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.

kyrellification wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
This is how my version would be going:
"Hey, I'm not a huge fan of AoS with no points system. Want to try the Azyr rules? They look pretty balanced"
"Nope, I want a friendly game with no comp"
"That's way too easy to break and no structure. Sure I can't convince you of avoiding comp?"
"Nope. AoS rules as GW writes them"
"Okay..." *deploys ten demon princes to prove a point as opponent walks away. "Where are you going? You said you wanted to play 'as is'..."

Seems an odd response to me. You seem to be giving the option, "play my comp or I put down 10 daemon princes". That implies a very black and white "play the way I want to or I will deliberately break the system to prove a point".

In the real world (unless you have some really gaming opponents, people won't deliberately break the system to prove a point. If they do, then they are definitely trying to be TFG. One way or the other, somebody deliberately pushing ANY system to break it to win is almost the exact definition of TFG. I really pity people who live in a world where their opponents (and indeed people who play pick-ups in their meta) are the people who need a comp or rule telling them not to be an otherwise they feel justified being one. There was someone in my area that always brought out 5 knights for 40k vs generic Forces. They never lost (as opponents never had any counters). do the rules (and points in this case) allow him to do that? Yes. Is he being unfair to people with casual fun lists when he surprises them with 5 Knights? Hell yes! Would I play him? Yes if I knew in advance. This mirrors your deliberate try to break it (as front the post you come across as a "if the rules don't say I can't, I will" type gamer. Sorry if I am wrong, but that is how you phrased a response above). Would I play 10 Daemon Princes? Yes if I had models to counter for a fair fight, or wanted to do a brave last stand type thing. Would I play you if I just wanted to try out a small game with Empire infantry (perhaps I am a new player?). no, and I would think you were TFG for doing that to someone in that setting.

Sounds like you did know in advance...

You know, 5 Imperial Knights IS a fluffy, casual list. It's certainly not busting down doors at the competitive level. If the person plays Imperial Knights (in the same sense that you play whatever army you play), what other option do they have? They can ally, but what if they don't have any other models, or any interest in other collections?

Without any other context about the guy, labeling him TFG for bringing his army is just as much "have fun my way or the highway" as laying down 10 daemon princes to prove a point, imho.

If he was purposefully playing an unbound monstrosity or an actual tournament capable list vs clearly ... I don't want to say bad but if your list can't handle Knights I feel you'll have a much harder time against Imperial Guard tanks, Land Raiders, and Necrons that you would against the Knights... that is a different story.

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. He played against starter box plus some stuff type beginner armies. NOT people who can actually deal. Try killing Knights when you built an army of general cool stuff (thinking like a kid). He never played vets.

It wasn't unbound, which made it harder for them to deal (as he could easily camp objectives).

If they wanted a smaller game, he knocked it down to 3 Knights. It was horrendous to watch, as you can't help kids when they physically can't do anything with the choices they have before their options are removed for them.

We vets forget sometimes that not everyone takes the large numbers of meltas, the powerful units etc.

Edit

I wasn't the one playing him, he just trolls around the FLGS and takes on the youngsters. He refused to play me as I only had eldar (built before codex update) which are "too cheesy".

Rihgu wrote:
You're still the jerk for "proving a point" a point in that situation. What's the problem with having a nice friendly game? Or just not playing?

Why waste his time if you don't intend on having fun?

There's nothing wrong with a nice friendly game.

There's also nothing wrong with playing a game using wounds, or a points system, or a scenario.

Nothing wrong at all, go roll dice.

But when someone wants to play a different way from you, that doesn't make them wrong.

I personally like the Azyr system and we had a dozen guys in for game on Friday. We have a 20 point league going, escaling to 30 next week.

And if any of those guys want to play with the game right out of the box, they can do that too. Lots of table space.

I totally agree with you. I was asking him why he needed to waste his and the other hypothetical person's time to make a point that doesn't benefit anybody, when he could just as easily play the game or say "no thanks".

Basically, is TFG behavior okay as long as you're "making a point"? That seems to be what he is saying and I'm asking if that is what he means.

Purposefully breaking someone's fun to make the point that games can be exploited is pretty much the opposite of good sportsmanship. Doing so would just prove to me that I'm making the right decision in walking away from the table.

His example isn't that bad, and depending on where you play, might be the norm. I've known many groups where "bring it all" means exactly that.

It's one of the quandries of an open system. Just saying "friendly game" doesn't tell the other guy a whole lot.

And saying "just play with what you want to play with" can be equally bad. If someone said that to me, I'd bring my Tamurkhan army if i took them literally. It got all painted up and then I never got to play it n a campaign. I actually "really want to play with" a huge Chaos army complete with toad dragon, war mammoth, and FW giant.

Once you've gamed with an individual or group, you know a lot more about what they mean by 'friendly'.

Sorry I wasn't able to get back to the discussion yesterday: white water rafting trip, followed by time with the family.

Anywho...this is next to pointless. The game has no structure, so anytime somebody wants structure within the game, they're told this game isn't for them. They find structured rules, and get told "quit trying to change my game and my fun". When they agree to play by AoS strict "rules" out of the 4 pages, they get labeled TFG, because "good players won't take 10 demon princes or 4 Necrosphynxes". Honestly guys, this says a lot more about YOU than it does about ME. It says you're the fun police. And if people want to have fun differently from you, then they don't get to have any fun. I'll walk away though, because the brick my forehead is pounding against is starting to crack.


After all, you tell me you want a small game: I bring 2 units and a character, you show up with 6 units, 2 cannons and Karl Franz. Well, that's a gakky game right there.
You say big game and bring that same force, but I bring my entire collection and we play a scenario that lets me deploy first. You now have a gakky game.
We play Azyr or max wound count-both people know the upper limits of what to bring, but still play all the rules that exist in Age of Sigmar.

I mean, I get why 12 year old kids like it. But Kris, you said you ran a gamestore at one point. They don't usually let 12 year olds do that, so I have to assume you're older than 12 and wonder why you like such a non structured game. It must be the free Kool-Aid GW ships with Sigmarines.

No, the point is that your argument has been 'play comp or I'll intentionally deploy stuff I know you can't beat'.

If you're actually playing the deployment phase as intended, I.e. dynamic rather than pre-build, then you're still not necessarily going to have a 'balanced' game.
But you can still aim for a fun one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is nothing 'wrong' with deploying your ludicrous collection of monsters as long as you give your opponent at least a cursory heads-up that is what you'll be doing.
You'll find opponents who are quite happy to take a crack at a skewed and blatantly unfair matchup, but the crucial thing here is that they know it's a possibility.

Even with comp, there's no guarantee of 'fair', 'balance' or even 'beatable', and definitely no guarantee of fun.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Sorry I wasn't able to get back to the discussion yesterday: white water rafting trip, followed by time with the family.

Anywho...this is next to pointless. The game has no structure, so anytime somebody wants structure within the game, they're told this game isn't for them. They find structured rules, and get told "quit trying to change my game and my fun". When they agree to play by AoS strict "rules" out of the 4 pages, they get labeled TFG, because "good players won't take 10 demon princes or 4 Necrosphynxes". Honestly guys, this says a lot more about YOU than it does about ME. It says you're the fun police. And if people want to have fun differently from you, then they don't get to have any fun. I'll walk away though, because the brick my forehead is pounding against is starting to crack.


After all, you tell me you want a small game: I bring 2 units and a character, you show up with 6 units, 2 cannons and Karl Franz. Well, that's a gakky game right there.
You say big game and bring that same force, but I bring my entire collection and we play a scenario that lets me deploy first. You now have a gakky game.
We play Azyr or max wound count-both people know the upper limits of what to bring, but still play all the rules that exist in Age of Sigmar.

I mean, I get why 12 year old kids like it. But Kris, you said you ran a gamestore at one point. They don't usually let 12 year olds do that, so I have to assume you're older than 12 and wonder why you like such a non structured game. It must be the free Kool-Aid GW ships with Sigmarines.

Has nothing to do with Kool-Aid. You think the game is unplayable as is. This is measurably false as I've now played dozens of games with a variety of people and every game has worked out just fine. Some of those games have been with strangers where we set expectations with a ~5 minute conversation beforehand. Again, the game has structure. You just don't like the structure, I think, because it relies in part on the sportsmanship and ability to 'eyeball balance' two armies on the fly of the players involved. I think what you're trying to get out of the game matters too. I don't particularly care about winning. Sure, it's nice, but my main intent is to spend time with friends and leave the table thinking 'that was a great use of a couple of hours'. It doesn't sound like you're looking for the same thing.

In your example, you make it sound like what you bring is what you have to deploy. It's not. You might need to re-read the rules. You don't make lists ahead of time. You just show up with the models you think you might want to play with. If you bring only 2 units and a character, I'm going to stop deploying when I reach approximately the same because I care about balance, sportsmanship and creating a roughly fair fight. If I bring the same, I would expect you NOT to deploy your entire force for the same reasons. If you do and see nothing wrong with doing so, we're not likely to ever play a second game. If the fight is one sided enough, I might just concede and congratulate my opponent on his victory. Such an opponent is clearly looking for something different out of a game and must not care about one or more of balance, sportsmanship or fair fights.

And that's fine.

Different strokes for different folks. The core game is enough for me and many, many other people. It's not enough for you and many, many others. The core game stands. It's playable. It has structure and a number of balancing mechanisms. You're allowed not to like it. You're allowed to say it doesn't have ENOUGH structure or ENOUGH balancing mechanisms for YOU. You're allowed to come up with endless house rules to make the game more enjoyable for you and anyone willing to try your house rules.

You're not allowed to crap on someone else's gaming experience in a effort to prove that the core game is unplayable. Just do what I do and pick opponents who are looking for generally the same things out of their gaming experiences.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Sorry I wasn't able to get back to the discussion yesterday: white water rafting trip, followed by time with the family.

Anywho...this is next to pointless. The game has no structure, so anytime somebody wants structure within the game, they're told this game isn't for them. They find structured rules, and get told "quit trying to change my game and my fun". When they agree to play by AoS strict "rules" out of the 4 pages, they get labeled TFG, because "good players won't take 10 demon princes or 4 Necrosphynxes". Honestly guys, this says a lot more about YOU than it does about ME. It says you're the fun police. And if people want to have fun differently from you, then they don't get to have any fun. I'll walk away though, because the brick my forehead is pounding against is starting to crack.


After all, you tell me you want a small game: I bring 2 units and a character, you show up with 6 units, 2 cannons and Karl Franz. Well, that's a gakky game right there.
You say big game and bring that same force, but I bring my entire collection and we play a scenario that lets me deploy first. You now have a gakky game.
We play Azyr or max wound count-both people know the upper limits of what to bring, but still play all the rules that exist in Age of Sigmar.

I mean, I get why 12 year old kids like it. But Kris, you said you ran a gamestore at one point. They don't usually let 12 year olds do that, so I have to assume you're older than 12 and wonder why you like such a non structured game. It must be the free Kool-Aid GW ships with Sigmarines.

You're STILL the "fun police" in that situation. IF the situation was:

You ask to play comp.
They deny, request that you play AoS "out of the box".
You agree and after discussion decide to play a small game with them.
You set up a character.
They set up a war machine.
You set up a unit.
They set up Karl Franz.
You set up a unit and declare yourself finished deploying.
They set up 6 units.

Then THEY are being TFG because they're exploiting a discrepancy between yours and theirs definition of a "small game" and purposefully deploying to have a bad game. Just as placing down 10 daemon princes is purposefully deploying to have a bad game.

If a person wants to play strictly un-comped Age of Sigmar they are either interested in a fun game and would deploy an army accordingly, or are TFG looking to play 10 daemon princes or a clearly overwhelming force.


Bottom line is: if you think that the opposing player's idea of fun does not match yours, do not play them. Don't "prove a point" - you'll be labelled TFG (and rightfully so).