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.

Talizvar wrote: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.

You're the one who said you wanted a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote: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.

Ravenwing is cheesy as cheesy comes. An army of bikes with 2+ rerollable jinks?

I wouldn't be willing to play that game.

Traditio wrote:
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."

Sure.

The difference comes from some people thinking that 'play fair' means 'play by the same rules as the other guy', while other people think that 'play fair' means 'play only with the rules that I consider fair'...

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?"

Hell yes, I'd play that game. If it went badly, I might not want to do it again... but as a one-off, that sounds far more interesting than playing against just another bog-standard Eldar army.

Blacksails wrote:No.

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

So Blacksails writes in English, fully expecting me to understand what he is saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Sure.

The difference comes from some people thinking that 'play fair' means 'play by the same rules as the other guy', while other people think that 'play fair' means 'play only with the rules that I consider fair'...

In game terms, "fair" means "roughly equivalent chances of victory, independently of player skill."

Hell yes, I'd play that game. If it went badly, I might not want to do it again... but as a one-off, that sounds far more interesting than playing against just another bog-standard Eldar army.

Really? It sounds like a visit to the dentist's office, personally. I have better things to do with my time.

Traditio wrote:

Talizvar wrote: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.

You're the one who said you wanted a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote: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.

Ravenwing is cheesy as cheesy comes. An army of bikes with 2+ rerollable jinks?

I wouldn't be willing to play that game.

What no their jink is only a 4+ and can reroll.

Black nights get a 3+ to save on a jink and can re-roll

They dont get a 2+ jink THAT would be OP as hell

Backspacehacker wrote:What no their jink is only a 4+ and can reroll.

Black nights get a 3+ to save on a jink and can re-roll

They dont get a 2+ jink THAT would be OP as hell

I could be in error about how RW works. Still, though, my impression, the one time I played against them:

1. It's impossible to assault anyone because, apparently, everyone gets to shoot me, not just the unit I'm assaulting.

2. It's impossible to catch them, because they're all on bikes.

3. Welp. I'm getting shot off the table. That's a lot of relentless grav.

4. It's impossible to hurt anyone, because they have rerollable saves.

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

The only way that I'd be willing to play you is if you played a CAD.

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

Nope, that would be a completely inaccurate answer.

There are some, limited number of things that are widely accepted to be over-powered. There's a much bigger pool of things that are less universally accepted as cheesy, and units from either category are still somewhat tempered by the rest of the army list involved.

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.

Your contention all the way through this thread has been that someone simply showing up with a list that you consider to be overpowered results in you considering them TFG.

That's exactly what happened with my Red Corsairs list. People branded it as cheese without having played against it, based entirely on the perception of the army and with no knowledge of me as a player. They were wrong. It was a crap list, and I received a maximum sports score from my opponents.

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?

That would depend on who read it. Turned out from later discussions that quite a number of players were strongly opposed to Red Corsairs having access to Imperial gear, not just those at the tournament I went to... I just hadn't been exposed to that point of view prior to the tournie.

But ultimately, Dakka is no less a microcosm of the gaming community than that tournament was... it's just one with participants from a wider area. And the 'community view' of things as often as not is actually just the view of the 'loudest' posters. The fact that some guy on some forum thinks something is overpowered in no way guarantees that the guy standing opposite you at the table agrees with that point of view.

Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:What no their jink is only a 4+ and can reroll.

Black nights get a 3+ to save on a jink and can re-roll

They dont get a 2+ jink THAT would be OP as hell

I could be in error about how RW works. Still, though, my impression, the one time I played against them:

1. It's impossible to assault anyone because, apparently, everyone gets to shoot me, not just the unit I'm assaulting.

2. It's impossible to catch them, because they're all on bikes.

3. Welp. I'm getting shot off the table. That's a lot of relentless grav.

4. It's impossible to hurt anyone, because they have rerollable saves.

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

The only way that I'd be willing to play you is if you played a CAD.

Albit i admit that having hit and run, relentless, and hammer of wrath on one unit can cheese. Not gonna not admit that one.

But yeah they save on only a 3+ for black knights, and 4+ for ravenwing, both get rerolls.

Ill admit that the bikes can get cheesy, but IMO not as bad as eldar bikes x.x

Traditio wrote:

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

Backspacehacker wrote:But yeah they save on only a 3+ for black knights, and 4+ for ravenwing, both get rerolls.

4+ rerollable save gives you roughly 2 X 1/2 chances of a successful save. A a 3+ rerollable save gives you 2 X 2/3 chances of a successful save.

The only army that's going to consistently shoot you off of the table is the Tau.

Seriously ponder that.

The Tau.

I'll repeat that:

The fething Tau.

Ill admit that the bikes can get cheesy, but IMO not as bad as eldar bikes x.x

They don't have overwatch shenanigans and rerollable saves.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

You'd probably have an even, fun match against white scars bikes armies. Perhaps even against scat bike armies.

Not against me, though.

Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

QFT my Ravenwing detachment consists of

1 Lib on a bike
1 Black knight squad, no upgrade
2 ravenwing squads, no upgrades

So total thats only 10 models that save primarily on a 4+ with a re-roll.

Most of my points are in my DW terminators, the ravenwing I put in there to keep from from auto loosing turn one, and to get my terminators closer to them with teleport homers.

insaniak wrote:Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

The cost isn't as prohibitive as it should be. A tactical marine costs 14 ppm. That same tactical marine on a bike costs 21 ppm.

For that additional 7 ppm, he gets:

A. Additional movement
B. Hammer of wrath
C. Relentless
D. Moar guns
E. +1 toughness
F. Jink


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Nope, that would be a completely inaccurate answer.

There are some, limited number of things that are widely accepted to be over-powered. There's a much bigger pool of things that are less universally accepted as cheesy, and units from either category are still somewhat tempered by the rest of the army list involved.

Yes. I want to restrict my comments to the former class of things.

Your contention all the way through this thread has been that someone simply showing up with a list that you consider to be overpowered results in you considering them TFG.

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," then yes, he is probably TFG.

Do you really contest this point?

That's exactly what happened with my Red Corsairs list. People branded it as cheese without having played against it, based entirely on the perception of the army and with no knowledge of me as a player. They were wrong. It was a crap list, and I received a maximum sports score from my opponents.

As I said, I wasn't really around in 2nd edition, so I can't really comment.

For what it's worth, "I feel for you, bro!"

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Bike armies look deadlier on paper than they actually are on the table, from my experience. All those advantages get sucked up by the fact that you don't get that many of them.

The cost isn't as prohibitive as it should be. A tactical marine costs 14 ppm. That same tactical marine on a bike costs 21 ppm.

For that additional 7 ppm, he gets:

A. Additional movement
B. Hammer of wrath
C. Relentless
D. Moar guns
E. +1 toughness
F. Jink

And the squad he is attached to only has 3 models by default, not 5. Additionally they dont get FNP, and cant secure objectives, and cant take cover in a building.

I totally admit that Hammer of wrath, relentless and hit and run all on one guy can be OP, but its not as bad as eldar cheese is right now.

Backspacehacker wrote:And the squad he is attached to only has 3 models by default, not 5. Additionally they dont get FNP

They don't need FNP. They are T5 and can jink. Did I mention relentless?

If you are playing ravenwing, you can reroll those jinks, and you get AUTO-JINK on turn 1. You don't even have to snapfire on the following shooting phase.

It is funny, I think back when I ran a MUD (multi-user dungeon) a long time ago.
The players constantly tried to break and exploit things.
I had to get a friend to help with patches and re-writes and we thought for a while the players were the worst kind of TFG.
We got really good at what we did, it was hard work and in response to their pushing the limits.
Those same gosh-darn irritating people wound up telling us we were awesome and they had a lot of fun.

The natural response to irritating, OP, game breaking "exploits" is to patch them if it is not the intention of the game host/developer.
GW seems OK with this, this is the game as it is intended to be played like it or not.

I will even take broken rules over ill-defined, un-written "guidelines" determined by someone who thinks they know what is right in a game: you have an invested interest, you are automatically biased.

The saving grace for both of us is we do not have to agree to play each other.
In a forum luckily, there are no losers or winners, just differing opinion and facts.

Traditio wrote:

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," then yes, he is probably TFG.

Do you really contest this point?

Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

Because, again, I've been in that situation, and had perfectly enjoyable games despite my opponent's army being hideous.

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," and is a donkey-cave, then yes, he is probably TFG.

Just having said list, though? Nope. 'Probably' is vastly overstating it.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," then yes, he is probably TFG.

Do you really contest this point?

Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

Because, again, I've been in that situation, and had perfectly enjoyable games despite my opponent's army being hideous.

If someone shows up with a list in a casual game, against a complete stranger, with a list that is publicly acknowledged to be OP, and if he is perfectly aware of this fact, and, furthermore, takes absolutely no steps to "balance things out," and is a donkey-cave, then yes, he is probably TFG.

Just having said list, though? Nope. 'Probably' is vastly overstating it.

QFT

boils down to if you openly admit its cheese IMO, and dont try and say its not

insaniak wrote:Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

At the very least, do you admit that it displays a less than ideal sense of justice?

Because, again, I've been in that situation, and had perfectly enjoyable games despite my opponent's army being hideous.

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Why wasn't he willing to balance things out?

Why wasn't he willing to run a CAD?

Why wasn't he willing to let you have a points advantage?

Why wasn't he willing to impose some kind of nerf on himself for the sake of fairness?

If the answer is:

"Because I just can't bring myself to nerf myself and play at a lower power level than what my codex absolutely permits," then yes, he's TFG, at least in some sense.

Note, there are degrees of TFG. He could be a positive riot at parties, for example. He could be a fantastic social acquaintance.

But when it comes to competitive (and probably cooperative games), his head ain't on just quite right.

Just having said list, though? Nope. 'Probably' is vastly overstating it.

See, this is why I really think we should do a poll. I don't know what questions we could put in it. But again, I do know that, in point of fact, there's an inordinate number of psychopathic/sociopathic CEOs and managers.

I see no reason why the same principle shouldn't apply to table top gaming.

Traditio wrote:

At the very least, do you admit that it displays a less than ideal sense of justice?

No, I think it displays a bunch of toy soldiers, chosen legally from a list of toy soldiers that can be used in a game of science fantasy space opera heroics.

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Sure, you do that.

While you're doing that, I'll be playing toy soldiers.


Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

 insaniak wrote:
Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

QFT
I am responsible for myself.
It is rather presumptuous to demand "accommodation" from others.
My fondest memories are of tough games well played and yes, even ones I lost.
Sometimes delivering a black eye to a tough list is enough.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Yes, absolutely I contest that point.

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Why wasn't he willing to balance things out?

Why wasn't he willing to run a CAD?

Why wasn't he willing to let you have a points advantage?

Why wasn't he willing to impose some kind of nerf on himself for the sake of fairness?

If the answer is:

"Because I just can't bring myself to nerf myself and play at a lower power level than what my codex absolutely permits," then yes, he's TFG, at least in some sense.

The problem is you assume that the person with a higher power level of list is somehow obligated to tone down their list.

Yes.

Traditio wrote:
Yes.

100% incorrect. The person with the underpowered army should learn to tone it up, or pick a new army. That's the way the cookie crumbles in today's society. We don't weaken to be on par with the weakest link, we either strengthen that link or get rid of it all together. Looking kinda fragile there, friend.

 insaniak wrote:

At this point, I simply have to start asking questions about his motivations.

Sure, you do that.

While you're doing that, I'll be playing toy soldiers.


Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

This. It's a fething game, and I'm getting awfully sick of the accusations and bullgak flying around over something as stupid as what faction I picked. The implications that I had malicious intent, that I'm antisocial or that I lack morals or I'm otherwise not a good person because when I was buying into this stupid miniatures game ten years ago, I picked Tau, which have remained my favorite army ever since, and I refuse to shelve them permanently or sell them on eBay like people tell me I should because GW fethed up the rules.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:100% incorrect. The person with the underpowered army should learn to tone it up, or pick a new army. That's the way the cookie crumbles in today's society. We don't weaken to be on par with the weakest link, we either strengthen that link or get rid of it all together. Looking kinda fragile there, friend.

Well, that's one attitude to have.

I wouldn't play someone with your attitude, but hey. That's an attitude to have, guy.

A lot of the issue here also seems to revolve around the idea that list strength is the sole criteria for winning games.

Even in 40K, that's not really the case. I've seen plenty of people lose games with strong lists... and had my butt kicked by good players with weak armies.

If you're having so much trouble having an enjoyable game against certain armies that you're automatically branding anyone using those armies as a horrible person, maybe looking at your own strategies would be a more productive use of time than running around slapping labels on people?

insaniak wrote:Seriously, we're talking about a game here. You don't need to know what your opponent's motivations were for starting Eldar. If he's friendly, has an army, and wants to play a game, there should be no good reason you can't have a good time.

It's a game that:

1. Requires a huge time, effort and monetary commitment to play

and that:

2. takes a feth load of time to play.

If I wanted to beat my head against a wall for 3 hours, there are cheaper and more pleasant ways of so doing, and don't require me to drive for half an hour or more to reach a place with suitable tables.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
A lot of the issue here also seems to revolve around the idea that list strength is the sole criteria for winning games.

It's not. But nowadays, it's the primary component.

That's how skewed this game is.

Even in 40K, that's not really the case. I've seen plenty of people lose games with strong lists... and had my butt kicked by good players with weak armies.

That's the exception, not the rule.

If you're having so much trouble having an enjoyable game against certain armies that you're automatically branding anyone using those armies as a horrible person, maybe looking at your own strategies would be a more productive use of time than running around slapping labels on people?

I don't want to brand these people as horrible people. I do wish to cast serious doubt on their motivations for playing the game in the manner that they play it, but I don't necessarily want to accuse them of being horrible people.

My friend can be a donkey cave when it comes to games.

I am still delighted to consider him a friend of mien.

Traditio wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:100% incorrect. The person with the underpowered army should learn to tone it up, or pick a new army. That's the way the cookie crumbles in today's society. We don't weaken to be on par with the weakest link, we either strengthen that link or get rid of it all together. Looking kinda fragile there, friend.

Well, that's one attitude to have.

I wouldn't play someone with your attitude, but hey. That's an attitude to have, guy.

Eh, plenty of people to play. Just simply stating how you can't expect it one way and not the other. Don't push if you can't be shoved

Traditio wrote:
It's a game that:

1. Requires a huge time, effort and monetary commitment to play

and that:

2. takes a feth load of time to play.

If I wanted to beat my head against a wall for 3 hours, there are cheaper and more pleasant ways of so doing, and don't require me to drive for half an hour or more to reach a place with suitable tables.

OK. That's a good argument for choosing to not play against certain types of lists.

It's not a good argument for labelling anyone with those lists a horrible person.

It's not. But nowadays, it's the primary component.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

It's something that people have been saying for as long as I've been playing this game (and that's about 20 years now), and as far as I've seen it's no more true now than it was back then.

That's the exception, not the rule.

Ah, ok.

So, just to confirm: Your anecdotal evidence of a single friend with a bad attitude is enough for you to brand every single Tau or Eldar player as TFG, but my anecdotal evidence, from observations over two decades of playing this game against a fairly broad array of different opponents is clearly not typical?

I don't want to brand these people as horrible people. I do wish to cast serious doubt on their motivations for playing the game in the manner that they play it,

Why?

Being named Ravenous D is a good start, evidently.

Martel732 wrote:
Being named Ravenous D is a good start, evidently.

You got problems buddy.