Traditio wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
@Traditio: You write like an idealist, I can respect that.
I personally have found growth in taking the rules to the max with like minded players.
Please be assured, I take pleasure in a game well played, close ones especially.
Be polite, shake their hand, be nice, it is our hobby after all.
You are just looking to get something out of games a bit different than me, that is fine.
I like a challenge, oddly, few "That Guy" types play people like me because they value winning to much to risk losing against a competitive player... they look for "victims".

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with everyone playing cheesy, min-maxed lists and going with the most stringent, rules-lawyer interpretation of the rules.

And I have no doubt that you are a positive delight to play with among members of your own group.

The default mentality, however, should be "we are going to play fair unless we explicitly agree to do otherwise, by all common sense accounts of those terms."

If you show up to a random casual game against a complete stranger with 5 wraithknights, you have violated an unwritten, though publically acknowledged, rule of etiquette. At the very least, that game should come with a disclaimer: "Just so you know, I'm running 5 wraithknights. Do you really feel like playing that game?"

Going back to my complaint about TFG I played last night:

Had he flat out told me: "Just so you know, I'm running THIS list and I am a complete rules lawyer," I would have passed on that game before even setting up.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:But when you see it, will your opponent also see it?

Perhaps "you know it when you see it" isn't the best way of answering BlackSails.

Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

Wraithknights and scatterbikes are publically admitted to be cheesy.

Way back in the day, I was accused of running a 'cheesy' army when I took Red Corsairs to a 2nd ed tournament. People saw a Chaos army with jump packs and attack bikes and immediately decided that this was out of line, despite being legal and hideously expensive points-wise. I took those units because I wanted a fast-moving pirate force, and loved the idea of painting up an army with all different marines in it... Actually being able to win games with it (I generally didn't) wasn't a big consideration.

One man's cheese is another man's fluff.

1. I think that the bolded is important. You didn't make the list for tactical advantages, nor did it actually confer a tactical advantage.

2. Again, I think hat we should put due emphasis on "public." I wasn't playing in 2nd edition, but let's assume dakka forums existed and you put your army list online. Would people complain about it like they complain about free razorbacks for minimum 5 man tactical squads or scatterbikes?

Traditio wrote:

Talizvar wrote:Oh, I can honorably take a handicap like Backspacehacker had outlined.
A game in is better than not at all, this is where "mutually agreed rules" come into play.
A perceived leveling of the playing field could be negotiated if both are willing.
I think the "ambiguous rules interpretations" are covered in the rules by rolling off.
I am unsure how being a doormat will make me a better player.
I have a sneaking suspicion I would be required to play "your game" with little compromise.

You're the one who said you wanted a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:I think the whole issue of running an army that is "Cheesy" really boils down to how and why you chose that army, and if you openly admit its cheesy.

For example, im making a deathwing/ravenwing army because i love their lore, and terminators are my fav model. If gods willing they became super viable, and cheesy that would not stop me running them. It really boils down to how you handle it. If you admit its a cheese army, you are not TFG.

Ravenwing is cheesy as cheesy comes. An army of bikes with 2+ rerollable jinks?

I wouldn't be willing to play that game.

Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:What no their jink is only a 4+ and can reroll.

Black nights get a 3+ to save on a jink and can re-roll

They dont get a 2+ jink THAT would be OP as hell

I could be in error about how RW works. Still, though, my impression, the one time I played against them:

1. It's impossible to assault anyone because, apparently, everyone gets to shoot me, not just the unit I'm assaulting.

2. It's impossible to catch them, because they're all on bikes.

3. Welp. I'm getting shot off the table. That's a lot of relentless grav.

4. It's impossible to hurt anyone, because they have rerollable saves.

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

The only way that I'd be willing to play you is if you played a CAD.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

The cost isn't as prohibitive as it should be. A tactical marine costs 14 ppm. That same tactical marine on a bike costs 21 ppm.

For that additional 7 ppm, he gets:

A. Additional movement
B. Hammer of wrath
C. Relentless
D. Moar guns
E. +1 toughness
F. Jink

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," then yes, he is probably TFG.

Do you really contest this point?

Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

Because, again, I've been in that situation, and had perfectly enjoyable games despite my opponent's army being hideous.

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," and is a donkey-cave, then yes, he is probably TFG.

Just having said list, though? Nope. 'Probably' is vastly overstating it.