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.

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

There is nothing in the 40k rulebook that says that you must field Eldar or Tau.

There is nothing in the 40k rulebook that says that you must take a min-maxed cheese list.

GW gives you options. It's your prerogative to use those options to break the game or not.

If someone uses those options to break the game, that doesn't speak ill of GW. That speaks ill of him.

No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

Don't blame players for playing with stuff they want within the rules.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

Or, you know, you take the option because you like the idea? Not everything is done for a strategic advantage.

It really isn't the innocent player's fault if the thing they so happen to like is OP. You absolutely cannot blame an innocent player for that. GW are very much at fault there.

IF they use those options with the express purpose of breaking the game - sure. TFG.
They take those options because aesthetics or fluff, no. Absolutely not TFG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

Don't blame players for playing with stuff they want within the rules.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

QFT

 Blacksails wrote:
No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

The writing of poor rules speaks ill of the company making them.

The exploitation of poor rules speaks ill of the player.

Consider the video game analogy:

Yes, if you walk here and press B, the game will freeze. That speaks ill of the video game company.

But if you keep doing it while we are playing co-op, that speaks ill of you.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

If someone is using the GSF to spam razorbacks to accompany his 5 man tac squads, then by all means, let the same comments by me apply.

Using the rules to make something I want within them is not exploiting.

 Blacksails wrote:
Using the rules to make something I want within them is not exploiting.

This is essentially the same thing as denying that cheese exists.

I disagree.

Define cheese.

 Blacksails wrote:
Define cheese.

You're setting up for a loki's fallacy.

I'm going to go with the classical "definition" of such things: "You know it when you see it."

I figure to keep it simple: "That Guy" is someone who tries to do things at other's "expense".
A complete disregard of people around them, objects to be used for their own selfish needs.
At least if they were socially inept, the intent would not be there.

 Talizvar wrote:
I figure to keep it simple: "That Guy" is someone who tries to do things at other's "expense".
A complete disregard of people around them, objects to be used for their own selfish needs.
At least if they were socially inept, the intent would not be there.

Yes! I vehemently agree with this.

And this can express itself in as many things as army selection, list building, etc.

The opposite of the TFG is someone who will make reasonable accommodation for the person with which he is playing.

Example:

"Oh, you're playing orks? Ok. I'll run a CAD instead of a GSF."

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
No, poor rules speak ill of the company making them.

The writing of poor rules speaks ill of the company making them.
The exploitation of poor rules speaks ill of the player.
Consider the video game analogy:
Yes, if you walk here and press B, the game will freeze. That speaks ill of the video game company.
But if you keep doing it while we are playing co-op, that speaks ill of you.

Its odd you pick on Tau/Eldar when you're so quick to defend the GSF for Marines.

If someone is using the GSF to spam razorbacks to accompany his 5 man tac squads, then by all means, let the same comments by me apply.

The core effort within the game is to win by it's rules.
Adding extra layers beyond the rules is "scrub" behavior and would be unfair to expect others to know your extra rules.
The only game any sane person would want to play is with mutually agreed upon rules.
We tend to delude ourselves otherwise.

With your prior reasoning, it speaks ill of us gamers supporting games with poor rules.
We tend to include other factors associated with a game other than it's rules.

Talizvar wrote:]The core effort within the game is to win by it's rules.
Adding extra layers beyond the rules is "scrub" behavior and would be unfair to expect others to know your extra rules.

And I think that the anti-scrub mentality that you're describing itself is a TFG mindset.

TFG is willing to break the game and exploit bad rules. When met with criticism, his answer is to call his opponent a scrub and tell him to "learn to play."

Someone who is not TFG is willing to make organic adjustments to provide for a fair game, even though the game has rules which can be exploited to make the game unfair and broken.

The only game any sane person would want to play is with mutually agreed upon rules.

I completely agree. However, those rules are not restricted to the ones present in the rulebooks. General custom and opinion has its place.

It's publicly agreed that wraithknights and scatterbikes are unfair.

Traditio wrote:
The opposite of the TFG is someone who will make reasonable accommodation for the person with which he is playing.
Example:
"Oh, you're playing orks? Ok. I'll run a CAD instead of a GSF."

Gah!
Sorry, my first thought is "why should the person make an "accommodation"?".
What is "reasonable" for that matter? Is it in the rules??

I typically want someone to bring their "A" game.
Destroying or being destroyed in short order is no fun for anyone I would agree other than for "That Guy" being the winner.
But, if you want to bring your "fluff" list, you need to agree to these "new rules" (ya scrub! ), we cannot all be mind readers!

This is a typical argument we can get in, the "cheese" does not exist, only in the losing party's mind.

I just do not get into these arguments in X-wing... it is refreshing really.

Talizvar wrote:Sorry, my first thought is "why should the person make an "accommodation"?"
What is "reasonable" for that matter? Is it in the rules??

Only someone with the TFG guy mindset even asks these questions. Someone who is not TFG recognizes the great merit of the old maxim: "It's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game."

He recognizes that:

Fairness > Fun > Winning.

In that order.

The standard of reasonableness, in the context in which I am speaking, is fairness or proportional equality. That's why accommodation must be made.

But, if you want to bring your "fluff" list, you need to agree to these "new rules" (ya scrub! ), we cannot all be mind readers!

There's no "new rules" if we include "rules" to include popular opinion/custom.

If you show up with 5 wraithknights, you've violated unwritten, but still publicly acknowledged, rules of the game.

I have had one encounter with that TFG.

A few years ago in one of my few trips to the local gaming club, I took my Dark Eldar army in the hopes of getting an introduction game. Forward steps our white knight, with his fresh Tau army. Now I realise I was new, and by no means was looking for anyone to take it easy on me. But he straight up made the game a chore for me, questioning my weapons profiles and ranges constantly, complaining that my whole army having night vision was OP (only half his army had it). But he also straight up lied about rules, claiming that his Riptide had my Ravager locked in combat (he only glanced it but claimed that it was now stuck there), all Pathfinders had shrouded and his whole army was base bs4. Granted I was naive, but I don't want my first impression in a club to be the new guy who wants to check your army book, so I went with it.
After my army was pasted by turn 3, he complained that his Riptide losing 2 wounds for the game meant it wasn't as good as everyone said it was, and he would have to buy 2 more.
Now I realise none of this was particularly horrible by itself, but the combination of all of them left a very sour lasting impression of both him, and gaming with strangers in general. I think if you have drove someone to that mentality, you are TFG.

@Traditio: You write like an idealist, I can respect that.
I personally have found growth in taking the rules to the max with like minded players.
Please be assured, I take pleasure in a game well played, close ones especially.
Be polite, shake their hand, be nice, it is our hobby after all.
You are just looking to get something out of games a bit different than me, that is fine.
I like a challenge, oddly, few "That Guy" types play people like me because they value winning to much to risk losing against a competitive player... they look for "victims".

MonumentOfRibs wrote:
I have had one encounter with that TFG.

A few years ago in one of my few trips to the local gaming club, I took my Dark Eldar army in the hopes of getting an introduction game. Forward steps our white knight, with his fresh Tau army. Now I realise I was new, and by no means was looking for anyone to take it easy on me. But he straight up made the game a chore for me, questioning my weapons profiles and ranges constantly, complaining that my whole army having night vision was OP (only half his army had it). But he also straight up lied about rules, claiming that his Riptide had my Ravager locked in combat (he only glanced it but claimed that it was now stuck there), all Pathfinders had shrouded and his whole army was base bs4. Granted I was naive, but I don't want my first impression in a club to be the new guy who wants to check your army book, so I went with it.
After my army was pasted by turn 3, he complained that his Riptide losing 2 wounds for the game meant it wasn't as good as everyone said it was, and he would have to buy 2 more.
Now I realise none of this was particularly horrible by itself, but the combination of all of them left a very sour lasting impression of both him, and gaming with strangers in general. I think if you have drove someone to that mentality, you are TFG.

I think a lot of those things are actually pretty horrible - blatantly lying to someone about rules and complaining about how your units aren't OP enough after wiping the floor with them (especially someone new to an FLGS) is the definition of TFG. You're a stronger man than me, I would have told him to go back and read his codex again... It does suck to be in that position the first time you go to a store though so I don't blame you.

MonumentOfRibs wrote:
I have had one encounter with that TFG.

<snip>
That was unfortunate.
I think the general complaining was of poor grace.
I tend to focus on the player getting the wounds in, smiling and saying something goofy like "Damn you Red Baron!".
People tend to forget if you want opponents to play, you need to be an ambassador of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
If you show up with 5 wraithknights, you've violated unwritten, but still publicly acknowledged, rules of the game.

Oh I wish I could lay my hands on a neat quote that covers this but I cannot remember.
It is something like this:
I went to tabletop gaming because I found going "pew!, pew!, he's dead!, Nah-ah!, Yes he is!" is less fulfilling than having rules cover it.
We all have an opinion and oddly "publicly acknowledged" ones vary person to person.
Usually the details get sorted out by who is more stubborn or louder.
I like rules as written (RAW) I dislike arguments before a game.

Would me claiming you demonstrate "Scrub" behavior be more or less accurate that I demonstrate "That Guy"?
What is making a good point here is that we cannot seem to agree on this so agreeing on unwritten rules applied in gaming culture is a fallacy.

There's nothing in the rulebook saying I have to field Eldar or Tau, no, but likewise there's nothing in the rulebook saying I can't, or shouldn't, if that's the army that I want to play with.

And GW is most definitely at fault for publishing broken rules and giving players the option to break the game, because not only are they obviously doing it to influence sales (like "forcing" players to field less-popular kits in order to get some broken bonus), but in some cases they're even inviting people to do it. Anyone check out their blog post on Saturday, talking about the new Angels of Death release and gushing at the end about all the formations and "dirty, filthy rules which we love!"? GW knows full well what it's doing, and as such they deserve all the blame for what the game has become.

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Define cheese.

You're setting up for a loki's fallacy.

I'm going to go with the classical "definition" of such things: "You know it when you see it."

But when you see it, will your opponent also see it?


Way back in the day, I was accused of running a 'cheesy' army when I took Red Corsairs to a 2nd ed tournament. People saw a Chaos army with jump packs and attack bikes and immediately decided that this was out of line, despite being legal and hideously expensive points-wise. I took those units because I wanted a fast-moving pirate force, and loved the idea of painting up an army with all different marines in it... Actually being able to win games with it (I generally didn't) wasn't a big consideration.

One man's cheese is another man's fluff.

 Sidstyler wrote:
And GW is most definitely at fault for publishing broken rules and giving players the option to break the game, because not only are they obviously doing it to influence sales (like "forcing" players to field less-popular kits in order to get some broken bonus), but in some cases they're even inviting people to do it. Anyone check out their blog post on Saturday, talking about the new Angels of Death release and gushing at the end about all the formations and "dirty, filthy rules which we love!"? GW knows full well what it's doing, and as such they deserve all the blame for what the game has become.

Even without encouraging newbies to take broken stuff specifically because it is broken, it's unreasonable to expect a new player to know when they buy their army how to tell what is and isn't overpowered (and what should or shouldn't be used as a result, since different games' audiences tend to have different approaches to that sort of thing), and even more unreasonable to expect them to not use the models they have bought because you disagree with their choice of army.

Even if a new player can see from his codex that, say, scatterbikes are a powerful option, you can't expect him to know how they compare to every other codex, or to know that some opponents may give him stinkeye if he takes them. Many games are all about taking the most powerful combos that you can come up with. The only reason it's an issue for 40K players is because of the game's inherent imbalance... something that newcomers won't generally have been exposed to when selecting their army.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Anyone check out their blog post on Saturday, talking about the new Angels of Death release and gushing at the end about all the formations and "dirty, filthy rules which we love!"? GW knows full well what it's doing, and as such they deserve all the blame for what the game has become.

Thanks for that.
That is why GW is getting much less money out of me: what is a "competitive build" can be rendered obsolete in months.
It takes time to play a new army list well.

You feel more like a rules lawyer keeping up on all the various formations and multitude of publications.
"Dirty, filthy rules" is their name for it?
Creaking overly patched monstrosity with new model bias thrown in for giggles springs more to mind.

I dont know what the quote started but when it comes to playing eldar/tau.

If you just like playing them that does not make you TFG.

If you come into the store and the first thing you ask is if they have any Warp spiders, eldar bikes, or wraith knights, You are TFG.

However due note, there are different types of TFG, IMO there is the competative TFG, who does the above mentioned, but other then that is a pretty cool guy. Then there is That TFG who is the above and overall dick bag and not fun to be around period.

 Talizvar wrote:
@Traditio: You write like an idealist, I can respect that.
I personally have found growth in taking the rules to the max with like minded players.
Please be assured, I take pleasure in a game well played, close ones especially.
Be polite, shake their hand, be nice, it is our hobby after all.
You are just looking to get something out of games a bit different than me, that is fine.
I like a challenge, oddly, few "That Guy" types play people like me because they value winning to much to risk losing against a competitive player... they look for "victims".

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with everyone playing cheesy, min-maxed lists and going with the most stringent, rules-lawyer interpretation of the rules.

And I have no doubt that you are a positive delight to play with among members of your own group.

The default mentality, however, should be "we are going to play fair unless we explicitly agree to do otherwise, by all common sense accounts of those terms."

If you show up to a random casual game against a complete stranger with 5 wraithknights, you have violated an unwritten, though publically acknowledged, rule of etiquette. At the very least, that game should come with a disclaimer: "Just so you know, I'm running 5 wraithknights. Do you really feel like playing that game?"

Going back to my complaint about TFG I played last night:

Had he flat out told me: "Just so you know, I'm running THIS list and I am a complete rules lawyer," I would have passed on that game before even setting up.

Traditio wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
@Traditio: You write like an idealist, I can respect that.
I personally have found growth in taking the rules to the max with like minded players.
Please be assured, I take pleasure in a game well played, close ones especially.
Be polite, shake their hand, be nice, it is our hobby after all.
You are just looking to get something out of games a bit different than me, that is fine.
I like a challenge, oddly, few "That Guy" types play people like me because they value winning to much to risk losing against a competitive player... they look for "victims".

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with everyone playing cheesy, min-maxed lists and going with the most stringent, rules-lawyer interpretation of the rules.

And I have no doubt that you are a positive delight to play with among members of your own group.

The default mentality, however, should be "we are going to play fair unless we explicitly agree to do otherwise, by all common sense accounts of those terms."

If you show up to a random casual game against a complete stranger with 5 wraithknights, you have violated an unwritten, though publically acknowledged, rule of etiquette. At the very least, that game should come with a disclaimer: "Just so you know, I'm running 5 wraithknights. Do you really feel like playing that game?"

Going back to my complaint about TFG I played last night:

Had he flat out told me: "Just so you know, I'm running THIS list and I am a complete rules lawyer," I would have passed on that game before even setting up.

This guy, this guy gets it, my very first game was up against a guy running a super cheese list, but the thing that did not make him TFG was:

-He told me it was a cheese list
-He knew it was my first game
-he let me take extra points because of his list
-He was not anal about movement
-He was patient and helped with rules.

Running a cheese list does not make you TFG if you just come clean about it and admit its a total cheese list. Running a cheese list and acting like you are an awesome super skilled player when its widely accepted the list is broken to hell, makes you TFG and a non skilled player.

If you got your list of a list building site, that makes you TFG

Furthermore, Talizvar, if you ACTUALLY wanted a challenge, you would play as though you thought that I were correct.

You would play orks and concede ambiguous rules interpretations to your opponent's advantage.

TFG is always a guy or sometimes a girl. Usually between 4'0 and 7'6. Blonde hair or all the way to dark black. Clearly a caucasian or African, possibly asian? Ohh and they are always wearing clothes and sometimes shoes.

I hope you found this helpful

insaniak wrote:But when you see it, will your opponent also see it?

Perhaps "you know it when you see it" isn't the best way of answering BlackSails.

Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

Wraithknights and scatterbikes are publicly admitted to be cheesy.

Way back in the day, I was accused of running a 'cheesy' army when I took Red Corsairs to a 2nd ed tournament. People saw a Chaos army with jump packs and attack bikes and immediately decided that this was out of line, despite being legal and hideously expensive points-wise. I took those units because I wanted a fast-moving pirate force, and loved the idea of painting up an army with all different marines in it... Actually being able to win games with it (I generally didn't) wasn't a big consideration.

One man's cheese is another man's fluff.

1. I think that the bolded is important. You didn't make the list for tactical advantages, nor did it actually confer a tactical advantage.

2. Again, I think that we should put due emphasis on "public." I wasn't playing in 2nd edition, but let's assume dakka forums existed and you put your army list online. Would people complain about it like they complain about free razorbacks for minimum 5 man tactical squads or scatterbikes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
TFG is always a guy or sometimes a girl. Usually between 4'0 and 7'6. Blonde hair or all the way to dark black. Clearly a caucasian or African, possibly asian? Ohh and they are always wearing clothes and sometimes shoes.

I hope you found this helpful

That's racist! You've never seen TFG shouting "allujah akbar"?

Traditio wrote:
Furthermore, Talizvar, if you ACTUALLY wanted a challenge, you would play as though you thought that I were correct.
You would play orks and concede ambiguous rules interpretations to your opponent's advantage.

Oh, I can honorably take a handicap like Backspacehacker had outlined.
A game in is better than not at all, this is where "mutually agreed rules" come into play.
A perceived leveling of the playing field could be negotiated if both are willing.
I think the "ambiguous rules interpretations" are covered in the rules by rolling off.
I am unsure how being a doormat will make me a better player.
I have a sneaking suspicion I would be required to play "your game" with little compromise.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:But when you see it, will your opponent also see it?

Perhaps "you know it when you see it" isn't the best way of answering BlackSails.

Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

Wraithknights and scatterbikes are publically admitted to be cheesy.

Way back in the day, I was accused of running a 'cheesy' army when I took Red Corsairs to a 2nd ed tournament. People saw a Chaos army with jump packs and attack bikes and immediately decided that this was out of line, despite being legal and hideously expensive points-wise. I took those units because I wanted a fast-moving pirate force, and loved the idea of painting up an army with all different marines in it... Actually being able to win games with it (I generally didn't) wasn't a big consideration.

One man's cheese is another man's fluff.

1. I think that the bolded is important. You didn't make the list for tactical advantages, nor did it actually confer a tactical advantage.

2. Again, I think hat we should put due emphasis on "public." I wasn't playing in 2nd edition, but let's assume dakka forums existed and you put your army list online. Would people complain about it like they complain about free razorbacks for minimum 5 man tactical squads or scatterbikes?

I think the whole issue of running an army that is "Cheesy" really boils down to how and why you chose that army, and if you openly admit its cheesy.

For example, im making a deathwing/ravenwing army because i love their lore, and terminators are my fav model. If gods willing they became super viable, and cheesy that would not stop me running them. It really boils down to how you handle it. If you admit its a cheese army, you are not TFG.

If you were running that army, which you totally picked for fluff or play style reasons, and you dont admit its cheese, i could see how someone might think you are TFG when you are really not.

But if say DW/RW became super OP, and you go into the store and the first thing you do is buy 4 DW and 3 RW bikes....You are TFG, like no questions asked.

Running a competitive cheese list, does not make you TFG, acting like you are skilled, the list is not OP, and not admiting its cheese, makes you TFG

Traditio wrote:

Perhaps the better answer is: "The public knows it when it sees it."

No.

The public consists of varied individuals all with different ideas of what they want to play and play against.