EmpBobo wrote:That is a terrible environment to learn a new game system. Learning games are best as one on one.
I might disagree on this. Though for this specific example I must say the pairing doesn't feel rather forced just because of the grand alliances, but disallowing acces to info is just 'not done'. This tuesday I will have a couple of newbs/friends come over for a big table full of city ruins, and two big armies of Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines. I would think it common courtesy to print a summary of the basic statistics for the models and weapons they will be using, and during the game have them reference them often, so they get used to which stat is what and how they are used. Did so before, and that worked, even in a 2 vs 3 setting, where we just divided the armies. (Two Chaos Space Marines task forces closing in on an Astra Militarum platoon with some support, all on one side of the table, and then forcing them to 'ally' against the massive Tyranid invasion force running up the opposite long table edge, itself also divided between 2 players. It was a blast!)
As for grumpy attitudes and to be
TFG or not... I think it is all relative. And time can change all manner of things, including attitudes. If the 'teacher' wasn't a
TFG a year ago, but in the mean time lost both his parents, his dog, his girlfriend and his job, he might have been so upset by all the setbacks in life that he latched onto
AoS as if it were everything he had left, and started to become rather driven, obsessed perhaps. Less severe, if he was the victim of a couple of true
TFG type players in the past year, he might have taken over that attitude just 'to survive' the games he was playing. Not condoning any rude behaviour, but just stating it wouldn't all have to be deliberate. On the other hand, if it was all deliberate, pairing timetowaste85 with a newbie player carrying a sub-optimal list as to more easily beat timetowaste85 this time... That would be a man-part move in my opinion. But we simply do not know all the circumstances now, do we?
The same goes for a grumpy attitude. I didn't think being a bit grumpy about the situation
as described would be inappropriate at all. However, being grumpy about specific parts, such as the pairing up, might be a tad unnecessary. How would the two players be on the same team if the teacher and the student were in a 1 vs 1 game? They wouldn't or there would not even be a game! Teacher and student were on opposite sides, as they would have been in a 1 vs 1 situation. Reading about two players with armies from the Order grand alliance pairing up isn't strange to me. Having the proverbial 'Bad Guys', Chaos and Death in this case, trying to work together would sound logic to me too. As you might see from the example I gave (Imperium and Chaos units uniting as there is a far greater mutual enemy looming) I can and will accept the other way around if it tells a good story. But in the end it is still a game to be enjoyed with melee and ranged attacks instead of heart attacks.
Also, being grumpy about a suboptimal list is not necessarily a good thing. Sure, it is a wargame, and people want to win, but sometimes an optimized list also means including many different troops and characters with as many different special rules which all support or enhance eachother
if one knows how they work. The games I use to teach new players
40K usually involve them having a basic tactical squad, 9 Space marines with boltguns, and 1 with a lascannon or heavy bolter (well, a bit more than that, but just join me in the example). New players learn the basic weaponry, and they can more easily see what difference a
BFG in a squad makes. Now here comes (in my opinion) a bad teacher who gives the new player a Deathwatch Veteran squad, equally 10 marines. However, 'to teach the new player about all the options out there' every veteran has his own, unique weapon load-out. This would likely only confuse the new player, at least in his or her first couple of games. Stick to basics. Even worse when the teacher hands out the basic tactical squad and opposes that with his own veteran squad. If somebody would be grumpy about that, I could most easily agree. That would be a man-part move even if the Power Levels/Point Values would match up. I have seen games where opposing forces were of equal point value (not Warhammer). One side had a model that was ethereal and as such impervious to all damage not from a magical source. The other side had an army of equal point cost, but didn't include magical weapons and spells... You see where this is going?
timetowaste85 indicated not to have a problem with the fourth player. I probably would have, though (even if just a very tiny bit). When I agree to a game with, for example, four players and one is a total newb, I would say the three veteran players should
all have a say in teaching the game to the new player. I know some people are rather opposed to a stranger touching their toy soldiers... erm... carefully constructed and lavishly painted model works of art. But when not so skittish about others touching your models, player number 4 could have said something like: "New player, use my army and take your place by your teacher's side. I will join timetowaste85, using your army." I wouldn't put too much gravity on the fourth player not saying something like that, but it might have been a nice gesture nonetheless.
In short, I don't think timetowaste85 being a bit grumpy was unjustified, but there were also a lot of factors we still don't know. Maybe, if New Player seems like a nice guy, offer a little 1 vs 1 game, both with very basic armies. Become the teacher New Player deserves but didn't get. pulling out of a game because teacher and student are on opposite sides of the tabel is, in my opinion, a tad over the top, as we are talking about a hobby that promotes conflict through game rules. Calling shenanigans on bad teacher for unbalancing the teaching environment through one-sided bad list building is a whole different matter.
Like I said, ranged attacks and melee attacks. Not heart attacks.
Cheers.