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.

Okay, question then. If you are just playing a casual game, what's more important: you and your opponent having a good time, or you winning? Let's pretend for a moment they are mutually exclusive.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Isn't TFG a cheater who argues about everything, is rude and arrogant when winning and heavily sore when loosing?

To be honest, I've always used TFG as a way to refer to anyone who stands out in a negative way. The guy who smells becomes that fething guy who smells, the guy with the rubber tape measure becomes that fething guy who always measures incorrectly, the guy who always goes on and on about his poorly written background for his army becomes TFG, and so on.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I guess the problem is where do you draw a line

I think it's just important to be aware that there is a line.

Nerobellum wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
The issue that I have with it is that you're calling TFG on simple powergaming.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just a different way to play the game.

To jump in, I agree that there is nothing wrong with powergaming. You can powergame and not be TFG. It all comes down to intent. I'm playing with a Necron army right now that is mostly still pre-update models and units. It's got a monolith (yeah). It's not even in the same room as powergaming, obviously. Now when I play, I usually play with some friends that have fairly new armies. I've got one friend with a GK setup that under normal circumstances, could pop my monolith and most of my scoring units in a turn or two. His list is just straight up stacked. But when we play, he plays loose and so do I. Instead of demolishing the bejesus out of my monolith the moment it touches the board, we let it stick around for a bit just to see what it can do. It makes it more fun and interesting than him riding an Ordo Malleus flavored Bulldozer over my ass every sunday. He powergames his list, but doesn't play like TFG, get what I mean?

That's not powergaming.

That's just being silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerobellum wrote:
Okay, question then. If you are just playing a casual game, what's more important: you and your opponent having a good time, or you winning? Let's pretend for a moment they are mutually exclusive.

They are completely mutually exclusive. Unless you're socially invested in the outcome, which is ridiculous.

I play to win. It's what I care about in my games.

But I've never not had an opponent enjoy playing with me.

Because I am a powergamer, but I am friendly and personable.

Blending the game and the social aspect is why you get ridiculous claims of "Oh, if you try hard to win, you're a mean TFG and no one likes you."

The outcome of the game, as well as the gameplay, should have literally no standing on your opponent having fun.

The two goals of a 40k game, for both players, should be:

-To do your best on the board

-To enjoy another person's company

The guy who plays to win isn't the TFG. The guy who can't enjoy someone's company because they lost the game is the TFG. The minute 40k becomes less about human interaction, and more about how your opponent plays their army, you have lost. You can win the game, but you have lost as a person.

If you enjoy the opponent as a person, and play your army to the best of your ability, you're doing it right. If you can't find satisfaction from these things, and get hung up on game-outcomes played by dice, there's a problem.

TFG is all in the eye of the beholder, but there are certain standards that have been established.

So in my best Jeff Foxworthy impression:

IF you bring a flyer spam list to a FLGS for 1500 point pick up game, you might be TFG!

IF you load up on Forge World stuff but don't bother to actually bring the rules with you and allow your opponent to see them, you might be TFG!

If you change armies every time a new codex comes out, you might be TFG!

If you give long winded speeches on how there is no such thing as a "Cheesy or OP Army" but then list Grey Knights, Space Wolves, and Necrons as your armies of choice, you might be TFG!

Feel free to add your own

There is nothing wrong with power gaming or codex swapping or spamming. Its your toys and you should be allowed to play with them as you please. It ultimately comes down to intent and attitude that will get you listed and a TFG.

I find that for the most part TFGs are the guys that will sit there argue obscure rules in there favor or ignore ones against them, bring out the micrometer to measure distances, and generally wasting time in any situation, including just friendly games, and for the most part the guy that brags hard on a win and cries loudest when losing.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
TFG is all in the eye of the beholder, but there are certain standards that have been established.

If you give long winded speeches on how there is no such thing as a "Cheesy or OP Army"

I would say that I see this an awful lot. There are so many people that jump right in and deny that there is any such things as "cheese." That powergaming is what it's called and trying your best to win is what the game is about. That always sets off red flags for me.

If your only concern with playing a game is to win, regardless, then you are not someone I want to play. I take an awful lot of units I like. I don't sit there with a codex trying to min/max my force and make sure the "synergy" is right. There are a lot of people in my area who grab the newest codex and search it minutely, and scour the internet for exploits and rules loopholes that will allow them to win. Usually thru disrupting the normal flow of the game. To me, that's cheesy. If you aren't approaching a GAME with the attitude of having fun and doing some cool things, then something is wrong with you as a human being. I lose a lot, and I don't care. At least I enjoy playing. For someone who only enjoys making sure his list is the ultimate, and he has bought the best units there are, and doing his best to curbstomp his opponent, then that person is way too competitive for me. I don't have fun like that.

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
I hate losing.

It could be said that the whole of 'being a good opponent' is not minding losing.

True its a personal weakness and I try and have so far succeeded to not let it show. I just plan how to improve my list to beat the list that beat me.

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

TFG =/= powergaming.

TFG = Ruining the game by being a bad person. Powergamers AND casuals are capable of this. Neither groups are exclusively TFG, because TFG is a case by case thing.

If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them. I am going to enjoy the novel matchup, and the win. I expect that they enjoy running the list that they want to. If they complain cheese, TFG, WAAC, or the like, then they are not interested in actually running the list that they want to. They are interested in running the list that they want to against lists they deem 'fair' or, in better words, steeped down to their less-than-competitive level.

Fluffbunnies and casuals; I am totally fine with you taking mediocre lists because you love "X unit" or enjoy painting "Y style of model", but if you choose not to accept that poor units will negatively affect your army's performance, you are unrealistic, and any dispute of this is the TFG behavior. Not the powergamer playing their list, their way, the way they want to.

Tl;dr

Casuals don't get to tell Powergamers how to play the game.
and
Powergamers don't get to tell Casuals how to play the game.

(Unfortunately, it always seems to be the former situation cropping up, never really the latter.)

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

I agree with you captain i take lots of TH/SS why should i stop just for your sake (Also my inner 5 year old loves terminators.)

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

And no point did I say that I complained when I lost. So don't put words in my mouth. And can the attitude. We're all just gamers here. How would you explain your earlier statements "improve your list" if you weren't dropping unit that didn't work and replacing them with better units. Thus having to purchase said units? If you claim you are not saying that, then explain what you mean by "improve your list." And note, you also put words in my mouth again, when you suggested I stated you said to "buy better armies." Nope. Again, I said that what you were describing as "improving your list" would effectively mean having to purchase additional units.

If I think a hellhound is cool, and I take one, I'm handicapping myself. I realize that. I am actively working, now, to make my lists better. But approaching this game from the perspective of doing the best you can to min/max your army and beat the snot out of the other guy is not trying to have fun at a game. If your idea of fun is winning at all costs, then that's sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:
TFG =/= powergaming.

TFG = Ruining the game by being a bad person. Powergamers AND casuals are capable of this. Neither groups are exclusively TFG, because TFG is a case by case thing.

Okay, this might be where we are having issues. You're defending the idea of building the best list you can build, and I don't see a problem with that. But it seems what we are discussing is TFG. The guy that only builds the best list he can so that he can win every game, and tries to twist rules to suit his ends. At least... that's been my take on it. Trying to build a good list is part of the game. i agree with that part.

If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them. I am going to enjoy the novel matchup, and the win. I expect that they enjoy running the list that they want to. If they complain cheese, TFG, WAAC, or the like, then they are not interested in actually running the list that they want to. They are interested in running the list that they want to against lists they deem 'fair' or, in better words, steeped down to their less-than-competitive level.

Fluffbunnies and casuals; I am totally fine with you taking mediocre lists because you love "X unit" or enjoy painting "Y style of model", but if you choose not to accept that poor units will negatively affect your army's performance, you are unrealistic, and any dispute of this is the TFG behavior. Not the powergamer playing their list, their way, the way they want to.

Tl;dr

Casuals don't get to tell Powergamers how to play the game.
and
Powergamers don't get to tell Casuals how to play the game.

(Unfortunately, it always seems to be the former situation cropping up, never really the latter.)

And I agree with most of what you said here...except that I don't complain when I get wiped out. I usually look at it as a learning opportunity. However, there are some things which are not learning opportunities, and there are more than just a few examples. There are rules, and units, which twist the game and can be exploited, and that is what has been the discussion here, not your crusade to defend "powergaming." And yeah, powergamers do tell casuals how to play the game. See every post of yours in this thread.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people who DO min-max, it is your fault.
Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

Jesus. Read that again. Please.

 Valhalla130 wrote:


And no point did I say that I complained when I lost. So don't put words in my mouth. And can the attitude. We're all just gamers here.
You're being defensive. No need for that; it looks ridiculous. I did not mean you, directly complained. Any "You" in my previous post is directed to the community as a whole. "But if you lose to peope who do min-max, it is your fault." Take a second to realize that those "you"s are general, not specific.

How would you explain your earlier statements "improve your list" if you weren't dropping unit that didn't work and replacing them with better units. Thus having to purchase said units? If you claim you are not saying that, then explain what you mean by "improve your list."

I never ever deny suggesting improving someone's list by replacing bad units with better ones. Read the entire thread if you wish. Not once did I deny that. I encourage it.

And note, you also put words in my mouth again, when you suggested I stated you said to "buy better armies." Nope. Again, I said that what you were describing as "improving your list" would effectively mean having to purchase additional units.

Again, please read my post better. You said, and I quote "So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied." I never suggested you told me to buy better armies. I was merely saying that the denial you referred to in that quote was not denying buying units. It was denying buying new armies.

There is no need for a fight. Because, as it seems, you have become heated, frustrated, and gained an attitude in your flare up. I urge you to relax, remember it is the internet, and read my posts more clearly in the future.

It makes everything easier.

For me, its when an army is designed around the math and not to look like an army that the shark is officially jumped. There are perfectly fluffy builds that are balls hard to beat (Greyhunter spam, Mech Guard, ect), but there is a line where things just are clearly about the math. Slapping SM(esp SW ones) characters in Guard Blobs, Eldrad and Vect superunits, and the like just scream "I should be playing MtG instead of a wargame."

Another line is someone playing a list that is built purely to frustrate and/or exploit rules holes. If you make a list that you would not want to bother even playing against if someone else ran it against you, you are crossing this line.

All that said, the 40k community has more or less transformed into a comp free maximum donkey punch environment in the last few years, which is why I tend to stick with Fantasy.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
But it seems what we are discussing is TFG. The guy that only builds the best list he can so that he can win every game, and tries to twist rules to suit his ends. At least... that's been my take on it.

You are describing WAAC. TFG is a person who ruins the fun of the game with their attitude. WAAC is, well, what you said.

Trying to build a good list is part of the game. i agree with that part.
And yeah, powergamers do tell casuals how to play the game. See every post of yours in this thread.

No.

A. I'm not telling casuals how to play. I'm making suggestions on improvement. For the community as a whole.

B. I'm not a powergamer, and do not represent the powergaming community. I am a tournament player. Do not stereotype me into a group, and I will do you the same respect.

I apologize if I misread the situation.

As far as I am concerned, WAAC players are TFG. I don't really differentiate between the two because neither one are fun. I wasn't under the impression you were a powergamer from reading all your other, informative posts, so it surprised me to see what I thought was an impassioned defense of people who were building lists to WAAC. Winning is not an issue. I have no problem with that or trying to win. But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not thru his poor list-building, but thru the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
I apologize if I misread the situation.

As far as I am concerned, WAAC players are TFG. I don't really differentiate between the two because neither one are fun. I wasn't under the impression you were a powergamer from reading all your other, informative posts, so it surprised me to see what I thought was an impassioned defense of people who were building lists to WAAC. Winning is not an issue. I have no problem with that or trying to win. But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not thru his poor list-building, but thru the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

So to turn what you said into a readable format

Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = good

 Valhalla130 wrote:
But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not through his poor list-building, but through the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

This is very uncommon though. There's only one example I've seen and that's GK vs Demons. There could be more that I'm unaware of though.

I will say though, a game doesn't have to be fun to be engaging, and sometimes I prefer engaging.

 captain collius wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:
I apologize if I misread the situation.

As far as I am concerned, WAAC players are TFG. I don't really differentiate between the two because neither one are fun. I wasn't under the impression you were a powergamer from reading all your other, informative posts, so it surprised me to see what I thought was an impassioned defense of people who were building lists to WAAC. Winning is not an issue. I have no problem with that or trying to win. But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not thru his poor list-building, but thru the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

So to turn what you said into a readable format

Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = good

Um, no. First, what I said was perfectly readable, so no reason to be insulting. I do admit I ramble at times. I don't think that was one of them. I would sya the reason that necron flier lists currently have sucha bad reputation is precisely because they do belong in that category of things that have no real counter at this point, unless you have certain armies which can handle fliers. My putting 4 or more Vendettas in my IG army I would also consider poor sportsmanship.

Valhalla130 wrote:I apologize if I misread the situation.

'Sall good, brah.

captain collius wrote:


Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = worse

Fixed that.

Except the Cyclon Death Fleet does have a counter. Its called, book missions not involving kill points, ie 5/6 of them. Don't play KP all the time and that list stops being an issue.

A better example would actually be the blob behind a ADL that goes to ground and then gets back in the fight every turn.

 Phazael wrote:
Except the Cyclon Death Fleet does have a counter. Its called, book missions not involving kill points, ie 5/6 of them. Don't play KP all the time and that list stops being an issue.

Except this list has a field day tabling you.

A better example would actually be the blob behind a ADL that goes to ground and then gets back in the fight every turn.

Any CC unit breaks this, Or two or three template weapons.

If i can clarify some of the sentiments behind the fluffy versus Competitive arguments.

If i take a Necron Scythewing army because i want to win, i'm a WAAC TFG

If I take a necron Scythewing army because i genuinely like the models, i'm not the WAAC TFG

This despite the fact that both armies will play the same on the battlefield?

The problem is that if you take that list, then everyone is going to assume that you are doing it purely to win. With the fact that it is all over the net as a problem, anyone on Dakka should know about it, and claiming you're just doing it because it's fluffy, seems (even if it's not) disingenuous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Valhalla130 wrote:I apologize if I misread the situation.

'Sall good, brah.

captain collius wrote:


Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = worse

Fixed that.

My faith in you is restored! Lol

madtankbloke wrote:
If i take a Necron Scythewing army because i want to win, i'm playing a competitive list

Fixed that for you. WAAC means "win at ALL costs", including cheating, rules lawyering, abusing your opponent, etc. It does NOT mean "bringing a strong list", which is simply playing a strong list with the intent to win.

Thta's a good point. There is a distinct difference between WAAC which means cheating, rules lawyering, everything you just said, and just building a strong list, which everyone should be doing, even if playing fluffy.

I look at it like this. If I finally build an Arbites army, I would count it as IG. I would have my police vendettas, and my Chimera riot tanks, and my Arbites officers who were played as IG troopers. I'm still going to build a decent list if possible. I love Arbites. Way to expensive for me though.

Trying to twist things to your advantage so your opponent is going to lose no matter how he plays is all I've been talking about though, when it comes to cheesiness. And their are some units that are just badly written, like vendettas, which should cost more.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:
But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not through his poor list-building, but through the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

This is very uncommon though. There's only one example I've seen and that's GK vs Demons. There could be more that I'm unaware of though.

I will say though, a game doesn't have to be fun to be engaging, and sometimes I prefer engaging.

Besides the Quake spam vs Daemons, (which is about the lowest tihng you can do IMHO, especially to a poor 12 year-old kid), you can get some pretty much auto-lose match-ups with;

a) Purifyer spam vs non-psychic circus Tyranids.
Orks at least tend to run mainly shooty builds. Tyranids though simply do not have anywhere near the ability to build a shooty enough list to counter an all-Purifyer spam build. It's made even worse if you face MSU mech Purifyers too, since the bugs also have problems getting enough high strength volume firepower to crack open the massed transports.
It's simply a sad, sad farce of a "game" since the 'Nid's only real defense is to bring as many of their own 'Shadow in the Warp' capable models as possible, and even then, it's not 100% effective.
To make it even more of a donkeycave army, throw in psycho grenades just to really make the poor bug player feel even more worthless.

b) Jaws spam vs I2 armies. (looking at you Necrons & Nurgle Daemons!)
Consider it's easily possible to play 4 JotWW + max Missilefangs in 1500pts. All they do is sit at the back and auto-kill I2 models all day long. It's about as much fun being that poor VC/Ogre/Dwarf or god forbid, Lizardman player and your donkeycave opponent pulls a 1st turn Irrisistable Force powered-up version of Purple Sun along your flank...

 TheCaptain wrote:
If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

No. Fault is never one-sided in a two player game. If the min-maxer spared no thought for the enjoyment of his opponent, then he is that fething guy who brings hardcore lists and only cares about the win.

Both players need to consider the enjoyment of their opponent when building their lists. It's incredibly selfish and rude to simply say "Well, I'm not changing so you're just going to lose all the time, get used to it"

I would like to play a game where both sides just bring suboptimal units, and see who would win. I really need to get into a good group who wants to play a campaign. Then we could bring lists that represented different units in a army. Like scouts or an armoured column or something like that. That would be fethin' awesome.

If you give long winded speeches on how there is no such thing as a "Cheesy or OP Army" but then list Grey Knights, Space Wolves, and Necrons as your armies of choice, you might be TFG!

That's not quite true. I have about 1500pts each of both Space Wolves and Necrons in my collection, and neither of my armies contain any of the stuff that makes them so controversial lately. No Long Fang missile spam ( I have 1 ML in the army), no Necron flyers at all (though I may pick up a single one because I think they look awesome), etc. Hell, my Necrons are 90% made of 1.0 Necron models. Wraiths are the only thing I have from the 2.0 Necrons right now, simply because they are miles better than the old models.

I actually stay away from everything about the armies that is controversial about 40K lately, because lists filled with that stuff show up everywhere, and I hate being part of trends.

I would like to play a game where both sides just bring suboptimal units, and see who would win. I really need to get into a good group who wants to play a campaign. Then we could bring lists that represented different units in a army. Like scouts or an armoured column or something like that. That would be fethin' awesome.

You mean like the Shining Spears and Swooping Hawks squads in my Eldar army, who I field simply because I think my conversions make them look awesome? Or my Sisters of Battle army who fights with no allies?

 TheCaptain wrote:
If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them.

If someone says to you 'hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?' and you agree and then turn up with a top tier list without warning, you are not interested in playing a fair game. You're not interested in fair competition. You're not interested in mutual fun. You're only interested in winning. That's TFG behaviour.

Many, many people in this thread have asked the same thing - that people bring competitive lists to competitive environments and friendly lists to friendly environments so that everyone can play with the toys they like. Someone who refuses to play anything other than min/max OP competitive lists in every situation is TFG.

I would have to agree. If your only interest is in playing in tournaments, then you shouldn't be playing pick up games in your FLGS.

Whether my demolisher is a good choice or not, I like the way I have it modeled with the tank riders, and I will always field it, even if I think other units might work better. Going forward, I might choose things that are better options, like I'm not looking to buy a new hellhound, even though I feel the need to replace the one that was stolen from me, and I may choose a Vendetta instead. I think they look cool too, and they just happen to be a good unit. I won't field 6 of them, but I might pick up one. And the idea of an ADL kind of fits right in with the Guard anyway...