# sportsmanship?



## blackspine (Jun 9, 2010)

Hey all.
after a recent tourney, I came across the following.
in a 2250 tourney.
Opposing player sunk 450-550 pts in one unit. Simply to deny points, he ran it as far from combat as possible and hid on the opposing side of the field. Doing nothing. (keeping me chewing through slaves for the whole game)

I doubt there's rules against this, but is this taking 'point denial' too far? Is this common?

I play this game to fight, not to weasel my way out of it. hence the *WAR*hammer. It left a bad taste in my mouth and I hope it's not the start of a rising trend.


----------



## arlins (Sep 8, 2010)

perhaps he was playing Runhammer
Unfortunatly you get this kind of thing in any game ( like camping on respawn points in vid games ) not illegal but definatly not in the spirit of the game .


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Well, with 8th ed. it certainly is a more viable "tactic". Although I can't see the problem myself. If he really did nothing you should win handsomely if he does nothing else. 
But we might be seeing something similar in the future simply because 8th ed. favours this sort of tactic to a certain extend.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

if they win even when hiding a 500pts unit then its nothing to moan about, because then they win by being underpointed in a way, and if they can do that then you catching a 500pts unit makes no difference.

if they lose when hiding a 500pts unit then more glory to you for them being cowards


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Tournaments are 100% like life: there are those who stick to the spirit of it with all they've got, and if they got a pair, they'll succeed and have a good time; there are those who just want to participate for the hell of it and see what happens; and then there are those who don't give a fuck about anyone else, and the only thing that matters to them is that they must win and get all the prizes they can get their hands on. The first type I like the most; the second are beginners mostly and they'll choose one of the other two paths eventually; the third I can't help but look down upon because they need another creature that is more sad than they are to feel good, while hiding behind the "tough guy" mask.

And this is why I don't feel like going to tournaments anymore, especially Warhammer-types: everyone is all nervous about the rules and their interpretations, but worst of all these are the occasions where you bump into those people who think that winning is a matter of life and death. You know, the type that says that being able to select and build in multiple buildings in SC2 ruins the game.  Oh and to pick a more thread-relevant type, the one who buys the latest, most broken Codex/Army Book and can't stop bragging about what an awesome player he is... even though if given a tricky army he'd turn out to be the maggot he truly is, and he'd whimper and scream and call bullshit at everything like an overgrown baby.

I'm sorry, I had to get that out of my system.


----------



## blackspine (Jun 9, 2010)

Khorothis said:


> Oh and to pick a more thread-relevant type, the one who buys the latest, most broken Codex/Army Book and can't stop bragging about what an awesome player he is... even though if given a tricky army he'd turn out to be the maggot he truly is, and he'd whimper and scream and call bullshit at everything like an overgrown baby.
> 
> I'm sorry, I had to get that out of my system.


Don't fret.
Yes, it was one of the two armies from "IoB". If that's any hint. 
Though I did get the satisfaction of seeing his face as he realized: "I can't beat this guy in combat" and watch him scatter.
Oh well, live and learn.
The other guys in the tourney were nice. We slugged it out and losses were wild on each side. But in the end, their sportsmanship made it all the more fun. 
I really enjoyed shaking hands with the other two combatants and saying a sincere "good game".


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

blackspine said:


> Don't fret.
> Yes, it was one of the two armies from "IoB". If that's any hint.
> Though I did get the satisfaction of seeing his face as he realized: "I can't beat this guy in combat" and watch him scatter.
> Oh well, live and learn.
> ...


Yeah, I'm sorry, its just that there was a between-clubs tournament here and I lost to a Space Wolf army on a hideously set up table and only managed to inflict 125 points worth of damage and I got wiped out in return. But as you said, live and learn. 

I'm glad you had fun in the other two games.


----------



## Cheese meister (Jun 5, 2010)

the thing is him hiding 500points is nothing some armies go for the hide hide hide last turn dead warmachine deal which can winn the game


----------



## Whizzwang (Dec 31, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> if they win even when hiding a 500pts unit then its nothing to moan about, because then they win by being underpointed in a way, and if they can do that then you catching a 500pts unit makes no difference.
> 
> if they lose when hiding a 500pts unit then more glory to you for them being cowards


I never thought I would see the day I said this.....

I agree with Stealla.

If he beat you without using a 500point unit, you deserved to lose as he was 500 points behind you.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I think it's due to two things:

Getting no VP for damaging units

Only winning if you have double the amount of points as your opponent, otherwise counting as a draw.

I don't understand what was wrong with the previous version of VPs...


----------



## Cheese meister (Jun 5, 2010)

you only have to have a 100 pts difference 2 win


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

l have never vs anyone who has done that yet..
but l have seen a VC player who can tell he was going to lose so he moved most of his army away from combat and refuse to fight any unit, it ended in a draw l will say the HE player he was vsing was not very happy. yey for VC flying units 
~Desu


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Sounds like shit to me. Steadfast is fucking stupid rule.

Fucking hell, they've still not truely learnt, have they?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, Movement, and Shooting were the only two things, IMHO. Both of those are now perfect - with only the armies themselves needing balancing.

Instead, we get stupid magic, stupid combat, and a stupid game.

IMHO, the only good thing that's come out of the army is the ability for percentage Core, Special and Rare slots. Characters on the other hand, fucking stupid.

Christ, Warhammer Fantasy has fully turned now from being a decent game into a 40K playing retards wet dream.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Sounds like shit to me. Steadfast is fucking stupid rule.
> 
> Instead, we get stupid magic, stupid combat, and a stupid game
> 
> Christ, Warhammer Fantasy has fully turned now from being a decent game into a 40K playing retards wet dream.


l will say Steadfast is a stupid rule that prompts Inf spam but l have no real issue with the new magic.

l did swap out from War 40K to Fantasy because the people l vs in my area they were far more fun and more "sportsmanship" then 80% of the 40K players l vs,
now it seems that is changing though with more l must win armies. sadly ~Desu


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I have no issue with steadfast beyond it not being lost if you get flanked. Sorry but if I manage to get a multiple rank unit in your flank you shouldn't be able to shrug, pass 2 basic Ld tests (break and reform) turn to face me and then smash my unit utterly.

It just makes the 'uber' units immune to 'tactics', which is a shame. Worst case I've had was when I gave up a game with my ogre army which was still 80% intact because I just couldnt touch a unit of ~70 HE spearmen... I through my biggest unit into its flank, killed half the characters in there and then got utterly battered. That was back in the days that I thought 8-10 ogres was a decent unit size, since then I rely on hoards as the only way to shift the stupid units out of my way.


----------



## clever handle (Dec 14, 2009)

Tim/Steve said:


> I have no issue with steadfast beyond it not being lost if you get flanked. Sorry but if I manage to get a multiple rank unit in your flank you shouldn't be able to shrug, pass 2 basic Ld tests (break and reform) turn to face me and then smash my unit utterly.


^This.

Oh, and there should be a penalty for failing a combat reform check if you ask me, a horde of guys milling around in confusion while the enemy hacks & slashes...


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I think taking the combat reform test on the amount you lost the combat by - ignoring stubborn - would make sense, it's pretty hard to reform when one of your flanks just got smashed in the face.

Doubly so if you're locked in the front at the same time. I'd happily say "You can't combat-reform if you are locked in more than one facing."

I have to say that I love fighting in multiple ranks now. One of the biggest turn-offs about fantasy for me was that you only had 5 men out of a 30-man unit actually swinging their swords. Very boring, and too easy for luck to swing baadly. Also too easy for uber-units/characters to punch far above their weight and rape things they should never have been able to.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

Late to respond. Overall, I and a lot of people I play with like 8th edition more than 7th edition. My primary combo complaint is that I don't like the fact that one must kill an entire unit to get any VPs (get no credit for killing a half a unit which is unreasonable) and the victory condition being only 100 points regardless of the size of the battle. Both of these issues are fixable with an FAQ (especially since they already FAQ'd the victory conditions due to the screw up in the BRB). Some tournaments in our area are already using the 300 point differential for a victory condition in a 2500 point battle but no one has yet revised the VP calculation to allow for points for killing off more than half a unit. Thus, it is not uncommon to see a heavily depleted unit run and hide to avoid losing the VPs associated with the unit. 

That being said, I have no problem in principle with the enemy hiding a unit to avoid it getting killed off. It is, after all, a very Skaven (or Dark Elf) thing to do to run and hide. I don't know how I'd hide a 500 points unit effectively and still win. The flip side is that running and hiding 500 points should allow you to divide and conquer his remaining units for the win. If you are fighting with 2500 points and he is effectively fighting with 2000 points, you should win. You should have an all-comers army for a tourney that should allow you to get a win in such a case by overwhelming, breaking, panicking and/or chasing down enough VPs to win. Skaven can be frustrating by running ranks of steadfast troops in conga lines with BSB and general within range to ensure points denial while magic and war machines do damage to your units and Hellpits run around and kill on the flanks. But Skaven is beatable (unless they run the power scroll with dreaded 13th spell; for that reason our local indy GT has recently banned the power scroll along with the book of hoeth). 

I personally like the change in magic and many of the changes in 8th edition relative to 7th edition. We are finding in our area that the changes have partially balanced the game. Also, magic is less overpowered (but more random and unrelable) and less likely to be broken with the winds of magic limiting casting dice and providing dispel dice and with miscast risks and consequences and greater casting costs of the base eight lores. 

One good thing about 8th edition is that it did make combat faster and deadlier due to 2D6+M charge ranges, the ability to have models step up and fill in for models killed and strike back, and supporting attacks. Additionally, models can always be wounded on a roll of 6 and armour saves are limited to 1+ before calculating modifiers (strength and AP reductions in AS). Also, the ability to step up and strike back and strike in initiative order did alter strategy and tactics a lot but really helped a lot of the armies that really needed help (like Orc and goblins and dwarves) but did, unfortunately, hurt cavalry more than I'd personally wish. 

I don't mind steadfast but would prefer 1. a single rank (five standard or 3 monstrous sized models) to be allowed to break ranks for the rank bonus; 2. allow steadfast to be denied or broken by flank or rear attacks by units with two or more ranks; 3. require two ranks minimum for remaining steadfast and limit steadfast to the max rank bonus so that a unit in four or more ranks is not steadfast against a unit in four ranks. Also, I'd like to see cavalry get an impact hit on infantry to compensate for their reduced ability to break ranks and march block effectively. I like rank bonuses determined based on ranks surviving combat. 

Another tweak to 8th edition, would be to alter artillery that shoots in a line with no BS and no scatter. I would allow premeasuring distances but add an additional a modest scatter risk to cannons and similarly non-BS line shooting artillery shooting at long range and add a cover consequence for cannons and other non-BS shooting weapons when shooting through hard and soft cover at targets. Cannons are currently too overpowered and underpriced (especially with engineers and re-roll runes and magic items for dwarves and empire) given their ability to shoot right through forests and stuff at targets. There is nothing worse then seeing two cannons (hitting and killing effectively two-thirds of the time with re-rolls) shoot a target worth 175 to 250+ points in turn one and kill it immediately with no ability to hide or recover. Similarly, I would increase scatter for long ranges for stone-thrower type weapons both for the realism and to reduce the the advantages such weapons can have in 8th edition with no guess range.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Ive seen people use denial tactics in 40K with kill points too.

Better off left for tournament play only.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I like denial tactics, if they are used in the spirit of the game: running away from the start is just a prickish thing to do, but if you have a unit that advances and gets beaten up then try to escape with it and deny the enemy its points/KP. There's no need to play stupidly just to avoid being an asshat


----------



## blackspine (Jun 9, 2010)

The group was clearly made to just run away from round 1 in the game. He just held me with untold numbers of slaves.

The kicker was, in his flight, he had a chance to flank charge my minotaurs (and later rear) while they were in combat....yet he didn't. 
I was shocked at this. He'd rather the safe "i didn't lose points" than risk them in a good bet to win more.

Funny part was him becoming upset that he couldn't 'curse of 13/horned rat' my minotaurs. (despite every cast of it being irresistible force)

oh well. live and learn.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

While this tactic is irritating once you know a player is playing this way it becomes fairly easy to negate next time you play them although this won't help much in a tourney.
People complaining about the rules is a different matter and to put this in perspective GW write the rules as a marketing tool to sell models and by switching the rules to focus on 1 aspect they can maximise profit, In 40k the money is in the tanks so the rules reflect this where in fantasy the money is in multiple boxes of cheap infantry hence the boost they've got in this edition and the more common sight of 10 man boxes.
This is just marketing and is unlikely to change until a few editions rom now when no doubt the focus will change meaning most armies will need redoing again.


----------



## Crimzzen (Jul 9, 2008)

I don't understand why he would do this? It's not even a GOOD form of denial as your essentially playing with 500 more points than he is and should be able to setup some sweet flanking charges. True point denial is taking a huge killy unit, full of characters and as much protection as possible and ramming it straight down your opponents throat. Having 1000+ points of your army in 1 unit isn't very effective but you can pretty much guarantee its gonna be there until the end of the game (baring stupid maneuvers on your part).


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

blackspine said:


> Simply to deny points, he ran it as far from combat as possible and hid on the opposing side of the field. Doing nothing.


If it's any consolation, I had an elf player do this against me with all of his troop choices and his last elites. My chaos warriors move too slowly to chase them down and it infuriated me beyond belief. Though the ridicule he received was daunting and terrible, he still ran like a sissy elf boy would. Coward.

Anyone who runs from combat automatically gets a goose egg on sportsmanship. And a harsh taunting of. If you want to be a cowardly ****** go play a card game involving ponies, friendship, and teamwork. Or better yet don't play anything at all and just sit at home hoping nothing in your life involves being aggressive.


----------



## VeronaKid (Jan 7, 2010)

LordWaffles said:


> If it's any consolation, I had an elf player do this against me with all of his troop choices and his last elites. My chaos warriors move too slowly to chase them down and it infuriated me beyond belief. Though the ridicule he received was daunting and terrible, he still ran like a sissy elf boy would. Coward.
> 
> Anyone who runs from combat automatically gets a goose egg on sportsmanship. And a harsh taunting of. If you want to be a cowardly ****** go play a card game involving ponies, friendship, and teamwork. Or better yet don't play anything at all and just sit at home hoping nothing in your life involves being aggressive.


Wow. Daddy didn't hug you enough? :blush:

Seriously-there's a much simpler solution to these types of things than getting worked up. It's called "if you don't have fun playing with someone, then just shake his hand at the end of the game and _never play him again._" I mean, it is a _game_. Hardly worth getting so angry that you have to resort to "cowardly ******."


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Fighting a battle you cannot win is pure lunacy... so retreating or avoiding is the _only_ sensible option and as such is not cowardice.

What is cowardly is running from a fight you should win, just because you dont want to risk it.

With my WE against WoC (something I've fought quite often) there is simply no way I'll let there be any decent combats... to do so is suicide. I could feed all of my units into a unit of chosen and I'll still not win, or I could avoid the blocks and kill those units that I can... my combat units are just about going to beat an alter... and I've killed several in combat, but for the rest of the time the only thing going near blocks of warriors is my treeman ancient...


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

Agreed. There are different strategies for different armies and units and models. The game is designed to be diverse. In 7th edition, Wood Elves played excellent shoot and scoot tactics. I realize some think all battles should be fought in close combat, but that is not the way the rules are written or the phases of the turn are designed. There are four main phases: movement, magic, shooting, and combat. Giving someone a bad game vote (in an Indy GT, for example) because he played skillfully and you did not design your army to deal with faster, evasive armies is not right or fair. 

In 8th edition, with WoC, take some chaos knights or chaos ogres or dragon ogres, have one or more fast cav units, put some characters on mounts (discs or steeds for look out sir benefits with cav units nearby), and/or use a warshrine or two with favour of the gods on something to bless a unit and then go to town on a shoot and scoot army.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

VeronaKid said:


> Wow. Daddy didn't hug you enough? :blush:


I'm confused, I guess you've never seen anything else I post on the forum. You should go read them, maybe then you might see not a frothing thirteen year old BlueLiger, but instead someone who laughs at everything. And exaggerations are fun.


VeronaKid said:


> Seriously-there's a much simpler solution to these types of things than getting worked up. It's called "if you don't have fun playing with someone, then just shake his hand at the end of the game and _never play him again._" I mean, it is a _game_. Hardly worth getting so angry that you have to resort to "cowardly ******."


This entire paragraph can be paraphrased to "U mad?"
The answer is "No, just upset"
See when I agree to play someone, I thought we were going to play a game, not WaaC. Not spend twenty minutes setting up a board, then play two hours of running away and killing three chaos warriors over the course of the game. It seems...an entire waste of time. And the people that play that way usually have a low self esteem added onto any other personality defects, for them, losing the game is losing a part of themselves. So if I call them out on this defect and they rage enough to stop running, I've won not two, but three victories over him. The first having been a successful goading, the second; gameplay, the third; wrecking his self esteem further.


Tim/Steve said:


> Fighting a battle you cannot win is pure lunacy... so retreating or avoiding is the _only_ sensible option and as such is not cowardice.
> 
> What is cowardly is running from a fight you should win, just because you dont want to risk it.


We play a game of medieval times where honor, chivalry, and being devout grant you magical powers.
Also you mistake, he wasn't fighting a retreat he just flat out hoofed it to the other side of the board I could never feasibly reach, and sat there for two turns. Just because he could. In a friendly game.


olderplayer said:


> Giving someone a bad game vote (in an Indy GT, for example) because he played skillfully and you did not design your army to deal with faster, evasive armies is not right or fair.


You say that as if it's meant to pull my heart string. If your great battle plan is to simply nullify all of my models that aren't cavalry by running full tilt at the back of the board, just to make a draw, you are no longer playing the game. Three draws do not win a tournament. They simply mean you screwed all the people playing with you. It seems like an awful lot of work to do the equivalent of peeing on someone's car.


olderplayer said:


> In 8th edition, with WoC, take some chaos knights or chaos ogres or dragon ogres, have one or more fast cav units, put some characters on mounts (discs or steeds for look out sir benefits with cav units nearby), and/or use a warshrine or two with favour of the gods on something to bless a unit and then go to town on a shoot and scoot army.


This still does not stop all of my core choices from being entirely invalidated by a strategy of "Run for the edges!" Actually this could make any high core troop movement army the best in the game if they shoot well. And chaos knights are really good, a terminator worth of points for a power weapon and fear? Nice.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

I suppose the basic question in that situation is:

Did the HE player get the best result he was likely to achieve against you WoC list?

If your trashing his force was a pretty certain thing then he nullified that threat.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I remember a tournament I was in once asked for feedback out of ten and asked you about how the game went and the sportsmanship, it's only real effect was if it came down to a drawn it would go on the accumulated total.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

RUN FOR THE EDGES!!!

Love it.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

LordWaffles said:


> The first having been a successful goading, the second; gameplay, the third; wrecking his self esteem further.


You think that trampling on someone's self esteem is a victory? I call that pathetic.


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

There is such thing as risk management, in warhammer, almost nothing is 100% certain. I have seen it before, you should completely destroy a unit but you roll crap and get destroyed yourself. Just because someone had more than 50% chance for wiping out a unit doesn't mean its worth the risk if it does go bad. 

Take for example, if I had a enemy close combat unit almost dead and I am up by only one kill point, it wouldn't be wise to charge it with my lone hero even though the odds of me winning are say 75%, if I roll like crap the hero might die and I just let my opponent tie the game. Instead I could do the "cowardly" thing and head away and shoot at it instead next turn. Why risk one kill point to gain one kill point when you can have a potential to gain a kill point, but risk none. I don't see how that is bad playing at all.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Overall I agree with Lord Waffles. This is a WAR game, where people are hung on trees with their own guts, regardless of allegiance, gender, age or deed. Hell, even the Wood and High Elves can go crazy and start butchering their foes, unlike your classic high fantasy elf. Its unfluffy not to put up a fight, even if you're an elf. At least in Warhammer Fantasy. For safety's sake, I'm not saying that shoot and run tactics are cowardly or anything - you're giving it your all with what you have. Thats perfectly fine. And fluffy, too.

From a gaming perspective, I have no respect for players who don't put up a fight. Sure, if at some point the battle turns undisputedly one-sided its perfectly acceptable to give up (hell, even I do that every once in a while) because nobody wants to waste precious time on something thats inevitable. But when my opponent is being a wuss and avoids those crucial fights that would decide the battle I feel no respect for his "tactics". Fortunately, the people I play with are open enough so we can discuss if a certain move would be ballsy or stupid, so I never really had to express my views on the proper attitude of wargaming. 

@Sethis

If you mean in general then I agree. However, if said self-esteem is built up by winning one-sided games that border on bullying and/or a bad powergaming attitude of "I must win, it is inconcievable for me to lose" then it is well deserved if it is ruined. I think Waffles meant the type of people who win not with their wits and skills but with their copypasted tournament lists and their army books and perceive themselves as the bulls in town. Another case where I consider the crippling of one's self esteem healthy because it provokes introspection which can lead to the rebuilding of their self esteem by better means. Then again, free will is a bitch so they might end up getting all butthurt and go on living miserable lives.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Khorothis said:


> However, if said self-esteem is built up by winning one-sided games that border on bullying and/or a bad powergaming attitude of "I must win, it is inconcievable for me to lose" then it is well deserved if it is ruined. I think Waffles meant the type of people who win not with their wits and skills but with their copypasted tournament lists and their army books and perceive themselves as the bulls in town.


Really? The way I read it was "I find it fun when I play against someone with problems, and I present myself aggressively, so then they get scared of fighting me, so then I sneer and insult them until they do finally fight me, then I smash them into the ground, making their personality problems even worse in the process".

Maybe that's not what he meant, but that's how it comes across to me. Maybe he meant something else by "low self esteem", but in my mind that conjours up an image of a nerdy guy with not many friends, who sucks at sports and can't get a girl so plays to win at wargames to give him some feeling of self-worth. Not some egotistical prick who thinks he's God's gift to Wargaming who enjoys playing ten year old kids with his 'Ard Boyz list.

I don't see how emotionally damaging the first example person is a positive action.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Sethis said:


> You think that trampling on someone's self esteem is a victory? I call that pathetic.


I can't hear you over: "Bloo-hoo-hoo people are meanies!"

Why not try white knighting elsewhere?

And in a competitive setting if they start cheating I rip them to shreds, if you have to feel good about yourself by cheating at a game of plastic space men, you really aren't meant to survive long in this world.

As for fantasy I was giving him good natured ridicule. Such things as:
"Where ya goin t3?"
"You gots yourself a purdy mouth elf-boi."
"Chaos warrior needs hugs badly!"

I can almost assure you he fled while laughing his elvish ass off.

Bullying people to play me? Dear sir you wound me. I try to play at the level of the person opposing me. If I play some tourny veteran, yes I'm going to bring a competitive list and have fun, if it's some poor bastard noob, I'll bring a shit awful list(chaos spawn in 40k woooo!) or bring a good list with bad tactics (Templar pre-battle victory lap around the table wooo!) But in a tournament setting, you are exposing yourself to people fighting for money, a fight you had best be prepared for.

As for people who cheat, it's more the
"Don't lean over the table your flab is moving your models cowardly hiding on the backline."
Oh good lord, ard boyz is like a dream come true for trolling, you've reminded me I really need to post a story about it. I made a grown man almost cry in front of his wife and kid.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Sethis said:


> Really? The way I read it was "I find it fun when I play against someone with problems, and I present myself aggressively, so then they get scared of fighting me, so then I sneer and insult them until they do finally fight me, then I smash them into the ground, making their personality problems even worse in the process".
> 
> Maybe that's not what he meant, but that's how it comes across to me. Maybe he meant something else by "low self esteem", but in my mind that conjours up an image of a nerdy guy with not many friends, who sucks at sports and can't get a girl so plays to win at wargames to give him some feeling of self-worth. Not some egotistical prick who thinks he's God's gift to Wargaming who enjoys playing ten year old kids with his 'Ard Boyz list.
> 
> I don't see how emotionally damaging the first example person is a positive action.


Truth to be told, its just intuition. Waffles doesn't come across as an asshole, and knowing his style its best not to take everything he says as seriously as it sounds. Thats why I think what I think. 

Destruction provokes construction, nothing lyrical. And if it doesn't, well... free will, its a bitch.


----------



## PanzerPig (Apr 15, 2008)

Making someone feel bad and even if you think they deserve makes you no better than than them any who. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind an all that jazz. 

Friendly ribbing with mates and someone who's up for it in a comp, fair play. Loves me a bit of that too. All in all however, if you don't enjoy a game with someone, just don't play them again, its not a difficult thing to do and is the best answer as it avoids any future unpleasantness. As for the whole 'people who do this just hate confrontation' rubbish, being confrontational doesn't make anyone a better person. I always did wonder when manners became a bad thing. 

So to sum up, to the OP if you really did dislike the game so much, just don't play him again, it doesn't sound like a game I would have enjoyed either.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

PanzerPig said:


> All in all however, if you don't enjoy a game with someone, just don't play them again, its not a difficult thing to do and is the best answer as it avoids any future unpleasantness. So to sum up, to the OP if you really did dislike the game so much, just don't play him again, it doesn't sound like a game I would have enjoyed either.


This is usually what I say to teclis players. It's just not a fun game at all.
Or taking BT LR spam against a nid player. It's just not fun, no matter who wins.



PanzerPig said:


> As for the whole 'people who do this just hate confrontation' rubbish, being confrontational doesn't make anyone a better person. I always did wonder when manners became a bad thing.


Automatically assuming the more aggressive standpoint is the false one is the death of intellect. Always running for cover in any social situation is not a good thing to do. And their's a difference in being polite, and being an enabler for weak behavior.


----------



## PanzerPig (Apr 15, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> Automatically assuming the more aggressive standpoint is the false one is the death of intellect. Always running for cover in any social situation is not a good thing to do. And their's a difference in being polite, and being an enabler for weak behavior.


As may be, but are we really so above the teeming masses that you or I are to judge what is the weaker behaviour, is being shy weak behaviour or a personality trait that is perfectly fine. Yes always running for cover is a bad thing, but very few 'always' do.

I don't think anyone so far has automatically assumed the more aggressive point to be false, merely suggesting their may be better ways to handle a situation against that type of player. You could very well be right and I'd be happy to be proven wrong but considering other view points other than the loudest (as long as you consider that equally as well) is far from the 'death of intellect'. 

I do feel we have strayed somewhat from the original topic however. So we at least agree just don't play them again is the best option, in my own hippy way what i'm trying to say is, group hug?


----------



## The Meddler (Sep 25, 2010)

1. If a player is being a pain and not playing in the spirit of the game, take the moral high ground, be nice, and never play him again unless he changes his ways.

2. Tbh, running for the edge and hiding would be annoying, but the main problem is only getting VP for units completely destroyed or fled off the field. When I faced my bro one time, I had a warlord, 39 clanrats, a poisoned wind mortar, and a unit of Rat Ogres, he had a mage, RBT, 6 Sword Masters, 12 archers. By the end of the battle, he still had his mage and RBT, while I had lost the Rat ogres, the poisoned wind mortar, 34 clanrats and 2 wounds off the warlord, with the warlord and 5 remaining clanrats fleeing for their lives. I got over 320 VP, while my bro got 153, because I got his tiny units and their banners, and he didn't get any of the 465 VP for my clanrats and general (extra 125 for 1banner and general), just because he hadn't killed them all. The rules for VP seem to be 1 place GW messed up.


----------



## Cheese meister (Jun 5, 2010)

he should of done as fleeing units at the end of a game count as destroyed


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Cheese meister said:


> he should of done as fleeing units at the end of a game count as destroyed


Not any more.... which really sucks


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

The dead or fled rule requires that the entire unit be destroyed (killed or run off the board) in order to win any VPs form the unit (other than the banner, which one autowins if the unit breaks and flees). I think that GW did enough to encourage hordes and larger units by creating the horde supporting attacks benefit, the concept of steadfast wih greater ranks, etc. Requiring 100% of the models in a unit being killed in order to earn half VPs is a bit much and is encouraging units that are very large and resilient at the expense of tactical flexibility and movement emphasis. 

While some players prefer hand-to-hand combat in WHFB, the idea of large blocks of resilient blocks running into each other and battling it out until one unit is broken or destroyed (with stubborn and very difficult to kill characters bolstering each unit) is not a very interesting game in terms of tactics and strategy. I prefer a battle of movement and deployment flexibility with combinations of shooting, magic, and combat all playing important roles in the game.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Yeah, its why I've been enjoying using my WE more and more: a lot of people are coming to the table with feck all flexibility but rock hard units... so while my ogres would have to play into the opponents game and fight those nails units my WE can just kill off any supporting units they have, avoid them the rest of the game and laugh as I take the win... I feel its my duty to force the backlash against the stupid units that 8th favours.


----------

