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.

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.

You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.

Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.

Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?

A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Big Mac wrote:
Like most things, its probably half truth. You already said your opponents doesn't like to play against you, so you either tone down your minmax list or find other players that run minmax lists. If you can't find any, then you are left with 1 option, which is to tone down your WAAC list and play a more friendlier RPG list, if you can't or don't want to do that, then play another game.

TFG isn't about your list, or wins, its the attitude, attempt to cheat for their benefit, rule lawyer beyond the average. From your OP, you seem like a WAAC tourney player, so I suggest you find and play others trying to do the same, not bashing your friend's RPG list.

Why are you assuming that there are "RPG lists" involved, rather than just bad players? Nothing at all in any of the OP's posts suggests that their opponents are playing extremely lore-friendly lists that lose because they sacrifice on-table performance to meet some fluff goal. This seems like yet another case of assuming that if a list or player is bad at winning then they must be "narrative" players with an awesome story behind everything, not just bad at the game.

I agree with Peregrine: The opponents are probably venting or complaining of being beaten.

I mean, blood letter demons and World Eater Marine's and that is considered TFG? I'm sorry, but if I overheard that I'd call them out on their amazingly ignorant statement.
While it's important to help people learn and to ensure enjoyment, it's the responsibility of BOTH players to understand the rules, know their armies abilities etc. Getting all butthurt over getting stomped by an assault army because you refuse to adapt is not anyone else's fault but your own.

It speaks volumes when a well thought out list is considered min-maxing and their random assortment of units is explained away as either fluff or RPG lists - but is probably in all honestly a bad list, using units just gotten because reasons.

It just strikes me of the age old argument "a coherent list won a no thought list and the looser is salty accusing the winner of TFG while the actual reason is the losing list was just bad or played badly"

LunaWolvesLoyalist wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Frankly, from your attitude here, I can absolutely see why some see you as TFG.

You don't seem "almost aggressive", you are insulting your friends and acting in a very aloof and arrogant way with their "inability to get the rules". If you have a stronger grasp of the rules than your friends, help them learn the game, don't just smash them and then gloat about their inability on the internet.

Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.

I can understand your point. It is in the rules.

That said, switching to a new edition takes some time, also the turn 1 alpha strike CC monster list for 8th is a bit TFG just because there are not a lot of ways to deal with it.

But hey, I play Thousand sons in 30k so what do I know? lol

If he's losing more games then he's winning is the problem really his list?

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.

You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.

Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.

Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.

Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?

A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.

You only see it as condescending because you are a highly competitive person, I find that casual players who just want to have a fun game often have no issue playing games like that. Further, choosing not to infiltrate my units is not forgetting anything it is making a choice not to play in a certain way. If I am playing a casual player, who tells me they want a light fun game, and all I have is my hardcore list I don't think it is showing zero respect to say to them, well I only have this super hard list, are you ok if I play x points down to try to make this a better game? IF they say no, then you don't play points down, then if they get stomped that is on them, if they get stomped quickly maybe you re-rack points down and play again.

As for the burden....yes it is on the better player to ensure the experience of the not as good player. That is the only way you are getting a good game, you cannot control the actions of another person. SO either you don't play that person, or you adjust your play to make it a good game. Playing them repeatedly and stomping them (unless they enjoy getting stomped) is being TFG.

Sure the ideal way to handle it is to have "soft" lists for when you don't play competitive players, but you didn't want to spend extra money and only owned your hardcore list

. You also miss the point that it isn't about the other player getting to win, it is about them getting to enjoy the game. IF your hard core list is - turn 1 I assault your whole army with Khorne berserkers and you remove it from the table. That isn't a fun game. If you are actually a good player you will recognize that it won't be a good game when you see your opponents army or at worst deployment.

The bottom line is - you can never have control over other people and their choices. So you either, only play people who have the same attitude toward the game that you do, adjust your style of play to the player you are facing, or you are TFG, and that may mean people don't want to play against you.

Another solution is to find other players who know the rules. I think you should not have to change your army to make them happy. I remember when I first started playing... I won exactly two games the first six months - then things started to click and I began winning more often. I then started to receive complaints about my army. They were more than happy to consistently beat me all those months, they never changed up their lists to make it any easier for me. I found a new group of players and never looked back.

 Primark G wrote:
Another solution is to find other players who know the rules. I think you should not have to change your army to make them happy. I remember when I first started playing... I won exactly two games the first six months - then things started to click and I began winning more often. I then started to receive complaints about my army. They were more than happy to consistently beat me all those months, they never changed up their lists to make it any easier for me. I found a new group of players and never looked back.

Absolutely, if your group isn't to your liking finding another group is probably the best choice for your happiness.

Breng77 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.

You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.

Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.

Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.

Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?

A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.

You only see it as condescending because you are a highly competitive person, I find that casual players who just want to have a fun game often have no issue playing games like that. Further, choosing not to infiltrate my units is not forgetting anything it is making a choice not to play in a certain way. If I am playing a casual player, who tells me they want a light fun game, and all I have is my hardcore list I don't think it is showing zero respect to say to them, well I only have this super hard list, are you ok if I play x points down to try to make this a better game? IF they say no, then you don't play points down, then if they get stomped that is on them, if they get stomped quickly maybe you re-rack points down and play again.

As for the burden....yes it is on the better player to ensure the experience of the not as good player. That is the only way you are getting a good game, you cannot control the actions of another person. SO either you don't play that person, or you adjust your play to make it a good game. Playing them repeatedly and stomping them (unless they enjoy getting stomped) is being TFG.

Sure the ideal way to handle it is to have "soft" lists for when you don't play competitive players, but you didn't want to spend extra money and only owned your hardcore list

. You also miss the point that it isn't about the other player getting to win, it is about them getting to enjoy the game. IF your hard core list is - turn 1 I assault your whole army with Khorne berserkers and you remove it from the table. That isn't a fun game. If you are actually a good player you will recognize that it won't be a good game when you see your opponents army or at worst deployment.

The bottom line is - you can never have control over other people and their choices. So you either, only play people who have the same attitude toward the game that you do, adjust your style of play to the player you are facing, or you are TFG, and that may mean people don't want to play against you.

You guys are aware, that IQ curve bell is a thing, right? Genetic/epigenetic, nature or nurture discussion aside, there is an observable discrepancy in functional inteligence in the world and there are no "entry tests" into 40K, so there are people all over this curve in our community. What some people find "trivial and uncomplicated" in 40K some find borderline challenging.

One other thing - I agree, that 40K is relatively easy game, but it is not tic-tac-toe trivial. As in any game, proficiency comes with experience. It may come from direct tabletop mileage, it may come from endless hours of watching batreps and mathhammering things. But from what I see, there is a very strong belief in this community, that playing only a couple times a year counts as "being an invested player". Many people have a hard time memorising their own faction stats and rules at first and for even "solid entry level" proficiency you need to understand not only how your own army work, but also how your opponent army work. In the world of random pickup games dozen times a year it is very common to have just a single game against some particular faction under your belt. I call it no practical experience at all... Add in a mix of "lore bias" (every codex depicts a faction as bordearline awesome), "instant gratification culture" and in effect you have absurd proliferation of unrealistic expectations within 40K community.

@OP: you call not reading 8 pages of rules "lazy", but there is HUGE difference in relative understanding how this game works between someone who does not read dakka on a daily basis and someone who just picks up their collection of painted minis once a week and head to FLGS to have a game. From what I see from discussion in this tread you are not "an interwebz scale of TFG", but locally you seem to be way ahead the rest of your friends in involvement into 40K. Perhaps it is time for you to step up and find other people to play against, that are on more adequate level? Or as others suggested, embrace a teacher's role?

Bharring wrote:

Another guy I play regularly usually beats me. And has a massive gamer's inch. I'll get rocked, but we'll both have a fun time.

I don't know what this means.

Breng77 wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.

If there is any genetic component to playing Warhammer 40k, it would be a factor in less than 1% of 1% of games, which is to say that it's a non-factor. While some people may be more capable than others at learning or picking up the game, such differences are almost entirely going to be the result of other factors, such as level of interest, socio-economic standing, and experience. In other words, it's more likely for a rich kid who has gone to good schools and had the safety to learn valuable lessons from good parents to win a game than a less fortunate child who hasn't received much education and learned bad lessons that do not provide them with proper life skills. Saying that someone is more or less able to a significant degree based on their genetics is disrespecting that person's and not acknowledging the challenges they and/or their family has faced to have the pleasure of having a match against you.

Breng77 wrote:

Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component.

You're pushing a rope uphill, dude. There are 3 constants in life. Death. Taxes. Enjoying something that Peregrine doesn't means you're wrong.

Don't waste the key strokes.

nou wrote:
You guys are aware, that IQ curve bell is a thing, right? Genetic/epigenetic, nature or nurture discussion aside, there is an observable discrepancy in functional inteligence in the world and there are no "entry tests" into 40K, so there are people all over this curve in our community. What some people find "trivial and uncomplicated" in 40K some find borderline challenging.

One other thing - I agree, that 40K is relatively easy game, but it is not tic-tac-toe trivial. As in any game, proficiency comes with experience. It may come from direct tabletop mileage, it may come from endless hours of watching batreps and mathhammering things. But from what I see, there is a very strong belief in this community, that playing only a couple times a year counts as "being an invested player". Many people have a hard time memorising their own faction stats and rules at first and for even "solid entry level" proficiency you need to understand not only how your own army work, but also how your opponent army work. In the world of random pickup games dozen times a year it is very common to have just a single game against some particular faction under your belt. I call it no practical experience at all... Add in a mix of "lore bias" (every codex depicts a faction as bordearline awesome), "instant gratification culture" and in effect you have absurd proliferation of unrealistic expectations within 40K community.

@OP: you call not reading 8 pages of rules "lazy", but there is HUGE difference in relative understanding how this game works between someone who does not read dakka on a daily basis and someone who just picks up their collection of painted minis once a week and head to FLGS to have a game. From what I see from discussion in this tread you are not "an interwebz scale of TFG", but locally you seem to be way ahead the rest of your friends in involvement into 40K. Perhaps it is time for you to step up and find other people to play against, that are on more adequate level? Or as others suggested, embrace a teacher's role?

Not to mention people simply don't enjoy playing style being super competive requires. I literally puke at the idea of playing lists you can see on competive games. Unless 40k rule system changes radically enough that by some miracle competive lists go around the style of armies I enjoy the look of I won't be winning in competive games. Not worth paying money to buy armies to play with that only make me puke.

 Yarium wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.

If there is any genetic component to playing Warhammer 40k, it would be a factor in less than 1% of 1% of games, which is to say that it's a non-factor. While some people may be more capable than others at learning or picking up the game, such differences are almost entirely going to be the result of other factors, such as level of interest, socio-economic standing, and experience. In other words, it's more likely for a rich kid who has gone to good schools and had the safety to learn valuable lessons from good parents to win a game than a less fortunate child who hasn't received much education and learned bad lessons that do not provide them with proper life skills. Saying that someone is more or less able to a significant degree based on their genetics is disrespecting that person's and not acknowledging the challenges they and/or their family has faced to have the pleasure of having a match against you.

I don't think the genetic component is as small as you think it is. I agree experience and interest level play a higher role, but most people playing this game are not in a place where they are effected hugely by socio-economic standard (either they are in a situation where mom and dad had/have enough money to afford the game, or they themselves have earned their way there in either case they have little to blame on socio-economy in this case). That said people learn in different ways, and so saying that someone who learns by doing, rather than by reading is in the same boat as the opposite if we say neither plays very often is just not true. IQ is a real thing, it doesn't make it such that your average person cannot become good or better at the game, but it will take the other person more effort. The same is true with talent in sports. It is not disrespecting anyone to acknowledge that some people are more predisposed to learning new things than other are, no more so than saying some people are able to dunk a basket ball and others cannot or will have to work considerably harder to do so. Our society is far too caught up in the idea that anyone can do anything if they only try really hard. It simply isn't true. As far as that applies to 40k there are some people that can never even learn to play the game, fewer that can become truly good. Now I will say that war gaming and gaming in general tends to attract mostly higher IQ people, so it typically is not the largest factor to success, but if we are making the assumption that some people don't play all that often, they won't be as good as those who do. Especially if they are not quick at picking up on rules.

tneva82 wrote:

nou wrote:
You guys are aware, that IQ curve bell is a thing, right? Genetic/epigenetic, nature or nurture discussion aside, there is an observable discrepancy in functional inteligence in the world and there are no "entry tests" into 40K, so there are people all over this curve in our community. What some people find "trivial and uncomplicated" in 40K some find borderline challenging.

One other thing - I agree, that 40K is relatively easy game, but it is not tic-tac-toe trivial. As in any game, proficiency comes with experience. It may come from direct tabletop mileage, it may come from endless hours of watching batreps and mathhammering things. But from what I see, there is a very strong belief in this community, that playing only a couple times a year counts as "being an invested player". Many people have a hard time memorising their own faction stats and rules at first and for even "solid entry level" proficiency you need to understand not only how your own army work, but also how your opponent army work. In the world of random pickup games dozen times a year it is very common to have just a single game against some particular faction under your belt. I call it no practical experience at all... Add in a mix of "lore bias" (every codex depicts a faction as bordearline awesome), "instant gratification culture" and in effect you have absurd proliferation of unrealistic expectations within 40K community.

@OP: you call not reading 8 pages of rules "lazy", but there is HUGE difference in relative understanding how this game works between someone who does not read dakka on a daily basis and someone who just picks up their collection of painted minis once a week and head to FLGS to have a game. From what I see from discussion in this tread you are not "an interwebz scale of TFG", but locally you seem to be way ahead the rest of your friends in involvement into 40K. Perhaps it is time for you to step up and find other people to play against, that are on more adequate level? Or as others suggested, embrace a teacher's role?

Not to mention people simply don't enjoy playing style being super competive requires. I literally puke at the idea of playing lists you can see on competive games. Unless 40k rule system changes radically enough that by some miracle competive lists go around the style of armies I enjoy the look of I won't be winning in competive games. Not worth paying money to buy armies to play with that only make me puke.

True. You can have huge difference in game understanding between casual players, one of which has all the necessary knowledge to "go competetive" but just chooses to play fluffy armies or likes a challange of playing underdog units and squeeze "maximum effort" out of himself vs someone, who has all the minis from latest netlist but doesn't understand how exactly 8th ed morale works or what are 7th ed deathstars good for and looses by objectives, because he is just a casual, weekend player that read too much "meta gossip".

The only thing that true competetive level assures is that you HAVE to know all this stuff and have to use "well built tournament list" to not be behind the curve. So in effect it does flatten the curve a little by something akin to "entry test", and if you loose it's entirely your fault (or bad luck) because you know what you're getting into. In effect it does provide a somewhat "healthier" environment for "sworn competetive players". Narrative/casual players do not have a luxury of having such "self organised environment" and must rely on personal social skills to assure pleasurable experience. And as we all know, the last thing we can say about 40K community as a whole is that it is socially well-evolved and made out of perfectly inter-personally skillfull individuals...

 kronk wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component.

You're pushing a rope uphill, dude. There are 3 constants in life. Death. Taxes. Enjoying something that Peregrine doesn't means you're wrong.

Don't waste the key strokes.

Dammit dude I just spit coffee all over my monitor.

The entire crux of why I so dislike people saying they should handicap their game to "match" fluff-play is there is no balance mechanic, no written rules to do that: they are playing a different game than the rules as written and stubbornly cannot/will-not define it but expect others to read their minds.
It all seems to boil down to "If I lose, you were TFG, if I win, it was because I played the game as intended."

On the topic of aptitude and intelligence to win at 40k:On the topic of the responsibility of the "better" player to ensure a good time:Part of teaching a new person is to demonstrate how to play well.

It is important to show good sportsmanship, to teach, to make it fun and not too serious through interaction while playing the game since it IS a social hobby.
The most sportsmanlike "handicap" you can give is to remind your opponent when they miss things, to genuinely help them, let them take back a move if they just remember part way through their turn an error they made.
The game's design provides the opportunity for anyone to win a game, it is not the responsibility for your opponent to give one to you however.
With any win or loss there is an opportunity to identify what worked and what did not.

We all will eventually have to agree to disagree but I genuinely think "bad games make bad players", expect more and the game will get better, not worse.
For those who cannot be bothered to learn the game: you get out of it what you put into it.
I will not support lazy people who will not respect people's valuable hobby time and am more than happy to give them a pass for their lack of caring.

 Talizvar wrote:
The entire crux of why I so dislike people saying they should handicap their game to "match" fluff-play is there is no balance mechanic, no written rules to do that: they are playing a different game than the rules as written and stubbornly cannot/will-not define it but expect others to read their minds.
It all seems to boil down to "If I lose, you were TFG, if I win, it was because I played the game as intended."

On the topic of aptitude and intelligence to win at 40k:

Spoiler:

Breng77 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with your assertion that there are no genetic components/practice components to being good at the game. That is a simple
Falsehood. While the Lebron comparison is a bit of a stretch it speaks to the same situation where one player may be far more skilled than the other. Which is something that obviously true. Some people have the time to play 5 games a week others are lucky to get that in 5 months, to expect them to have equal skills and lists is silly.

You can try to disagree, but you're wrong. There is no genetic component to 40k skill, other than having a minimum level of intelligence, and the skill ceiling is low by design. GW has made deliberate choices to reduce the impact of skill, and close the gap between the best players and the average players. And a majority of success comes from list construction and broad strategic objectives, where there is an abundance of advice on the internet and it's incredibly easy to netlist something that will be effective. Once you pass a fairly low skill threshold you can play 40k at a reasonably high level, a goal that is achievable by anyone willing to invest at all in the game. The few players who aren't willing to put in even a token effort are going to lose no matter what you do to help them.

Sorry but you are wrong, there is absolutely a genetic component. For instance when I started this game, before I ever knew that websites like Dakka existed etc, I did so with a few friends of mine. We all played the same amount of games, no one spent a ton more time with rules, no one had way more models etc. I still won most of the time because I can easily read and absorb new information, and I could more easily read what their strategies were on the table, and come up with better plans. I wasn't some amazing player when I first went out to play more experienced players I got stomped, but I had the edge against players with similar experience. In order for those players to "catch-up" they would have had to work harder than I was to reach the same level. So in the case where one player gets to practice the same or more than other players due to life circumstances, skill gaps will exist and it is unreasonable to say "well you just need to spend more of your time on this hobby otherwise it isn't fun for me." Life just doesn't allow for all people to do that. The belief that there are no factors like genetics and experience is a myth that allows all people to believe that maybe if they just worked a bit harder they too could be Adepticon champion, and for some people that is true, but it likely isn't realistic for most. There are reasons why you see plenty of "net lists" on the bottom tables at tournaments losing all their games.

I would have to say that it is easier to not be an expert at the game and have a chance of winning.
A newbie has zero chance of beating an expert in chess because it is a purely decision based game with no element of chance.
40k has rolling of dice for EVERYTHING except your army selection so most decisions are based on increasing your odds / reducing risk.

On the topic of the responsibility of the "better" player to ensure a good time:

Spoiler:

Further you talk About expense, it costs the good player nothing to bring say 1500 points of their list to a 2k game, or to play with a different chapter, or not infiltrate your alpha legion and assault turn 1 etc. all of that is free, which is not something you can say for someone lacking the models in their list to compete, or lacking the practice with their army to make the best decisions at every turn.

Deliberately throwing a game by doing things like playing 500 points down or "forgetting" to use key abilities is an incredibly condescending way to treat people, and arguably TFG behavior. If you tell someone you're only going to play with 1500 points to their 2000 points it's a direct statement that you have zero respect for them as a player and are so certain of victory that you don't even have to pretend to try. And it still puts the entire burden on the "competitive" player. They have to figure out how much to reduce their list, how many rules to overlook, which chapter rules would be weak enough, etc, while the "casual" player gets to play exactly how they want. Why is there not a matching obligation for the "casual" player to use a chapter with stronger rules, use a different deployment strategy, etc?
A more realistic and respectful way of handling the situation is to bring a less-optimized but still legitimate list, and play it legitimately. And that means paying a lot of extra models for the ability to do that, on top of all the list building and strategic effort required to tone it down just enough to make the game interesting. It is unfair to place that entire burden on one player while the other doesn't have to do anything but whine about how unfair it is that they don't get to win.

You only see it as condescending because you are a highly competitive person, I find that casual players who just want to have a fun game often have no issue playing games like that. Further, choosing not to infiltrate my units is not forgetting anything it is making a choice not to play in a certain way. If I am playing a casual player, who tells me they want a light fun game, and all I have is my hardcore list I don't think it is showing zero respect to say to them, well I only have this super hard list, are you ok if I play x points down to try to make this a better game? IF they say no, then you don't play points down, then if they get stomped that is on them, if they get stomped quickly maybe you re-rack points down and play again.
As for the burden....yes it is on the better player to ensure the experience of the not as good player. That is the only way you are getting a good game, you cannot control the actions of another person. SO either you don't play that person, or you adjust your play to make it a good game. Playing them repeatedly and stomping them (unless they enjoy getting stomped) is being TFG.
Sure the ideal way to handle it is to have "soft" lists for when you don't play competitive players, but you didn't want to spend extra money and only owned your hardcore list
. You also miss the point that it isn't about the other player getting to win, it is about them getting to enjoy the game. IF your hard core list is - turn 1 I assault your whole army with Khorne berserkers and you remove it from the table. That isn't a fun game. If you are actually a good player you will recognize that it won't be a good game when you see your opponents army or at worst deployment.
The bottom line is - you can never have control over other people and their choices. So you either, only play people who have the same attitude toward the game that you do, adjust your style of play to the player you are facing, or you are TFG, and that may mean people don't want to play against you.

]As was stated, you cannot know how the game will play itself out or how well the person is going to do so all the suggestions of not deep-striking is silly since they occur early on in the game so it is also an obvious handicap ploy.
For example: I taught my wife how to play cribbage and on her first game she double-skunked me (lost horribly and I never had it happen before) on her first game, she was pulling near perfect hands.

Part of teaching a new person is to demonstrate how to play well.

It is important to show good sportsmanship, to teach, to make it fun and not too serious through interaction while playing the game since it IS a social hobby.
The most sportsmanlike "handicap" you can give is to remind your opponent when they miss things, to genuinely help them, let them take back a move if they just remember part way through their turn an error they made.
The game's design provides the opportunity for anyone to win a game, it is not the responsibility for your opponent to give one to you however.
With any win or loss there is an opportunity to identify what worked and what did not.

We all will eventually have to agree to disagree but I genuinely think "bad games make bad players", expect more and the game will get better, not worse.
For those who cannot be bothered to learn the game: you get out of it what you put into it.
I will not support lazy people who will not respect people's valuable hobby time and am more than happy to give them a pass for their lack of caring.

Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time. Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army. While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter, it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not, and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun. It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice, but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.

The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit. If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players, if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn, but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.

The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players. So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning. Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.

My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.

Thats a big part of the problem many people have with 40k and GW games in general.

Even if you're able to git gud at list buildiing, the meta shifts all the time. So you constantly have to keep spending money to git gud and keep your list optimized, often times sacrificing models and units you like for stuff you don't really like but is more mathematically viable.

If you have to ask yourself that ... then maybe you are?

I would say that if you win most matches against your friends, you should consider nerfing your list until you win about 50% of the time. There is a lack of balance in 40k and since this is a game, and both players should enjoy playing it, winning all the time may lead your freinds to not want to play you. A loose loose scenario. You will also find that if you challenge yourself instead of looking for the win button, you will improve as a player.

 sennacherib wrote:
If you have to ask yourself that ... then maybe you are?

I would say that if you win most matches against your friends, you should consider nerfing your list until you win about 50% of the time. There is a lack of balance in 40k and since this is a game, and both players should enjoy playing it, winning all the time may lead your freinds to not want to play you. A loose loose scenario. You will also find that if you challenge yourself instead of looking for the win button, you will improve as a player.

I really don't understand this "50-50" win to lose ratio as a meaningfull metrics... People's skill vary, 40K on any level is not entirely about list building (we might debate on how large armies power level discrepancy skill can actually make up for...) and in times of popular netlists you can actually see mirror-matched games that do not have 50-50 rematch results, because one player is objectively worse than the other at actually PLAYING. And in FLGS situation, having enough matches with a single person for large enough sample to measure performance can be hard to achieve, while having 50-50 win-to-lose ratio against "whole local community" doesn't mean anything for particular pairing with a real person. And such self-hindering lasting long enough will actually worsen one's tournament performance, just as in any "sport-like" activity.

I agree, that 40K is social game and both players should enjoy it, but let just stop pretending, that mutual fun is achievable in any pairing and in any scenario. We clearly see a division between "fluff bunnies", "narrative players" and "competetive folk" even in this very thread. I, for one, cannot see myself having any fun in actually meeting Peregrine at the table, no matter our lists or competetiveness of the event (vide recent thread about what constitutes a good narrative event)... Our approach is simply not compatible. The only scenario, where you have to adapt or perish is if you simply don't have anyone else to play with and your choice is "bad game or no game". And even then "no game" is often much healthier choice...

Sounds like you are stomping (or surprising them with nasty combos) your friends to "punish" them for not "reading their rulebooks thoroughly". That's TFG behavior.

There is nothing wrong with playing hard and bringing your best, but issues will arise when expectations are broken between players. If one person brings different expectations to the game than the other - feelings get hurt. Communication is important, and not communicating is TFG behavior.

The idea that it is never wrong to bring as strong a list as possible is one I also don't buy. Monetary resources might limit what your opponent can field. Furthermore, it is reasonable to ask concessions of your opponent to have a fairer and funner game. It is reasonable to ask for concessions when you are competing against an Olympic athlete, for example, with their specialized gear, when you are not at that level. It's also fair to try your best regardless - but feeling like you want a fairer and funner game is a valid and acceptable feeling.

As for this "genetic advantage" idea, rather than tediously slog through a reply to every post since I went to bed I'll just point out one very significant fact: the discussion here immediately, as it inevitably does in TFG threads, centered around list strength as the primary factor. Not superior skill or clever strategies that were beyond the OP's opponents and their limited intelligence, simple list strength. Your list is probably too strong, tone down your list, your opponents are probably playing RPG lists, etc. Even people who think that the OP is TFG implicitly agree with the idea that making a good list is the primary factor in winning at 40k. And if we accept that premise then it's blatantly unfair to expect one player to spend the effort and money to modify their list, while acting like the other player is morally superior and entitled to play the game exactly the way they want without being forced to make any changes.

 Peregrine wrote:
As for this "genetic advantage" idea, rather than tediously slog through a reply to every post since I went to bed I'll just point out one very significant fact: the discussion here immediately, as it inevitably does in TFG threads, centered around list strength as the primary factor. Not superior skill or clever strategies that were beyond the OP's opponents and their limited intelligence, simple list strength. Your list is probably too strong, tone down your list, your opponents are probably playing RPG lists, etc. Even people who think that the OP is TFG implicitly agree with the idea that making a good list is the primary factor in winning at 40k. And if we accept that premise then it's blatantly unfair to expect one player to spend the effort and money to modify their list, while acting like the other player is morally superior and entitled to play the game exactly the way they want without being forced to make any changes.

I'd agree with that. My biggest recent lost was getting curb stomped by what I'd consider a fluffy non power gamer list, the guys we played were just better at the game than us.

When playing friends or playing in a tournament with a player rating system I always tone down the list strength, more so than some others against certain people I know, because they just aren't good at the game, and haven't bothered learning in more than a decade of play. I only bring the cheese if I'm in a tournament without a player rating system these days, as I'm expecting everybody else to bring the cheese. If they don't, tough.

A melee heavy army already has an obvious counter... Shooting.

But, since the OP has his concerns, perhaps play a little differently. Im not a great player by far, but if I can tell my opponent is no longer having fun, I i lighten up, I take more risk/reward decisions, I'll even offer them suggestions mid-game on what to target, what to shoot, what to ignore etc.

I also play Orks and CSM so being the bad guys, I always expect to lose anyway.

I play chess a lot with my GF during the summers. (It's nice to sit outside with her in the nice weather)
When we first started playing together, very often I would pause after she made a move and simply ask her "Are you sure you want to do that?"
After looking over the board for a bit, then finding the problem on her own, she would make a new move.
As time went on, I've asked/had to ask her less and less to the point I really don't need to anymore as our skill levels are pretty much even now.

Giving her the opportunity to find her mistake and choose a different course of action didn't take away any fun from the game and it helped her learn better strategy and become a better player skill-wise (she's even gotten quite sneaky sometimes)

Breng77 wrote:
Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.

Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.

Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.

Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.

While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,

Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.

it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,

It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.

and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.

This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").

It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,

As with any game, this is our hobby after all.

but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.

As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.

The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better

List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.

if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.

My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.

If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,

That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.

if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,

Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?

but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.

Any close game is fun for all.

The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.

I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.

So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.

But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?

Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.

My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.

My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.

You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.

 kronk wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Another guy I play regularly usually beats me. And has a massive gamer's inch. I'll get rocked, but we'll both have a fun time.

I don't know what this means.

I would also like to know what this is and where you get one.

Gamer's inch: inaccurately measuring distances. Commonly seen during movement. Literally: the extra "inch" added to every measurement due to various factors. Examples include measuring front of base to rear of base during movement, measuring distance to a point on the table and putting models "near there", rushing the movement of a large unit of models such that the rearmost models end up moving more than their intended move, sometimes by a large amount.

In a tournament setting this is considered cheating, but in casual settings calling out such behavior can result in your being labelled TFG, a WAAC player, or just general derided for adding friction to the game, often by the offending player. While one should be a little forgiving of minor deviations in measurement, it gets pretty challenging to forgive gamer inches that begin to extend well beyond actual measurements (moving 13.5" instead of 12", for instance, though a combination of foreward edge to rear edge and poor eyeballing of distance.)

I myself would have to disagree with those calling you a douche.
All your comments have been reasonable with your explanations.

If you play a game spend 100+$ on it and dont read the rules then call out someone else for being unfun, you are infact a moron!

The onus is not on you to be a super incredible guy teaching someone else old enough to spend cash on a game they want to play to read the actual rules!!!

To be brutally honest i would be pissed off if i was you with a 5/12 record and some numbty ragequits turn 1 because he is infact a moron who doesnt read rules and then complains about me to my face!!

So yeh totally disagree with some others on here!!
There is good sportmanship but it goes both ways, being rude enough to quit turn1 and then say your to blame isnt good sportsmanship.

I also think attacking a guy asking for opinions who is being honest and in no way did i read any insult in your comments towards others, pretty poor form TBH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ryzouken wrote:
Gamer's inch: inaccurately measuring distances. Commonly seen during movement. Literally: the extra "inch" added to every measurement due to various factors. Examples include measuring front of base to rear of base during movement, measuring distance to a point on the table and putting models "near there", rushing the movement of a large unit of models such that the rearmost models end up moving more than their intended move, sometimes by a large amount.

In a tournament setting this is considered cheating, but in casual settings calling out such behavior can result in your being labelled TFG, a WAAC player, or just general derided for adding friction to the game, often by the offending player. While one should be a little forgiving of minor deviations in measurement, it gets pretty challenging to forgive gamer inches that begin to extend well beyond actual measurements (moving 13.5" instead of 12", for instance, though a combination of foreward edge to rear edge and poor eyeballing of distance.)

Ah did that myself in a game/tourny a few months ago, yeh the movement was huge think i was measuring front to back as you said above. Felt like a right tool been out of the game so long all my measuring was and probably still is abit suspect. Lmao its amazing how easy all the strategy and tactics come back but doing a legal move(i.e. knowing how to measure with a damn tape measure) nope!!! Humbling in the extreme!

Well, I still think it all depends on the relative level of skill and knowledge that your group of friends have compared to you. You may have progressed to a much higher level of “skill and knowledge” compared to them. Maybe they are casual players. So, they don’t have hard lists, and they play what they happen to collect. And they collect models based on “cool looking” rather than because these are the spammed models in the latest tourney beating lists. Maybe they don’t spam the best units. Casual players buy one or two HQ choices, a few troop choices, a few FA and a few heavy support choices. It may take them months to add a new unit because they have to assemble and paint it up. And gameplay wise, maybe they play a game once every month, or two. So, they always forget to do stuff and always forget special rules within their armies. Casual players don’t buy forgeworld, and they don’t spam units. They have no concept of bubble wrap, and even if they did, they don’t have 100 cultists or 100 conscripts to do bubblewrapping.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Casual players don’t buy forgeworld

Please stop repeating this myth.