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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
You must pardon me if I don't pity you. You are probably TFG. Good luck in 8th edition and/or the next Eldar codex 2-5 years down the line. Your current army will probably be useless, and you'll have to spend a bunch of money on the next broken thing.

It's amazing how many assumptions you're willing to make about someone's personality, based on nothing more than how powerful their army list is.

He indicated that his entire eldar collection consists of those particular units (i.e., he does not own any other eldar units), and that he plays in a competitive meta. "What need have we of witnesses?"

Traditio wrote:
He indicated that his entire eldar collection consists of those particular units (i.e., he does not own any other eldar units), and that he plays in a competitive meta. "What need have we of witnesses?"

Oh, I see, you're one of the people who defines "TFG" as "anyone who has fun in a way that I don't approve of". Perhaps you should try to understand the fact that playing a game competitively and being TFG are not the same thing? It would save you from making embarrassing posts like that one in the future.

Peregrine wrote:Oh, I see, you're one of the people who defines "TFG" as "anyone who has fun in a way that I don't approve of". Perhaps you should try to understand the fact that playing a game competitively and being TFG are not the same thing? It would save you from making embarrassing posts like that one in the future.

How do you define TFG? Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what TFG is?

Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he probably didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he probably just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.

I mean, the person to whom I was initially speaking might not be TFG. But he certainly sounds like him!

And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.

 koooaei wrote:
Worried about terrorists bombing your buildings? Just agree to be decent human beings.

Umm, what?

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Oh, I see, you're one of the people who defines "TFG" as "anyone who has fun in a way that I don't approve of". Perhaps you should try to understand the fact that playing a game competitively and being TFG are not the same thing? It would save you from making embarrassing posts like that one in the future.

How do you define TFG? Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what TFG is?

Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.

I mean, the person to whom I was initially speaking might not be TFG. But he certainly sounds like him!

And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not on what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.

Wow just wow, he never said any of that good thing your there to talk for him. It not like he could just you know like thev models and really loved painting them.

The sad part is you can't understand what type of players are killing the future of the game.

Noir wrote:Wow just wow, he never said any of that good thing your there to talk for him. It not like he could just you know like thev models and really loved painting them.

The sad part is you can't understand what type of players are killing the future of the game.

Oh, yes, of course! He probably just so happens to think that wraithknights, jetbikes (probably with scatter lasers), wave serpents and wraithguard are extremely cool-looking and have amazing fluff. In fact, he probably thinks that they have the coolest color scheme in the game! Why, he was just scrolling through pictures of GW models one day, and he was like: "Wow, what cool looking models! That's the codex that I want! What codex is this...e...eldar? YES! That's what I want!"

And, of course, it just so happens that they're the current most broken units in the game, and it just so happens that his meta is competitive.

It's all a series of massive coincidences! That's clearly the most likely explanation. [/sarcasm]

Traditio wrote:

How do you define TFG? Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what TFG is?

Maybe he purchased thosecthings when they weren't broken? Happened with gk armies, space wolf armies, tau armies etc. or maybe he plays in a competitive meta with similarly minded folks?

Fyi tfg is more about attitude than list.

Traditio wrote:

Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he probably didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he probably just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.
.

Wow, lots of assumptions and hostility there.

Traditio wrote:

I mean, the person to whom I was initially speaking might not be TFG. But he certainly sounds like him!

b

Why? He's got a hard list. Doesn't make someone tfg.

Traditio wrote:

And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not on what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.

How about I hold your horse while you come down eh?

So what if I think they're 'cool' then? What makes your notion of fun righter then mine, or his? That's just arrogance and smug on your part. Trying to define how to play, and trying to tell other people how they should be playing - If anything, that attitude is more defining of tfg.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:Wow just wow, he never said any of that good thing your there to talk for him. It not like he could just you know like thev models and really loved painting them.

The sad part is you can't understand what type of players are killing the future of the game.

Oh, yes, of course! He probably just so happens to think that wraithknights, jetbikes (probably with scatter lasers), wave serpents and wraithguard are extremely cool-looking and have amazing fluff. In fact, he probably thinks that they have the coolest color scheme in the game! Why, he was just scrolling through pictures of GW models one day, and he was like: "Wow, what cool looking models! That's the codex that I want! What codex is this...e...eldar? YES! That's what I want!"

And, of course, it just so happens that they're the current most broken units in the game, and it just so happens that his meta is competitive.

It's all a series of massive coincidences! That's clearly the most likely explanation. [/sarcasm]

And so what if he does. I mean how sore is you backside to go out of your way to be a ass to him? But, like I said you just can't see how is kill the game.

Traditio wrote:
How do you define TFG?

Someone who behaves poorly and is a bad person. Rules lawyering/cheating, refusing to bathe more than once a month, getting unreasonably angry when dice rolls don't go their way, etc. Making good choices in army construction is just having fun in a way that you don't personally like.

Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG.

I guess you didn't bother to read the part where they play in a competitive environment and their list is relatively equal in power compared to the people they're playing against?

Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he probably didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he probably just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.

And, again, it's amazing how shameless you are about posting idiotic stereotypes based on nothing more than some examples of army-construction choices a person has made. Here's the equivalent of what you're saying:

Traditio is clearly a TFG. They constantly whine about how other people are better at the game than they are, refuse to learn even basic strategy or tactics, and turn every game they play into a masochistic exercise in deliberately forgetting to move/shoot/assault with units so they won't spend the rest of the night whining to everyone about how their tactical squad died. And, worst of all, they can't stop telling everyone about how they're having fun the wrong way, since that would involve admitting that their One True Way To Play isn't universal truth. And I bet they're also fat, since only a fat loser would complain about how people are having fun the wrong way instead of going to the gym.

Except I'm not going to say that, because it's obviously stupid and offensive. Maybe you could do the same and stop insulting people? After all, it's something the forum rules require you to do.

And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not on what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Traditio. If you're supposed to use the units you think are cool then why are you spending so much time complaining about the units another player picked and accusing them of being TFG?

Deadnight wrote:Maybe he purchased those things when they weren't broken? Happened with gk armies, space wolf armies, tau armies etc. or maybe he plays in a competitive meta with similarly minded folks?

Right. Of course. He clearly purchased wraithknights, wave serpents, jet bikes and wraithguard in 5th edition. And no other eldar units! Are you seriously positing this as a real possibility?

So what if I think they're 'cool' then? What makes your notion of fun righter then mine, or his?

It's endorsed by the makers of the game that we're playing. QED.

Traditio wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
So what if I think they're 'cool' then? What makes your notion of fun righter then mine, or his?

It's endorsed by the makers of the game that we're playing. QED.

LOL, talk about under cutting your own arugment and making yourself look like a self-centered git.

"My cool is better then your cool so your don't matter"

Peregrine wrote:Someone who behaves poorly and is a bad person. Rules lawyering/cheating, refusing to bathe more than once a month, getting unreasonably angry when dice rolls don't go their way, etc.

Oh. Yeah, I'm doing further research on the term. Fair enough. I probably used an inappropriate term.

Making good choices in army construction is just having fun in a way that you don't personally like.

You say "good choices." I say "copy/paste internet cheese list."

If you can beat your opponent in a game of Mortal Kombat by causing the game to glitch, I wouldn't call that good skill at playing Mortal Kombat.

I guess you didn't bother to read the part where they play in a competitive environment and their list is relatively equal in power compared to the people they're playing against?

He actually didn't say the bolded portion. All that he actually said is that nobody has turned down a game against him. That really doesn't say much.

And, again, it's amazing how shameless you are about posting idiotic stereotypes based on nothing more than some examples of army-construction choices a person has made. Here's the equivalent of what you're saying:

Traditio is clearly a TFG. They constantly whine about how other people are better at the game than they are, refuse to learn even basic strategy or tactics, and turn every game they play into a masochistic exercise in deliberately forgetting to move/shoot/assault with units so they won't spend the rest of the night whining to everyone about how their tactical squad died. And, worst of all, they can't stop telling everyone about how they're having fun the wrong way, since that would involve admitting that their One True Way To Play isn't universal truth. And I bet they're also fat, since only a fat loser would complain about how people are having fun the wrong way instead of going to the gym.

Except I'm not going to say that, because it's obviously stupid and offensive. Maybe you could do the same and stop insulting people?

In all fairness:

1. I said "probably." I didn't actually assert that he is TFG.
2. My assessment wasn't simply based on his list. The entire post just rubbed me the wrong way. I quote:

"My entire eldar collection consists of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents. I spend a lot of time painting my models to a high standard. Now you're going to tell me I can't use my WK I spent 20 hours painting because GW can't write balanced rules? The onus is not on the player to make a balanced game, that falls on the game designers. If they fail, it's bad game design. Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta."

See the bolded.

After all, it's something the forum rules require you to do.

Fair nuff.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Traditio. If you're supposed to use the units you think are cool then why are you spending so much time complaining about the units another player picked and accusing them of being TFG?

When people play like that, it sucks the fun out of the game. "I'll start depl...oh, alright, 'good' game. *checks watch*"

This is the one in thread warning before warnings start getting given out to individual users. Shape up.

Wow, lots to catch up on. Other posters did a pretty good job but I'll respond too. First, I'm 6'0" and 175 lbs with 6% body fat, clean shaven and bathe daily. Now that we've cleared that up...
I purchased that list because I regularly play against multiple IK, 2++ re rollable screamer hordes with kairos, 5 flyrants and friends, grav stars, crisis suits and triptides, etc. I also happen to like the models and fluff. I own every eldar novel ever written and plan to buy the Asurmen novel even at the ridiculous price for an LE book. I played nothing but Marines/wolves for 10 years so now that I have eldar built I rarely bring another army with me, just bored of the other stuff and want to play with my new shinies.

How does playing a competitive list make me TFG? I always saw the rules lawyers, poor sports, and those who make ridiculous assumptions about all aspects of someone's life based on their army composition as TFG. Sorry that my group and I are having fun the wrong way. Come to our meeting next Sunday when we discuss rules for the upcoming tournament season so you can explain the one true way to have fun with 40k. I'm sure your insights will be of great help.

 Toofast wrote:
Wow, lots to catch up on. Other posters did a pretty good job but I'll respond too. First, I'm 6'0" and 175 lbs with 6% body fat, clean shaven and bathe daily. Now that we've cleared that up...
I purchased that list because I regularly play against multiple IK, 2++ re rollable screamer hordes with kairos, 5 flyrants and friends, grav stars, crisis suits and triptides, etc. I also happen to like the models and fluff. I own every eldar novel ever written and plan to buy the Asurmen novel even at the ridiculous price for an LE book. I played nothing but Marines/wolves for 10 years so now that I have eldar built I rarely bring another army with me, just bored of the other stuff and want to play with my new shinies.

How does playing a competitive list make me TFG? I always saw the rules lawyers, poor sports, and those who make ridiculous assumptions about all aspects of someone's life based on their army composition as TFG. Sorry that my group and I are having fun the wrong way. Come to our meeting next Sunday when we discuss rules for the upcoming tournament season so you can explain the one true way to have fun with 40k. I'm sure your insights will be of great help.

Yes, after review of what "TFG" means, I admit that I used the term far too hastily. My apologies.

Traditio wrote:

Deadnight wrote:Maybe he purchased those things when they weren't broken? Happened with gk armies, space wolf armies, tau armies etc. or maybe he plays in a competitive meta with similarly minded folks?

Right. Of course. He clearly purchased wraithknights, wave serpents, jet bikes and wraithguard in 5th edition. And no other eldar units! Are you seriously positing this as a real possibility?

So what if I think they're 'cool' then? What makes your notion of fun righter then mine, or his?

It's endorsed by the makers of the game that we're playing. QED.

Or, you know.
Like a lot of eldar players they where waiting for the newer wraith units that where expected rather than the old wraith guard that where way to expencive.

But like others have said, I think my bikes all painted red are cool, and my yellow wraith units are cool!
I gave away most of my aspect warriors when it stopped being Fun to play that army any more.

GW seems to support my kinda fun since they made my army's better, and made it Easyer to bring more off what I realy liked, in a way I much would prefer to run them.
I would play in a more competive meta, but 40k is dieing out for games that don't have issues like this.

In the end I think TFG often comes down to blaming the player for playing the rules. Don't like the rules, ask for change, but don't tell players they are playing wrong when they are abiding by them.

Traditio wrote:
You say "good choices." I say "copy/paste internet cheese list."

If you can beat your opponent in a game of Mortal Kombat by causing the game to glitch, I wouldn't call that good skill at playing Mortal Kombat.

Except this isn't a game-breaking glitch, it's a deliberate design choice by GW.

He actually didn't say the bolded portion. All that he actually said is that nobody has turned down a game against him. That really doesn't say much.

Perhaps you should read before throwing around insults?

Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.

1. I said "probably." I didn't actually assert that he is TFG.

Ok, so if I say that you're only "probably" a fat loser who whines about "casual at all costs" because you suck at the game and can't win otherwise it's ok, and I'm not insulting you? Of course I would be, and trying to hide behind "probably" wouldn't be a very convincing excuse. So why is it ok to say the same kind of thing about someone else?

See the bolded.

What about it? Expecting people to just stop using the models they paid money for and invested time and effort into painting because GW publishes unbalanced rules for them isn't reasonable. Nor is expecting the players to do all the work of fixing a broken game because GW is too lazy to do it the right way.

When people play like that, it sucks the fun out of the game. "I'll start depl...oh, alright, 'good' game. *checks watch*"

Why are you having so much trouble understanding the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy?

Peregrine wrote:Perhaps you should read before throwing around insults?

I suppose it depends upon what meaning we can imply from "competitive meta." At any rate, I admit that I used the term "TFG" too hastily. I should not have done that, and for that, I apologize.

What about it? Expecting people to just stop using the models they paid money for and invested time and effort into painting because GW publishes unbalanced rules for them isn't reasonable.

Guy 1: *checks internet* I'll buy this broken copy/paste cheeselist that everyone admits is OP and game-breaking!
Guy 2: Hey, you shouldn't run a list like that. It's OP and gamebreaking.
Guy 1: But I paid for it! I even painted it!

You understand why I'm not impressed by this?

Nor is expecting the players to do all the work of fixing a broken game because GW is too lazy to do it the right way.

What you are dismissing as unreasonable is precisely what the OP is recommending. If it be granted that 1. GW is too lazy to do fix a broken game and 2. the game is, in fact, broken as stands, and 3. what is desired is a balanced game, then what follows is that the players themselves must bring balance to that game...in particular, by refusing to exploit the broken elements of said game.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy?

If he wants to play in a "competitive meta" in which everyone agrees to try to break the game as hard as possible, then more power to him! That doesn't make his original point any more compelling, though, especially given the point that the original poster of the thread was making.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
You say "good choices." I say "copy/paste internet cheese list."

If you can beat your opponent in a game of Mortal Kombat by causing the game to glitch, I wouldn't call that good skill at playing Mortal Kombat.

Except this isn't a game-breaking glitch, it's a deliberate design choice by GW.

He actually didn't say the bolded portion. All that he actually said is that nobody has turned down a game against him. That really doesn't say much.

Perhaps you should read before throwing around insults?

Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.

1. I said "probably." I didn't actually assert that he is TFG.

Ok, so if I say that you're only "probably" a fat loser who whines about "casual at all costs" because you suck at the game and can't win otherwise it's ok, and I'm not insulting you?

See the bolded.

What about it? Expecting people to just stop using the models they paid money for and invested time and effort into painting because GW publishes unbalanced rules for them isn't reasonable. Nor is expecting the players to do all the work of fixing a broken game because GW is too lazy to do it the right way.

When people play like that, it sucks the fun out of the game. "I'll start depl...oh, alright, 'good' game. *checks watch*"

Why are you having so much trouble understanding the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy?

Exactly. I have invested 20 hours building/painting the WK alone. Why should I be punished and told I need to leave my favorite model at home because GW wrote poor rules? This is why my group plays competitive lists. We can all bring our favorite toys, whether that's big stompy robots, FW tanks, whatever, and have fun. One guy is determined to make mono harlequins a competitive army. He doesn't ask us to tone down our lists. He play tests and tweaks his build. 10 games in and the list is already starting to keep up with the big boy armies. Figuring out how to create and beat the best armies is what makes the game fun for us. To me, asking an opponent to leave something out is like playing a video game on easy/medium difficulty because you die a lot on hard. If that's your idea of fun, that's fine, more power to you. Just don't tell me I'm TFG because my idea of fun is turning it on the hardest setting possible and then playing until I beat it.

Toofast wrote:Exactly. I have invested 20 hours building/painting the WK alone. Why should I be punished and told I need to leave my favorite model at home because GW wrote poor rules?

I'm just going to point out:

1. You yourself think that the rules in question are poor.
2. You insist on playing those rules anyways, presumably because:

3. it assists you in winning (hey, that's how one wins when one plays on "hard mode").

In other words, you purposefully exploit bad rules to win a game. In fact, you use that particular unit because the rules are bad (and in your favor)!

Is that basically what you just said?

Traditio wrote:
Guy 1: *checks internet* I'll buy this broken copy/paste cheeselist that everyone admits is OP and game-breaking!
Guy 2: Hey, you shouldn't run a list like that. It's OP and gamebreaking.
Guy 1: But I paid for it! I even painted it!

You understand why I'm not impressed by this?

I know why you aren't, the fact that I disagree with your argument doesn't mean that I've failed to understand it. Your comparison with a video game glitch is absurd because we're talking about deliberate design decisions by GW, not coding mistakes. And what about the following conversation:

Guy 1: *checks internet* I'll buy this broken copy/paste cheeselist that everyone admits is OP and game-breaking!
Guy 2: Awesome, now I'll have a good list to test my own tournament list against.
Guy 1: Let's play a game!

It sounds like yet again you just can't seem to understand the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy.

What you are dismissing as unreasonable is precisely what the OP is recommending.

Well yes, that's because the OP is being unreasonable.

If it be granted that 1. GW is too lazy to do fix a broken game and 2. the game is, in fact, broken as stands, and 3. what is desired is a balanced game, then what follows is that the players themselves must bring balance to that game...in particular, by refusing to exploit the broken elements of said game.

That doesn't follow at all. There are (at least) two possible solutions:

1) Do nothing to change the rules, but create a mess of unwritten rules and social obligations where you're allowed to use the overpowered stuff but everyone will shame you if you do.

or

2) Change the rules so that the overpowered stuff isn't overpowered anymore and everyone can use whatever they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
In other words, you purposefully exploit bad rules to win a game.

No, it's not "in other words" because there's no exploiting. This is not a programming glitch where you press the B button within 5 seconds of changing the background music and your gun gets 100x the power, it's a deliberate design decision to make certain options more powerful than others. Using those options is just good strategy, not an exploit.

Peregrine wrote:I know why you aren't, the fact that I disagree with your argument doesn't mean that I've failed to understand it. Your comparison with a video game glitch is absurd because we're talking about deliberate design decisions by GW, not coding mistakes. And what about the following conversation:

In hindsight, the glitch analogy was probably a poor one.

Well yes, that's because the OP is being unreasonable.

Unreasonable because...?

If it be granted that 1. GW is too lazy to do fix a broken game and 2. the game is, in fact, broken as stands, and 3. what is desired is a balanced game, then what follows is that the players themselves must bring balance to that game...in particular, by refusing to exploit the broken elements of said game.

That doesn't follow at all. There are (at least) two possible solutions:

1) Do nothing to change the rules, but create a mess of unwritten rules and social obligations where you're allowed to use the overpowered stuff but everyone will shame you if you do.

or

2) Change the rules so that the overpowered stuff isn't overpowered anymore and everyone can use whatever they want

What you've basically just said are subsets of the bolded part of what I said.

No, it's not "in other words" because there's no exploiting. This is not a programming glitch where you press the B button within 5 seconds of changing the background music and your gun gets 100x the power, it's a deliberate design decision to make certain options more powerful than others. Using those options is just good strategy, not an exploit.

Then why, pray tell, did he use the phrase "poor rules"? Clearly, if there is no exploit, then the rules are not poor.

Traditio wrote:
Unreasonable because...?

For the reasons already mentioned: fun is subjective and different people have different ideas about what is fun, shaming people for taking powerful stuff instead of fixing the rules directly is a terrible approach to game design, people very rarely agree on what the appropriate power level for a list is, etc.

What you've basically just said are subsets of the bolded part of what I said.

Except it isn't, because they're two separate things. You proposed option #1, voluntarily avoiding the overpowered stuff. I pointed out that there's a second option, where you change the overpowered thing so that it isn't overpowered anymore and nobody has to avoid it.

Then why, pray tell, did he use the phrase "poor rules"? Clearly, if there is no exploit, then the rules are not poor.

That doesn't make any sense. "Exploit" implies that you're doing something dishonest and breaking the intent of the rules, but that's not happening here. It's clear that the rules say what they do because of deliberate intent from GW. People aren't spamming Eldar jetbikes because there was a typo in the codex and they cost 5 points per model, they're spamming them because GW deliberately gave them powerful rules.

So here is my opinion on this. Whether or not someone brings a top tier list has no impact on whether or not someone is TFG or a good person. TFG is how someome acts. If you have a well tuned list but are a great person, and I have a bad time, it's not your fault. If you have a terrible list and are a jerk, it's probably not the list's fault that I had a bad time. Players aren't terrible people just because they want to play awesome models, whether the awesomeness comes from rules, fluff, or aesthetics.

As to the comments about getting lists from the internet, I think people having access to successful lists is great because not everyone has the time to brew and playtest themselves.

I think the whole point here the OP was trying to make got swallowed somehow.

It's just in agreeing to run lists where both you and your opponent has fun is an important part of the hobby. I think both casual and tournament players see the logic behind that, right? Toofast enjoys playing with and against people with superlists. He's also got the people in his area to play that style of game against, who also enjoy that style of play.

I'm also sure if he had access to more than just his current tournament-ready army, and had some friend new to the hobby who was using some starter kit armies, he'd probably enjoy a more casual game with that person than rolling out the WK and winning by turn 2. He might not have those units to do this, but then again his friends are the tournament mindset type. Judging the player by what he's got is kind of dumb. I own some Eldar models even though I've never brought them to the table because Windrider Bikes look cool, and Wraithguard look cool, and that matters to me infinitely more than rolling dice.

I enjoy playing Highlander matches, where you can only bring one squad of any given type of unit in the game, barring troops. I also have agreed with friends ahead of time this is an enjoyable way to play the game, and we've had a lot of great matches as a result of building comparable power in our lists. It's not a "superior" way to play or some other horsedroppings some elitist person might try and use; it's simply how we've found to have fun with our models. Because we talked it out and agreed upon it first.

Yeah, but if your list much better then any one else, and not because of skill, but because of design team decisions. It is kind of a hard to make the game fun for the other person, if you don't know them. Me for example 2 of my opponents use eldar and one uses GK which is instant win against IG. The games are horrible for me, but I can't realy play against other people and 3 out of 4 people I play the most are family and the 4th is my boyfriend.


As for net list, does anyone around the world needed to check the interent, if a WK or jetbikers got better?

Uh... no one plays 40k to be a decent human being.

There are non-profit and religious organizations all around that let people scratch that particular itch. Most people who play are trying to win.

I say 'trying to win' because it really describes most people's relationship to the rules of the game. The average player has a grasp of the rules but not a complete understanding. They know their own Codex and a decent about a few others they have encountered before, and that's about it.

It leads to anxiety around winning and creates a situation where people overcompensate for the gaps in their knowledge by bringing lists that evidence the great strengths of their Codex. Very few people would choose to nerf their forces to ensure someone else gets enjoyment out of it because they would not know where to start.

By this logic, a more powerful Codex is necessarily going to be less fun to play, unless it's in the hands of someone who really knows a lot about the game.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My probably poorly thought out answer.

The only thing you got right in the OP.

In a balanced game it's actually FUN to sit and try to think of way to beat your friend's list that you got beaten by before. You bring something new, manage to take him out, so he adapts and brings something new etc etc.

From your post, I get that you don't think that's fun. You want to be able to just bring whatever and still have a better than decent chance to win against your opponent, because why should you have to think about what you bring.

I like min-maxing to get the MOST out of my lists. I Like thinking of new little tricks to get the upper hand, and I like for my opponent to be doing the same things. But what's the point in doing that when my average list can beat your best? It's a hollow victory for me if I win and if I tie my hands behind my back by bringing my worst units, then it's a hollow victory for you.

I wish people would stop trying to make out like we're being horrible people for wanting a SOMEWHAT balanced game.

Peregrine is exactly right, using good units is not a glitch or a cheat code, it's good strategy. There is a very big difference between using the peacekeeper with the right perks in COD and using an aim bot. My good 40k lists equate to the former, not the latter. If people think I should tone my list down, that's fine, but where does it end? Should I take out the WK? Ok cool, I'll just run another squad of WG in a serpent. Oh, still too much you say? Alright, I can swap in more scatter bikes to fill the points. Except now you're complaining that I have 60 scatter lasers. How about some hornets, then? Wait, that won't work, those are also "too good". Perhaps 3 squads of fire dragons in deep striking falcons? I'm sure that will be a problem too. So where does it end when you ask me to tone my list down? Should I buy an entire new army of shining spears, wraithlords, storm guardians, Banshees and scorpions? Will that satisfy you, or is it still too powerful just because it came from the eldar book? This is why my group takes the best lists we can come up with. Then nobody has to have a 20 minute debate before the game about which units are "too good" as everyone will have a different definition of that.
Finally, if this wasn't the internet I would be offended that you think I need a net list to figure out the most powerful units in a codex. Considering the internal balance (or lack thereof) in most books, it doesn't take a world class tournament player to realize what's good and what isn't. You act like I would have no idea that WK, WG and scatter bikes were the winners in this codex if I didn't have Internet access.

Its games with friends that isn't the problem. You're friends with them, and most likely want to keep it that way, so a roflstomp list is counter-intuitive. Its the games with people you're not familiar with that could be a problem, but a small discussion before the game can easily sort that out.

So the remaining issue becomes tournaments. At my FlGS there's a don't be a feth rule, and everyone abides by it. Until it comes to tournaments, then the gloves come off. Which is acceptable I guess, but now Eldar are throwing what was already an unbalanced system into even more of a kilter. Basically your armies are crons and eldar. That's why people are freaking out. Eldar were a pain before their dex, now its just -_-