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.
Post and minute of the video please. And no, your "burden of proof" is nonsense I am afraid. People are discussing the ruleset, YOU are calling their statement and interpretation of the video fallacious, it's therefore on YOU to debunk the posts. I am waiting.
Post the timestamp for what exactly? The part of the video where GW talks about how things they don't talk about? I can't provide evidence that something that didn't happen didn't happen, that's why it's not my burden to prove.
They who? Me? Peregrine? Santa Claus? And when, in which post we posted something wrong? How is debunked by the video? Because it's quite easy to write generic statements that essentially mean "you got it wrong, goodnight".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 19:28:43
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
You live in a meta where people think smashing face is the only way to play. There are people out there who can roll up to their local store say "I brought Grey Knights" and play people who will tone their army down for a fun game rather than trying to stomp face.
Yes, GK need a rework from the ground up, but the inability to have fun with the army has as much to do with the enviroment you play in as much as the army you play with.
I don't see endless threads about other ways of playing here, or on other forums or facebook groups. Where is the world wide community that produces rule sets for narrative or open play? where are the community accepted, codex rewrites? If my place is so one of the kind, in playing with just the match play rules. Then I am sure the open or narrative stuff, should be bursting everywhere.
And I am talking separate from my personal position. The fact that people here have 1 army, and out of 30 or something people, only 4-5 have more then one, means that even if you tell someone your bringing GK, not like everyone doesn't know what other people have and play with, there is no place for adjustment. How does someone with 2000pts with flyer eldar or a orc da jump list, is going to modify it to accomodate a GK army. Which kind of a brings the argument someone else brought before. GW doesn't want you to buy a 2000pts working army, they want you to buy 2-3 armies, or 5-6k pts of one army, and mix and match from that"so everyone can have fun". But lets not make all of this about me, and my supposed evil and unique place to play.
You do most people have more than exactly 2k of a given army right? I mean most of us have been collecting armies for a while and have picked up new stuff as the game has ebbed and flowed and can bring less broken stuff to the table.
And you can tone down the Da Jump list by not taking Da Jump.
It shouldn't have a rule set like the GK one play against something like IG or Eldar. Because right now it is like having someone from 14 or down, being set up in an event for under 17y olds, with no weight limit.
To balance GK vs any army in the game, you would have to either play top game, specific ETC mission rule set AND play a tournament list, and get lucky with match ups, and rolls, in every game you play till you stop playing. Or rewrite the codex, and good luck on people not playing your book accepting you rewriting your to make it better, even if it is gak right now.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
1) Narrative players will be given a decent frame work to build of on for "forging the narrative." "Muh Story"
2) Players who want to achieve a "Win State" will have various options and/or playstyles suited to their needs.
3) Prevents rules inconsistencies to the point that the game itself has a clear simple mechanical flow that is because of its intuitive design.
I note that "cutesy" little stab at narrative players. I can't say I'm surprised.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 19:31:17
I'm thinking this thread might have run its course, with the amount of vitriol on both sides. I'm just gonna bid you all adieu at this point and watch from the sidelines.
Reemule wrote: The object of the game is to win.
The point of the game is to have fun.
Arguments are not fun. Unclear rules and stuff like Intent encourages arguments.
Tournament games hardly ever have arguments. If something is unclear a Judge is called, the play is clarified and the game goes on.
Casual play is where you get arguments. You get TFG. You get Intent discussions. Not fun.
You get TFG and intent discussions in competitive play too. Let's not pretend that those things don't exist just because you can get a third party over to discuss things with and solve a dispute.
Actually, you don't. TFG's don't operate when you know the rules and you understand the way the rules work, and various power levels of forces. And in general as they don't "win" they don't stay and play in the competitive game arena.
flandarz wrote: I'm thinking this thread might have run its course, with the amount of vitriol on both sides. I'm just gonna bid you all adieu at this point and watch from the sidelines.
I find it reassuring that the one fixed point in a changing age is that this forum always finds ways to make me hate certain members of this community.
Post and minute of the video please.
And no, your "burden of proof" is nonsense I am afraid. People are discussing the ruleset, YOU are calling their statement and interpretation of the video fallacious, it's therefore on YOU to debunk the posts.
I am waiting.
Post the timestamp for what exactly? The part of the video where GW talks about how things they don't talk about? I can't provide evidence that something that didn't happen didn't happen, that's why it's not my burden to prove.
They who? Me? Peregrine? Santa Claus? And when, in which post we posted something wrong? How is debunked by the video?
Because it's quite easy to write generic statements that essentially mean "you got it wrong, goodnight".
I didn't switch subjects in that sentence. The "they" mentioned was GW. As in "The part of the video where GW talks about things GW doesn't talk about" as in you're asking me to provide a timestamp of something that isn't being said. GW not once mentions they are against balance, and I can't give you a timestamp of that because there isn't a timestamp for something that never happened.
You do most people have more than exactly 2k of a given army right? I mean most of us have been collecting armies for a while and have picked up new stuff as the game has ebbed and flowed and can bring less broken stuff to the table.
And you can tone down the Da Jump list by not taking Da Jump.
not here, not when an army costs 800$ or more. also absolutly no where in the rules or the rule book, does it say that to play a 2000pts game you require more then 2000pts or even multiple armies. This isn't MtG side decks are not a thing.
And no if you build an army to use jump, you can't just play without it. If my opponent has an eldar flyer list, he cant play a non flyer list, because without flyers, he has ~1000pts.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Reemule wrote: The object of the game is to win.
The point of the game is to have fun.
Arguments are not fun. Unclear rules and stuff like Intent encourages arguments.
Tournament games hardly ever have arguments. If something is unclear a Judge is called, the play is clarified and the game goes on.
Casual play is where you get arguments. You get TFG. You get Intent discussions. Not fun.
You get TFG and intent discussions in competitive play too. Let's not pretend that those things don't exist just because you can get a third party over to discuss things with and solve a dispute.
Actually, you don't. TFG's don't operate when you know the rules and you understand the way the rules work, and various power levels of forces. And in general as they don't "win" they don't stay and play in the competitive game arena.
You do know that TFG describes cheaters and poor sports as well right? Or are you pretending they don't exist for the sake of your arguement?
You do most people have more than exactly 2k of a given army right? I mean most of us have been collecting armies for a while and have picked up new stuff as the game has ebbed and flowed and can bring less broken stuff to the table.
And you can tone down the Da Jump list by not taking Da Jump.
not here, not when an army costs 800$ or more. also absolutly no where in the rules or the rule book, does it say that to play a 2000pts game you require more then 2000pts or even multiple armies. This isn't MtG side decks are not a thing.
And no if you build an army to use jump, you can't just play without it. If my opponent has an eldar flyer list, he cant play a non flyer list, because without flyers, he has ~1000pts.
Then play a 1k game? Or play Kill Team.
I see you keep finding reason to justify why your environment has to be so special that it can't scale the game back from skullcrusher levels to have a fun game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 19:37:25
You do most people have more than exactly 2k of a given army right? I mean most of us have been collecting armies for a while and have picked up new stuff as the game has ebbed and flowed and can bring less broken stuff to the table.
And you can tone down the Da Jump list by not taking Da Jump.
not here, not when an army costs 800$ or more. also absolutly no where in the rules or the rule book, does it say that to play a 2000pts game you require more then 2000pts or even multiple armies. This isn't MtG side decks are not a thing.
And no if you build an army to use jump, you can't just play without it. If my opponent has an eldar flyer list, he cant play a non flyer list, because without flyers, he has ~1000pts.
That would be a case of putting all eggs in one basket without regard for potential rules change down the road. Same with GK - just because it was S-tier army in 5th, doesn't mean that it should remain so down the line. GK in 5th ed was outrageously broken.
The fact of the matter is, the meta shifts due to point revisions and rules change. It certainly is true that GWseems to be favoring certain army/units over others, but you have to take into consideration that not everyone in the 40k community plays ultra-competitive min-max armies all the time, every time.
Part of being a ultra-competitive min-max army player means that you have to be willing to dish out $$ everytime an OP unit gets released.
Part of being casual but competitve, while remaining sensible to your lifestyle where you're not dropping $1,000's every month or so just to keep up with the internet meta means that it's usually smarter to have a balanced army that can deal with the tides of change better.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/09 19:47:07
Reemule wrote: When your play is on camera.. Cheaters tend to get outed quickly. And poor sports? Define a poor sport.
Not every table is on a stream, not ever cheater reaches the top tables, and poor sports exist at every level of play.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So here are some timestamps worth hearing.
A discussion about the rules designer's most important job, a talk about indexes versus codex, and things like the Tau Commanders:
Skipping forward a bit I'm going to quote James: "It's important to let people feel like they can do what they want to do with their models" which segued into a talk about the Laser Destructor on loyalist knights which leads into the comment about balance:
I'm not going to keep plumbing the video for points, but those are a couple good spots to listen in at. If you start on the first one that skips his work experiance and jumps into his rules developer talk.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 19:48:44
Reemule wrote:THe problem is that some "gamers" like to pretend their social hour that they tell their parents/wives/gf's is game time isn't. THey sit around and laugh and 1/2 heartedly play a turn or 2 while having a beer.
Why the quote marks on "gamers"? Are you implying that they're not "true gamers"?
Furthermore, how is how they play a "problem"? Are they not l33t enough for you? Not on the cutting edge of the meta and strictly following chess clocks?
I don't see endless threads about other ways of playing here, or on other forums or facebook groups. Where is the world wide community that produces rule sets for narrative or open play? where are the community accepted, codex rewrites? If my place is so one of the kind, in playing with just the match play rules. Then I am sure the open or narrative stuff, should be bursting everywhere.
And I am talking separate from my personal position. The fact that people here have 1 army, and out of 30 or something people, only 4-5 have more then one, means that even if you tell someone your bringing GK, not like everyone doesn't know what other people have and play with, there is no place for adjustment. How does someone with 2000pts with flyer eldar or a orc da jump list, is going to modify it to accomodate a GK army. Which kind of a brings the argument someone else brought before. GW doesn't want you to buy a 2000pts working army, they want you to buy 2-3 armies, or 5-6k pts of one army, and mix and match from that"so everyone can have fun". But lets not make all of this about me, and my supposed evil and unique place to play.
I alone own about 10.000 pts worth of models, plus significant amount of GW's terrain (costing around the same as 2000pts army) and a bucket of paint, and I'm 1/4th of my narrative group. Together we own around 25k pts bought mostly in the last three years. That makes us "worth" the same in the eyes of GW as what? A third of your meta, a fourth?. And we are not seen in any FLGS, I'm the only one taking time to post online but we all take part in community surveys so we are visible to GW.
As to why you don't see open/narrative rulesets - the trick is that beside official GW rules each group has their own set of house rules or fandexes which do not have to be published anywhere to be used as intended by their creators. Even then, there were a lot of custom reworks/fandexes published even here on dakka during 7th, but then all of those got jumped by "constructive critcism" (come posters here showed up only to call all fan work trash). A lot of narrative content is "published" as commentary to scratchbuild terrain on FB terrain building groups - especially in Necromunda crowd there are a lot of folks who build special terrain pieces to represent focus points of their next games. Yes, that is right, people spend time and recources to make a special one-off terrain for their hour long weekly game.
Reemule wrote:THe problem is that some "gamers" like to pretend their social hour that they tell their parents/wives/gf's is game time isn't. THey sit around and laugh and 1/2 heartedly play a turn or 2 while having a beer.
Why the quote marks on "gamers"? Are you implying that they're not "true gamers"?
Furthermore, how is how they play a "problem"? Are they not l33t enough for you? Not on the cutting edge of the meta and strictly following chess clocks?
They're gamers as much as anyone else.
If you don't actually finish a game.. are you a gamer? If you just go and spar at the gym, are you a boxer? How far do you want to go Sarge?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 19:58:50
Reemule wrote:THe problem is that some "gamers" like to pretend their social hour that they tell their parents/wives/gf's is game time isn't. THey sit around and laugh and 1/2 heartedly play a turn or 2 while having a beer.
Why the quote marks on "gamers"? Are you implying that they're not "true gamers"? Furthermore, how is how they play a "problem"? Are they not l33t enough for you? Not on the cutting edge of the meta and strictly following chess clocks?
They're gamers as much as anyone else.
If you don't actually finish a game.. are you a gamer? If you just go and spar at the gym, are you a boxer? How far do you want to go Sarge?
Yes to both of the above. You don't need to finish a game to be a gamer. You only need to play it. You don't need to win boxing matches to be a boxer, as long as you're putting in effort. Sparring is effort. Your point?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 20:01:45
ClockworkZion wrote: I saw this a few days ago, but felt it was worth opeining a can of worms on what GW's "intent" for the rules are.
So for those who don't bother watching: basically the intent is to let you be creative and use the points and rules provided as to tell stories with your minatures. They mentioned the vehicle creation rules and mentioned if you want to use the points values instead, just add up the points like you normally would.
That said there is a large social contract undercurrent with asking others to look at the rules you put together on a model to ensure they're fair to play against.
Basically the intent of the rules team is for people to tell cool stories with their minis instead of focusing on just crushing each other into paste.
Though I'm curious on what the reaction to this will be since it eliminates a lot of claims regarding the studio.
I do wish the greater community would take this as their own philosophy. It would be nice is casuals like myself had an easier time of finding games that didn't feel like a waste of an afternoon when the game ends 10 to 1 on turn 2.
Outside Gladius and metas where everyone buys one-of-everything and doesn't bother to optimize by even a percent, they suck.
If you can't get clouds of power armor to work after the new books, there's just no hope for you.
Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance.
Of course there's the question of what's considered "TAC", which is slightly more holistic and prompts more discussion, but we can think of the basic definition for now as you bringing something to handle every reasonable threat.
Also you've always been saying that about Marines and don't have the statistics to back it up. YEAH they got better after the new Codex, but just wait for everyone else to get a rework.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
I don't see endless threads about other ways of playing here, or on other forums or facebook groups. Where is the world wide community that produces rule sets for narrative or open play? where are the community accepted, codex rewrites? If my place is so one of the kind, in playing with just the match play rules. Then I am sure the open or narrative stuff, should be bursting everywhere.
Not everyone goes online Karol. Of my group I am the only one who reads, let alone posts. The others, and they're all narrative gamers are simply not interested.
What you see on the internet isn't necessarily Equal amounts of people advocating all the various ways of playing. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there, and let's be fair - there are those of us who play, like myself, like nou, wayniac, like notonline etc who play with groups than enjoy this kind of things, who also post here and the general reaction can be quite hostile or, at best, polite indifference or lack of interest, which is fair. What you tend to get with the online community is a congregation of the more hardcore elements of the community, why typically favour a particular way of playing which usually trends towards the more hardcore elements. It self selects for 'competitive' players more than I think does for narrative. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.
You won't have a 'world wide community'. You have lots of people all over the world, doing their own thing. You won't have 'community accepted codex rewrites' - that's not how this works - plenty groups just do their own thing, and make the game work for themselves, irregardless of how everyone else plays. The garage scene is hugely varied. As to why folks like me don't post what we do online - what's the point? Christ, this community on its own can't agree on what it wants. And we all see and know the vitriol and bile sent towards gw for their rules, do you really think folks like myself want to ruin our days with competive-at-all-costs jerks (note: hypothetical imaginary character) tearing to shreds stuff that we've done, stuff that we love, just because they get a kick out of complaining and lashing out?! I really can't be bothered with the negativity. And again hypothetical jerk interactions aside, what is the value of people like us posting up what we do? What you get here is a self-selection of competitive types, whose main interest is generally the 'official' game. It doesn't matter how perfect our game is, or our missions, unless it's an officially approved mission or toruanament pack, it's irrelevant. Why would they read, or respond? And if they're not interested in 'our' game because it's not the 'real' game, (and by the way, that's totally fair perspective - competitive/tournament types, though I disagree I will respect it. And I'm not having a go!) why would I put all that effort into it? The work/reward ratio is too skewed to the level of 'its pointless' I'll just go and play the games I love with my group and talk aboht it with them, and not waste my time or anyone else's time here. Hell, I'm more likely to pm nou than I am to post up a home brew infinity scenario.
And I am talking separate from my personal position. The fact that people here have 1 army, and out of 30 or something people, only 4-5 have more then one, means that even if you tell someone your bringing GK, not like everyone doesn't know what other people have and play with, there is no place for adjustment. How does someone with 2000pts with flyer eldar or a orc da jump list, is going to modify it to accomodate a GK army. Which kind of a brings the argument someone else brought before. GW doesn't want you to buy a 2000pts working army, they want you to buy 2-3 armies, or 5-6k pts of one army, and mix and match from that"so everyone can have fun". But lets not make all of this about me, and my supposed evil and unique place to play.
Shrug. Not everyone plays to the game of 'only having 2000 points'. Plenty of folks have been playing for years and have thousands of points, across multiple armies. Of course gw want you to buy more - they're a business. There's nothing particularly 'wrong' with this approach. I like having things to buy and things to collect, I have no interest whatsoever in limiting my purchases to a tiny fraction of the game to fit some arbitrary number.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 20:09:10
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 caught cheaters doesn't mean there haven't been more. Loaded dice where a common issue in the past for example.
And a boxer who doesn't compete is still a boxer. They're just not professional boxers.
In the scrutinized environment of tourney play, TG are so rare your scraping for examples. My point stands, You have a much better play experience in a tourney setting than a Casual setting.
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 caught cheaters doesn't mean there haven't been more. Loaded dice where a common issue in the past for example.
And a boxer who doesn't compete is still a boxer. They're just not professional boxers.
In the scrutinized environment of tourney play, TG are so rare your scraping for examples. My point stands, You have a much better play experience in a tourney setting than a Casual setting.
It depends who you play against in both tourney setting and casual setting.
In casual setting, if you have a tight group of players who play together often you won't see much TFG.
In random pick up/tournament setting you're statistically more likely run into TFG.
Outside Gladius and metas where everyone buys one-of-everything and doesn't bother to optimize by even a percent, they suck.
If you can't get clouds of power armor to work after the new books, there's just no hope for you.
Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance.
By that definition, Chess is imbalanced - White is OP. But it's still a well-liked non-trivial game. A full 50% of armies are OP and a full 50% of armies are bad.
Of course there's the question of what's considered "TAC", which is slightly more holistic and prompts more discussion, but we can think of the basic definition for now as you bringing something to handle every reasonable threat.
"Handle" as in, "have a 50% shot at beating it"? Because, if your list has a 50% shot at beating every reasonable threat, then no list has a >50% chance of beating yours. Therefore, anyone not playing your list cannot do better than you. And cannot do better than 50/50 against you. So the meta boils down to everyone playing that list (or lists with 100% identical winrates).
I sure hope you didn't mean "more than 50% shot at beating it". Because that's simply OP.
So do you mean "more than 45%"? Or 40%? Or where? That surely gets complex.
My point isn't to clearly define TAC, really. It's just to show you didn't provide a non-trivial definition of "Balance"; you just shifted the complexity to another term and defined it that way.
Also you've always been saying that about Marines and don't have the statistics to back it up. YEAH they got better after the new Codex, but just wait for everyone else to get a rework.
I'm sorry that you've never been able to do much with the, historically, second-often-top-dog army in the game. These last two years have been rough, sure. But almost every faction in the game has been trash more often than Marines.
While Codex Creep makes it likely that any new Dexes will at least compete with them, but
(1) What makes you think other factions are getting a new book soon?
(2) Even if a few more books came out, if Marines remained better than half the armies, is it really such a bad thing?
I hope Marines stay at least reasonable for a while.
Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance.
Of course there's the question of what's considered "TAC", which is slightly more holistic and prompts more discussion, but we can think of the basic definition for now as you bringing something to handle every reasonable threat.
A reasonable start, but how do you account for terrain or missions?
Also you've always been saying that about Marines and don't have the statistics to back it up. YEAH they got better after the new Codex, but just wait for everyone else to get a rework.
Hate to break it to you, but you don't have the statistics on it either.
It's a good video that gives valuable insights into 40K design/development. I thought he was quite open. His discussion of the writing of the Indexes and the first tranche of 8th edition books certainly explains a lot.
I got the impression that he is in tune with both the tournament crowd and those who favour "narrative" play. I Had no sense that he was in an ivory tower. He also covered how he himself thinks that you can have narrative elements in any style of play - no black and white. He certainly seemed to understand the desire for balance, although he also hinted that perhaps some take that too seriously. It was good to hear that Codex writers do not want so see their book suddenly dominating tournament play. On some elements he indicated that you shouldn't just rock up to an open game night with your home-brew stuff. He also said sometimes to not ask for permission. Perhaps context is everything. Among friends go for it, among strangers not so much.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 caught cheaters doesn't mean there haven't been more. Loaded dice where a common issue in the past for example.
And a boxer who doesn't compete is still a boxer. They're just not professional boxers.
In the scrutinized environment of tourney play, TG are so rare your scraping for examples. My point stands, You have a much better play experience in a tourney setting than a Casual setting.
Disagree.
I played tournaments for years. I've seen plenty tfg types in competitive/tournament circles And t ranged from 'petty' stuff or 'serious'. Internet is full of anecdotes. Few years back, I saw a single tfg type almost ruin the warmachine community in our city. And that was a tight, well written game that can still be ruined by jerks.
And being honest, I've had more fun in a casual environment with like minded folks over the last few years than I have in any of the recent tournaments I've played. I'm sure our group would be hell for some people. Ymmv.
The truth is You'll probably have a good time playing tournaments if you're into that kind of thing, and you can play with likeminded folks. Which is totally fair. It's also fair to say you'll probably have a good time playing casual games if that's your thing, and you can play with like minded folks. For me, the people playing is a far more vital component of the equation than either the 'specific game' or 'how said game is played'. Jerks are gonna jerk. And 'rules quality' won't always (or often, imo) be enough to counter the jerkiness and tfg-ness of jerks that is more than capable of ruining a game.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 caught cheaters doesn't mean there haven't been more. Loaded dice where a common issue in the past for example.
And a boxer who doesn't compete is still a boxer. They're just not professional boxers.
In the scrutinized environment of tourney play, TG are so rare your scraping for examples. My point stands, You have a much better play experience in a tourney setting than a Casual setting.
It depends who you play against in both tourney setting and casual setting.
In casual setting, if you have a tight group of players who play together often you won't see much TFG.
In random pick up/tournament setting you're statistically more likely run into TFG.
TFG isn't just "cheater". He's also "jerk", "the smelly guy", "the unfun guy", "the guy nobody likes", "the guy who eats all your food/drinks your beer and never brings any", "the guy who never lets go of an argument".
He's also "the guy who rules lawyers everything" and/or "the guy who doesn't know the rules". Depending on the speaker.
