it was because I played the game as intended."
On the topic of aptitude and intelligence to win at 40k:
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.
You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.
Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.
I would have to say that it is easier to not be an expert at the game and have a chance of winning.
A newbie has zero chance of beating an expert in chess because it is a purely decision based game with no element of chance.
40k has rolling of dice for EVERYTHING except your army selection so most decisions are based on increasing your odds / reducing risk.
On the topic of the responsibility of the "better" player to ensure a good time:
Spoiler:
Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.
Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?
A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.
You only see it as condescending because you are a highly competitive person, I find that casual players who just want to have a fun game often have no issue playing games like that. Further, choosing not to infiltrate my units is not forgetting anything it is making a choice not to play in a certain way. If I am playing a casual player, who tells me they want a light fun game, and all I have is my hardcore list I don't think it is showing zero respect to say to them, well I only have this super hard list, are you ok if I play x points down to try to make this a better game? IF they say no, then you don't play points down, then if they get stomped that is on them, if they get stomped quickly maybe you re-rack points down and play again.
As for the burden....yes it is on the better player to ensure the experience of the not as good player. That is the only way you are getting a good game, you cannot control the actions of another person. SO either you don't play that person, or you adjust your play to make it a good game. Playing them repeatedly and stomping them (unless they enjoy getting stomped) is being TFG.
Sure the ideal way to handle it is to have "soft" lists for when you don't play competitive players, but you didn't want to spend extra money and only owned your hardcore list
. You also miss the point that it isn't about the other player getting to win, it is about them getting to enjoy the game. IF your hard core list is - turn 1 I assault your whole army with Khorne berserkers and you remove it from the table. That isn't a fun game. If you are actually a good player you will recognize that it won't be a good game when you see your opponents army or at worst deployment.
The bottom line is - you can never have control over other people and their choices. So you either, only play people who have the same attitude toward the game that you do, adjust your style of play to the player you are facing, or you are TFG, and that may mean people don't want to play against you.
]As was stated, you cannot know how the game will play itself out or how well the person is going to do so all the suggestions of not deep-striking is silly since they occur early on in the game so it is also an obvious handicap ploy.
For example: I taught my wife how to play cribbage and on her first game she double-skunked me (lost horribly and I never had it happen before) on her first game, she was pulling near perfect hands.
Part of teaching a new person is to demonstrate how to play well.
It is important to show good sportsmanship, to teach, to make it fun and not too serious through interaction while playing the game since it IS a social hobby.
The most sportsmanlike "handicap" you can give is to remind your opponent when they miss things, to genuinely help them, let them take back a move if they just remember part way through their turn an error they made.
The game's design provides the opportunity for anyone to win a game, it is not the responsibility for your opponent to give one to you however.
With any win or loss there is an opportunity to identify what worked and what did not.
We all will eventually have to agree to disagree but I genuinely think "bad games make bad players", expect more and the game will get better, not worse.
For those who cannot be bothered to learn the game: you get out of it what you put into it.
I will not support lazy people who will not respect people's valuable hobby time and am more than happy to give them a pass for their lack of caring.
Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time. Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army. While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter, it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not, and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun. It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice, but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit. If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players, if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn, but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players. So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning. Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
Thats a big part of the problem many people have with 40k and GW games in general.
Even if you're able to git gud at list buildiing, the meta shifts all the time. So you constantly have to keep spending money to git gud and keep your list optimized, often times sacrificing models and units you like for stuff you don't really like but is more mathematically viable.
If you have to ask yourself that ... then maybe you are?
I would say that if you win most matches against your friends, you should consider nerfing your list until you win about 50% of the time. There is a lack of balance in 40k and since this is a game, and both players should enjoy playing it, winning all the time may lead your freinds to not want to play you. A loose loose scenario. You will also find that if you challenge yourself instead of looking for the win button, you will improve as a player.
sennacherib wrote: If you have to ask yourself that ... then maybe you are?
I would say that if you win most matches against your friends, you should consider nerfing your list until you win about 50% of the time. There is a lack of balance in 40k and since this is a game, and both players should enjoy playing it, winning all the time may lead your freinds to not want to play you. A loose loose scenario. You will also find that if you challenge yourself instead of looking for the win button, you will improve as a player.
I really don't understand this "50-50" win to lose ratio as a meaningfull metrics... People's skill vary, 40K on any level is not entirely about list building (we might debate on how large armies power level discrepancy skill can actually make up for...) and in times of popular netlists you can actually see mirror-matched games that do not have 50-50 rematch results, because one player is objectively worse than the other at actually PLAYING. And in FLGS situation, having enough matches with a single person for large enough sample to measure performance can be hard to achieve, while having 50-50 win-to-lose ratio against "whole local community" doesn't mean anything for particular pairing with a real person. And such self-hindering lasting long enough will actually worsen one's tournament performance, just as in any "sport-like" activity.
I agree, that 40K is social game and both players should enjoy it, but let just stop pretending, that mutual fun is achievable in any pairing and in any scenario. We clearly see a division between "fluff bunnies", "narrative players" and "competetive folk" even in this very thread. I, for one, cannot see myself having any fun in actually meeting Peregrine at the table, no matter our lists or competetiveness of the event (vide recent thread about what constitutes a good narrative event)... Our approach is simply not compatible. The only scenario, where you have to adapt or perish is if you simply don't have anyone else to play with and your choice is "bad game or no game". And even then "no game" is often much healthier choice...
Sounds like you are stomping (or surprising them with nasty combos) your friends to "punish" them for not "reading their rulebooks thoroughly". That's TFG behavior.
There is nothing wrong with playing hard and bringing your best, but issues will arise when expectations are broken between players. If one person brings different expectations to the game than the other - feelings get hurt. Communication is important, and not communicating is TFG behavior.
The idea that it is never wrong to bring as strong a list as possible is one I also don't buy. Monetary resources might limit what your opponent can field. Furthermore, it is reasonable to ask concessions of your opponent to have a fairer and funner game. It is reasonable to ask for concessions when you are competing against an Olympic athlete, for example, with their specialized gear, when you are not at that level. It's also fair to try your best regardless - but feeling like you want a fairer and funner game is a valid and acceptable feeling.
As for this "genetic advantage" idea, rather than tediously slog through a reply to every post since I went to bed I'll just point out one very significant fact: the discussion here immediately, as it inevitably does in TFG threads, centered around list strength as the primary factor. Not superior skill or clever strategies that were beyond the OP's opponents and their limited intelligence, simple list strength. Your list is probably too strong, tone down your list, your opponents are probably playing RPG lists, etc. Even people who think that the OP is TFG implicitly agree with the idea that making a good list is the primary factor in winning at 40k. And if we accept that premise then it's blatantly unfair to expect one player to spend the effort and money to modify their list, while acting like the other player is morally superior and entitled to play the game exactly the way they want without being forced to make any changes.
Peregrine wrote: As for this "genetic advantage" idea, rather than tediously slog through a reply to every post since I went to bed I'll just point out one very significant fact: the discussion here immediately, as it inevitably does in TFG threads, centered around list strength as the primary factor. Not superior skill or clever strategies that were beyond the OP's opponents and their limited intelligence, simple list strength. Your list is probably too strong, tone down your list, your opponents are probably playing RPG lists, etc. Even people who think that the OP is TFG implicitly agree with the idea that making a good list is the primary factor in winning at 40k. And if we accept that premise then it's blatantly unfair to expect one player to spend the effort and money to modify their list, while acting like the other player is morally superior and entitled to play the game exactly the way they want without being forced to make any changes.
I'd agree with that. My biggest recent lost was getting curb stomped by what I'd consider a fluffy non power gamer list, the guys we played were just better at the game than us.
When playing friends or playing in a tournament with a player rating system I always tone down the list strength, more so than some others against certain people I know, because they just aren't good at the game, and haven't bothered learning in more than a decade of play. I only bring the cheese if I'm in a tournament without a player rating system these days, as I'm expecting everybody else to bring the cheese. If they don't, tough.
A melee heavy army already has an obvious counter... Shooting.
But, since the OP has his concerns, perhaps play a little differently. Im not a great player by far, but if I can tell my opponent is no longer having fun, I i lighten up, I take more risk/reward decisions, I'll even offer them suggestions mid-game on what to target, what to shoot, what to ignore etc.
I also play Orks and CSM so being the bad guys, I always expect to lose anyway.
I play chess a lot with my GF during the summers. (It's nice to sit outside with her in the nice weather)
When we first started playing together, very often I would pause after she made a move and simply ask her "Are you sure you want to do that?"
After looking over the board for a bit, then finding the problem on her own, she would make a new move.
As time went on, I've asked/had to ask her less and less to the point I really don't need to anymore as our skill levels are pretty much even now.
Giving her the opportunity to find her mistake and choose a different course of action didn't take away any fun from the game and it helped her learn better strategy and become a better player skill-wise (she's even gotten quite sneaky sometimes)
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.
Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.
Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.
Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.
While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,
Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.
it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,
It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.
and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.
This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").
It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,
As with any game, this is our hobby after all.
but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better
List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.
if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.
My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.
If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,
That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.
if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,
Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?
but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
Any close game is fun for all.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.
I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.
So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.
But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?
Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.
Gamer's inch: inaccurately measuring distances. Commonly seen during movement. Literally: the extra "inch" added to every measurement due to various factors. Examples include measuring front of base to rear of base during movement, measuring distance to a point on the table and putting models "near there", rushing the movement of a large unit of models such that the rearmost models end up moving more than their intended move, sometimes by a large amount.
In a tournament setting this is considered cheating, but in casual settings calling out such behavior can result in your being labelled TFG, a WAAC player, or just general derided for adding friction to the game, often by the offending player. While one should be a little forgiving of minor deviations in measurement, it gets pretty challenging to forgive gamer inches that begin to extend well beyond actual measurements (moving 13.5" instead of 12", for instance, though a combination of foreward edge to rear edge and poor eyeballing of distance.)
I myself would have to disagree with those calling you a douche.
All your comments have been reasonable with your explanations.
If you play a game spend 100+$ on it and dont read the rules then call out someone else for being unfun, you are infact a moron!
The onus is not on you to be a super incredible guy teaching someone else old enough to spend cash on a game they want to play to read the actual rules!!!
To be brutally honest i would be pissed off if i was you with a 5/12 record and some numbty ragequits turn 1 because he is infact a moron who doesnt read rules and then complains about me to my face!!
So yeh totally disagree with some others on here!!
There is good sportmanship but it goes both ways, being rude enough to quit turn1 and then say your to blame isnt good sportsmanship.
I also think attacking a guy asking for opinions who is being honest and in no way did i read any insult in your comments towards others, pretty poor form TBH.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ryzouken wrote: Gamer's inch: inaccurately measuring distances. Commonly seen during movement. Literally: the extra "inch" added to every measurement due to various factors. Examples include measuring front of base to rear of base during movement, measuring distance to a point on the table and putting models "near there", rushing the movement of a large unit of models such that the rearmost models end up moving more than their intended move, sometimes by a large amount.
In a tournament setting this is considered cheating, but in casual settings calling out such behavior can result in your being labelled TFG, a WAAC player, or just general derided for adding friction to the game, often by the offending player. While one should be a little forgiving of minor deviations in measurement, it gets pretty challenging to forgive gamer inches that begin to extend well beyond actual measurements (moving 13.5" instead of 12", for instance, though a combination of foreward edge to rear edge and poor eyeballing of distance.)
Ah did that myself in a game/tourny a few months ago, yeh the movement was huge think i was measuring front to back as you said above. Felt like a right tool been out of the game so long all my measuring was and probably still is abit suspect. Lmao its amazing how easy all the strategy and tactics come back but doing a legal move(i.e. knowing how to measure with a damn tape measure) nope!!! Humbling in the extreme!
Well, I still think it all depends on the relative level of skill and knowledge that your group of friends have compared to you. You may have progressed to a much higher level of “skill and knowledge” compared to them. Maybe they are casual players. So, they don’t have hard lists, and they play what they happen to collect. And they collect models based on “cool looking” rather than because these are the spammed models in the latest tourney beating lists. Maybe they don’t spam the best units. Casual players buy one or two HQ choices, a few troop choices, a few FA and a few heavy support choices. It may take them months to add a new unit because they have to assemble and paint it up. And gameplay wise, maybe they play a game once every month, or two. So, they always forget to do stuff and always forget special rules within their armies. Casual players don’t buy forgeworld, and they don’t spam units. They have no concept of bubble wrap, and even if they did, they don’t have 100 cultists or 100 conscripts to do bubblewrapping.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
Then, as I said, teach them. You're doing exactly the same thing I just mentioned even in this post. you could have advised your friend what was coming, or explained that it was the rules, but instead you just said "it's your fault" to them (either in their face or here) and proceeded to smash them. Plus, judging by how you talk about this, you didn't spend any time teaching them game or new rules to them, instead you came straight to Dakka to effectively blame them. That's TFG behavior.
Id argue more, but this is beyond deconstructive to the original point and just piss throwing. Im done replying to you.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.
Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.
SO you consider it lying to not choose the optimal tactic to win at all times? At that point not bringing the best possible list to a game is also lying because the other person might mistake that they are actually good at the game. There is a difference between playing poorly and not piling on. For instance, if I choose to play a berserker army that I usually play as alpha legion, and bring them as Iron Warriors instead because I don't want to infiltrate turn 1 assault, or even run alpha legion and don't use that stratagem because I know it will lead to a poor game.
Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.
Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.
Which is no different than changing your strategy, if you tweak the scenario to put yourself at a disadvantage due to the rules it amounts to the same thing, as not seeking to destroy your opponent turn 1.
While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,
Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.
Technically not techincality, the point is that there can be discrepancies to the point where that random chance is meaningless to the outcome, having a 0.0001% chance to win because randomness vs a 0.000001% chance without makes no real difference.
it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,
It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.
Because you choose to feel that way, sometimes people take things because they like the model, or the fluff behind it, no real plan involved.
and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.
This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").
The closest thing to "going easy" is "going easy", you can actively choose a bad list (if you own the models), you can actively choose to not employ your most devastating tactics or units. I have news for you I am not a high end tournament player but I've had a number of games where if I go all in, that are all over but the crying on turn 1 in this edition. If I only ever brought my best, this would be even more frequent, but I don't build my list to always do that. However, it was brought up that "The better player should not have to spend extra to play down" so the alternative to that is holding back in some other manner, not playing, or "going easy" on a strategy front. You can still make good plays even if they aren't the best plays, that is what teaching games are about, set up situations from which your opponent can learn. If all I do is cripple you turn 1 what have you learned? Other than that your army is terrible, and the game is no fun. Now you may be fine trying to adapt to that. Many people aren't.
It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,
As with any game, this is our hobby after all.
but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.
Yes attitude matters, but only when they are losing a game where they feel like they actually have some sort of chance, in games where that is not the case no amount of good spirits and tips help much. Unless your plan is to play the game for them, they aren't going to be using all their advantages, and they aren't going to have very meaningful outcomes to be excited about.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better
List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.
This is great if they are close to winning, not really if they are super far away from it. Less so if the reason they take the models they do is because they have a theme to their army. All your responses seem to make the assumption that the desire of every player in the game is to be as good at the game as possible, when that simply isn't the case, some just want to get their cool looking models on the table and have a fun, close game. IN those cases if you do not pull back in some way (I already agree list build is the best place to do this, but again someone was complaining about needing to buy extra models, so I suggested other ways to hold back), do be surprised when the other guy has a bad gaming experience and doesn't want to face you again in the future.
if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.
My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.
it does, but we are directly talking about the game, sure it is nice to have your models appreciated, but many want to use those models in a fun game, not just as art pieces.
If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,
That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.
if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,
Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?
They like the army they own? Want to use units they like the look of? They do change something, who they play against, or what games they play? I think we forget that it takes time and effort to make army changes in this game, and if someone spend hundreds of hours modeling and painting an army, only to lose all the time, that really isn't a great experience.
but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
Any close game is fun for all.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.
I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.
Maybe it is a difference in our best then? When I do my best, in my current local meta, the result is a game over by turn 3 against half the players or more. That isn't a game anyone enjoys, so I don't bring my best everytime. I typically handicap my self with list building, but I'll also pull punches in a game once I am ahead also, or make decisions for fun instead of sound tactics. We're playing maelstrom and I'm up 20-5 and the only way you can win is to table me? Tactics say I should just hide stuff and pull back. Instead I will attack so we can fight it out because that is more fun. I have you nearly tabled, maybe I'll push a target into a fire fight that isn't the best choice so you have something to do that you can build up and enjoy.
So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.
But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?
Depends I change things all the time when I win, some weak areas might get strengthened etc
Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.
Yeah that can be great, but the first 8 games at least had to be fun, and you needed to improve each time. This doesn't always happen. I've literally played people who have never come close to beating me no matter what l do.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.
NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Breng77 wrote: NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Yeah what\s the point even playing game where you have virtually no chance of even damaging enemy army let alone win the game because you didn't bring hard counters required? Where you are actually more likely to kill your own models rather than enemy?
That's just waste of time for both players where neither is going to get any good usage out of the time.
"any game is good game" is most definitely false claim.
vaklor4 wrote: To keep stuff brief, my friends frankly told me I play minmaxing and its unfun to fight my army. Im not gonna get into their inability to read the new 8th rules or the fact one of them plays AM, but is Khorne Daemons + WE meta? Am I cheese for playing that combo? Im asking honestly and not rehotricaly, because as a newer player I simply picked the army up because it looks cool.
If you think you are, you are probably not, most TFG's I have met and know dont think they are and use the "git gud" excuse for being douche bags to people.
Breng77 wrote: NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Great post. I agree with everything you have said.
There is no point in playing any game if even one player is not having fun.
ryzouken wrote: Gamer's inch: inaccurately measuring distances. Commonly seen during movement. Literally: the extra "inch" added to every measurement due to various factors. Examples include measuring front of base to rear of base during movement, measuring distance to a point on the table and putting models "near there", rushing the movement of a large unit of models such that the rearmost models end up moving more than their intended move, sometimes by a large amount.
Ah, thank you for the explanation. Yeah, gamers that gamer's inch are gamer dicks.
Remember, there is nothing wrong with winning, or even absolutely bashing your opponent.
That's exactly what it means to compete with honesty and integrity, and anyone who hates you for that is just robbing themselves of improvement potential.
Bashing is just the epitome of victory, the natural result of competing as hard as you can and succeeding without holding back.
That said, most people don't really care for improvement and often fear any type of failure, even more so when it is duly observed by someone else, and the failure is clearly catastrophic.
In that context, you should be aware of your opponent's mental state and consider avoiding needlessly complex situations for your own good.
That means you should try and play with people who have the same mindset and welcome actual contest / play rather than "moving miniatures around the table" (or actual WAAC cheaters, who are not really players either).
Since the miniatures are so pretty and the setting so inspiring, there are many 40K players who are not, in fact, players.
I.E. they do not "play" the game, they are not looking for a "contest", a "challenge" or in other words, competition.
As you may have noticed, you cannot compete with someone who doesn't want to, and it makes little sense to compete with someone who doesn't give it a honest hard try.
While they may have been the first to point out that there was something wrong with your games together, you should also realize for yourself that those games are entirely pointless and a waste of your own time.
For your own good, you must either take the opportunity of playing terrible players and non-players alike to train yourself with a severe handicap - even going as far as making your win nigh impossible -, or avoid them altogether.
Also, don't listen to people on the internet, apparently all of them have an opinion and those who talk the most generally have way too much time on their hands - i.e. maybe not who you want to take advice from (and yes, that includes me).
I personally have seen that statement proven to be a falsehood.
People who really appreciate the look of their playing pieces which many are "casual" players look to Forgeworld for that extra bit of "bling".
One of the most casual players I know plays Death Korps of Krieg, it is an awesome looking army.
I do not think I have bought a single bit of Forgeworld but it does not stop me from looking through their website at least once a week.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.
Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.
SO you consider it lying to not choose the optimal tactic to win at all times? At that point not bringing the best possible list to a game is also lying because the other person might mistake that they are actually good at the game. There is a difference between playing poorly and not piling on. For instance, if I choose to play a berserker army that I usually play as alpha legion, and bring them as Iron Warriors instead because I don't want to infiltrate turn 1 assault, or even run alpha legion and don't use that stratagem because I know it will lead to a poor game.
Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.
Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.
Which is no different than changing your strategy, if you tweak the scenario to put yourself at a disadvantage due to the rules it amounts to the same thing, as not seeking to destroy your opponent turn 1.
While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,
Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.
Technically not techincality, the point is that there can be discrepancies to the point where that random chance is meaningless to the outcome, having a 0.0001% chance to win because randomness vs a 0.000001% chance without makes no real difference.
it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,
It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.
Because you choose to feel that way, sometimes people take things because they like the model, or the fluff behind it, no real plan involved.
and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.
This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").
The closest thing to "going easy" is "going easy", you can actively choose a bad list (if you own the models), you can actively choose to not employ your most devastating tactics or units. I have news for you I am not a high end tournament player but I've had a number of games where if I go all in, that are all over but the crying on turn 1 in this edition. If I only ever brought my best, this would be even more frequent, but I don't build my list to always do that. However, it was brought up that "The better player should not have to spend extra to play down" so the alternative to that is holding back in some other manner, not playing, or "going easy" on a strategy front. You can still make good plays even if they aren't the best plays, that is what teaching games are about, set up situations from which your opponent can learn. If all I do is cripple you turn 1 what have you learned? Other than that your army is terrible, and the game is no fun. Now you may be fine trying to adapt to that. Many people aren't.
It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,
As with any game, this is our hobby after all.
but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.
Yes attitude matters, but only when they are losing a game where they feel like they actually have some sort of chance, in games where that is not the case no amount of good spirits and tips help much. Unless your plan is to play the game for them, they aren't going to be using all their advantages, and they aren't going to have very meaningful outcomes to be excited about.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better
List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.
This is great if they are close to winning, not really if they are super far away from it. Less so if the reason they take the models they do is because they have a theme to their army. All your responses seem to make the assumption that the desire of every player in the game is to be as good at the game as possible, when that simply isn't the case, some just want to get their cool looking models on the table and have a fun, close game. IN those cases if you do not pull back in some way (I already agree list build is the best place to do this, but again someone was complaining about needing to buy extra models, so I suggested other ways to hold back), do be surprised when the other guy has a bad gaming experience and doesn't want to face you again in the future.
if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.
My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.
it does, but we are directly talking about the game, sure it is nice to have your models appreciated, but many want to use those models in a fun game, not just as art pieces.
If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,
That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.
if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,
Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?
They like the army they own? Want to use units they like the look of? They do change something, who they play against, or what games they play? I think we forget that it takes time and effort to make army changes in this game, and if someone spend hundreds of hours modeling and painting an army, only to lose all the time, that really isn't a great experience.
but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
Any close game is fun for all.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.
I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.
Maybe it is a difference in our best then? When I do my best, in my current local meta, the result is a game over by turn 3 against half the players or more. That isn't a game anyone enjoys, so I don't bring my best everytime. I typically handicap my self with list building, but I'll also pull punches in a game once I am ahead also, or make decisions for fun instead of sound tactics. We're playing maelstrom and I'm up 20-5 and the only way you can win is to table me? Tactics say I should just hide stuff and pull back. Instead I will attack so we can fight it out because that is more fun. I have you nearly tabled, maybe I'll push a target into a fire fight that isn't the best choice so you have something to do that you can build up and enjoy.
So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.
But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?
Depends I change things all the time when I win, some weak areas might get strengthened etc
Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.
Yeah that can be great, but the first games at least had to be fun, and you needed to improve each time. This doesn't always happen. I've literally played people who have never come close to beating me no matter what l do.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.
NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Thanks for the itemized replies, I was afraid it was getting a bit big to reply to.
As you had stated, it really does depend on what someone would define as a "good" game.
40k is not the height of strategy by a long-shot so looking for "challenge" in a 40k game is a bit of a harder thing to do than with others.
But my preference IS a challenge, I do like the close games, I do like improving my painted model army list(s), I like playing different armies and usually buy all the codex's so I understand the other armies.
I guess I should then state clearly what we had been dancing around: I want to play a "good" game, I will not tone it down and would most likely not enjoy playing a very casual player and they would not enjoy the game with me (maybe the company but not the game).
Yes it may limit what opponents I can play but it really does boil down to respecting players and I do not want to waste their time or mine.
I do so many things in my job and at home to compromise.
I am not going to do that to my hobby as well.
It dawned on me after thinking more about it and seeing replies...Screw it! I play a sub-optimal army to begin with, and my most competitive aspect of my list building is the fact I use a lot of MSU to optimize wargear and CP. My friend wpuldnt tell me at all what he was building and actually built 8 points over to get as much strength against me as possible, and smack talked before hand.
If im TFG for building Khorne, then blood for the damn blood god.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't reach TFG status merely by being competitive or building an optimal list. Those are natural behaviors and anyone who complains about them is simply not looking for the same things you are, so you may as well not play with them anyway.
In my opinion, the line is crossed when you are openly disrespectful of others or are actively being exploitative or dishonest in order to gain any kind of advantage you can whether it's legitimate or not.
Simply playing within the boundaries of the rules does not make you TFG unless you are showing a total disregard for your fellow players and having your fun at the expense of theirs. That goes for the kind of people who run the most exploitative tourney list against new players AND those casual players who try to shame others for forming their squads into MSUs, etc.
After reading this whole thread, I have to say that I suspect the problem may lie more with the OP’s opponent than with the OP.
I say this because, as a “casual” Imperial Guard player, I see a lot of myself in the OP’s opponent (based on the limited info we have to go on).
You see, as a Guard player back in 5th ed, I was being out-shenaniganed by just about every opponent I faced. At various times, all of these things came as (somewhat nasty) surprises to me in-game:
- Oh, your Drop Pod landed on top of my tank, and my tank has to move? Cool.
- Oh, your Tau whats-it that’s bigger than my Sentinel is actually an infantry model and can duck behind cover before I can shoot back? Cool.
- Oh, I basically can’t kill that Jet Bike seer coucncil because of all kinds of saves, haywire grenades, etc? Cool.
- Oh, your flying crescent rolls of doom can teleport your Necrons into my face? Cool
There’s more, but you get the point. Unlike with some other games I’ve played, in 40k knowing your own faction well does not necssarily prepare you to anticipate how a game might go givenhiw diverse the factions are. This seems especially true for IG, given how the faction relies more on a brute force approach than unique special rules (this seems to have changed a little in 8th, but I have all of 2 games of 8th ed under my belt). Each of the situations I listed above were sources of frustration to me, “gotcha moments” if you will. It felt as if I thought we were playing checkers, and my opponent just captured my queeen with his bishop. I suspect that the OP’s game where he assaulted his opponent’s IG on turn 1 was a similar experience for that opponent.
The problem I had (still do really) is that I just don’t have the time to devote to learning and reading 40k to have a good feel for what my opponent’s force is capable of from just looking at it, thanks to work/family/school etc. Playng one game a week (which was all Incould manage during my 5th ed heyday) was barely enoogh to keep me familiar with the base game rules and the rules for my army, and didn’t begin to address all I needed to know about the 8 or so factions I could realistically face any given week. I finally came to terms with that, and just accepted that I would be surprised a lot on the table. I focused instead on honing my list to something that I enjoyed playng and tried to learn it as well as I could. I even won once in a while!
My point to the OP is that his opponent might not have reached that same conclusion; it sounds like he was frustrated by being blindsided with something he didn’t consider as a tactical possibility, partly because his army doesn’t work the same way. That frustration is not your fault, but if you like playing with your group it might be worth considering explaining to your opponent before hand if your army relies on any particular gimmicks, especially if you know that person doesn’t have the same understanding of your army and the game that your do.
MattKing wrote: See? I point out the fact that you're insulting your "friends" behind their back and you continue to talk about how dumb they're being in order to justify your statement. It doesn't exactly scream "plays well with others".
MattKing wrote: See? I point out the fact that you're insulting your "friends" behind their back and you continue to talk about how dumb they're being in order to justify your statement. It doesn't exactly scream "plays well with others".
This.
Yeah, he's definitely TFG.
So you're just gonna ignore all the replies i've made afterwards?
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.
Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.
SO you consider it lying to not choose the optimal tactic to win at all times? At that point not bringing the best possible list to a game is also lying because the other person might mistake that they are actually good at the game. There is a difference between playing poorly and not piling on. For instance, if I choose to play a berserker army that I usually play as alpha legion, and bring them as Iron Warriors instead because I don't want to infiltrate turn 1 assault, or even run alpha legion and don't use that stratagem because I know it will lead to a poor game.
Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.
Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.
Which is no different than changing your strategy, if you tweak the scenario to put yourself at a disadvantage due to the rules it amounts to the same thing, as not seeking to destroy your opponent turn 1.
While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,
Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.
Technically not techincality, the point is that there can be discrepancies to the point where that random chance is meaningless to the outcome, having a 0.0001% chance to win because randomness vs a 0.000001% chance without makes no real difference.
it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,
It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.
Because you choose to feel that way, sometimes people take things because they like the model, or the fluff behind it, no real plan involved.
and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.
This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").
The closest thing to "going easy" is "going easy", you can actively choose a bad list (if you own the models), you can actively choose to not employ your most devastating tactics or units. I have news for you I am not a high end tournament player but I've had a number of games where if I go all in, that are all over but the crying on turn 1 in this edition. If I only ever brought my best, this would be even more frequent, but I don't build my list to always do that. However, it was brought up that "The better player should not have to spend extra to play down" so the alternative to that is holding back in some other manner, not playing, or "going easy" on a strategy front. You can still make good plays even if they aren't the best plays, that is what teaching games are about, set up situations from which your opponent can learn. If all I do is cripple you turn 1 what have you learned? Other than that your army is terrible, and the game is no fun. Now you may be fine trying to adapt to that. Many people aren't.
It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,
As with any game, this is our hobby after all.
but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.
Yes attitude matters, but only when they are losing a game where they feel like they actually have some sort of chance, in games where that is not the case no amount of good spirits and tips help much. Unless your plan is to play the game for them, they aren't going to be using all their advantages, and they aren't going to have very meaningful outcomes to be excited about.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better
List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.
This is great if they are close to winning, not really if they are super far away from it. Less so if the reason they take the models they do is because they have a theme to their army. All your responses seem to make the assumption that the desire of every player in the game is to be as good at the game as possible, when that simply isn't the case, some just want to get their cool looking models on the table and have a fun, close game. IN those cases if you do not pull back in some way (I already agree list build is the best place to do this, but again someone was complaining about needing to buy extra models, so I suggested other ways to hold back), do be surprised when the other guy has a bad gaming experience and doesn't want to face you again in the future.
if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.
My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.
it does, but we are directly talking about the game, sure it is nice to have your models appreciated, but many want to use those models in a fun game, not just as art pieces.
If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,
That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.
if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,
Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?
They like the army they own? Want to use units they like the look of? They do change something, who they play against, or what games they play? I think we forget that it takes time and effort to make army changes in this game, and if someone spend hundreds of hours modeling and painting an army, only to lose all the time, that really isn't a great experience.
but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
Any close game is fun for all.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.
I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.
Maybe it is a difference in our best then? When I do my best, in my current local meta, the result is a game over by turn 3 against half the players or more. That isn't a game anyone enjoys, so I don't bring my best everytime. I typically handicap my self with list building, but I'll also pull punches in a game once I am ahead also, or make decisions for fun instead of sound tactics. We're playing maelstrom and I'm up 20-5 and the only way you can win is to table me? Tactics say I should just hide stuff and pull back. Instead I will attack so we can fight it out because that is more fun. I have you nearly tabled, maybe I'll push a target into a fire fight that isn't the best choice so you have something to do that you can build up and enjoy.
So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.
But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?
Depends I change things all the time when I win, some weak areas might get strengthened etc
Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.
Yeah that can be great, but the first games at least had to be fun, and you needed to improve each time. This doesn't always happen. I've literally played people who have never come close to beating me no matter what l do.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.
NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Thanks for the itemized replies, I was afraid it was getting a bit big to reply to.
As you had stated, it really does depend on what someone would define as a "good" game.
40k is not the height of strategy by a long-shot so looking for "challenge" in a 40k game is a bit of a harder thing to do than with others.
But my preference IS a challenge, I do like the close games, I do like improving my painted model army list(s), I like playing different armies and usually buy all the codex's so I understand the other armies.
I guess I should then state clearly what we had been dancing around: I want to play a "good" game, I will not tone it down and would most likely not enjoy playing a very casual player and they would not enjoy the game with me (maybe the company but not the game).
Yes it may limit what opponents I can play but it really does boil down to respecting players and I do not want to waste their time or mine.
I do so many things in my job and at home to compromise.
I am not going to do that to my hobby as well.
Good talking with you.
Right, that is the whole point, if you don't play those people, that is just fine. If you play them, and table them in 2 turns, and do so repeatedly not fine. There are a lot of different types of players in the hobby, not all of them will enjoy playing against one another.
These kinds of threads always devolve into a way for casual and competitive players to lord over each other and take passive-aggressive digs at the other type of play style, which people could do forever if left to their own devices.
These kinds of threads always devolve into a way for casual and competitive players to lord over each other and take passive-aggressive digs at the other type of play style, which people could do forever if left to their own devices.
A self licking ice cream cone that goes on forever and traps them in....ok. sounds good.
