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.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 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.

You did a better job of putting into words what I was trying to express earlier. Perhaps this picture will also illustrate it

Anyone wanna guess who TFG is in this picture?

I am putting together a Forgeworld Elysian IG army as I am a big fan of the airborne/air cav fluff and think it adds a cool bit of variety to the usual IG lists out there. Now at my FLGS I would have to say we are very competitive, meaning that almost everyone is putting together a list to smack your face in, however that mentality has slowly gotten alot better (outside tournaments that is) but even then it is still pretty competitive gameplay during friendly games.

With my list I have tried to find a balance between fluff and competitiveness as I dont mind losing games, however only if I am in those games and not absolutely getting my teeth knocked in. I run plasma spam with all my veteran squads in my army and I know for a fact that many people view that as being cheesy, however if by doing so keeps me in games against Space Wolves, Necrons, GK and the other power lists out there then I have no issues with it.

Also one thing to touch on in regards to Armies as a whole being declared cheesy alot of this should be contributed to the other player/opponent not knowing how to fight against that particular army. Necrons for example became a top tier army with the release of the new edition, I dont think anyone can argue that and it has forced people who had a tactic that worked against them to change their approach. Its what makes this game great is the variety that can be found and alot of it is just people who are unused to or need to fight the army to learn how to fight it. Ironically I am thankful for getting absolutely destroyed a few games as in the end it has made me a better player overall, learn from your mistakes.

 Minus wrote:
Building a strong list and playing it a competitive way when you opponent just wants to have fun, is like being that kid on the left, according to me :

The difference being that I'm fairly confident those other kids wouldn't have been saying 'Hey, your gear is beardy!'... they would have been saying 'Woah! That's a weird helmet!'

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 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.

If someone says "Hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?" and I show up with MY list of MY choice, which is top-tier and competitive, it is mutual fun. Unless the other player's list is bad. Then they might not have fun, if they invest all their "fun" into winning a game with a mediocre army.

If someome says "Hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna play a casual, fluffy game?" and I show up with my top-tier competitive list, THEN that is TFG.

If you ask for a game, you risk playing a competitive list, a fluff list, or any of the gray areas in between. Your call, and your risk by taking a bad list.

If you stipulate that you are new, bad, or interested in forging a narrative, then you have made your expectations clear, and the power-gamer has a reasonable chance of playing more to your expectations.

Expecting a powergamer to read a fluff-player's mind and cater to their list's mediocrity based on insight; that's ridiculous.

I think a lot of assumptions are being made in this conversation, and that is leading to mischaracterizations and hurt feelings.

I like the idea that the kid's bike is apparently going to win the race for him, if it is the metaphor for the beardy army. It would be so much fairer if his competitive edge was knocked down by taking a regular bike!

I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

If I talk someone into a Cityfight game, and we take units like Hellhounds, and flamers, and penal squads, you can bet I'll still try my best to win. Now... playing a city fight game with someone who brings all terminators to that same match... that would be a bit unfair. I'd still try my best to win, but it would be like playing on Insane Mode in some videogames. It just makes you want to rip your hair out.

 jy2 wrote:
I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

You're literally the first person to 100% be sensible in this thread.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

You're literally the first person to 100% be sensible in this thread.

Actually, agreed. It's a diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks type of situation. If at the end of the day, you and your opponent can share beers, no one was TFG.

Realy there are people in here who genuinely think that Purifyer spam is fair and Ork and NIds players just need to learn to play better. Not that Matt Ward is a zombie working for GW, because only the brain dead could wright the GK codex
*the psycannon used to be a heavy bolter with Str 6
not the " I WIN" cannon it is now ( it tanks kills better then a lascannon and has the highest rate of fire of any handheld gun and almost all tank weapons too)
Str 5 stormbolters thats is a tank weapon.
forceweapons why they would be OP if they just had Power weapon, the GK book was made after the Choas Daemon book so why have force weapons when even the Nurgling are Eternal Warrior

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Realy there are people in here who genuinely think that Purifyer spam is fair and Ork and NIds players just need to learn to play better. Not that Matt Ward is a zombie working for GW, because only the brain dead could wright the GK codex
*the psycannon used to be a heavy bolter with Str 6
not the " I WIN" cannon it is now ( it tanks kills better then a lascannon and has the highest rate of fire of any handheld gun and almost all tank weapons too)
Str 5 stormbolters thats is a tank weapon.
forceweapons why they would be OP if they just had Power weapon, the GK book was made after the Choas Daemon book so why have force weapons when even the Nurgling are Eternal Warrior

Well. This is barely in english, but if you're saying Purifier lists are OP...you need to reassess that, bud.

 jy2 wrote:
I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

I think you're right, but that most people fall into the grey areas between those definitions.

There's a huge grey area between your (rather derisive) 'fluff bunny' description and your (rather complimentary) 'competitive players'. People who want a good, close, combative game where they can try their best to win, but also like to field themed lists, or like to play evenly-matched games with friends who may not have 'competitive' lists. I fall in here, as do most of the players I've met (both in friendly and tournament situations).

There's also a huge grey area between your 'competitive' sorts and out-and-out TFG players. People who use sports analogies, phrases like 'integrity of competition', consider not taking the strongest list in the codex the same as 'deliberately losing', and profess that all they enjoy is 'the challenge' when all they really want is to win - but this is pointed out in a good few posts above.

I think more people fit into these two grey areas than either of those three simple definitions.

And, of course, you're right - then there are the WAAC fools - but they are rarely around that long in my experience.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Realy there are people in here who genuinely think that Purifyer spam is fair and Ork and NIds players just need to learn to play better. Not that Matt Ward is a zombie working for GW, because only the brain dead could wright the GK codex
*the psycannon used to be a heavy bolter with Str 6
not the " I WIN" cannon it is now ( it tanks kills better then a lascannon and has the highest rate of fire of any handheld gun and almost all tank weapons too)
Str 5 stormbolters thats is a tank weapon.
forceweapons why they would be OP if they just had Power weapon, the GK book was made after the Choas Daemon book so why have force weapons when even the Nurgling are Eternal Warrior

Well. This is barely in english, but if you're saying Purifier lists are OP...you need to reassess that, bud.

Most Ork players it seems have moved onto shootier lists in 6th, with their assault power being in the form of the old stand-by Nobs/Biker Nobs or Mega Armoured Nobz. It's fairly safe to assume that the average 6th edition Ork list doesn't fear the Purifyer spam like it did in 5th when Green Tide was a viable build.

Tyranids on the other hand? Well, they still get roflstomped unless they bring a Psychic Choir list since there's no way they'll ever outshoot Purifyers, (or any GK list for that matter).
4-5+ units with Clensing Flame murder those hordes, while the big boys tend to get owned by the pointy death sticks.