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.

I'm in a situation where I feel like bringing a "fluffy list" is just not optimal at all, and that unless I take a list I know I can probably do good with in all situations I just don't feel like I'm doing right. Frankly, I don't like to say I'm win at all cost (As I play tau, and certainly don't bring any ghost keels or storm surges, and limit myself to two riptides max). Still though, I've only been playing for like, two to three months, and I've by in large won most of my matches, and tabled a few guys. I've only been beaten twice, though this was by some hyper assault armies that hard countered me, and the people I was playing were far more experienced than me. The lack of close games I've had (I've only had four or so close games, most of which I still won). I don't think I'm actually capable of nerfing my list in order to make it more "friendly". I don't want a good game, I want an honest one, with someone who is trying hard, but still trying to have fun. To me, making a list intentionally sub par seems unauthentic. Now for reference the list I'm usually running includes some fire warriors, path finders, two riptides 6-7 crisis suits and a cadre fireblade, as well as 3 broadsides.

Now to the point. I guess to a certain level I feel like I'm beating a lot of people who played way longer than I, and I keep running into people who say "Well, I know you'll win but okay." and it's making me feel like perhaps I'm a TFG. I know I'm not bringing the worst gak possible, but is playing tau alone something bad? Honestly when I talk to the far more 'competent' players at my LFGS they seem to have no problem with my tau or tau in general, but when I play against the normal casual people it seems the bias is huge, and it's making me feel bad for not running something that is bad. How should I feel?

You're problem is that you're bringing semi-comp lists against what seem to be casual players.

Different strokes for different blokes.

TFGs are hard core rules lawyering for advantage people you don't want to play against.

Edited for spelling and politeness

"TFG", at least from reading this forum, refers to an attitude. As you're concious about it I'd say you certainly aren't.

Tau are an easier army to play. And can be a frustrating one to play against. Other armies may have to put a lot more tactical effort in to provide a balanced game. I play as Sisters, and so any game of 40k is an uphill battle. I have to think a lot about what I do each turn, and what I expect to occur next round. Yet I've won a lot and come close in many other games. I find that struggle a rewarding - if not at the time daunting - experience.

But let's start with some questions:
1) Why can't you "nerf" your list to match what your opponent brings?*
2) How about you recommend playing a different mission type/do you play Maelstrom?
3) How much terrain are you using? Less is better for Tau, so if there's not at least 25%/LOS terrain then the table is in your favour.


*I met some fellow 'Dakkas at WHW recently. I "nerfed" my Sisters list when I saw what was being fielded. You can eyeball it and your gut reaction will often be more accurate than you'd expect.

EDIT: Or play doubles. 1000pts a player. There's something about 2vs2 that takes the edge off and can make it more fun.

I might suggest you try bringing more variety to mix it up and bring less of the powerful units (like riptides). I'm a huge proponent of making lists to play at your opponent's list strength. Playing against a fluffy Nid list is going to require a different list than playing against that squig kicker Eldar list that isn't pulling any punches. Its important to be able to sit down at the table and play a game that isn't a forgone conclusion. I don't advocate intentionally playing bad (what is the point if your trying to fail) but bringing a list that is harder to win with can be a lot of fun as you really got to play well to pull out a victory.

That being said you are not a TFG because you seem to care about the enjoyment of the other person while a TFG only cares about themselves and their own enjoyment. Based on how you described your opponents playing against you it seems they understand that your army is very powerful and don't feel like they have a chance to win but your attitude is good so they aren't opposed to playing. Usually a TFG gets denied games a lot because nobody likes playing with them.

Sorry to be the first one in the thread to say it, but yeah, dude, you are TFG. The guys above are being WAY TOO EASY on you. Sure, you don't want to be TFG, but being TFG isn't about a malicious desire to crush your enemies, it's about a certain entitlement that you are owed an experience. You said it yourself.

Jaxler wrote:
I don't want a good game, I want an honest one, with someone who is trying hard, but still trying to have fun. To me, making a list intentionally sub par seems unauthentic.

The golden rule of Warhammer is this: it is as much your responsibility to see that your opponent has a good time as it is to see that you do. That's your chief job while playing. Does that mean you have to pussyfoot around someone? No. But it does mean you need to temper your game in some way. If you know that you want to play hard, and spend time perfecting a vicious army, then you cannot take a top tier army and water it down a little bit, hoping it will become friendly enough. Only two Riptides? Really? ONLY TWO? It must be so hard for you to table those guys. Try that gak with Dark Eldar. Or Orks. Or Blood Angels. Or AM. Or CSM.

I'm serious. Dead serious. The guy who takes a top tier army and facerolls over casual players? EVERYONE hates that guy. Experienced, inexperienced, doesn't matter. No one likes playing against a top tier army against someone *trying* to wipe them out unless they're at a tournament or are training for one. What they do love, however, is getting facerolled by that guy with a bottom tier list. Someone who can take Dark Eldar and make them sing? That's a real player. Get tabled by Blood Angels? How? To quote Ron Burgundy: "I'm not even mad. That's amazing."

Find an army that everyone thinks is underpowered and build the nastiest, most hardcore list you can, then play that list like your life depended on it. People will love you for it. I'm not joking. Everyone respects a real player who never pulls his punches and plays a weak codex because he likes a challenge. And trust me, it sounds like you'll LOVE the challenge.

Signed,
A CSM/BA/DE/IG/Corsair player

to OP

why don't you nerf your list to a level that fit to your local meta?
and then you try to play a hard as you can with your list. if you lose more than 50% your nerf was to hard. if you win a lot motr than 50% your list is to strong.
Regarding the current badest Codizies... well these ones are o weak... there is not much to do. i wont nerf my list only for them. especialy if they are the minority in the local meta.

But well. if your meta is not into playing with hard lists.. then you should adapt to this.

 ShaneTB wrote:

*I met some fellow 'Dakkas at WHW recently. I "nerfed" my Sisters list when I saw what was being fielded. You can eyeball it and your gut reaction will often be more accurate than you'd expect.

That was a nerfed list?! They violated my poor lil blue men haha

@OP: Id suggest playing what you feel would be fun to play, for you and your opponent. As a Tau player I find myself conscious of coming across as TFG too, as other people say they can be irritating to play against. Although I chose this army long ago in 3rd/4th and well before I knew their reputation (or what it would become)
I took a 10 year break before even building 500pts worth and came back to finish what I started. So I decided Id focus on units and models that I think would be fun, like more infantry, making sure to try to fill squads as opposed to treating them as bare minimum tax. Im going to experiment with breacher squads because I figured theyd be high stakes units with potential for hilarious failure. Im going to try out kroot too as Ive always liked their concept despite being neglected lately.

Ill probably only ever use 1 riptide or ghostkeel and lean towards using more of the smaller suits.

Try not to worry about it so much and have fun with whoever youre playing against!

I don't think I'm actually capable of nerfing my list in order to make it more "friendly". I don't want a good game, I want an honest one, with someone who is trying hard, but still trying to have fun. To me, making a list intentionally sub par seems unauthentic.

To me the parts of this sentence don't agree with each other. If your list is so much better than your opponent you are not "trying hard" beyond the list building phase. You are writing a good list and then rolling over weaker competition. SO you don't end up with what you want a game with someone tyring hard.

This post speaks to an issue with the system as well, you cannot just always bring what you want and expect good games.

I would say do yourself a favor and tweak your list to match your competition. It will make you a better player.

There's nothing wrong with building an efficient list.

Simply be polite and act as you would with anyone else. Don't cripple yourself by falling into the major faults of the game system itself and simply try to enjoy yourself.

If you come to a competition missing a leg, don't expect everyone else to saw off their legs for you.

OP

I understand where you're coming from. You want to play for the competitive nature of the game, and that's O-K! There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and don't let other people call you TFG for having this desire. Everyone wants to win, but only some people want to use the game as a measure of their skill. Bringing anything less than your best means you're not testing your capabilities.

But there's a problem...

You need like-minded opponents for this!

If you're going against people that bring sub-optimal lists with your very good one, then the game's challenge is massively reduced. Honestly, it can be to the point that so long as you remember most of your rules, you'll win with such lists against most non-optimized lists without any tactical knowledge at all. This means that you are NOT testing your capabilities like you want to, and any sense of pride you have right now for being so amazing at this game truly has not been earned. In fact, you should be embarrassed that you were "Hard Countered" at all - a truly skillful player would have succeeded in such a case!

This leaves two options:

#1 - Find Similar Opponents; Find the other players that also will be bringing their absolute best. Find the opponents who play the cheese and play the hard counters. You'll learn far more from losing to them than you will from winning against the others.

#2 - Stack the Game Against Yourself; You can't deny who you are, but you can up your challenge even against other players. Give your casual opponents extra bonuses just as if they were a formation, extra points, or massive battlefield advantages. Tip those scales to favour THEM. You can also do this by limiting your own forces, and allowing your opponent to set the limits, but this isn't you.


If you can't do these things, and simply must bring your competitive mindset to casual players, then you will be TFG. But if you can realize what you're doing now and adapt the game to fit what you're looking for, you can be "The Challenge" guy. That guy whose plays a mean game, but wants to prove themselves and gives out free stuff, or the guy who actually will face that All-Knight army that no one else will. Then you'll find opponents far more eager to continue gaming with you. Heck, get good enough at this, and you may even be the one your area looks to when a real TFG comes and needs to be knocked down a peg!

Jaxler wrote:
... and I keep running into people who say "Well, I know you'll win but okay." and it's making me feel like perhaps I'm a TFG. I know I'm not bringing the worst gak possible, but is playing tau alone something bad? Honestly when I talk to the far more 'competent' players at my LFGS they seem to have no problem with my tau or tau in general, but when I play against the normal casual people it seems the bias is huge, and it's making me feel bad for not running something that is bad. How should I feel?

You have selected an army that the consensus is "the army is overpowered". Whatever the outcome of the games will be, that will be on the minds of several of those that you play. If you win, it's because of your army, but if they win it was because they got lucky or had to fight harder. Is this true? I don't know, I haven't played 40K in a year, and am wanting to get back into it with a Tau army myself, and I too worry about what other people will think if I bring this list that I want to bring.

My problem is that I really like the mech angle of the army: Crisis Suits, Broadsides, and Riptides are the things I like best about the army, so that's what I'm going to use. Once I get some games under my belt with them I can play with list ideas and figure out what works. I am aware that some people will be hesitant to play me because I brought Tau, but I can't help that. What I can help is trying to be a good sport and enjoy the game, and help my opponent enjoy the game.

If you are worried about the experiences of your opponents, that is a step in the right direction. Maybe change your list up? Take fewer Pathfinders, change the loadouts on your Riptides and Crisis Suits, get an Ethereal and take it in a game, or maybe some Kroot or Vespid to change things up? Drop the Riptides and add in some allies? Play with more LOS blocking terrain?

Playing the army you want to play is not a bad thing, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The fact that you are concerned is a good sign. But if your list is constantly beating people and you are worried about your "image" at your gaming spot, then change it up. You mentioned a "fluffy list" in your opening sentence, why not try that for a while and see what happens? Don't throw your games with bad tactics on the table, but maybe handicap yourself for everyone else. This hobby is about fun for everyone, but make sure that you are still having fun too.

Are you playing Maelstrom games? Because that can change the pace real quick. You need to be fast and adapt.

 Imposter101 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with building an efficient list.

Simply be polite and act as you would with anyone else. Don't cripple yourself by falling into the major faults of the game system itself and simply try to enjoy yourself.

If you come to a competition missing a leg, don't expect everyone else to saw off their legs for you.

True, (though that depends on the competition) and we are not talking about tournament gaming here. This would be more akin to a college basket ball player showing up at a local pick-up game. Worse still if it is a wheel chair game, and he doesn't have one.

At some point your options are going to be.

1.) Mix it up with your list to have better games with all opponents.
2.) Only play games against people that want to play the same kind of game you do.

A problem that you can't really do anything about is that the Tau codex simply out-classes most others out there. Even if you were to take the worst options in your codex, you're still going to be on par with the best that others can conceivably field.

Simply put, your worst units are as good as the best units in other codecies. If you can't accept this fact and you still want a challenging game, all you can realistically do is to play a second army.

Breng77 wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with building an efficient list.

Simply be polite and act as you would with anyone else. Don't cripple yourself by falling into the major faults of the game system itself and simply try to enjoy yourself.

If you come to a competition missing a leg, don't expect everyone else to saw off their legs for you.

True, (though that depends on the competition) and we are not talking about tournament gaming here. This would be more akin to a college basket ball player showing up at a local pick-up game. Worse still if it is a wheel chair game, and he doesn't have one.

At some point your options are going to be.

1.) Mix it up with your list to have better games with all opponents.
2.) Only play games against people that want to play the same kind of game you do.

Why should I limit myself to those options? If I am better, I am better. People should learn without restraint.

You play Tau. No one likes playing against Tau.

You're a "new guy." No one likes getting tabled by an inexperienced player.

You seem like you're worried about how you're being perceived, so I doubt you're a bad winner...just make sure you TRY to make the game fun for the other player, even if you ARE kicking their teeth in.

Don't gimp your lists. Just only play people who are also trying to make competitive lists.

 Imposter101 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with building an efficient list.

Simply be polite and act as you would with anyone else. Don't cripple yourself by falling into the major faults of the game system itself and simply try to enjoy yourself.

If you come to a competition missing a leg, don't expect everyone else to saw off their legs for you.

True, (though that depends on the competition) and we are not talking about tournament gaming here. This would be more akin to a college basket ball player showing up at a local pick-up game. Worse still if it is a wheel chair game, and he doesn't have one.

At some point your options are going to be.

1.) Mix it up with your list to have better games with all opponents.
2.) Only play games against people that want to play the same kind of game you do.

Why should I limit myself to those options? If I am better, I am better. People should learn without restraint.

Except for the fact that building a list of powerful units does not make you a 'better' player, particularly if your opponent is unable due to factors beyond their control (ie. the Codex) to match you with equivalents. If anything, you're a 'better' player if you avoid taking the more powerful units and still perform well. Think of your motorsport of choice, having a better car/bike might mean you win more races, it doesn't necessarily mean you're actually a better driver/rider, especially if the teams you're up against have half the budget you do.

As for the original post, the fact you're conscious of the situation is good, so long as you're willing to do something about it. Either, as mentioned, find some opponents with a similar mindeset, or change up your lists. It's not about deliberately making a 'worse' list in many cases, simply picking units you enjoy playing or that you think look cool, rather than how powerful something is being the primary concern when putting together a list, maybe even try building to a theme.

One of the best games I ever had against Tau was one where instead of bringing his usual gunline-style list, he brought a bunch of fast-moving units (FW in Devilfish, Drone squads, Piranhas, outflanking Kroot, Crisis Suits, no Broadsides or Riptide). Completely took my Space Marines apart, had them completely encircled and desperately holding out at the end of the game, but it was so different to what he normally played that it both took me by surprise (I typically won when he played more statically) and was great fun to play against.

Obviously it depends on what minis you have available, but the more you mix your list up from the 'standard' or most effective options, the more fun you'll likely both find it. Try a more mobile list, or leave the big suits at home and bring some tanks, place the objectives so you set a challenge for yourself in needing to advance to grab them, play lower points games so you can't bring all the big guns you want, that kind of thing. It's not about playing 'worse' or building a 'worse' list, it's about making it more fun for everyone involved.

Before, I used to bring 2 or even 3 lists to my FLG. A competitive one for those who want the challenge (or who are practicing for a tournament), a mid-tier list for the semi-competitive players and a more casual list for the more casual players. I generally don't run my competitive one unless it is against my friend (we are all competitive against each other) or someone actually requests for me to bring my toughest list. Usually, a semi-competitive list is good enough (a semi-competitive list to me is probably more on the level of your list here).

In any case, bring several lists to match that of the other players here. So depending on what type of players show up, you can always have a fun game where you don't necessarily always "blow your opponent off of the table."

 Yarium wrote:
#2 - Stack the Game Against Yourself; You can't deny who you are, but you can up your challenge even against other players. Give your casual opponents extra bonuses just as if they were a formation, extra points, or massive battlefield advantages. Tip those scales to favour THEM. You can also do this by limiting your own forces, and allowing your opponent to set the limits, but this isn't you.

One "limit yourself" idea I've seen used to good effect was long ago at my group's annual summer tournament. The armies were pretty small and we picked them at random, but the best player was still kicking butt with the few SoB, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers and the lone Inquisitor (yes, Codex Witch-hunters was still current). So he took a personal quest in addition to the missions - he decided that the Inquisitor should also survive. He still won just about every fight, but seeing the antics he pulled to keep the Inquisitor alive made it pretty funny for everyone. That particular model is now the legendary Inquisitor Weasel who never dies.

 Imposter101 wrote:


Why should I limit myself to those options? If I am better, I am better. People should learn without restraint.

But you see, your not better. The game is inherently imbalanced across armies. Bringing the best you can every game forces your opponents with subpar armies to either stop playing or buy something that's competitive. This creates a toxic environment where instead of seeing all kinds of players, play-styles, and armies, you'll start seeing only the meta of the week. You also stagnate yourself as a player. By bringing a super competitive list to casual games, few things should threaten you, and this doesn't force you to be very resourceful.

I always believe that when the game starts you bring the best game you can bring, but don't throw your opponent under the bus during list building. Its up to the players to balance game and make it fun, challenging, and rewarding for both parties. This creates a healthy community and makes better players as a whole because of the diversity it creates and the challenge it brings in game.

 Imposter101 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with building an efficient list.

Simply be polite and act as you would with anyone else. Don't cripple yourself by falling into the major faults of the game system itself and simply try to enjoy yourself.

If you come to a competition missing a leg, don't expect everyone else to saw off their legs for you.

True, (though that depends on the competition) and we are not talking about tournament gaming here. This would be more akin to a college basket ball player showing up at a local pick-up game. Worse still if it is a wheel chair game, and he doesn't have one.

At some point your options are going to be.

1.) Mix it up with your list to have better games with all opponents.
2.) Only play games against people that want to play the same kind of game you do.

Why should I limit myself to those options? If I am better, I am better. People should learn without restraint.

Because not all players want to get stomped/be competitive? So what are they going to learn exactly? That their army cannot win against yours? That they don't want to play against you? I would agree with you if we are talking about people that are looking to be tournament competitive, holding back against them (at least long term) does them no favors. Which leads you to option 2, playing against people who are looking for hard core games like yourself, who have no issue getting thumped as a learning experience.

If that is not ok with you then you are really TFG because what you really want is to lord your superiority over others as you beat them into submission. Which often leads to having limited (option 2) opponents, or worse none at all.

Essentailly if you don't want to limit yourself to those options it is likely others will do it for you.

 Imposter101 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with building an efficient list.

Simply be polite and act as you would with anyone else. Don't cripple yourself by falling into the major faults of the game system itself and simply try to enjoy yourself.

If you come to a competition missing a leg, don't expect everyone else to saw off their legs for you.

True, (though that depends on the competition) and we are not talking about tournament gaming here. This would be more akin to a college basket ball player showing up at a local pick-up game. Worse still if it is a wheel chair game, and he doesn't have one.

At some point your options are going to be.

1.) Mix it up with your list to have better games with all opponents.
2.) Only play games against people that want to play the same kind of game you do.

Why should I limit myself to those options? If I am better, I am better. People should learn without restraint.

Except 40k is not like a sport or chess. Codexes are not created equal and list building does not equal being a good general. You may or may not be a good player but don't conflate that with using a good book or taking a net list.

Breng77 wrote:
If that is not ok with you then you are really TFG because what you really want is to lord your superiority over others

Bingo. It's pretty easy to not be oblivious/obnoxious/disrespectful, which is what TFG is shorthand for.

1) Be aware of the social contract of your game (ie. expectations);
2) Respect the social contract.

It's not that complicated in practice but it requires a certain level of maturity and awareness.

Except understanding the superiority of the lists within the game and knowing the system does make you a good player. An understanding of math hammer is skill.

And no, Breng, strawmanning will not work here. Players are not here to learn they will be curbstomped. I said nothing of the sort. They will learn how to play the game better when they do not play against deliberately faulted lists.

I also fail to see how playing list of the weak is stagnation. That's the literal opposite of stagnation.

If you win games, you're a TFG.

"TFG" is a meaningless buzz-word that people apply to others whose playstyle they dislike. Play the game how you want to play it and if your opponents complain either ask them to buy you the models they'd rather play against, or find more compatible opponents.

 Imposter101 wrote:
Except understanding the superiority of the lists within the game and knowing the system does make you a good player. An understanding of math hammer is skill.

And no, Breng, strawmanning will not work here. Players are not here to learn they will be curbstomped. I said nothing of the sort. They will learn how to play the game better when they do not play against deliberately faulted lists.

I also fail to see how playing list of the weak is stagnation. That's the literal opposite of stagnation.

I suppose it comes down to a fundamentally different view of the hobby. I consider figuring out a strong list does not equal skill on the tabletop. It's true some units are out and out bad but 40k works far better for every army if fluff, power level and personal understanding is taken into account. Going by the LVO it's pretty clear that a strong list is pretty limited in what units your taking and what armies even have a shot of getting to the top. is fun if both players want to play like that but leaving the background and good sense at the door is not fun for many players.

I know personally I have no desire to play my marines at the level needed to win a big tournament because those lists just seem so souless and cookie cutter.

 Imposter101 wrote:
Except understanding the superiority of the lists within the game and knowing the system does make you a good player. An understanding of math hammer is skill.

And no, Breng, strawmanning will not work here. Players are not here to learn they will be curbstomped. I said nothing of the sort. They will learn how to play the game better when they do not play against deliberately faulted lists.

I also fail to see how playing list of the weak is stagnation. That's the literal opposite of stagnation.

No Strawman here, you said "If I am better, I am better. People should learn without restraint." You assume people want to learn to get better at the game, and not just you know have fun playing a game they enjoy with the models they like. This is a false assumption. That is all. SO saying, well they will learn to get better if I play without restraint is simply not true as they have options to not play you, or quit the game if they are not having fun.

Like I said, if someone is interested in getting better in a competitive environment, you are correct. If someone does not and you force them to, you are being a jerk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If you win games, you're a TFG.

"TFG" is a meaningless buzz-word that people apply to others whose playstyle they dislike. Play the game how you want to play it and if your opponents complain either ask them to buy you the models they'd rather play against, or find more compatible opponents.

This is more or less true, as just like them you are expecting them to play the game in a way they don't want to (are you going to buy them models to help them play against you?) Which leaves the option of find more compatitble opponents. Which is a good and valid option.

TFG can be TFG on either end. He can be the competitor that beats down on lesser foes expecting them to play up to his level. It can also be the guy who bitches that everything is OP and never wants to change. Compromise is good on both ends and leads to better games.

 Frozocrone wrote:
You're problem is that you're bringing semi-comp lists against what seem to be casual players.

Different strokes for different blokes.

TFGs are hard core rules lawyering for advantage people you don't want to play against.

Edited for spelling and politeness

Pretty much sums it up, nothing wrong with what you're doing as long as your opponent knows what they're getting into. It's okay to tell your opponent that you plan on bringing a serious list and asking them to do the same, or even suggesting that you don't play a game together unless they're okay with facing an uphill battle. A big problem with 40k right now is the huge disparity in potential power between armies and the difficulty of communicating your intentions with just a point value. You can also "help" them by suggesting some things in the game setup, like LoS blocking terrain, a favorable type of mission, or giving them the option of deploying first or second. All of these are things a more experienced player might do, or things that could come up based on the role of a die regardless of their army composition. You might also improve your decision making by deliberately putting your army in less favorable starting conditions that could come up anyways if you had rolled randomly for terrain, mission, or first turn.

You need to truthfully ask yourself "am I taking this because of the rules, or because I like the model?" if it's the latter, then you're not TFG. I will never balk at someone who takes 6 riptides in a riptide wing if he likes riptides. Who I will balk at is the guy who takes 1 riptide wing with just 3 riptides, then back it up with a ton of markerlights in other parts of his army and a stormsurge or two, especially if the guy played Dark Angels "reroll Jink saves" Ravenwing last week and none of his models are painted.

To be perfectly honest?

Yeah you come off not only as TFG, but as incredibly arrogant on top of it. Fun is give and take, Tabletop gaming in general is a multi-person experience and requires all parties involved to meet, and often compromise for fun. Your original post you say you've been playing for only a few months, maybe 3? Yet you're already quick to write off fluffy as "not doing it right".

You also go onto say you do want a good game, you want an honest game? I'm sorry but, what is an honest game to you then? And honestly who are you to claim that someone playing their army to their standard isn't playing an honest game? An Honest game is a game played without cheating. That's it.

You claim to "just be better" but, you are not. You are letting your army do all of your work for you. You want to be better? Prove it, skim some of the crap off your lists when you play others. There innumerable other Tau players that could walk circles around you with what you are considering "sub optimal" lists.

You could be a really nice guy, but so far everything you have said here makes that very hard to believe. You may not be TFG to some people but you come off as a royaly entitled and arrogant creature.