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.

So i'm rather new to 40k. Having started about 3 months back.

I play a regular game at a local club on a tuesday. I'm in a campaign there with a good buch of guys, and have gotten to know them all quite well (I didn't know anyone at the club prior to the campaign). Then I recently competed as a tournament, and placed equal 4th overall, with a list pretty similar to what i'd take to the gaming club.

Now, i'd posted a thread recently about how I was performing so well. Having won many times more games than i'd lost. I'm now thinking of the etiquette of the friendly/casual gaming paradigm, and what is considered 'good form'.

This past week, we were short on campaign players, so a guy stepped in to fill in the extra spot (this was arranged on the night). This guy happened to be a figure of note on the local scene, and does very well at tournaments. So the game happening on the table next to me was ended on turn 3. The fill-in played a ravenwing banner of devastation list, against a bezerker in rhino list, and the zerkers were all gone VERY quickly.

That's fair enough, I mean...The guy was filling in, and didn't know he'd be playing a VERY casual gamer who has played the same Bezerker list since 4th edition.

But then once the club had closed, and I was chatting with some of the guys, it was mentioned about another game that happened that night. An experienced 'powergamer' fielding an Eldar/Dark Eldar deathstar of doom (harlies, Eldrad, some DE char, etc) against a newbie playing his 3rd game with a fluffy Grey Knight list. This guy apparently has a reputation around my city.

But I digress. It's got me thinking about what lists I play in a social scene. Is it fair for me to turn up with a highly optimised list against a fluffy bunny list? Does that make me an douche? Am I obliged to warn my opponent when I bring such a list? I know I wouldn't enjoy getting the snot beaten out of me by turn 3, nor would I like it when my opponent throws up some crazy combination of USR's from Characters (and armies) i've never faced before. What's the etiquette, what's acceptable?

I can't help it i'm a nice guy. I'm australian. I purposely made bad tactical decisions during a tournament game, because my opponent was having a rough time of it. It's in my nature.

Belly wrote:
Is it fair for me to turn up with a highly optimised list against a fluffy bunny list?

The answer is the same as the answer to "is it fair for me to turn up with a fluffy bunny list against a highly optimized list?".

What's the etiquette, what's acceptable?

Bring a standard army that you want to play, and if your opponent wants to play at a different level of optimization then they need to clearly say "I don't play competitively, can we use non-optimized lists?".

The exception to the rule is dealing with new players. The Eldar player is TFG, not because they brought a powerful list, but because they were playing with a hardcore "must win" attitude against a newbie who is still learning the rules of the game. If you're playing against someone who is just starting you should bring a weak list and try to help them learn, not do everything you can to crush someone who has no chance of winning.

Thanks for the response.

I was posting in an attempt to dissuade my own fears of becoming...TFG.

I'm a returning player...I left in 3rd edition. I remember, that initially, I always played optimized lists in that my meta was pretty competitive. They were nice for a few games, just to get noobs like myself hooked in, but they definitely kicked the difficulty up a few notches rather quickly. In the end, I got bored with playing optimized lists, and started playing with armies that were more fluff orientated. I found that...when playing with these lists...any victory that you obtain is all the sweeter due to the extra challenge. I also liked playing against established conventions...and used units that were deemed worthless. "Wait a second, these guys totally suck?" Well...the fun part was finding out to make these poor units into something successful. In the end, that proved to be more fun than simply winning.

. The Eldar player is TFG, not because they brought a powerful list, but because they were playing with a hardcore "must win" attitude against a newbie who is still learning the rules of the game. If you're playing against someone who is just starting you should bring a weak list and try to help them learn, not do everything you can to crush someone who has no chance of winning.

Are you sure about him being TFG. Eldar are very weak against GKs ,the deathstar could easily die turn one to a shunting dreadknight with an incinerator or a unit of GK that does the same only has 2 incinerators. If anything the eldar player was giving the GK one a handicap.

Werewalrus wrote:
Well...the fun part was finding out to make these poor units into something successful. In the end, that proved to be more fun than simply winning.

Ohh yeah, i love that too.

I took swooping hawks to the aforementioned tournament. Even just turning up with an Eldar list got me some funny looks...

It's a tournament. Prepare for the worst. Or do not pariticipate.

A lot of tournaments also use sportsmanship to get the winner. The final result is then composed of e.g. 50% game results and 50% sportsmanship or e.g. 50% game results, 25% sportsmanship, 25% composition, allowing you to also take etiquette etc. into consideration.

But, in the end, it's a highly competitive environment and if you can't stand the heat...

The question is *how* competitive that tournament was going to be. Was there a general agreement on the competitive before? Sportsman-lists or really competitive lists? If not, try talking about that beforehand the next time.

I think if you are worried about becoming tfg then you don't need to actually worry...

I have never faced an opponent who purposely set out to lose a game, not even the fluffiest narrative player i know. Everyone wants to win the game. But all players have a different outlook that you can generally categorise into one of two 'camps'. Fluffy, and Competitive. TFG falls into neither category, and is often applied to an individual rather than a playstyle. TFG is that guy no-one wants to face, ever, because they are just so annoying to play it makes gouging out your own eyeballs seem like a fun way to spend an afternoon.

When you enter a tournament, you do so with the general assumption that everyone is going to be trying their hardest to win. that means you will find people that have optomised and points efficient lists, and some of them actually know how to fight them properly, playing against them, and watching them expertly take apart your army can be a pleasure or a chore depending on their attitude, but tournaments are competitive, so you should expect stiff competition, and tough battles. When you are the person expertly disecting an army, don't hold your punches, don't make bad tactical decisions, don't give them a chance, but be nice about it. It can be a difficult balance to strike at times, but if you have the right attitude, then no matter how quickly you destroy the opposing army, they will want to play against you again.

In a non tournament scene, you should ask your opponent what he wants from the game, if he wants a beer and pretzels match, then play accordingly, if he wants to have a competitive match, play accordingly.
The biggest disagreements come when both players want something different from a game, you want to try out your new competitive army and destroy your opponent, and he wants to have a laugh. If you talk to your opponent before the game, then you can avoid that unpleasantness during the game.

Perhaps the most important part of the game imo, is what happens post battle, shaking hands and complimenting your opponent, and discussing the battle afterwards, teloling him why you did things, what you felt threatened by and so forth. as long as its good advice, then no matter how thoroughly you destroyed your opponent he will have learned something useful, and you, and others can help them with their army composition and/or tactics for the next match

I have too agree with Mad tank.
Everyone wants to win but it's just about how much they want to win compared to having a fluffy list.

Still in a local game setting I think it's important to talk to them and find out if their are any no-no's.

For example I'm running a league atm at my local club and I've set a limit of 1 flyer max because while I don't want to stop people using their models I also know a lot of the players don't have access to flyers or decent Anti-air (wither it be an army thing or a money thing).

It's a good sign that you're worried about becoming TFG, something that every TFG doesn't think about.

Play the army you want to play and have fun doing it. If it runs on the overpowered side, who cares? You're having fun and unless your friends/war buddies have an issue, keep doing what you want to.

The point is to have fun and since you're so concerned about appearing as a WAAC player, you're on the right track. Talk to the people you play with, that's generally a good way to find out if you need to limit yourself.

 Dand218 wrote:
I have too agree with Mad tank.
Everyone wants to win but it's just about how much they want to win compared to having a fluffy list.

Still in a local game setting I think it's important to talk to them and find out if their are any no-no's.

For example I'm running a league atm at my local club and I've set a limit of 1 flyer max because while I don't want to stop people using their models I also know a lot of the players don't have access to flyers or decent Anti-air (wither it be an army thing or a money thing).

But this only means that marines with a very strong flyers like castus ram or storm raven have no handicap , as they rarely play more then one of those anyway, while other armies that use flyers or flying MCs may as well bring no flyers . A single scyth is bad , just like a single flying MC .

Also what is unfluffy in IG runing 3-4 flyers ?

Makumba wrote:

 Dand218 wrote:
I have too agree with Mad tank.
Everyone wants to win but it's just about how much they want to win compared to having a fluffy list.

Still in a local game setting I think it's important to talk to them and find out if their are any no-no's.

For example I'm running a league atm at my local club and I've set a limit of 1 flyer max because while I don't want to stop people using their models I also know a lot of the players don't have access to flyers or decent Anti-air (wither it be an army thing or a money thing).

But this only means that marines with a very strong flyers like castus ram or storm raven have no handicap , as they rarely play more then one of those anyway, while other armies that use flyers or flying MCs may as well bring no flyers . A single scyth is bad , just like a single flying MC .

Also what is unfluffy in IG runing 3-4 flyers ?

It is me trying to make a comprise. I don't want people to spam a unit that some armies have little to no defense again but at the same time I don't want to stop people taking a model (I mean I have flyers myself and like playing them against people but if I come up against an army that can't defend against a flyer I'd rather swap it out for something else to make it more enjoyable for both parties).
No one playing the league seems to mind to be fair. Tbh we're not very big of flyers in our local club.

People feel bad when they get beat. It's natural, but its not the end of the world, they won't fall out with you if you are a gracious winner.

It's always hard playing with a new group, not know what to expect.

I'd give the DA player a pass because he was just filling in, and Berzerkers in Rhinos are terrible this edition.

However, if that DA player continuously plays against the weaker lists/players and never softens up his list... then yeah, he's TFG.

I'm on the "harder" side of the scale. I don't pick fights with newer players or fluffy lists. I don't see how that is fun for anyone.

I find the difference between the TFG and normal players is usually not that he brings an optimized list, but rather that his questionable LOS always seem to be "CLEARLY SEEING THE ENEMY!" and will always find a reason why your dread is in 24%, not 25% cover. Every single questionable calling, he will be insisting it goes his way without any kind of compromises.

 Red Viper wrote:
It's always hard playing with a new group, not know what to expect.

I'd give the DA player a pass because he was just filling in, and Berzerkers in Rhinos are terrible this edition.

However, if that DA player continuously plays against the weaker lists/players and never softens up his list... then yeah, he's TFG.

I'm on the "harder" side of the scale. I don't pick fights with newer players or fluffy lists. I don't see how that is fun for anyone.

So what is he suppose to do , buy a second army just to play against people who instead of buying one good army have one bad ? That seems kind of a unfair , the models cost a lot of money and being forced to buy some you dont want to seem like a double punishment . Not only do you play stuff you don't want to play , but also have to spend more money then those who have a bad army.

I don't think that the dividing line is "plays to win/plays for fun". Lot of people (me included) do both, and lots of people vary the ratio depending on who/what/where is being played. I think the dividing line should be "does this person have too much ego invested in this game to have any fun". That is what makes you TFG, that is what makes people cuss and throw dice and piss and moan about everything that doesn't go their way. That is how someone can actually enjoy beating a new player in a 15 minute game. If you play to win, that isn't a big deal. Do it with a smile! But if you HAVE to win to have any fun, you are TFG.

 Red Viper wrote:
It's always hard playing with a new group, not know what to expect.

I'd give the DA player a pass because he was just filling in, and Berzerkers in Rhinos are terrible this edition.

However, if that DA player continuously plays against the weaker lists/players and never softens up his list... then yeah, he's TFG.

I'm on the "harder" side of the scale. I don't pick fights with newer players or fluffy lists. I don't see how that is fun for anyone.

I use one simple rule, regardless of the lethality of my list.

Am I doing all that I can to make the game fun for the other guy?



If I'm sweeping the board of his units by turn 2, I make the offer to start again or to use a different army. If I am getting swept, I start a fun narrative of my guys trying to pull back, screaming for momma and things to take the sting out of loosing. Usually, my opponent smile and plays along.

It's my job to make the game fun for who is on the other side of the table. If both people follow that rule, games are a blast.

 Peregrine wrote:

Belly wrote:
Is it fair for me to turn up with a highly optimised list against a fluffy bunny list?

The answer is the same as the answer to "is it fair for me to turn up with a fluffy bunny list against a highly optimized list?".

What's the etiquette, what's acceptable?

Bring a standard army that you want to play, and if your opponent wants to play at a different level of optimization then they need to clearly say "I don't play competitively, can we use non-optimized lists?".

The exception to the rule is dealing with new players. The Eldar player is TFG, not because they brought a powerful list, but because they were playing with a hardcore "must win" attitude against a newbie who is still learning the rules of the game. If you're playing against someone who is just starting you should bring a weak list and try to help them learn, not do everything you can to crush someone who has no chance of winning.

this precisely. It has been brought to my attention that dual force org 5 anni barges is a little too cheesey for some people at my FLGS, i have no problem not running a dual force org if it is requested of me, but if it is not, then i will run it.
This is within my guidelines of etiquette and good sportsmanship. You can play the game to play the game (which is certainly fun) or you can play to win, which can be fun if that is also what your opponent is there for.

also as jack death said
I don't think that the dividing line is "plays to win/plays for fun". Lot of people (me included) do both, and lots of people vary the ratio depending on who/what/where is being played. I think the dividing line should be "does this person have too much ego invested in this game to have any fun". That is what makes you TFG, that is what makes people cuss and throw dice and piss and moan about everything that doesn't go their way. That is how someone can actually enjoy beating a new player in a 15 minute game. If you play to win, that isn't a big deal. Do it with a smile! But if you HAVE to win to have any fun, you are TFG

just dont be TFG.

Jack_Death wrote:
I don't think that the dividing line is "plays to win/plays for fun". Lot of people (me included) do both, and lots of people vary the ratio depending on who/what/where is being played. But if you HAVE to win to have any fun, you are TFG.

That's probably closer to it, aye. I'd also point out that knowing and using the rules doesn't make you "that guy", but abusing them for your own advantage and/or being unsportsmanlike well could. Conveniently forgetting to remind your opponent of things except when it's to your advantage is a good sign. For example, knowing that Ordnance works different for penetration or that Fearless in 6th is shared if even one model in the unit has it - and not telling your opponent if he forgets/doesn't know when it would come up.

Generally I'll show up with 2-3 lists and ask my opponent how competitive they want to play. But recently I have just picked up Dark Eldar and am playing around with things so I usually have one list that I want to try out.

Thanks for all the well thought out and valid responses guys.

Quick update. I played the CSM guy that got spanked by the DA player last week. So CSM guy has revamped his army into a somewhat competitive list. He plays Daemons with Kharn allies now, and it's a reasonably strong list. He beat me quite convincingly with it. Admittedly, I took a horribly uncompetitve list, played it in a nonsensical manner, and was very much just enjoying myself. I did have some terrible luck, with both of my Farseers failing leadership and running of the board during turn 2.

Funnily enough, the Eldar/DE deathstar player sat and watched most of our game, chiming in on rules and the like we were getting wrong. So he helped with rules, and I think we provided a good example of what a social game should play like. The whole thing was very cathartic.

FYI, i don't particularly enjoy people watching to provide any commentary unless prompted.

I think if you are expecting a 'fluffy bunny'/casual list you need to ask yourself "Do I want to win, or do I want BOTH players to have fun?"

That being said, I really think it depends on the type of person you're playing more than their list as far as casual games go. I'm more than happy to absolutely destroy a friend of mine when he isn't ready for it. A new player? I remember just starting and not wanting to play certain people because others told me "don't bother playing against him, he never wins." Once I grasped the game better I've played against people I have never won against but still have a great time playing.

It all depends on the person.

Belly wrote:Is it fair for me to turn up with a highly optimised list against a fluffy bunny list? Does that make me an douche?

No. If the only way you can play 40k is on "easy mode" with the strongest possible list, then that doesn't make you a bad person. Meanwhile, if your opponents are playing the game on a tougher difficulty level with more difficult lists to win with, and they get horribly trounced, well... that's their fault for bringing a list that was too difficult for them to win with.

That said, winning over and over and over again, regardless of your environment, is somewhat bad form. I mean, how many times do you really need to beat battlefield 4 on the easiest possible difficulty setting before you decide to move on and try a real challenge? Were I to look down on you, it wouldn't be for winning games, but it would be for your apparent unwillingness to improve yourself as a player.

Not that I'd do that either. I can hardly expect people to have the same aesthetic as myself. Likewise, nobody else can say the same at your local gaming store. That said, if your actions are making the game so un-fun for other people that they stop playing (or, at least stop playing against you), then I'd highly suggest a change in the way you do things.