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.

Traditio wrote:

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:You are saying that the primary reason that new players play Tau/Eldar is because they are TFG, despite the fact that they are new, and probably have very little idea as to how power levels work in 40k.

I made the claim that this is probably true at least slightly more than half the time.

Furthermore, I dispute the last bit.

In point of fact, my associate was perfectly aware that Eldar were broken when he bought the 6th edition codex, IIRC, when he chose that particular army. That's why he bought bikes, wave serpents, wraithknights and wraithguard.

And is there any data suggesting that most players do research into power levels prior to choosing an army?

A bad attitude and purposely breaking the rules are the only two things IMO that can make you TFG. You can run 6 WraithKnights for all I care, as long as your are nice and friendly we will have fun Also being a rule nazi.. I get it you want to play by the rules, I want to too, but I don't want to spend 20 minutes every turn arguing about rules and Line of Sight. Just play the game and use common sense/decency.

Traditio wrote:
I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You mean except for here;

Traditio wrote:
The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

Traditio wrote:
Ok. Well, let's just be clear on what you are saying. In order for you to disagree with my claim, you must claim, e.g.,:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Eldar as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

Again:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Tau as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

I couldn't care less about any number of percentages or statistics you feel like pulling out your ass. Being TFG is about your attitude towards the game and your fellow players, not about what army you choose. End of story.

I know one eldar player offline. When it comes to 40k (or games in general), he has strong TFG/rules-lawyer tendencies.

Don't get me wrong. Generally OK guy that I consider a friend of mine.

I'd still lump him in the TFG category for 40k purposes, though.

[...]

In point of fact, my associate was perfectly aware that Eldar were broken when he bought the 6th edition codex, IIRC, when he chose that particular army. That's why he bought bikes, wave serpents, wraithknights and wraithguard.

Okay, great. So you know a guy that happens to be new to the game, that happens to have done some prior research on the maths, picked Eldar as his army, who also happens to be TFG or at least have TFG tendencies (although it still seems you have difficulty identifying the difference between TFG and WAAC, but I digress)... Okay. So, what? Because of your extremely specific example you now feel it's right to tar every new Tau or Eldar player in the hobby with the same brush out of hand? Great job.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Traditio wrote:
I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You mean except for here;

Traditio wrote:
The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

Traditio wrote:
Ok. Well, let's just be clear on what you are saying. In order for you to disagree with my claim, you must claim, e.g.,:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Eldar as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

Again:

"Of the newcomers to Warhammer 40k who select Tau as their army, less than 50% of them are TFG."

I couldn't care less about any number of percentages or statistics you feel like pulling out your ass. Being TFG is about your attitude towards the game and your fellow players, not about what army you choose. End of story.

I know one eldar player offline. When it comes to 40k (or games in general), he has strong TFG/rules-lawyer tendencies.

Don't get me wrong. Generally OK guy that I consider a friend of mine.

I'd still lump him in the TFG category for 40k purposes, though.

[...]

In point of fact, my associate was perfectly aware that Eldar were broken when he bought the 6th edition codex, IIRC, when he chose that particular army. That's why he bought bikes, wave serpents, wraithknights and wraithguard.

Okay, great. So you know a guy that happens to be new to the game, that happens to have done some prior research on the maths, picked Eldar as his army, who also happens to be TFG or at least have TFG tendencies (although it still seems you have difficulty identifying the difference between TFG and WAAC, but I digress)... Okay. So, what? Because of your extremely specific example you now feel it's right to tar every new Tau or Eldar player in the hobby with the same brush out of hand? Great job.

Exalted.

It's an attitude, not an army. You could play the most underpowered list ever, and I could still call you out on being TFG. Alternatively, I could play an Eldar or Tau player, and see them as completely the opposite of TFG.

Also, just because I find the Tau aesthetic and method of war appealing means I'm automatically TFG (considering I don't even play them)?
I think I know who I would be calling TFG in that situation.

Traditio wrote:

Anfauglir wrote:Or... maybe the new person chose Tau or Eldar because those are the models/fluff they liked the most? And whether or not they are TFG is a completely separate issue? No? Just me?

Sure. That's why he's playing two wraithknights and a ton of scatter bikes.

That's the reason.

Wraithknights are cool models; large and very impressive-looking on the table. It shouldn't be at all surprising that a player new to Eldar would want them. I used to feel the same way when I saw wraithlords and war walkers for the first time. People like big models and robots.

The previous Eldar jetbike was very dated-looking, and one of GW's oldest plastic kits, and some people still built massive armies of them, before scatspam, because bike armies are cool (and fluffy for Saim Hann). As for giving them all scatter lasers? It's a legal option in the codex and also clearly the best weapon to arm them with (it's high strength and puts out lots of shots...this isn't rocket science, I knew higher strength = powerful before ever playing a game, and getting to roll more dice is usually a good thing), so a new player could easily figure out scatbikes without necessarily realizing just how broken they are.

Your "associate" is not like everyone else. You can't claim every new Tau or Eldar player picks that faction solely because of the strength of the rules just because you know ONE PERSON who did. With Tau in particular, being one of the most recently updated armies, having a generally cool-looking miniature range (with their own plastic terrain), and also one of the best value starter boxes out of the latest batch GW have put out, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why Tau might be a popular army for new players.

Traditio wrote:

I think we should add "being immediately prejudiced against particular armies and those who choose to play them" to the list of TFG behaviours, personally.

If that prejudice is grounded in reality, it's not TFG behavior. It's just being realistic.

Just thought I'd point out that this is exactly how people try to justify racism. "I'm not being racist, they really are like that!"

Traditio wrote:
Are you really going to disagree with me that new players who select Eldar more often than not, or more likely than not, are TFG?

I would.

From my experience, most new players select an army pretty much entirely based on appearance and general play style, and only develop that knowledge of which units are over- or under-powered later.

But even with that, deliberately choosing a strong army doesn't in itself make you TFG. Just someone with a strong army.

I've played against a lot of opponents with strong armies. Most of those games, even the ones where I got pasted, were still fun games.

TFG is far more rare than these sorts of discussions might lead people to believe.

Traditio wrote:

Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote:"OMFG, LOOK AT THAT AWESOME ROBOT, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ONE FROM ALDNOAH ZERO, I WANT TO PLAY IT SO BADLY,"
"Oh, cool, that's a Tau Battlesuit,"
"Tau? That sounds pretty cool, I think that I'll start playing as them, then."
"SCREW YOU, YOU LITTLE WAAC TFG, YOU SUCK!!!"

I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You repeated have done so. And then you started moving goal posts when called out on your bs.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Wraithknights are cool models; large and very impressive-looking on the table. It shouldn't be at all surprising that a player new to Eldar would want them. I used to feel the same way when I saw wraithlords and war walkers for the first time. People like big models and robots.

The previous Eldar jetbike was very dated-looking, and one of GW's oldest plastic kits, and some people still built massive armies of them, before scatspam, because bike armies are cool (and fluffy for Saim Hann). As for giving them all scatter lasers? It's a legal option in the codex and also clearly the best weapon to arm them with (it's high strength and puts out lots of shots...this isn't rocket science, I knew higher strength = powerful before ever playing a game, and getting to roll more dice is usually a good thing), so a new player could easily figure out scatbikes without necessarily realizing just how broken they are.

Your "associate" is not like everyone else. You can't claim every new Tau or Eldar player picks that faction solely because of the strength of the rules just because you know ONE PERSON who did. With Tau in particular, being one of the most recently updated armies, having a generally cool-looking miniature range (with their own plastic terrain), and also one of the best value starter boxes out of the latest batch GW have put out, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why Tau might be a popular army for new players.

I will second this, at my FLGS there are a fair amount of new Tau and Eldar players with every single one of them being nice people who want to play a cool looking army. They hear the rep that those armies have and might be a bit concerned about the TFG label but its very obvious that they play to have fun above trying to win at the others expense. They found models that excited them and that's the army they started playing. That being said the old "TFG" that use to play locally was an Eldar player but it wasn't that he played Eldar but that he basically cheated at the game (highly questionable dice rolls, ignoring rules, playing fast and loose with points, etc).

 Anfauglir wrote:

Traditio wrote:
I haven't claimed anything remotely like this.

You mean except for here;

Traditio wrote:
The guy playing tau or Eldar, if he's a new player, is probably TFG.

Again, the key word is "probably." "Probably" just means "more likely than not." "More likely than not" simply means "at least slightly more than half the time."

Clearly, the random guy who walks into a store, sees a wraithknight, and is like "IT LOOKS SO COOL!" doesn't fall under the alleged probability.

That said, I do think that if someone were having a conversation with such a person, it would be entirely reasonable, in the course of explaining the different factions and how they work, to make a (very politely and calmly expressed) note that Eldar and Tau are much-aligned in the current meta because of extreme power imbalances between them and other codices. It also would not be out of place, in the course of so explaining, to make (again, very politely and calmly expressed) a note that the wraithknight, in spite of looking amazing, is generally considered an unfair model in the current meta, although it would, of course, look amazing on a shelf in one's home. Perhaps under a locked glass case.

I couldn't care less about any number of percentages or statistics you feel like pulling out your ass.

Except, that's literally what the word "probably" means. I said that a new Eldar player probably (at least slightly more than half the time) is like that. You chose to respond: "NOT ALL ARE LIKE THAT!" I never claimed that all are like that. I never even claimed that most are like that. I made the claim that at least slightly more than half are.

I could, of course, be in error.

Being TFG is about your attitude towards the game and your fellow players, not about what army you choose. End of story.

I completely agree with you that being TFG is primarily a matter of attitude. That said, to pretend that being TFG has absolutely no bearing on one's choice of armies or that we should not expect a concentration of TFGs choosing certain armies is about on par with saying that being psychopathic/sociopathic has no bearing on one's choice of careers, or that we should not expect a concentration of psychopaths/sociopaths among CEOs (in point of fact, this is actually true).

Okay, great. So you know a guy that happens to be new to the game, that happens to have done some prior research on the maths, picked Eldar as his army, who also happens to be TFG or at least have TFG tendencies (although it still seems you have difficulty identifying the difference between TFG and WAAC, but I digress)... Okay. So, what? Because of your extremely specific example you now feel it's right to tar every new Tau or Eldar player in the hobby with the same brush out of hand? Great job.

How common do you think that people like my friend are?

I fully admit that there are decent, "fun" Eldar players who are not TFG, even among those who use highly competitive lists. Galef is probably one. I've played against one who played blood angels and 6th ed Eldar.

But when we consider probability, we must not consider individual cases, but what is more likely than not.

And if you simply read Dakka forums and you look at the various Eldar and Tau players defending their broken codices and telling other people, in essence, to "learn to play," I'm sure you can understand why I would arrive to my current views.

At any rate, would you like to test my view?

Someone very easily could make a poll with 3 possible answers:

"I do not play eldar."
"I play eldar and would not use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."
"I play eldar and would use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Anfauglir wrote:Or... maybe the new person chose Tau or Eldar because those are the models/fluff they liked the most? And whether or not they are TFG is a completely separate issue? No? Just me?

Sure. That's why he's playing two wraithknights and a ton of scatter bikes.

That's the reason.

Wraithknights are cool models; large and very impressive-looking on the table. It shouldn't be at all surprising that a player new to Eldar would want them. I used to feel the same way when I saw wraithlords and war walkers for the first time. People like big models and robots.

The previous Eldar jetbike was very dated-looking, and one of GW's oldest plastic kits, and some people still built massive armies of them, before scatspam, because bike armies are cool (and fluffy for Saim Hann). As for giving them all scatter lasers? It's a legal option in the codex and also clearly the best weapon to arm them with (it's high strength and puts out lots of shots...this isn't rocket science, I knew higher strength = powerful before ever playing a game, and getting to roll more dice is usually a good thing), so a new player could easily figure out scatbikes without necessarily realizing just how broken they are.

Your "associate" is not like everyone else. You can't claim every new Tau or Eldar player picks that faction solely because of the strength of the rules just because you know ONE PERSON who did. With Tau in particular, being one of the most recently updated armies, having a generally cool-looking miniature range (with their own plastic terrain), and also one of the best value starter boxes out of the latest batch GW have put out, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why Tau might be a popular army for new players.

I don't necessarily dispute anything that you've said. Again, I only wish to note that I've made a probability claim.

Just thought I'd point out that this is exactly how people try to justify racism. "I'm not being racist, they really are like that!"

Yes. I'm going to generalize my claim. A normative claim is never a reasonable rebuttal to a claim alleging a matter of fact. "That's racist" is not a legitimate answer to "Caucasians more often than not like mayonnaise on their sandwiches."

Traditio wrote:
At any rate, would you like to test my view?

Someone very easily could make a poll with 3 possible answers:

"I do not play eldar."
"I play eldar and would not use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."
"I play eldar and would use a wraithknight and/or scatter bikes in a casual game vs. orks."

They could make such a poll. It would tell you nothing useful towards your point, as there is no distinction between choosing to play that army because it is overpowered and choosing to play that army despite it being overpowered.


I played a drop-pod army in 4th edition. People hated the list. I lost more games than I won (because dice hate me), my opponents generally had a good time, and nobody ever tried to stab me after a game.


Once again - using an over-powered list does not make someone TFG. It may well be one possible identifier, but using it as a criteria on its own is kind of like saying 'If it has knees, it must be a camel!'. Sure, camels have knees... but so do an awful lot of other animals.

insaniak wrote:They could make such a poll. It would tell you nothing useful towards your point, as there is no distinction between choosing to play that army because it is overpowered and choosing to play that army despite it being overpowered.

Certainly. Additional pieces of information could be added. E.g.:

"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks because I do not have the models to change my list substantially."
"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks in spite of my having the models because I simply cannot bring myself, psychologically, to nerf myself/play at a handicap."

Other poll options could be added as well.

If enough of the options voted for coincide, I really don't think that it's worth it to have the "Do you think that you're TFG" conversation.

Psychologically, that's just not how people work. People generally (unless they are very religious) don't think of themselves as the villain of their own life story.

Traditio wrote:

Certainly. Additional pieces of information could be added. E.g.:

"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks because I do not have the models to change my list substantially."
"I would use a wraithknight vs. orks in spite of my having the models because I simply cannot bring myself, psychologically, to nerf myself/play at a handicap."

Other poll options could be added as well.

Well, yes... You're still missing the option for 'I would use a wraithknight vs orks because I have the model in my army and I like using it.'

And as an Ork player, I would have absolutely zero issue with that. I wouldn't expect anyone to change their army just because GW can't be bothered to write balanced rules, and I would wait to see how the guy actually behaves rather than making judgements about his character based soley on which toys he chose to put on the table.

insaniak wrote:Well, yes... You're still missing the option for 'I would use a wraithknight vs orks because I have the model in my army and I like using it.'

Why does the player like using it?

Because it looks cool on the table? Then put it on the side of the table, independently of the game, so that we can both enjoy how cool it looks.

Because it confers tactical advantages?

If because it confers tactical advantages, would you be annoyed if GW nerfed wraithknights?

At some point, answer enough of these questions in the appropriate manner, and the objective evidence is going to start pointing in one direction over another.

And as an Ork player, I would have absolutely zero issue with that. I wouldn't expect anyone to change their army just because GW can't be bothered to write balanced rules

My eldar friend doesn't want to use rangers over eldar bikes because, and I quote, it would be like using vanguard veterans instead of sternguard veterans. IoW: because it's a suboptimal choice in a codex where even the suboptimal choices are still pretty fething optimal.

Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

I disagree with all of this. You are not TFG only if (note that I'm noting a necessary, not sufficient, condition) you are willing to play a fair, balanced game while playing in the most common sense way of interpreting the rules. If you attempt to break the game, then you are, ceteris paribus, TFG.

Traditio wrote:


Why does the player like using it?

Because it looks cool on the table? Then put it on the side of the table, independently of the game, so that we can both enjoy how cool it looks.

Because it confers tactical advantages?

If because it confers tactical advantages, would you be annoyed if GW nerfed wraithknights?

At some point, answer enough of these questions in the appropriate manner, and the objective evidence is going to start pointing in one direction over another.

And as an Ork player, I would have absolutely zero issue with that. I wouldn't expect anyone to change their army just because GW can't be bothered to write balanced rules

My eldar friend doesn't want to use rangers over eldar bikes because, and I quote, it would be like using vanguard veterans instead of sternguard veterans. IoW: because it's a suboptimal choice in a codex where even the suboptimal choices are still pretty fething optimal.

You can enjoy tactical advantages, be annoyed that GW nerfed your advantages, and still be a well rounded person who isnt remotely TFG.

Mr. Burning wrote:You can enjoy tactical advantages, be annoyed that GW nerfed your advantages, and still be a well rounded person who isnt remotely TFG.

If by the above you mean "unfair tactical advantages," then no, I disagree. Exploiting unfair advantages makes you TFG. At least in some minor way, it is a violation of justice.

Traditio wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

I disagree with all of this. You are not TFG only if (note that I'm noting a necessary, not sufficient, condition) you are willing to play a fair, balanced game while playing in the most common sense way of interpreting the rules. If you attempt to break the game, then you are, ceteris paribus, TFG.

You are not disagreeing with me at all then????? or are you being obtuse??? It really hard to tell.

GW provides the tools with which the game is to be played. If someone plays with those rules - lets use Eldar as the example - with no intention other than to play the game as it is presented to them - are they TFG?

Or are they TFG if they play with the rules intended and act like they are the motherfething god of the universe and you are scrub who need to git gud??? (Not directed at anyone just an example of TFG behaviour).

I'd say you're definitely TFG if you try and use the rules as an excuse for acting in an unsporting way.

pm713 wrote:
I'd say you're definitely TFG if you try and use the rules as an excuse for acting in an unsporting way.

That is part of what being a TFG is.

It doesn't matter what codex you want to base your army on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:You can enjoy tactical advantages, be annoyed that GW nerfed your advantages, and still be a well rounded person who isnt remotely TFG.

If by the above you mean "unfair tactical advantages," then no, I disagree. Exploiting unfair advantages makes you TFG. At least in some minor way, it is a violation of justice.

I mean tactical advantages as presented by GW and their rules writing staff. GW's rules writing baffles me - always has -so I don't support it but we can only work with what we are given.

If you thinks its a violation of justice the write a strongly worded letter to GW chair.

Traditio wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Guy wants to start 40k and likes the Eldaz! - Not a TFG

Guy likes the Eldaz!(tm) Wraithknights and bikes - Not aTFG

Guy gets told the Knight and bikes are super powerful and can help him win games - Buys more - Not a TFG.

Guy rocks up to play with a fotm meta busting the Eldaz! army - Not a TFG.

TFG is all attitude, None of the above - as examples - makes someone a TFG. Being an arse about the above and not knowing or caring that such an attitude is polarizing at best could make someone a TFG.

I would go so far that there is probably an equal amount of TFGs with sub par codex armies as there are with supposed game breaking ones.

I would also suggest that TFG's are made stronger by the internet

Guy likes having a powerful army - Not a TFG.

Guy likes winning - Not a TFG.

Guy knows the rules loopholes and uses them - Not a TFG.

I disagree with all of this. You are not TFG only if (note that I'm noting a necessary, not sufficient, condition) you are willing to play a fair, balanced game while playing in the most common sense way of interpreting the rules. If you attempt to break the game, then you are, ceteris paribus, TFG.

Attempting to break the game does not make you TFG. The game is broken whether or not someone attempts to break it.

Traditio wrote:
I correctly respond that I had 50% obscurity relative to the firing model, and therefore have a 4+ save, express my unwillingness to debate the matter

I just want to point out this is wrong. This is not how cover works. You don't get better cover for being more obscured. If you are 25% you get 5+ cover (unless the terrain gives different cover like a ruin gives 4+). That's it. You didn't have a 4+ cover save.

But the worst part is how you responded to the disagreement. You refused to debate him on it. That's incredibly unfair. You refused to even attempt to resolve the issue. You should've looked in the rule book to see how cover works so that both players can see the rule in question. You do that even if you are right. But in this case you weren't even correct. What you did makes you TFG

CrownAxe wrote:I just want to point out this is wrong. This is not how cover works. You don't get better cover for being more obscured. If you are 25% you get 5+ cover (unless the terrain gives different cover like a ruin gives 4+). That's it. You didn't have a 4+ cover save.

The rules, IIRC, are different for vehicles and non-vehicles.

Non-vehicles get a universal 5+ cover unless in ruins or some other special terrain type.

For vehicles, it depends on obscurity. 25% obscurity = 5+ cover; 50% or greater obscurity = 4+ cover.

I could be in error, but last time I checked the 7th ed rulebook, that's what I remember it saying.

Do feel free to go and look.

But the worst part is how you responded to the disagreement. You refused to debate him on it. That's incredibly unfair. You refused to even attempt to resolve the issue. You should've looked in the rule book to see how cover works so that both players can see the rule in question. You do that even if you are right. But in this case you weren't even correct. What you did makes you TFG

1. I didn't have a rulebook on hand.

2. His general demeanor and actions made me incredibly unwilling to debate the matter.

If that makes me TFG in your opinion, then so be it.

For vehicles its just 25% for determining if your obscured or not. The only other rule for vehicles is if the facing be shot at is 100% obscured then it gets +1 cover.

Nothing about 50% obscurment for 4+.

 CrownAxe wrote:
For vehicles its just 25% for determining if your obscured or not. The only other rule for vehicles is if the facing be shot at is 100% obscured then it gets +1 cover.

Nothing about 50% obscurment for 4+.

I may have been in error then. I'll have to check later on.

Again, though, the guy's general demeanor and behavior made me incredibly unwilling to debate the matter either way.

He was being a donkey cave.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
For vehicles its just 25% for determining if your obscured or not. The only other rule for vehicles is if the facing be shot at is 100% obscured then it gets +1 cover.

Nothing about 50% obscurment for 4+.

I may have been in error then. I'll have to check later on.

Again, though, the guy's general demeanor and behavior made me incredibly unwilling to debate the matter either way.

He was being a donkey cave.

You were a TFG and donkey cave even worse so for not allowing the debate.

Actually:

Regardless of the applicability or non-applicability of the 50% rule, the rhino arguably was taking cover behind a terrain piece that provided 4+ cover.

So. Yeah. Null argument.

Traditio wrote:
Actually:

Regardless of the applicability or non-applicability of the 50% rule, the rhino was taking cover behind a terrain piece that provided 4+ cover.

So. Yeah. Null argument.

And yet you still refused to debate him about it.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:You were a TFG and donkey cave even worse so for not allowing the debate.

1. You would have had to have been there, I suppose.

2. It's not like he had his rulebook on hand and was quoting from it. Furthermore, he was being wildly inconsistent and displayed a lack of fidelity to the rules.

"NO COVER! FLIER!"

"Ok, ok. 5+ cover...but that rhino over there gets 4+ cover (not because of obscurity, but because of the terrain piece)."

Plus, again, he was being confrontational and abrasive.

Fact is, he was trying to set up and rules-lawyer a cheap win (even though it was a completely casual game).

It had nothing to do with what he thought the rules did and didn't say.

Sorry. But I'm not arguing with that.

Call me TFG if you want, but that really does say more about you.

OK, folks - general reminder to keep it civil.