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.

 Talizvar wrote:
I am pretty tired of the "TFG" label based on army selection allowed by the rules of the game.

There is NO RULE that says you cannot take a LoW in a <1000 pt game or ask for opponent permission or even give "fair" warning.
I feel that being judgemental with someone playing within the rules of the game is not fair and is poor sportsmanship.

Next you people will say you regularly go 1-3 points over the agreed pts value on a list because it is more important to cheat than lose that one piece of inconsequential wargear.

I indulge in the occasional "Scrub" behavior and give my opponent a heads-up on some army selections because I want a tough game not "bring a knife to a gun fight" outcome.
Sometimes I feel we need to adhere to the letter of the law in rules to highlight how some game rule systems utterly break without the fan-base house-ruling the heck out of them.
GW seems more receptive than they were in the past.

I think I still see red to the worlds "forge the narrative" or more "forge new rules since we did not test ours enough".

Heck, I get moaning and groaning from some of the FLGS hobby group that I am "no fun" to play because I have too many armies... so they can not list tailor against it since they do not know what army I will bring.
It all boils down to how badly the person wants to win and if it looks like they can't win, "dude, I just wanted a "casual" game" is their rally cry.

I love playing my friends more-so.
We play our best, heck, dip into evil as far as we can and laugh when a hideous list is dropped on yourself and you try to pull a pariah victory out of it.
We still sometimes play not 100% optimal lists because we still get hung up with our "Boys before toys" phrase but that is a carry-over from historical gaming.

Just because the rules let you have 2 daemon princes and 3 bloat drones in a 1000pt game doesn't mean people will want to play you. What the rules say you can put in your list is largely irrelevant outside of a tournament. If it's not a game both players feel like they can enjoy they'll find someone else to play. Conversely there are people out there who'd be more than happy to play against it. It becomes TFG behaviour when someone throws a fit when someone won't play against a list designed to absolutely crush them or when they play that list solely to prey on other people and then refuse to play against a list similar to their own. Good sportsmanship is all about working to ensure both players enjoy the game. Being a competitive player doesn't make someone a poor sportsman or TFG, the way they interact with other players is what can.

Conversely if you decide to play a game with someone without discussing how competitive it will be then they throw a fit when you set down your tournament list against their army of only tactical marines, they're the one being TFG. It is possible to politely turn down a game. The reason to talk with your opponent before a game isn't so they can have a chance to gimp your list. It's so both players are on the same page about what to expect.

Also, if your opponent doesn't want you going a couple points over for "inconsequential wargear" then you throw a fit, you're being TFG. If it's inconsequential then dropping it will mean nothing to you.

I think bringing any super heavy or primarch level model to 1000 is pretty rough, but I wouldn't say it makes you TFG. Being TFG is all about attitude and who you are as a person. If you want to bring a valiant to 1000 and the other person is cool with it then great have fun. If the other person says I don't want to play that game and you throw a fit then yeah you're probably TFG because you are upset someone else does not want to play into your power fantasy. However if you politely accept their refusal and change your list to not include a valiant then boom you are good to go.

A buddy of mine at my gaming club is a perfect example of this. He has an all knight army that he likes to play, but realizes not everyone is interested in playing against it so he brings a back up. He plays strong lists and is a good player, but most importantly he is a respectful and nice person so he is never TFG even if he brings Magnus and morty in 1k games because if you don't want to play it he will bring something else out.

I also think a huge part of this conversation is not entirely about the strength of lord of war type models, but rather the type of game they create. I have zero desire to play against an all knight army not because I can't beat it, but because I would find it boring to play against just 5 models at 2k. At 1k this is very obvious when one unit takes up half of their army. It's just a game about kill that one mega model or lose. It's just plain boring and uninteresting.

I know I'll get some flak for this anyway, but it's one reason why I think "pick up" games are always a risky proposition. 40K is not a balanced or perfectly designed game, so there is a large gulf of what can be done within the confines of the rules.

Couple that with the different gaming cultures that play the game (mainly casual/narrative and competitive/meta) and this is what you get. What I dislike the most is that people insist "We're all one community!", etc. We're not and we don't have to be. That's fine, the world won't end if you play soldiers differently than I play soldiers. We don't "have" to play against each other. I'm likely not attending your tournament and you're likely not crashing some narrative event I'm partaking in.

Personally I'm fine with the divide. Makes it a lot easier to set up games that way. But the question in the OP is a perfect example. If you played in a high-stakes, ultra-competitive area...you wouldn't need to ask. But if you're doing pick-up games at a local store, you're going to encounter new players, old players, some players with limited budgets, some players who are more into painting and just play the occasional game, but most importantly players who don't really care too much about units being 2.1% more efficient for their costs, etc. In those circumstances, you will become "That guy" - but the reality is that maybe you guys shouldn't be playing pick up games together. That's fine, the world won't end.

There's a local guy in our scene who's an absolute clown. He runs his mouth constantly, refers to his lists as "rape lists" etc. and basically buys and commissions whatever the meta-wind blows in his direction. He then gets butthurt when people aren't interested in playing him. Why? Because his enjoyment of the game doesn't align with a large portion of the local gamers.

Me? I'm narrative/casual. While I have units which I could use to construct a strong list, I find that exceptionally boring. I come from a background of mostly historical gaming, and that's what intrigues me about wargaming. The story, the interesting scenarios, the bizarre forces which sometimes engaged eachother, the lack of control over circumstances, the "make do with what you have" nature of some of the greatest battles humans have ever fought, etc. I take a different list almost every game to keep it interesting, etc. People like Talivar would likely consider me a "Scrub" etc. That's fine, doesn't affect me as I don't need to play Talivar.

The assumption that people play 40K one way, and for one purpose is simply wrong. It only comes to a head though in pick-up games. Organized games or events should be pretty clear on what they are, and likewise if you're gaming with your buddies you know what you're getting into.

If you are fighting a knight list? Yes it's a tfg move.

If your not fighting a knight list, you are fine.

NOW, if you took the brawl hammer, bane hammer with 4 heavy flamers, that's a tfg move

 Elbows wrote:
I know I'll get some flak for this anyway, but it's one reason why I think "pick up" games are always a risky proposition. 40K is not a balanced or perfectly designed game, so there is a large gulf of what can be done within the confines of the rules.

Couple that with the different gaming cultures that play the game (mainly casual/narrative and competitive/meta) and this is what you get. What I dislike the most is that people insist "We're all one community!", etc. We're not and we don't have to be. That's fine, the world won't end if you play soldiers differently than I play soldiers. We don't "have" to play against each other. I'm likely not attending your tournament and you're likely not crashing some narrative event I'm partaking in.

Personally I'm fine with the divide. Makes it a lot easier to set up games that way. But the question in the OP is a perfect example. If you played in a high-stakes, ultra-competitive area...you wouldn't need to ask. But if you're doing pick-up games at a local store, you're going to encounter new players, old players, some players with limited budgets, some players who are more into painting and just play the occasional game, but most importantly players who don't really care too much about units being 2.1% more efficient for their costs, etc. In those circumstances, you will become "That guy" - but the reality is that maybe you guys shouldn't be playing pick up games together. That's fine, the world won't end.

There's a local guy in our scene who's an absolute clown. He runs his mouth constantly, refers to his lists as "rape lists" etc. and basically buys and commissions whatever the meta-wind blows in his direction. He then gets butthurt when people aren't interested in playing him. Why? Because his enjoyment of the game doesn't align with a large portion of the local gamers.

Me? I'm narrative/casual. While I have units which I could use to construct a strong list, I find that exceptionally boring. I come from a background of mostly historical gaming, and that's what intrigues me about wargaming. The story, the interesting scenarios, the bizarre forces which sometimes engaged eachother, the lack of control over circumstances, the "make do with what you have" nature of some of the greatest battles humans have ever fought, etc. I take a different list almost every game to keep it interesting, etc. People like Talivar would likely consider me a "Scrub" etc. That's fine, doesn't affect me as I don't need to play Talivar.

The assumption that people play 40K one way, and for one purpose is simply wrong. It only comes to a head though in pick-up games. Organized games or events should be pretty clear on what they are, and likewise if you're gaming with your buddies you know what you're getting into.

Awwww, you gone and done it now. Even though you added the /narrative, you're going to provoke a six page rant about how DARE you, how DOUBLE DOG DARE you call a style of game in which players avoid taking tournament competitive units and combos in order to allow greater variety in units to be chosen by both players without resulting in a very short, one-sided game a "casual" game! Such a game is in no way casual and is in fact incredibly evil and no good baddy bad.

How dare you resort to commonly used language and easily understood parlance. You are issued this one (1) warning and henceforth will be expected to refer to that game type exclusively as "both players avoid taking tournament competitive units and combos in order to allow greater variety of units to be chosen by both players without resorting in a very short, one-sided game" or, for short, BPATTCUACIOTAGVOUTBCBBPWRIAVSOSG, play.

That...is a hell of a hashtag.

# BPATTCUACIOTAGVOUTBCBBPWRIAVSOSG

But my view of the fluff requires I bring OP units and I am unflinchingly rigid in my application of my personal views of said fluff.

 ServiceGames wrote:
Is a Shadowsword in a 1000 point game (though legal) frowned upon since it's so powerful in 8th? Would I be considered "That Guy" if I did bring a Shadowsord to a 1000 point game?

Thanks

SG

Probably not, to be honest. It'll certainly make you obnoxious to play against, but there's also a certain point where too much of your army is in a single model making your force too inflexible and prone to having it evaporate in a single round.

On the other hand, it could be fun to build and play armies based around one very large model and a handful of support units. Could even lower the cost of collecting multiple armies. Why should IK have all the fun?

Unit1126PLL wrote:So I warn them it's coming, or change my list if they want me to. But that requires more pregame conversation than most people are fine with.

This is the exact approach everyone should take. Imagine talking to your opponent to make sure you're looking for the same sort of experience beforehand? What a shocking idea.

Can you articulate what superheavies change about the game that lesser vehicles (e.g. Armigers, Leman Russes, Land Raiders, Hammerheads, etc) don't change?

To put it one way it's a certain number of wounds at a given toughness and save value. So if you take multiple Leman Russ tanks or Land Raiders or whatever, you've basically done the exact same thing.

If people want the experience of some huge thing rolling around taking loads of fire while also dishing it out, I can see that experience being satisfied by a single super heavy or a platoon of regular tanks.

So to answer the question of the thread title, taking a Shadowsword into a 1000 point game only makes you "that guy" if you don't talk to your opponents beforehand and let them know that this is the experience you are looking for and giving them a chance to make an appropriate army in response. Even though many inappropriate armies like a horde of infantry with no anti-tank weapons will likely win the game on scenario fairly easily. But they should make an informed choice.

Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Pro tip: if an action in list building causes you to instinctively pause and ask yourself if it makes you "That guy", the answer is automatically "yes".

Alternatively, too many people live in fear of being labeled TFG for taking the "wrong" list and should get over that fear. Playing with good units doesn't make you TFG. If you instinctively pause and think you might be TFG the first thing you should do is look at the toxic mess of a community you're in and ask yourself why you play with people who act like that.

I guess I didn't look at the fear of being labeled TFG. Still, there is an inherent "feel" of a balanced list and a balanced match up. When it feels off, there's probably a reason. It's no different than knowing the lists and looking across the table when someone's math is off. It's noticeable that they have too much or too few for that points match up. Having one unit that puts out 30 S5 shots at that range, of which 20 will statistically hit, is more than a bit much at a point level where every squad/mob/brood/whatever counts.

frozenwastes wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:So I warn them it's coming, or change my list if they want me to. But that requires more pregame conversation than most people are fine with.

This is the exact approach everyone should take. Imagine talking to your opponent to make sure you're looking for the same sort of experience beforehand? What a shocking idea.

"So I'm looking to table someone by turn 2 with my LOD that has a ridiculous damage output, is that cool?"


I realize that ever since 6th 40K and AOS we've had this big push on the "social contract", but part of the reason I wound up sliding back to 3rd Ed. with my gaming group is because the game was balanced enough that you didn't really HAVE to worry about that aspect. Apocalypse was its own thing eventually, so we didn't have to worry about issues with Superheavies, fliers and the like. You came up with an idea of points value, maybe rolled in the back of the book for one of the random missions (every group I've ever been in delighted in cycling through the scenarios in the back, and we didn't have that whole "pitched battle or death" thing going on that other clubs did), had a neutral party set up the board while we made our lists, and cracked on. Never did we have some lengthy debate about units or lists unless it was some trial thing from WD or an appendix list that specified permission, or the occasional special character.

 Just Tony wrote:
"So I'm looking to table someone by turn 2 with my LOD that has a ridiculous damage output, is that cool?"

A few times a year, sure. Every game, no. Unless I also might be interested in building something that would be an appropriate match for it and then we can have duelling super heavies more often.

See? Not hard.

I realize that ever since 6th 40K and AOS we've had this big push on the "social contract", but part of the reason I wound up sliding back to 3rd Ed. with my gaming group is because the game was balanced enough that you didn't really HAVE to worry about that aspect. Apocalypse was its own thing eventually, so we didn't have to worry about issues with Superheavies, fliers and the like.

This is the exact same process as having a social contract. You had a chat about the kind of games you wanted and even went so far as to go back to a rule edition from the late 90s, early 2000s.

I actually like the lower model count and smaller games for 40k and AoS. I think 750 with letting your opponent know if you take something with T7 or W7 or higher so they can bring some anti-tank makes for a great game. It's not quite as zany as 2nd edition, but a similar sized game in terms of model count.

So I definitely like things like knights and super heavies for special occasions only. But other people might not. There's even a codex army that is all lords of war in 8th edition (Knights).

Your group talking about using an entirely different rules set is certainly a functioning example of what I'm talking about. It goes so much further than just having a chat about lists before a game.

a TFG will expect "everyone" to be ok with playing against a Shadowsword in a 1k list.

It's fascinating that people go so polar on this...

The fact of the matter is it entirely depends on your opponent and group. If others don't like playing against you, you just turned into TFG to THAT person. It doesn't matter what your brought, or what you did, you are TFG to THAT person (and now probably their friends). It's all about social norms and expectations. If you violate those, you're TFG. It doesn't matter what the norms are, just that you violated them. This is the same whether you're talking 40k, Dungeons and Dragons, how you act at church, or watching football games at someone's house. As you can even see from the polarization here, some people wouldn't play you again, others would welcome it, and still others are in between.

This means trying to define it on the internet is worthless. You need to be talking to your group and those you play about what their expectations are. It's also why people who ask their opponents what level of competitiveness they expect are going to be the people EVERYONE loves to play.

 troa wrote:
This means trying to define it on the internet is worthless. You need to be talking to your group and those you play about what their expectations are. It's also why people who ask their opponents what level of competitiveness they expect are going to be the people EVERYONE loves to play.

I like your take on it. As I've seen someone say elsewhere, there is no singular 'community' of games, but rather various little small ones- and each one can have its own taboos and gaming faux pas. And Some can be kinda weird. Even right now, at one end of town the FLGS has quite players that would be considered 'That Guy' in another, but it's just a different approach to playing games with them. In my travels, I've sat down something as simple as a Stormtalon and it was treated like something of a jerk move, because very few of the players there had flyers at all, much less tools to deal with them. For some reason.

That's why I genuinely sympathize with people who don't have multiple places to game. Growing up, we had ONE when I was a teenager and it was quite a bit of gas money to get there. And whatever weird, quirky norms were there, you kind of had to deal with it or just not play.

My usual response if someone asks me for a game of any sort, I ask "what are we doing?" Because that's usually going to get an answer. "I wanna try out this list, see what it can do" means I need to bring a variety of stuff he can test on. "I just got this thing/these dudes and I wanna play 'em" means that I'm probably not going to be a jerk and blast the new toy/toys off the table in turn 1. "Just a chill, laid-back fluff game, dude" means I'm bringing the same but have my tournament list on backup, just in case he's TFG.