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.

Hi all.

So, If anyone has seen my posts before, I play daemons. And I have a great love, for big monstrous creatures.

I can run 5 in an army, and I've been using them for a good while, so I have learned how to use them well. But, I think people will start to hate me for it. I can do really well against most other players with them, and I get told they are OP, and broken, and such.

But in my eyes, they are really not all that bad, for one, they cost a lot, and usually don't make their point's back entirely, they are just really good for focussing on the thing's I really need dead (enemy scoring units, or big threat's to monsters like force weapon units)

I really really don't want to be known as a TFG.

I've tried helping opponent's learn how to beat them, and I've even tried tailoring my armies in reverse, to try and stop myself winning with them, But it still feels bad.

What should I do? :(

Out of curiosity, what do your opponents use?

TFG is all in the personality.

If you run cheese, and are a totally enjoyable, friendly, helpful player, then your opponent really can't mind you and be reasonable about it.

Whole range of thing's, lots of marine type armies, orks, tyranid's, knight's, guard. Only thing I don't really see, is tau or dark eldar. ( I hear DE is really good against monstrous creatures too )

edit- oh, and other chaos daemons, i'm the only player in my area as far as I know.

Well, 5 in an army is definitely a bit cheesy... if you haven't already, consider running 3 and seeing what happens. The rest of your army just might surprise you when they're not banking on your MC's performing so well.

It partly sounds as though your opponents are lacking somewhat, too... unless you're simply going for annihilation all the time. A list with that many MC's should be pretty sparse on Troops, so it can actually be pretty easy to win against if you're sticking to the mission. They should be going for your Troops while attempting to keep theirs safe.

I actually wonder to what extent is TFG...

How far would rules lawyering be a TFG?
Like rule arguments come up for sure, and if it is pretty clear in the book that it's not played that way but he insist then if I argue about it would I be TFG?

TFG depends a lot on your opponent. Some players will cry foul and cheese overy anything that beats them. Some players are convinced using duplicate units at all isn't fluffy and that only min maxers do that.

As long as you don't cheat, abuse poor wording in rules, and be jack ass to people you should be fine.

 Makutsu wrote:
I actually wonder to what extent is TFG...

How far would rules lawyering be a TFG?
Like rule arguments come up for sure, and if it is pretty clear in the book that it's not played that way but he insist then if I argue about it would I be TFG?

If the person is obviously wrong (like the book gives a direct quote saying the opposite, and it's not really debatable) and I spend more time arguing with them about rules than playing they are TFG in my book. Now, if it's a new rule that no one really uses (like a special rule that rarely comes up and is poorly worded) then I would understand it a bit better.

Personally, game-wise, I would happily play against any sort of army imaginable no matter the cheese. I actually prefer that, I find it a bit of a tactical challenge to try and beat armies like that without resorting to my own cheese. Now, if the guy was incredibly rude and arrogant I would look elsewhere...I have no problems with ending a game part way because of the other guys behavior

I've tried cutting down to 3, and even 2, but anytime I use monstrous creatures, it makes me feel (Well, they make me feel) like i'm playing unfairly.

Unfortunately, they are what I like, and what I am good at.

I tend to run only a small amount of troops, as most times, I can tie things up with monsters to stop them getting my troops. Those that are clever, and manage to get the troops (outflanking, deep striking, e.x) do really well against my army.

I like to thing of the monsters as unit's, rather than monsters, but my opponent's see them as game breakers that can't die. But they (At least the princes) are toughness 5, with 4 wounds, and 3+ armour. That's the same as 4 plague marines. And aside from having ap2 in combat, they actually put out less shooting, and hit's in combat, than said plague marines.

I don't understand why people hate them so much, but it's a bit depressing when I feel guilty for playing an army I know how to play. When I play without monsters, I invariably lose, because they are my tank equivalent. 3-5 tanks in an army, isnt all that unusual to see. But people get weirded out to see that many monsters. It's about 1200 points worth of my army tied up in around 20 wounds, if I ran all 5.

I guess it's the same reason people hate GK paladins, they just don't die to normal fire easilly enough for them :(

 Evileyes wrote:
I've tried cutting down to 3, and even 2, but anytime I use monstrous creatures, it makes me feel (Well, they make me feel) like i'm playing unfairly.

Unfortunately, they are what I like, and what I am good at.

I tend to run only a small amount of troops, as most times, I can tie things up with monsters to stop them getting my troops. Those that are clever, and manage to get the troops (outflanking, deep striking, e.x) do really well against my army.

I like to thing of the monsters as unit's, rather than monsters, but my opponent's see them as game breakers that can't die. But they (At least the princes) are toughness 5, with 4 wounds, and 3+ armour. That's the same as 4 plague marines. And aside from having ap2 in combat, they actually put out less shooting, and hit's in combat, than said plague marines.

I don't understand why people hate them so much, but it's a bit depressing when I feel guilty for playing an army I know how to play. When I play without monsters, I invariably lose, because they are my tank equivalent. 3-5 tanks in an army, isnt all that unusual to see. But people get weirded out to see that many monsters. It's about 1200 points worth of my army tied up in around 20 wounds, if I ran all 5.

I guess it's the same reason people hate GK paladins, they just don't die to normal fire easilly enough for them :(

Well, I think it's just that people don't like being up against stuff they can't deal with.
Happens on all platforms.

I just run different lists every game I play, unless it's like someone says his is a tourney list then I bring on my A-lists.
But sometimes when I test lists that are pretty powerful I feel really bad because I like close games more.
But I've been tabled a good amount of times since I brought random ass list and getting tabled doesn't feel good so, pros and cons of bringing units that are good.

Cheesy? MC? Seriously is there no necron air in your metta?

Just tell the people to get out a str 10 weapon or some poison weapons. 2 vindicators and some bolters to ground you will finish your MC in short order. Also tell them to msu so your Mc have to chew tiny bites. Or like mentioned earlier just ignore them and wipe your meager troops so they can win objectives.

 Evileyes wrote:

Unfortunately, they are what I like, and what I am good at.

Take a page from the book of Bender:
"The secret is to stop giving a rat's ass about anyone else and start thinking of the things that you want, that you deserve, that the world owes you."

More to the point, playing any list is not the behaviour of a TFG, being a total douche is the behaviour of a TFG.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:

Unfortunately, they are what I like, and what I am good at.

Take a page from the book of Bender:
"The secret is to stop giving a rat's ass about anyone else and start thinking of the things that you want, that you deserve, that the world owes you."

More to the point, playing any list is not the behaviour of a TFG, being a total douche is the behaviour of a TFG.

I suppose, I just don't want them to stop playing with me or anything if I win too much

 Evileyes wrote:


I suppose, I just don't want them to stop playing with me or anything if I win too much

Is there any chance of that? My local area involves the person who has the "unbeatable list" getting more games than anyone else. Just so someone can say "yeah! I beat him!"

 Evileyes wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:

Unfortunately, they are what I like, and what I am good at.

Take a page from the book of Bender:
"The secret is to stop giving a rat's ass about anyone else and start thinking of the things that you want, that you deserve, that the world owes you."

More to the point, playing any list is not the behaviour of a TFG, being a total douche is the behaviour of a TFG.

I suppose, I just don't want them to stop playing with me or anything if I win too much

Except your just running a monster mash chaos daemon list, it's not cheesy.

I wonder if they would've completely freaked back when tyranids could put out 6+ MC's at once.

My opinion is, if you feel guilty fielding a particular army build, then there is probably a good reason for it.

5 MCs is hard to deal with for most armies, 5 FMCs is even more difficult. Flying Nurgle DP have access to some really potent offensive psykic powers (isn't Stream of Corruption a primaris power??) that mean you never have to leave Swooping in order to dish out some serious pain, especially when combined with the ranged Rewards and Vector Strikes.

Of course, it could just be a difference in group meta, but it seems like alot of folks on Dakka field the same list every time with very little to no variation. My group tends to field a different build almost every game. I guess there are alot of tournament players who are working with a single list to hammer out all the kinks, which I perfectly understand, but using same list everytime for pick-up games just kind of seems boring to me.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
My opinion is, if you feel guilty fielding a particular army build, then there is probably a good reason for it.

5 MCs is hard to deal with for most armies, 5 FMCs is even more difficult. Flying Nurgle DP have access to some really potent offensive psykic powers (isn't Stream of Corruption a primaris power??) that mean you never have to leave Swooping in order to dish out some serious pain, especially when combined with the ranged Rewards and Vector Strikes.

Of course, it could just be a difference in group meta, but it seems like alot of folks on Dakka field the same list every time with very little to no variation. My group tends to field a different build almost every game. I guess there are alot of tournament players who are working with a single list to hammer out all the kinks, which I perfectly understand, but using same list everytime for pick-up games just kind of seems boring to me.

I don't play tournament's myself, never been, and my typical army staple is 2 keeper of secret's (So non flying) and one flying slaanesh prince.

But for 2000 point games, I can bring KOS, and a GUO, and then the slaanesh prince and 2 nurgle ones.

We generally play around 1500 though, so it's 2 ground, one flying.

 Amaya wrote:
Some players are convinced using duplicate units at all isn't fluffy and that only min maxers do that.

Oh god I hate those people I fething hate those people I HATE THOSE PEOPLE SO MUCH

[/ends up on the floor, foaming at the mouth, growling and grumbling incoherently in rage]

I say rock on. I would love to face down 5 flying demonic juggernauts. Could be pretty sweet. Hell, it limits the number of things I have to kill, in any event. I think that 'TFG' status is largely reserved for HOW you play, not WHAT you play.

I wouldn't consider 5 MC as TFG list & if you have been playing Daemons for some time you've had to put up with a pretty out dated Codex for some time so you should be allowed to enjoy the new update.

There are plenty of whingers in this game, people tend to complain about anything that can beat their list but that's their problem not yours.

Ways to avoid being TGF, be nice & try and make it fun game for everyone involved.

 Melissia wrote:
Oh god I hate those people I fething hate those people I HATE THOSE PEOPLE SO MUCH

[/ends up on the floor, foaming at the mouth, growling and grumbling incoherently in rage]

I may sig that. My friend is looking at me weird for the sound I just made. Something like a laugh mixed with choking on juice.

To the OP, your not TFG for playing your army the way you enjoy it. My friend and I have been playing Necrons and DA(respetively) for a long time. When each of our new codex came out we were accused of being power gamers/bandwagoners/TFG (like I could paint 2k work of DA in a week, psh, let alone a year). People will just need to adjust their lists for your local meta.

Don't feel bad, you sound like a good sport, and like someone I'd love to play (and probably lose to 5 MC, lol). Don't be surprised when they start counter building you soon though.

TFG has nothing to do with your army, and EVERYTHING to do with your attitude.

Well, can't say fairer than that. From everything I see here, you've tried doing what you can to redress the balance... but it's a simple fact, Daemon MCs just got REALLY good *AND* since they're new rules not many people have had the chance to figure out how to beat them.
As mentioned, as long as you're not being a douche you have nothing to worry about. I doubt people would stop playing you altogether for it.

Don't worry about it. I run daemons and agree that they can just end up being points sinks. I think it comes down to what other people are saying...they can't beat it so they make you feel bad, and they don't like people taking multiples of a unit w/o screaming bloody cheese. So you aren't a TFG for running your MCs.

TFG is all about the way you play and respect, nothing to do with your list. Never fought Daemons but I'll guarantee there's a weakness in your list (lack of models on the table?) that other armies could exploit.
I'd like to how it would fare against a suit heavy Tau list

Tell your opponents to bring more gun? MC creatures are like big tanks. Use enough gun and they die. Or just focus on the troops since MC usually don't score.

I'd relish in the challenge of facing against 5 MCs. I think Mr. Demolisher will have a kind word with them.

You do what I do. Take missions that aren't in my favor. I run four Dps and my friends pump their fists and yell when they take them down. That is fun EVERY game.

 pwntallica wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Oh god I hate those people I fething hate those people I HATE THOSE PEOPLE SO MUCH

[/ends up on the floor, foaming at the mouth, growling and grumbling incoherently in rage]

I may sig that. My friend is looking at me weird for the sound I just made. Something like a laugh mixed with choking on juice.

Glad you like it, but the hate wasn't faked even if the over-reaction was

I HATE people who say things like that. Especially for squads where tehre really isn't much room for variation like Orks or Sisters. People who say I can't have 180 Orks with lots of big shootas are unfluffy jerks, and people who think that having three Exorcists in a Sisters army is "cloning" are just plain wrong.

And Guard? Why WOULDN'T some guard regiments have standardized equipment across its squads? Yeah, each of my non-vet squads often has a grenade launcher and missile launcher-- not always, but it's common. It's the regiment's style, they give up some level of specialization in order to have the variation of both frag and krak rounds for the two weapons.

 Melissia wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Oh god I hate those people I fething hate those people I HATE THOSE PEOPLE SO MUCH

[/ends up on the floor, foaming at the mouth, growling and grumbling incoherently in rage]

I may sig that. My friend is looking at me weird for the sound I just made. Something like a laugh mixed with choking on juice.

Glad you like it, but the hate wasn't faked even if the over-reaction was

I HATE people who say things like that. Especially for squads where tehre really isn't much room for variation like Orks or Sisters. People who say I can't have 180 Orks with lots of big shootas are unfluffy jerks, and people who think that having three Exorcists in a Sisters army is "cloning" are just plain wrong.

And Guard? Why WOULDN'T some guard regiments have standardized equipment across its squads? Yeah, each of my non-vet squads often has a grenade launcher and missile launcher-- not always, but it's common. It's the regiment's style, they give up some level of specialization in order to have the variation of both frag and krak rounds for the two weapons.

I agree. A lot of units merit/require redundancy. How many space marine vehicles do people recommend taking just one of? Not: predators, land raiders, vindicators, whirlwinds, (non suicidal) land speeders... And I'm not going to rely on just one of something to get the job done, "well I need some CC in this list, 1 unit of terminators will do the trick without fail requiring no backup plan".

It's not like the fluff even supports that. Hell if I were to follow fluff, I would send 100 tactical marines with a sprinkle of other things to back them up, all the marines armed the same. Orks would be just a giant wave of mostly the same countless green bodies, only distinguishable up close. "well on closer inspection, that ork has a slightly different shoota and more teeth then tha...* gurgle gasp choke*"

I think the people using fluff for argument were coming from the spam angle. Spamming something, and taking it in redundancy are a little different (but that line can be pretty thin). Yes, in the fluff it would make no sense for a ground army to have two bare minimum troop choices, and a bare bones barely competent HQ leading the force into battle so they could have nothing but air support.

I remember a point in 5th where I min maxed out LC. I mean every tac squad with LC, riding in a razor back with LC, and devs with LC. If it could hold a LC, I ran it, and took it with a LC. Everything else carried melta. My local meta was "parking lots! Parking lots everywhere!". I had a player complain because it wasn't "fluff" to run those lists (after soundly shutting down his transport spam). I responded with "Captain Demxyf Meefyshanx compiled data on his last 170 encounters in his campaign in the local segmentum. After noticing every foe utilized a massive amount of armor, he ordered his men to come to battle prepared to face the enemy properly. A new strategem was developed, and the Emperor's foes would learn to fear the holy las cannon.". His face was priceless.

TFG isnt what youre using its how you act. If someone labels you as such because you like MC spam then they dont know wtf theyre doing.

Youre right, theyre expensive as hell and limit your numbers. On average only 1-2 will actually do good the rest will be bullets wasted by the enemy. But thats what theyre there for lol.
As an ork player i started taking Ghazzy if im against someone that tends to bring MCs because he just plasters almost any MC (Swarmlord is the only one ive come across he cant beat 1on1 without weakening first, even during his waaagh! power trip). He takes out 1 MC, he earned his points, and he can take out 2 if he still has his wounds as he cant be pasted anyway. With a 2+ invul, he should have his wounds from the last one (especially with 4-6 rerolls from the boyz hes with). Loota/shoota fire usually deals with one of them and deals heavy damage to another.

MC just require a different tactic to take out than most, and many people dont get that.