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.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Wait. So did you build a list for the sole purpose of beating his list or did you build a TAC list that is capable of dealing with a lot of high T and 2+ saves?

2 months into the hobby I was aware of wave serpent and riptide lists and how OP they were.

When I got beat by one, I used them as the benchmark to measure my army's performance. Eventually I came up with multiple lists which I repeatedly play tested and improved. Eventually I created a list separate from the other lists which I aptly named "riptide killer".

Eventually he challenged me again and I tabled him in turn 5. He wasn't expecting this list because I hadn't fielded it before.

But your question is probably "did you list tailor?". Yes, it was tailored specifically to exploit riptides but still very capable of killing other armies.

I have multiple lists that I can field, not one single one.

I think Riptides are actually easier to deal with than Wave Serpents, but they kill you more quickly if you are unprepared.

Martel732 wrote:
I think Riptides are actually easier to deal with than Wave Serpents, but they kill you more quickly if you are unprepared.

Maybe it's because I'm necrons, but I find vehicles easier to kill than MCs. Unless you're using a dark harvest list; in which case the crons are going to chew through MCs once they've particle whipped your troops to death because you were oh-so-kind to place them in the corner next to each other.

Most vehicles are easy to kill. But Wave Serpents are DTs, which makes them numberous. And have 60" alpha strike capability. AV 12 with cover bonus is extremely good against most opposing lists.

Not that Riptides aren't very tough, because they are. But they can be IDed, hit by poison rounds, etc. The danger with Riptides, particularly for meqs, is that after 3 turns you have no marines left.

Ok for another thread - here seems to be a good description of some terrible behaviour:

"we have a board that is covered in trenches, 4 by 8 feet board, 6-8 pieces of los blocking terrain including a forest right in the middle (can't shoot through it). Then they bring an ageis that goes between 2 building 24"away from my back field blocking/giving 2+ cover (thanks to zoanthropes that are hidden behind the forest/in it).

Only one board and my opponents get to set it up before i arrive, we roll randomly for deployment type, and game type but purge and relic the opponents say they don't play those games, the person builds his list right their and then after knowing the objective type and zones.... "

Can you believe that they are playing like this?

Yes. People do all kinds of crazy stuff.

Do not see a problem at all with list tailoring or running cheesey lists, and I only play casual games with friends. If it's legal, then we play it, and try to outdo each other by finding cheesey builds. We make lists in complete secret, and never tell each other when we buy a new model, because we know that the other player will then try to find a counter. This makes the buildup to games a lot of fun [at times more fun than the game itself!]

OT - for me, TFG is someone who is prepared to get into arguments with you every turn about every little thing to the point where you can't be bothered to argue and just let them do what they want. Ultimately in this environment someone has to back down and I just don't care enough about a game of toy soldiers. Case in point, I used to play against a Tyranids player who every turn would move his models 10 inches. I would have to call him on it every time, which led to an argument, until I just let him move them as far as he wanted. That's TFG, and that's why I would never play at a GW and would be reluctant to play PUGs at clubs.

 Jidmah wrote:
Hey, you know what? You are TFG. This is exactly what makes one up. Insulting people, dodging arguments, acting up when called out on it, and refusing to admit that you were wrong.
I didn't realize you were setting an example for the op. Well done, you're a genius.

Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking about you, sir. Making ridiculous arguments and then when people point out you being ridiculous, you buckle down and turn into a jerk. Well done, friend.

Maybe I should have made an argument within the confines of the game. "After all, what's the difference between a drop pod and a Rhino? Both are just dedicated transports."

To me, TFG is simply someone totally clueless as to their own ridiculousness, that refuse to accept societal standards and norms. It extends beyond gaming. If you think that I'm the one exhibiting that behavior, please place me on ignore and I'll do the same for you.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Only one board and my opponents get to set it up before i arrive, we roll randomly for deployment type, and game type but purge and relic the opponents say they don't play those games, the person builds his list right their and then after knowing the objective type and zones.... "

Can you believe that they are playing like this?

The thing is though you're not supposed to roll for board deployment and mission type until AFTER the list is created. That is actually the rules. Writing a new list to tailor it to the mission/deployment being played defeats the purpose of random mission types in the first place. :\ I mean I get it if you're playing with friends and you guys agree on it? Last time I played the best player in our FLGS, we rolled the scouring and decided to just reroll til it wasn't that because we played that mission literally the last 3 times we'd gone against each other, but that's still not literally changing your army just to tailor it to the mission type.

Ugh. Man that kind of stuff grinds my gears. I hate to the the rules lawyer, but that fundamentally changes the purpose of the game. Stories like that just make my skin crawl.

Rules lawyering is actually important to preserve what little order there is in this game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's not the army he's using, it's because TFG will always be TFG.

I think everyone agrees that playing a game, by the rules and trying to win is acceptable behavior.

I petitioned a group of my friends a couple years ago to reappropriate the word "newbie" to mean "someone who is constantly chasing the novel". I see this a lot with video gamers mostly. I am always hearing about THE BEST GAME coming out, and it's usually a let down. Sometimes it's a fun game, but in 2 weeks, all the "newbs" are off buying a new game.

Martel732 wrote:
Rules lawyering is actually important to preserve what little order there is in this game.

Perhaps but it can also lead to the opposite - with some seeking to exploite every loophole and minor grammatical advantage to the detriment of the game

after reading the thread I think people are confused on what competitive is and the difference between competitive and WAAC:

Competitive and WAAC are both attitudes. Fact.

A trait of WAAC players is that they use the most competitive lists just to win and then bark about it like it was winning a golden daemon, and this is where I think people get confused.

Not all people who play competitive are WAAC, WAAC players will be the one who take the most competitive list and use the philosophy "One size fits all" whilst competitive players will usually take on any challenge even "handicap" (I hate that word in terms of 40k) themselves for other players and refresh themselves with tactics and new ways to play the game.

Similarly if a competitive player likes to play competitive and has an healthy attitude towards his/her games then they are not WAAC, if they don't have a healthy attitude then they are WAAC.

As a casual but also semi-competitive player I will take stuff that I only like, I will always adapt to new situation as I enjoy the tactical challenge, as my lists are never the same (that would be far too boring for me haha )

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Do not see a problem at all with list tailoring or running cheesey lists, and I only play casual games with friends. If it's legal, then we play it, and try to outdo each other by finding cheesey builds. We make lists in complete secret, and never tell each other when we buy a new model, because we know that the other player will then try to find a counter. This makes the buildup to games a lot of fun [at times more fun than the game itself!]

OT - for me, TFG is someone who is prepared to get into arguments with you every turn about every little thing to the point where you can't be bothered to argue and just let them do what they want. Ultimately in this environment someone has to back down and I just don't care enough about a game of toy soldiers. Case in point, I used to play against a Tyranids player who every turn would move his models 10 inches. I would have to call him on it every time, which led to an argument, until I just let him move them as far as he wanted. That's TFG, and that's why I would never play at a GW and would be reluctant to play PUGs at clubs.

The few extra inches here and there that some people try to sneak onto the table don't really bother me.

The only thing that I can't stand really is when someone rolls dice and doesn't call out what it's for. Imagine if I rolled my reanimation protocols and then called out who died.

But I think the only thing that bothered me recently was that I recently went against a daemon army who was constantly hiding in cover and then assaulting me through it. My intuition told me that this couldn't be right as he informed me that I couldn't overwatch him. Not to mention he was striking at full initiative.

I brushed it off as a daemon thing, but no. Turns out that it's not allowed. Still won though.

sonicaucie wrote:

The few extra inches here and there that some people try to sneak onto the table don't really bother me.
.

Makes a big difference when, if the 'Nids get into CC, it's game over. He would also buff his run move by a couple of inches, and when added together that's a pretty significant boost.

My point is, I hate playing games where every turn brings a rules argument because the other player clearly wants to win so much. Feels like whoever is prepared to argue more is the winner, which isn't in any way enjoyable to me. Some people seem to really enjoy getting involved in rules arguments, and to me they are TFG. My few experiences of this have kept me away from any competitive environments and I can't see that ever changing.

 happygolucky wrote:
after reading the thread I think people are confused on what competitive is and the difference between competitive and WAAC:

Competitive and WAAC are both attitudes. Fact.

A trait of WAAC players is that they use the most competitive lists just to win and then bark about it like it was winning a golden daemon, and this is where I think people get confused.

Not all people who play competitive are WAAC, WAAC players will be the one who take the most competitive list and use the philosophy "One size fits all" whilst competitive players will usually take on any challenge even "handicap" (I hate that word in terms of 40k) themselves for other players and refresh themselves with tactics and new ways to play the game.

Similarly if a competitive player likes to play competitive and has an healthy attitude towards his/her games then they are not WAAC, if they don't have a healthy attitude then they are WAAC.

As a casual but also semi-competitive player I will take stuff that I only like, I will always adapt to new situation as I enjoy the tactical challenge, as my lists are never the same (that would be far too boring for me haha )

Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?

They're just nebulous terms we use to "other" people we don't like.

Like I said, I think THAT GUY is a d-bag all the time, with any game he plays. My friend Sarah is a WAAC player, though she's super sweet UNTIL something gets competitive, then she must stomp everyone.

BrianDavion wrote:
I look forward to the tears of Tau when Imperial players start feilding Knights

If your opponent allows it anyway. And if Tau can take them as allies you'll see them with riptides.

So there was a TFG at my local shop who was also super WAAC. The shop highly encourages fun and friendly lists in its leagues. The league is "to test out unique new builds" while the end of league tournament is where you bust out your A game. They encourage this by making winning and losing not worth many points, where playing someone for the first time, or just playing a game is worth more.

Any who, this dude brings the standard Taudar list at ever point level between 750 and 1500, just adding more as he goes. Then brings the 1500 variant of the list to the tournament. He was so.... terrible of an opponent, no small talk, no laughing at jokes, no smiling that a few people just up and left after playing him.

After the tournament, he got out of there like he was late for a doctors appointment. So a lot of the other people just chatted, he came up as a topic and people just agreed to not play him. It was unanimous that it was not fun in any way. So the upcoming few weeks, people just said, "No thanks, I am waiting for a friend for a game" when he asked if they would play him.

Now, in this league, there is no more TFG. We still have some WAAC players, but they are nice people.

BaalSNAFU wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
after reading the thread I think people are confused on what competitive is and the difference between competitive and WAAC:

Competitive and WAAC are both attitudes. Fact.

A trait of WAAC players is that they use the most competitive lists just to win and then bark about it like it was winning a golden daemon, and this is where I think people get confused.

Not all people who play competitive are WAAC, WAAC players will be the one who take the most competitive list and use the philosophy "One size fits all" whilst competitive players will usually take on any challenge even "handicap" (I hate that word in terms of 40k) themselves for other players and refresh themselves with tactics and new ways to play the game.

Similarly if a competitive player likes to play competitive and has an healthy attitude towards his/her games then they are not WAAC, if they don't have a healthy attitude then they are WAAC.

As a casual but also semi-competitive player I will take stuff that I only like, I will always adapt to new situation as I enjoy the tactical challenge, as my lists are never the same (that would be far too boring for me haha )

Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?

I had to think about this, and from what I gather, I had to look at past experience's to differentiate the line.

The main difference between a WAAC and a TFG is that a WAAC will heat up, but calm down and be less of a dick, a TFG will not.

A good example is that my first 40k opponent was a WAAC player, and he would do a lot of things wrong to win, one of these things is that he would usually be 100pts over the limit however he would point out that both of us would be able to be 100pts over (which confused me as instead of playing 1500pt games we played 1600pt game ), also if you did call him out on it, he would go off in a huff about it, however if you gave him a bit of time and gave him a small reminder that its just a game then he would calm down and apologise for his behaviour.

A TFG would not do that, a TFG would continue to act like an utter man/woman-child, believing that they started and remain in the right.

I think you become TFG when you tailor your list to an opponent and then cheat to win when things aren't going your way.

Happened to me once (he actually waited to see what I put on the table before claiming that he hadn't had time to make his list). I nearly stopped playing 40k afterwards because that guy was the only person in my group playing 40k. Luckily, I've found a group of guys who play and I'm back to having fun again.

My list of what makes a TFG:
- List tailoring
- Cheating
- Complaining (I've messed up my 2+ on three D6. Instead of laughing about it, I'll complain bitterly for an hour or so)

I always felt that a WAAC player would use cheesy exploitation of rules and so on, without moving over into actual cheating, simply taking every possible advantage they could find within the game system.
Whereas a TFG would actually be cheating - fudging dice rolls, moving a few extra inches, pretending they had special rules they don't.

Martel732 wrote:
Rules lawyering is actually important to preserve what little order there is in this game.

I don't think I'd go that far. We have a guy in our group who does this and I generally avoid him where possible. It just makes for unfun games. I doesn't help him much that he also has a short fuse when people don't go along with what he wants.

The trick is to not have a short fuse. Without using grammatical rules to deduce what GW has written, the game is unplayable.

Strongly disagree, that argument is used to pull some really wacky crap in games, I'm not getting into it though it goes nowhere.

Have a 5 minute conversation with your opponents before playing - ideally before meeting at the local game store - to determine what type of game you guys are interested in playing.

Based on the description that was given by the OP early in the thread it sounds like there are a lot of immature people involved in the problems going on here.

I still think someone should professionally edit the BRB so it makes sense and isn't so ambiguous. I bet you could cut out 150 pages easily.

melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
I still think someone should professionally edit the BRB so it makes sense and isn't so ambiguous. I bet you could cut out 150 pages easily.

I agree. Most gaming systems have professionally edited their rules at some point, and if done right, it went well for every single one. GW is just stubbornly stomping their foot on the ground about being a model company, forging narratives and beer and pretzel games while failing to see that good rules make a more enjoyable game for everyone.

Before anyone winds up in the common "common sense" and "make your own rules" arguments: Think about it, all the dreaded rules-lawyers and people pulling "some really wacky crap in games", as wowsmash fittingly described, would simply cease to exist. Is there really any reason not to do it?

It is really frustrating that GW doesn't want to seem to get with the times. It's like they literally do the minimum amount possible so they seem like they aren't ancient, like all the digital downloads. I actually think it's a cool idea in concept and having used the digital codexes my lone friend with an iPad has, they are neat. It's just when they seem to think every last one of us gamers is rocking another $300+ dollar electronic device to aid in our dice rolling is kind of silly.

Embracing the digital age is not simply releasing a digital product. It's going to social networking. It's talking to the fans. It's being responsive in some way to the actual needs and desires of your clientel. Without the fans of Warhammer, there is no Games Workshop. Ignoring directly speaking to fans for as long as they have is why so many people are fed up and angry with the company, creating more and more unpleasant folks that no one wants to deal with.

That's the thing about good customer service. You have to wade through situations where you don't want to be. You have to cut through the chaff of unpleasant people. Thing is, once you prove you're willing to do that, folks calm down.

Imagine if GW released a MONTHLY errata/FAQ article. Hell, put it in the White Dwarves. They changed the format because they weren't making money on the publication anymore, for God's sake. If they addressed rules concerns and questions in a monthly article, would you buy it? I'd buy it just for that! Everyone gets frustrated with the guy who doesn't remotely enjoy the modeling/painting aspect of the hobby and fields grey plastic marines for four years; why does GW insist on ignoring one of the biggest aspects to the hobby themselves?

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?

There isn't one, because one is a subset of the other. All WAAC players are TFG, but not all TFGs are WAAC players. WAAC behavior is just one way among many of earning the title "TFG", alongside things like not bathing properly, throwing your models across the room in frustration when you roll badly, etc. In fact, there are plenty of TFGs who will loudly brag about how much they don't care about winning and tell you all about how much you suck because you played a list with more than one Riptide in it.

 cvtuttle wrote:
Have a 5 minute conversation with your opponents before playing - ideally before meeting at the local game store - to determine what type of game you guys are interested in playing.

Based on the description that was given by the OP early in the thread it sounds like there are a lot of immature people involved in the problems going on here.

Careful with that. There are many people on this forum that argue against communicating with your opponent before the game even if if makes the game more enjoyable.