Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Volkmair wrote:
With people saying they would like a heads up if facing a Knight force, while they are a polarising army would people be expecting a heads up of other polarising armies like massive hordes. In any case from the perspective of a Knight player would you want to play against someone who will only play against you if they can tailor their force to beat you?

This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Just to add - it can be a learning experience for a new player getting stomped. The difference between a bad game where you're rolled over and a good game where you were rolled over is how your opponent handles their advantage. If you're facesmashing a new player, take the time to explain different elements of your army, why you took them, and why you're targeting what you are when you are. It will leave a decidedly sweeter taste in your opponet's mouth to have actually taken something away from the game. Whereas if you just kick his teeth in while chuckling all the way and pulling out any "gotchya" moves you have, that poor player will come away thinking you're a dick, your army is OP, and/or that the hobby isn't for them.

I, for one, want the game to continue to grow. However, I think it's detrimental to get new players into the idea that if their army is non-competitive, that others need to "play down" to them, and not the other way 'round. Good players make the hobby better.

 Larks wrote:

I, for one, want the game to continue to grow. However, I think it's detrimental to get new players into the idea that if their army is non-competitive, that others need to "play down" to them, and not the other way 'round. Good players make the hobby better.

Just... no... here is the thing. Warhammer 40K is a game that requires a substantial time commitment. If I play a game, I will be committing typically at least 2 hours, but often between 3-4 depending on how much talking and socializing is going on. This is not a computer game like Dawn of War where the expected time of a game is between 25-40 minutes depending on how intense it is. Table Top gaming is a social game, and both players should be having fun. Curb Stomping a newbie for 3 hours shouldn't give you jollies unless you are a sociopath, and nobody finds being curb stomped fun either.

You create this weird and frankly insulting dichotomy between new players and competitive players and state that competitive players essentially owe it to the community to put new players in their place every now and again. Except the competitive players who do that are the bottom of the barrel trash that struggles to place at real competitive events. A real competitive player, a good one, isn't going to waste his time playing his Imperial Guard CP Battery, Supreme Command Blood Angles, and Imperial Knight cutting edge competitive list playing against some poor sap with an Imperial Fists army made of roughly 2x Dark Imperium and some Repulsor Tanks. The competitive player gets literally nothing out of that game, and the new player just experiences a crushing defeat with little he can do to mount a counter attack. So what you will find is that an actually good player will either;
1) Find someone else to play with if he is prepping for a GT. Like maybe someone with a cutting edge Chaos Soup with Nurgle Daemons + Thousand Sons Supreme Command, etc.
2) Tone down his list to something more casual, and have a laugh throwing units he would never usually field onto the table.
The only people who actually show up to a club and curb stomp newbies are average to below average wannabe competitive players with large egos who aren't creative enough or smart enough to compete at tournaments. But their ego dictates that they hate losing, so they take their net list that won last years GT and take it to a FLGS to bully newer players with. If they were actually good players they would understand, as outlined above, that they are getting NO PROBATIVE VALUE out of the game.

Here is the thing. A competitive player is capable of toning down their list. A newbie player is not necessarily capable of turning up their list, because of very real constraints of knowledge, experience, and well, money and collection. In order for this 3+ hour game experience to be actually enjoyable (unless the "competitive player" is a nihilistic sociopath and the "newbie" is a sadomasochist) than the responsibility is on the stronger player to adjust down to help foster an enjoyable game.

You talk about wanting to grow the game, and grow the competitive environment. You can still do that. But you do that through nurturing. Most people want to win, most people have a drive to get better. You want to take that and encourage it. Whenever I play a game vs a new player, i typically don't run my most WAAC list. I'll take something that is thematic and looks good on the table. I will go through the game and explain my tactical choices, and I'll stop my opponent and correct any tactical errors they may make, and explain why they should or shouldn't do something. Essentially I take it upon myself to monitor both armies. In fact, giving players a taste of victory and explaining to them the tactical decisions that you helped them make can leave a positive taste in their mouths, make them more amenable to becoming more competitive themselves, and helping to expand the toolbox they can draw on with new strategies that are directly relevant to their chosen army. If you as a good player truly care about growing the hobby you need to take it upon yourself to be more open and help mentor players. Explaining how you are curb stomping is one thing. But playing down to their level and helping coach them on their army takes it to the next level and helps them get better immediately.

Obviously this doesn't apply to games in tournaments, or games explicitly stated to be tournament prep. It doesn't apply to grudge matches or any other social scenario where the gloves are expected to come off and both players go all out. What I am saying is that there is a time and a place for truly competitive games and armies. That time and place is not a casual pick up game against some guy who started a few months ago.

Back on topic, I think list tailoring is generally more open in Knights is because of the Rock Paper Scissors Elements. For a casual pick up game, facing a list not capable of dealing with multiple titanic units can make the game tedious and not fun to play. As such, the rule of thumb is for a casual game to give the opponent a heads up so that they can build an army that can actually face off against a Knight. Obviously this doesn't apply to competitive games, and once again is just to make an individual casual game more enjoyable. As with anything, a lot of this comes down to etiquette with a new group of players and holding yourself out as a "good guy" who people want to play games with, especially when meeting new players at an FLGS. Etiquette varies within every group, and you'll quickly learn how competitive or casual a group of people are. So disclosing the presence of multiple Imperial Knights will depend on the group. Some groups are constantly prepping for their next tournament, and vs those players you'll always go out and list tailoring is forbidden. Other groups are very casual and play things like Space Marine Demi Companies and Striking Scorpions with Karandaras as a central theme. Etiquette dictates that against the second group the tournament player should tone it down and even tailor his list to have a disadvantage for the sake of the game. If he doesn't want to do this he can find a different group with a social contract more to his liking. Unless the player is a poisonous sociopath with a false sense of superiority who gets his jollies from bullying narrative or new players.


It may seem like I'm being overly harsh, but lets be clear I have nothing against competitive players. What people need to understand though, and sometimes mental block, is that there are multiple ways to play the game. Its easy to get into a feedback loop of believing that competitive is everything. And competitive is a valid way to play the game, but its not the only way. Semi Competitive games are fun, pure faction games are fun. Competitive Players should absolutely hone their craft and learn to be better and stronger players and remain on the edge. But they should also not reveal their full power level at every chance they get. My problem is with bullies who think they are doing a public service by beating up new players with net lists. Its not making the glorified bully a better player, its not helping the newbie get into the game. Just, uh, don't be a bully.

I'm completely against the idea of list tailoring whether it be against knights or any other army. The issue you see on this forum is thinking there army is bad when it cannot deal with every other conceivable list. Lists should have bad matchups and people can include units to help mitigate that or just accept that some games are gonna be played on hard mode. I look at it a lot like running different decks in hearthstone. You never want a deck that beats every other deck out there. You're simply trying to build one that has an over 50% win rate against over 50% of the decks and yes every once in a while you're going to run into a deck that you only have a 10-15% chance to beat. But that's part of the game and usually, that person has a horrible overall win rate because a skew deck will get blow out by the majority of other decks. This also keeps the meta consistently fresh as people are constantly trying to counter the top deck and this shifts the types of decks being played. For example, if everyone starts bringing knights then everyone will start to include more heavy weapons. This then increases how good hordes are so people start bringing more hordes. People bringing more hordes mean people start bringing more chaff clearing stuff. This pushes more lists into a more centralized build that can handle both decently and actually leads to more balanced games in the long run.

Agreed. Tailoring teaches terrible habits.

Losing is a learning experience, getting stomped is not.

You may not believe it, but if you go to someone you just utterly crushed and then start explaining HOW you crushed him, you come out as a smug jerk and nothing you say will come across-even if you are 100% right.


Yes, when you play in a tournament a non-competetive player needs to step up his game, but as others have noted, everyone can step down their game for a weaker opponent-the weaker opponent may not have the capability to step up, may be due to lack of models, experience or understanding of the systems.
And telling people to "git gud" doesn't make them improve, it makes them quit.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Losing is a learning experience, getting stomped is not.

You may not believe it, but if you go to someone you just utterly crushed and then start explaining HOW you crushed him, you come out as a smug jerk and nothing you say will come across-even if you are 100% right.


Yes, when you play in a tournament a non-competetive player needs to step up his game, but as others have noted, everyone can step down their game for a weaker opponent-the weaker opponent may not have the capability to step up, may be due to lack of models, experience or understanding of the systems.
And telling people to "git gud" doesn't make them improve, it makes them quit.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should go around pub stomping. But list tailoring is not only bad for the health of the game but also for a new player to learn. If all a player ever does is bring a 100% tailored list so that he has an advantage over every opponent he plays hes never going to get better or learn to build a balanced list

Karol wrote:
Well some armies don't have much anti tank. In my army it is the sword of titan and a thunder hammer, plus 2 psycannons. Neither of those work much.

ally some empirium units, GK isn't clearly made like a stand alone codex.

No, its not.

Tailoring, like self-regulations, have a time and a place where they make the game BETTER.


For example, I've got a good friend I often play against.
He knows the things I love to bring, I know the things he love to bring.

I know, that in most of his lists I can expects destroyers and a warrior blob (or two) with a supporting cryptek and ghost ark (or two) and play defensivly, so in response I bring character sniping and things to handle the destroyers (or nullify them like a screen of horrors that defends my characters from targeting by mean guns).
He however, knows I know he is likely to bring them, and then analyses what I might do to counter him, and in turn thinks about how to counter me in return.
And so the wheel turns, he counters me, and I counter him in return, and so forth.

This leads to the fact we never play quite the same lists against each other-becuase we know the other knows our last list and is prepared for it.
And it makes it so much better for both of us-because we keep having fresh games, despite playing each other (with the same armies) dozens of times.

In a tournament where we could not afford to do this tailor dance against each other though? I can practically write his list and be 90% or more accurate, maybe even 100%, and he can do the same to me. because we know each other's playstyles and preferences so well.
If we had not tailored against each other-we'd face our regular "turnament lists" each and every time.
And it would suck...



Tailoring has a place in the game.
Where both players simultaneously tailor against each other.
Heck, its even thematic. a military commander isn't a moron, and should have a general idea of what he is up against, and prepare accordingly.

I still don't think that's a good idea.

 BoomWolf wrote:
No, its not.

Tailoring, like self-regulations, have a time and a place where they make the game BETTER.


For example, I've got a good friend I often play against.
He knows the things I love to bring, I know the things he love to bring.

I know, that in most of his lists I can expects destroyers and a warrior blob (or two) with a supporting cryptek and ghost ark (or two) and play defensivly, so in response I bring character sniping and things to handle the destroyers (or nullify them like a screen of horrors that defends my characters from targeting by mean guns).
He however, knows I know he is likely to bring them, and then analyses what I might do to counter him, and in turn thinks about how to counter me in return.
And so the wheel turns, he counters me, and I counter him in return, and so forth.

This leads to the fact we never play quite the same lists against each other-becuase we know the other knows our last list and is prepared for it.
And it makes it so much better for both of us-because we keep having fresh games, despite playing each other (with the same armies) dozens of times.

In a tournament where we could not afford to do this tailor dance against each other though? I can practically write his list and be 90% or more accurate, maybe even 100%, and he can do the same to me. because we know each other's playstyles and preferences so well.
If we had not tailored against each other-we'd face our regular "turnament lists" each and every time.
And it would suck...



Tailoring has a place in the game.
Where both players simultaneously tailor against each other.
Heck, its even thematic. a military commander isn't a moron, and should have a general idea of what he is up against, and prepare accordingly.

What your talking about is the opposite of list tailoring. What you have is a developing and shifting meta (even if its the meta of 2 people). You have players trying to guess what they might need to beat opponents and then bringing what they can to try to be competitive against players in their area (even an incredibly small one). List tailoring is saying "oh your bringing 5 knights let me remake my list so i can bring 60 Las cannons" oh now im about to play you ork green tide player "ill just change my list to all mortars and vulture gunships with punisher cannons this should be easy". trying to anticipate what people play in your area and getting a list that can deal with as much of it that you can, is not list tailoring.

akaean..... fantastic Post !

its a damn shame it was all but ignored after you posted it.

If we all strived for this sort of attitude the game would be in an ever better place then it is.

kudos !

 akaean wrote:

 Larks wrote:

I, for one, want the game to continue to grow. However, I think it's detrimental to get new players into the idea that if their army is non-competitive, that others need to "play down" to them, and not the other way 'round. Good players make the hobby better.

Just... no... here is the thing...

You seem to not understand my position at all. I find it helps to thoroughly read a post before ranting in reply, but you may do as you wish.

I said it can be a good experience if the person who is the better player takes the time to help the newer player learn. I did not say that they deserve to be beaten down, nor that I enjoy experienced players smashing their opponents.

The game is better with better players. Teaching people that the "default" action should be that anyone better than them should automatically try and play down to them is what is detrimental to our community. You don't seem to understand that one can have no desire to smash new players and get easy wins yet still have no desire to list tailor for other players.

Talking about this has become akin to discussing politics. If one says they didn't vote for "X", then folks like you assume they automatically support "Y". There are more than two positions here.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Losing is a learning experience, getting stomped is not.

Everything is a learning experience if you treat it as such. I generally learn more about a game from getting completely obliterated than anything else. Probably learned more about 40k from a recent 0-4 tournament run than I have from just about anything else. Personally, I find it invigorating. Now, I understand that not everyone wants to learn, but I also know that's not a mindset that ever leads to a happy or healthy experience. If you want to have fun, you really need to either be open to learning from every game and accepting that sometimes you're just going to lose to things above your level and have fun with it regardless.

Perhaps part of the split opinion on this is also due to a generation gap with some older players coming back I with 8th. You were expected to ask about running names characters or LOW in older editions where barely an army leaves the house without now.
Still I'd be inclined to agree with Akaean, “facing a list not capable of dealing with multiple titanic units can make the game tedious and not fun to play.”

 Larks wrote:

The game is better with better players. Teaching people that the "default" action should be that anyone better than them should automatically try and play down to them is what is detrimental to our community. You don't seem to understand that one can have no desire to smash new players and get easy wins yet still have no desire to list tailor for other players.

I agree that better/more experience players are more fun to play. However, if we're talking FLGS games where there is nothing to gain but an enjoyable afternoon I absolutely prefer a close game with equal strength forces to a free win/loss due to list building/skew. Whether that means the other guy switches in some more big guns or I swap in some infantry versus the new guy with the pair of starter boxes. Nobody needs to play down (use wrong target priority, poor positioning etc.), as we can still teach/learn from effective maneuvers. Unless playing down means not using this FAQ cycles most under costed units. If the only thing being conveyed is how to build a better list or which units to take to face Knights, I believe a discussion is better than a one sided multi hour game. Of course facing a competitive list can in itself be an eye opening experience and not terrible assuming both players are good sports...

If the game/atmosphere is tournament prep, competitive, give it all you got; then obviously the goal wouldn't be to build equal strength lists.

 Larks wrote:
This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Logically though, if you demand to know what you will be facing before presenting your own list, then your opponent gets to do the same and can theoretically out-tweak your tweaks.

Which just gets silly.

Fictional wrote:

 Larks wrote:
This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Logically though, if you demand to know what you will be facing before presenting your own list, then your opponent gets to do the same and can theoretically out-tweak your tweaks.

Which just gets silly.

Maybe it's because it's late, but are you trying to refute what I said? Because your post highlights exactly what I find wrong with the concept of adjusting lists to one's opponent.

Years ago at our local FLGS the few players that could actually afford flyers when they were coming out never used them in matches. It was generally agreed you didn't bring one unless the other player had one. Our gaming group in general didn't have the cash flow to go out and pick up dedicated anti-air units.


Most players, but particularly younger or newer players, simply can't afford to tailor their list or step up their competitiveness.

 Larks wrote:

Volkmair wrote:
With people saying they would like a heads up if facing a Knight force, while they are a polarising army would people be expecting a heads up of other polarising armies like massive hordes. In any case from the perspective of a Knight player would you want to play against someone who will only play against you if they can tailor their force to beat you?

This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Just to add - it can be a learning experience for a new player getting stomped. The difference between a bad game where you're rolled over and a good game where you were rolled over is how your opponent handles their advantage. If you're facesmashing a new player, take the time to explain different elements of your army, why you took them, and why you're targeting what you are when you are. It will leave a decidedly sweeter taste in your opponet's mouth to have actually taken something away from the game. Whereas if you just kick his teeth in while chuckling all the way and pulling out any "gotchya" moves you have, that poor player will come away thinking you're a dick, your army is OP, and/or that the hobby isn't for them.

I, for one, want the game to continue to grow. However, I think it's detrimental to get new players into the idea that if their army is non-competitive, that others need to "play down" to them, and not the other way 'round. Good players make the hobby better.

Why would a veteran player waste his time, on a new player who isn't playing the game on his level, both list and skill wise? Maybe if the noob was another players brother or son, but I can not think of any other situation where the veteran player would want to spend even a minute longer then needed playing a noob.

Karol wrote:

 Larks wrote:

Volkmair wrote:
With people saying they would like a heads up if facing a Knight force, while they are a polarising army would people be expecting a heads up of other polarising armies like massive hordes. In any case from the perspective of a Knight player would you want to play against someone who will only play against you if they can tailor their force to beat you?

This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Just to add - it can be a learning experience for a new player getting stomped. The difference between a bad game where you're rolled over and a good game where you were rolled over is how your opponent handles their advantage. If you're facesmashing a new player, take the time to explain different elements of your army, why you took them, and why you're targeting what you are when you are. It will leave a decidedly sweeter taste in your opponet's mouth to have actually taken something away from the game. Whereas if you just kick his teeth in while chuckling all the way and pulling out any "gotchya" moves you have, that poor player will come away thinking you're a dick, your army is OP, and/or that the hobby isn't for them.

I, for one, want the game to continue to grow. However, I think it's detrimental to get new players into the idea that if their army is non-competitive, that others need to "play down" to them, and not the other way 'round. Good players make the hobby better.

Why would a veteran player waste his time, on a new player who isn't playing the game on his level, both list and skill wise? Maybe if the noob was another players brother or son, but I can not think of any other situation where the veteran player would want to spend even a minute longer then needed playing a noob.

Community work? Because is rewarding to help a new player to learn the game? And that player will be one more for the group in the future?
After your anecdote of one guy broking the models of other player in the tournament.... With what kind of people do you play? Counter Strike players?

Two things.
Generally:
A) depends massively on the ammount of knights and the types. Amiriegers for exemple are a lot less tough, therefore less a problem.

@Karol
B) The community of the game lives and dies ultimately with young blood, it does simply not matter where they end up on the spectrum afterwards. For exemple the next competitive tournament winner or the garage hammer narative kind guy, or the collector.
In the end if no one new joins the game will ultimately die out, therefore wasting time as a Veteran on a newbplayer as you put it, is the wrong mindset and the mindset that ultimately will kill off the hobby.

 Larks wrote:

Fictional wrote:

 Larks wrote:
This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Logically though, if you demand to know what you will be facing before presenting your own list, then your opponent gets to do the same and can theoretically out-tweak your tweaks.

Which just gets silly.

Maybe it's because it's late, but are you trying to refute what I said? Because your post highlights exactly what I find wrong with the concept of adjusting lists to one's opponent.

Not at all. I am using your post as the example, that I fully agree with as it shows the absurdity of the WAAC approach.

Its just that such things should, logically, go on ad infinitum, assuming both participants can keep finding tweaks to make.

I had this argument last week with a couple of friends. One of them just got two helverins and the shooty dominus. That plus 2 regular knights was 1850. He proposed a game of his knights versus my new Necrons and another friend's necrons. I accepted because it had been a few months since we three met to play. However I inmediately exposed my concern about the matchup. Necrons are not a top Codex by any means, and our armies are diverse and not shooty. I have two Forgebane sets and some extra Inmortals and an Overlord, and my buddy has quite a few troops, a couple of characters, a flyer and a single Doomsday Ark; so no destroyers to play. I talked to him and we both agreed we could change up the mission and armies to make it more fun. I was thinking about just playing more free troops etc, as let's say 40 warriors won't really make a change, let's be honest. We adressed this to our friend and well, he's a nice guy but can be a bit picky when playing games. I explained to him I'm all about the fun and cool games, that we didn't care about the result and could make it really fun for all if we just did a necron horde against his knights. He argued more points was "too much" and wouldn't even play his knights as Freeblades for fun. In the end it felt like he was being cool for giving us 10 extra warriors and playing the 6+++ house. We were at the club already so I decided not to argue more and just play it cool. As for my ally, he's not very experienced and you can clearly tell when he plays. As for me, I'm a fluffy player and more relaxed (although I must say I can be picky with some rules, like everyone). So, in the end we played the game. He went first and did little on his first turn. 10 inmortals and 3 wraiths mainly. 0 charges. We spent the cp's to get the wraiths back and on 4+ only revived one... Anyway I managed to charge a crusader but because I had lost 2 couldnt tie him up (he can't fall back through Monsters).
We called it at our turn 3, having lost all Wraiths, Lychguard, the flyer and many troops. We managed to bring one Helverin down, and almost the crusader. It wasn't a fun game: most of our army couldn't do much and the firepower was exhausting to go through; just a boring, pointless game.

Yesterday, I played against IG for the first time with my Necrons, 1500 points. I managed to get turn1 and charge 10 Lychguard+6 wraiths. I had had the same argument with my opponent (my best friend and usual opponent), so he decided to run 70 guardsmen+25 scions, along a tank commander and two Taurox Primes. He had to leave early so we only played 3 turns. After the game we talked about how he plays, which was realy helpful for him, but I won't go further. As for me, I realised I could certainly push my way through a regular IG cadian list (I say regular, 3 russes max with some arty and much infantry), so next time he will surely bring his russes, and surely my necrons will pull off what my fluffy marines struggle to kill.

For me it's all about balance between the intention of the game (casual, narrative, competitive) and both player's armies. If you're playing casual against a friend, make it interesting, play the whatever you want but consider what he could do if you feel he/she doens't have much variety to play. If it's competitive, well, do whatever you want, soups, I don't care!

I hope I've explained myself properly.
Cheers


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Why would a veteran player waste his time, on a new player who isn't playing the game on his level, both list and skill wise? Maybe if the noob was another players brother or son, but I can not think of any other situation where the veteran player would want to spend even a minute longer then needed playing a noob.

I'm sorry but that's really dumb and selfish. When I started 40k in 2012 my brother's physical therapist was a long time player (15+ years). He was a competitive player and still is a very good player. I was yet another ultramarines 12 year old but he still offered himself to play with me and teach me. He was way older than me but he was okay with that, so we started playing very frequently. I learnt a lot, and to this day, he's one of my best friends. Who would have said my brother's physical therapist played 40k, and that we would become friends?
Since I started playing I have also introduced some people to the hobby, and I have no problem with playing with a "noob" and repeat the rules all the time. I've met many new players at the club who were just looking at a game I was playing and ended up helping them building their armies and learning the basics. On thursday I'm facing a newbie's "soviet guard" for the second time. He's really nice and we had a blast last time. Today for instance, he sent me pics of his very difficult victory agaisnt dark angels. I'm really proud I could help him learn.
Playing with new players or veterans new to your local community is part of the hobby and will reward you with much more than just playing super-ultra-competitive WAAC players because you don't want to "waste your time".

Karol wrote:

 Larks wrote:

Volkmair wrote:
With people saying they would like a heads up if facing a Knight force, while they are a polarising army would people be expecting a heads up of other polarising armies like massive hordes. In any case from the perspective of a Knight player would you want to play against someone who will only play against you if they can tailor their force to beat you?

This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Just to add - it can be a learning experience for a new player getting stomped. The difference between a bad game where you're rolled over and a good game where you were rolled over is how your opponent handles their advantage. If you're facesmashing a new player, take the time to explain different elements of your army, why you took them, and why you're targeting what you are when you are. It will leave a decidedly sweeter taste in your opponet's mouth to have actually taken something away from the game. Whereas if you just kick his teeth in while chuckling all the way and pulling out any "gotchya" moves you have, that poor player will come away thinking you're a dick, your army is OP, and/or that the hobby isn't for them.

I, for one, want the game to continue to grow. However, I think it's detrimental to get new players into the idea that if their army is non-competitive, that others need to "play down" to them, and not the other way 'round. Good players make the hobby better.

Why would a veteran player waste his time, on a new player who isn't playing the game on his level, both list and skill wise? Maybe if the noob was another players brother or son, but I can not think of any other situation where the veteran player would want to spend even a minute longer then needed playing a noob.

To paraphrase myself (in the post you quoted) - I want to see the game grow, and better players make for a better game.

Such a toxic attitude you have towards new players.

 Galas wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Larks wrote:

Volkmair wrote:
With people saying they would like a heads up if facing a Knight force, while they are a polarising army would people be expecting a heads up of other polarising armies like massive hordes. In any case from the perspective of a Knight player would you want to play against someone who will only play against you if they can tailor their force to beat you?

This is my problem with the idea that any player needs to inform their opponent of anything "scary" they're taking. For some reason, the community really seems to accept the idea of list-tailoring against big models.

Whereas if I walked into a game and said, "I need to know what you have so that I can make any adjustments necessary to ensure I can kill you." (the same damn argument), it's seen as a WAAC attitude - and it is - but it is no matter which direction the tailoring goes.

Just to add - it can be a learning experience for a new player getting stomped. The difference between a bad game where you're rolled over and a good game where you were rolled over is how your opponent handles their advantage. If you're facesmashing a new player, take the time to explain different elements of your army, why you took them, and why you're targeting what you are when you are. It will leave a decidedly sweeter taste in your opponet's mouth to have actually taken something away from the game. Whereas if you just kick his teeth in while chuckling all the way and pulling out any "gotchya" moves you have, that poor player will come away thinking you're a dick, your army is OP, and/or that the hobby isn't for them.

I, for one, want the game to continue to grow. However, I think it's detrimental to get new players into the idea that if their army is non-competitive, that others need to "play down" to them, and not the other way 'round. Good players make the hobby better.

Why would a veteran player waste his time, on a new player who isn't playing the game on his level, both list and skill wise? Maybe if the noob was another players brother or son, but I can not think of any other situation where the veteran player would want to spend even a minute longer then needed playing a noob.

Community work? Because is rewarding to help a new player to learn the game? And that player will be one more for the group in the future?
After your anecdote of one guy broking the models of other player in the tournament.... With what kind of people do you play? Counter Strike players?

@Karol:
Christ, you must think of me as the most stupid slow in the whole hobby. Why? Well, I am teaching noobs BB on fairly regular basis. What is my motivation? Roflstomping them? Nope, I usually make sure that I get hold of two beginners which will play against each other. These guys/gals are the future of the hobby. It´s as simple as that. Without my initiative they might end up as sociopathic video gamers and nobody wants that. Amirite?
As other posters already pointed out, you display an unhealthy attitude towards property and new players. Aren´t you ashamed of yourself? Your post about breaking the models was more vile than any kind of mudslinging/trolling which happened on this board.

My biggest community assets are the guys who are going out and winning the competitive tournaments in the area. My biggest headaches are the guys who go to and constantly think about competitive tournaments, but always end up mid to low tables.

A real dedicated competitive player understands that their role in non-competition matches is to teach, build a community, and foster the next generation to think tactically like they do. They take a chill match as an opportunity to bust out old favorite units that have been shelf-warmers for a long time or to swap lists with their opponents and teach them the way they'd run the units they have. If they're interested in a top tier throwdown, they'll do it with their group of buddies who they know are of the same caliber as them, because anything else is just a waste of time.

The tournament losers that turn up with their three-color minimum netlist looking to boost their ego in the name of "practice" are the scum of the earth and the scourge of anyone trying to build a community.