'That guy' syndrome

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.

**Ravenous D**

MWHistorian wrote:
cvtuttle wrote:
Have a 5 minute conversation with your opponents before playing - ideally before meeting at the local game store - to determine what type of game you guys are interested in playing.

Based on the description that was given by the OP early in the thread it sounds like there are a lot of immature people involved in the problems going on here.

Careful with that. There are many people on this forum that argue against communicating with your opponent before the game even if if makes the game more enjoyable.

You just have to go through the usual suspects and clear up grey areas. You'd be surprised the number of people don't understand some of the base mechanics like stunned and shaken on passengers.

As for topic here is the difference. Lets say you can only see the tiniest sliver of a tank, most people don't bother, a WAAC player will try and shoot it, because its the rules and fully allows it. TFGs would demand they get to shoot it and then refuse to let you do the same to them, then raise their voice, accuse you of cheating, and call over a judge. That's the difference.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
BaalSNAFU wrote:
Honestly it seems like I got them partially confused. So where then is the line between WAAC and TFG?

There isn't one, because one is a subset of the other. All WAAC players are TFG, but not all TFGs are WAAC players. WAAC behavior is just one way among many of earning the title "TFG", alongside things like not bathing properly, throwing your models across the room in frustration when you roll badly, etc. In fact, there are plenty of TFGs who will loudly brag about how much they don't care about winning and tell you all about how much you suck because you played a list with more than one Riptide in it.

Oh believe me, there is way more TFGs in the FAACer side of this hobby then the WAAC side. You don't mess with peoples special snowflake ideals.

**happygolucky**

Ravenous D wrote:

Oh believe me, there is way more TFGs in the FAACer side of this hobby then the WAAC side. You don't mess with peoples special snowflake ideals.

I find this an unfair statement.

The fact is that there is the same amount of TFG's on both sides of the game, both competitive and casual.

Its all about personal experience, but don't think your personal experience's is fact (as your comment heavily implies).

Its all about the area, some may have more WAAC/TFG's/whatever you call them in casual play style's, some have more WAAC/TFG's/whatever you call them in competitive environment's, but fact is that both sides have the same amount and are as bad as each other.

**Mr Morden**

SRSFACE wrote:

Imagine if GW released a MONTHLY errata/FAQ article. Hell, put it in the White Dwarves. They changed the format because they weren't making money on the publication anymore, for God's sake. If they addressed rules concerns and questions in a monthly article, would you buy it? I'd buy it just for that! Everyone gets frustrated with the guy who doesn't remotely enjoy the modeling/painting aspect of the hobby and fields grey plastic marines for four years; why does GW insist on ignoring one of the biggest aspects to the hobby themselves?

I asked GW about why they were not usingwhite dwarf for FAqs as I thought a) the game needed it and b) it might make the more sales..........

Had a polite reply that amongst other things said:

The issue with printing FAQs in White Dwarf is that, as a weekly magazine, it would quickly become unavailable, meaning we'd either have to constantly reprint FAQs (taking up an increasingly large chunk of the magazine with questions that are unlikely to interest most people), or would just compound the frustration by having answers go out of print almost as soon as they appeared. A weekly magazine just isn't really the forum for that kind of thing. More to the point, there's always a perfectly good way of resolving any question: discussing it with your fellow players and coming up with a reasonable solution. Do feel free to send us any questions you like, and where possible we'll do our best to answer them, though it's more likely to be by email than in the magazine. You'd be surprised how often we get asked questions and the answer is already to be found somewhere in the rulebook.

**Jidmah**

Yeah, because just moving those FAQs to the homepage after the next WD is released and sorting them by army would totally take four hours of work each month. Totally unacceptable.

Oh, and .pdf is not the file format of choice when adding dynamic content to a webpage.