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.

 vaklor4 wrote:

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.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 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.

This.

 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.

Pretty hard to pass judgement either way.

 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.

I think further discussion would devolve VERY quickly. Let's end this one with a little grace shall we?

 MattKing wrote:
I think further discussion would devolve VERY quickly. Let's end this one with a little grace shall we?

feth that!

If you don't play as good as I, then Get Good!

If your lists are too hard for your friends, then Get Less Good!

If you are 15 years older than your friends, after you beat them at man-dollies, take their mom out on a date!

There. Now I'm done.

Grace avoided!

Yup, seems to me you are. That`s the vibe you give over the text.

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.

So there's my 2 cents.

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 IMO TFG 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 IMO TFG 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 IMO TFG 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.

Being TFG isn't solely about your WLD ratio.

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.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 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

 Peregrine wrote:

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"

Yes.

/Thread.

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 TFG cr 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.

Cheers