I always doubt anyone who flaunts a super amazing winning record on forums who say they either went 20-0 with an army or some other such claim that would seem to defy the odds of having a really bad game. With dice as random as they are I know that someone can play consistently better than average and can even have good and long winning streaks. I did however see someone on another forum claim a 110-0-3 record, which I just don't believe unless he plays total retards.

For people that do win consistently, what's the worst that the dice have done to you yet still were able to pull out a win?

My worst that I remember was pretty recent, played 1850 guard with 2 russes, one bassie, two hellhounds and 8 line squads with las plas. First round my bassie got a direct hit and killed half a squad. After that every battlecannon and lascannon shot missed for the first two rounds, with plasma missing but not overheating on the second round. My hellhounds never made their 4+ to hit with inferno cannon for the 8 shots they made between each other. With very few kills it was no wonder I got rapid fired to death in most areas and I was only able to pull off a Solid Victory loss (as in opponent got a Solid Victory) by claiming an objective and denying one more. I don't see how these people can't have a game like that once in a while.

when i first moved here to the middle on nowhere iowa. they had their first 40k RT a few months after i got to town.

 so my first opponent was some local shmuck who worked at the old local game store and kept talking about how he hadnt lost in 200 games.2 chaplain rhino rush BA vs Wych heavy dark lance heavy DE.

 so the game was played and long story short, my dark eldar beat his blood angels. and after the game i proclaimed very loudly " looks like youre now  200 and 1!!!!!" everyone around us laughed, needless to say he marked me off on all the soft scores. it was totally worth it

I play a lot of IG games, I consider them my Benchmark army for playtesting.  I went 4-0-1 at GT GD Chicago this year.  I have played a lot of IG games, more than I can remember, but I'm sure I am NOT 103-0-3... Heh.

The worst example I ever had was versus an Iron Warriors player, at the 2004 Atlanta GT, 20 roughriders with veteran sargeants charge into regular ironwarriors marines and a bike unit in the open,  I figure I have almost 20 Marine casualties coming. 42 I5 S5 Power weapons!

42 to 4+ to hit rolls

3 HITS!

Of the 3 hits:

NO WOUNDS

I lose both of the units in melees, and ultimately lose the entire game. Later that game I wound 7 marines clustered in a wood with a demolisher hit and the player rolls 7 5+ saves in a single toss. 2 Demolishers explode off a glancing 6 in his next fire phase.  The most frustrating game I ever played; odds wise. I actually threw the dice away, which I have never done before or after.

Ah well. 

Yeah, I know how that can be.

My same opponent but in a different game had a Death Company with 8 guys and the rerolling Chaplain assault a squad of Thousand Sons one game, 32 attacks I think that is, with rerolls he had 4 hits which were all saved (chappy missed on his rerolls). I struck back and killed 6 of them.

Things like this and Augustus' example are why I doubt perfect records, sometimes the dice just don't work no matter how much planning you have, what good decisions you make, etc.

I've played a lot of historical campaigns -- Napoleonic and ACW -- where the match-ups often aren't even theoretically fair and it's the result of the campaign that matters, not individual battles.

I'm intrigued by the top-ranking players in the Medusa V campaign. Not only managing to play four or five game a day, for weeks on end, but winning nearly all of them as well! It's impressive.

Had a similar GT experience once. He was an inexperienced player, deployed badly and my entire Tyranid army hit his army exactly how I wanted and almost completely intact. Any observer watching the game woulda declared game over. Then with everything locked in h2h, I watched my army badly lose every close combat and get ground down to dust. He rolled extremely well, I rolled extremely poorly....round after unrelenting round.

Absolutely the most frustrating game I ever played, as I couldn't think of one thing I woulda done differently. 99 times out of 100 I'd win, but that not that day. Welcome to the NFL.

snooggums>  Things like this and Augustus' example are why I doubt perfect records, sometimes the dice just don't work no matter how much planning you have, what good decisions you make, etc.

Well spoken, it certainly can turn easily, furthermore the more games one plays, the more likely that becomes.

I have also noticed that any local players (the kind of people who play hundreds of games in a year) if they keep winning in the same venue, tend to develop a group of people who will metagame against them.  For example if a BA MAX Death company army is always winning people will start playing/painting something to wreck it, for example 15 starcannons or a zilla nid list or the like.  Making it more unlikely that anyone could ever get to a 100:1 win loss ratio overtime.

Besides who do they play who looses that many games? (Only wins 1 in 30?) I think I'd consider a player with an (Honest) 3:1 win loss ratio a pretty good player, 30:1 seems almost immpossible.

Spot on Snoogums.

At Adepticon last year I played a murderous game vs (All Raider) Dark Eldar, and most know what my opinion of them is... 

The mission was reverese escalation with night fight all game...  I got wrecked, although, I think that was a pretty stacked match up to fight my way out of, it was fun to try.  (Maybe it was poetic justice, if you are out there Xtapl.) Because of the mission and the match up, DE vs IG with reverse escalation and night fight I had a pair of rough rider units and 2 basilisks staring down the entire DE force of 11 raiders...

Ouch.

Some days the dice gods are with you, and some days they 'aint. Anybody that claims a 110-0-3 W/D/L record is blowing a bunch of hot air and/or conveniently "forgot" some 100+ losses that went with it. And that is the thing, some people just can't or won't admit they lost. They're usually pretty sore sports too, as jeremycobert found out.

i win more games than i lose its 51%-49%. and have played many people who are really good and they dont have those sort of win records and I live in london where you can find plenty of opponents. the only time i could claim a 120-0-3 is if i played the same opponenet a 123 times. I have a regular at the store i play at who gets beeten by begeiners, he reallly is that crap. when people say they have such a great win record they talk crap. more like thats how many times they get beet. I had a similar story to jeremycobert where i played the store red shirts who had won all his games untill i beet him with my 13th company ina 1500pt game. he was to used to playing the children in the store and bullying them with his made up rules so he could win. it did not work when he played me as i was a few years older than him.

There is a guy that plays in Torrance Ca, at a store called 3rd Planet who claims to have a 50+/3/0 record with his chaos army. The thing is he is the king of the kids there AND he does not have a written army list. How do you play against a guy who does not write down his army list?

Darrian
(I have an army list)

If anything, my record is 3-0-103.

King of the Kid I like that. its true most people that win, do so cos they play kids, have no army list, cheat and also just bully the kids.

:sniff, sniff: Hmmm... I smell... MUNCHIKINS! Of course their Super Duper Marine Army of TyranaKhornUltraSOB Cherry Picked VDR Uber-Cheaty stomps all over his kid sister's beanie baby army. This is what got me to leave 40k, the glut of younglings and not single a (mature) adult for miles still playing 40k. Hoping that's changed, with the new locale and all.

No its not changed much as 40 still appeals to the kids more than fantasy, if you want adult players start playing fantasy.

You know what those people need?

The Pan Fo!

Ya know, I think the originator of The Pan Fo is a current member of Dakka Dakka! He can provide them with all the Codex: Pan Fo goodness straight from the horses mouth! Awesome, huh?

Personally,i'd say that even with -the- most min/maxed,perfected,razor edge army its simply impossible to have 100 or so wins and no losses.More than 40...maybe.60?So-so.But not over 80 like that

As a necron once said,'your dice provide suckage' when you least want them to.

Worst turn of game was actually today when i played against Tau.
First example is my Raptor squad tearing its way through a 10m +2 dogs Kroot squad,consolidating onto a 6man Stealth squad then making a massacre on another 6 man FW squad,finally miserably failing the d6 when the distance to the next squad was of 4inches.
result:a 1
Answer:4 crisis suits,12 FWs shooting in rapid,the target 6 man with another rapid fire,10 man FW with long range fire and a hammer head.Needless to say,the squad was vaporised in seconds.
About the same amount of luck the next turn by my friend who fire a pie plate onto a 5 man Havoc team,getting a hit and killing none of them.

Let's see...In tournaments, I've had 2 losses, and 2 ties...And Around 26 wins...Give or take.

Non-tournament games, I rarely lose...I think I've lost 5 times total using an army I'd constructed.

My present 40k tournament record is 93-8-6, most of it trackable over the years at dakka. Most of the losses are in the period between 4th edition and marines getting a new codex, where I was too lazy to paint anything.

I did win 29 tournament games in a row before I lost my first one.

I don't bother tracking pickup games.

My best comeback was against marines where in escalation half my army show up and I deploy in a corner. Half my tau army shoot at a rhino and was only able to keep if from shooting. The next turn the rhino payload and the independant character behind on a bike assault me and a big part of my army. Next turn since that part of my army was trashed i enter the other half of my army in another corner. This time I was able to kill a rhino and killed everything because the door were blocked, shoot another rhino, half a devastator squad and a second rhino , I finally won the game

I never lost a game with my Orks in 2nd edition. I can't say that for my Space Elves or Chaos though,

It's not hard too believe that one could have such a high record. We have a Tau player at our store that once went on a 50 game winning streak against EVERY regular opponent in the store. That's a pool of at least 20 or so guys, and NO kids. When I had my Emperor's Children army, I had a record of 56 wins, 3 losses, and 1 draw. And I played every type of army out there: horde Guard armies, armored company, Nid horde armies, Nid godzilla lists, vanilla marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Mech Tau, Static Tau, Dark Eldar, Iyanden Eldar, "regular" eldar, Sisters of Battle, Daemonhunters, Deathwing, Deathguard, etc, etc. 2 of my losses? To the same Ork opponent. Overall, my list was so efficient and consistantly strong that I eventually decided to sell the army and try something else. Plus, I made over a grand on the sale, which financed my next army AND paid for some school books /expenses. Sweet!

It's definately possible to win A LOT, and you don't have to play idiots to do it. I have no doubts my Chaos list could have gone for another 50 wins with few losses. But I got a solid year of gaming with an uber-cool and hot painted army. I like to mix it up a bit- do a project, then move on.

Posted By scramasax 08/09/2006 9:00 PM

. The next turn the rhino payload and the independant character behind on a bike assault me and a big part of my army.

 

 

 

 

Damn!  You got assaulted by a guy on a bike and a crew that popped out of a rhino?

The games at your store seem to be a bit to realistic for me!

mauleed> 40k tournament record is 93-8-6

Outstanding! That is truly legendary sir.

I'd just like to ad a comment that there is a distinction between tournament records, and overall records.  Generally a posted record with no other context seems to indicate an overall record not a tournament exclusive record.  Not recording casual games also seems a way to pad the numbers, for example. Maybe this is reallt where the crux of the fantastic record lies?

Never the less well done, you seem to have single handedly proved it is possible to have a record on the order of magnitude of 100-0-3.

Honestly, do you think that it is legitimate given what it must have taken for you to achieve even 93-8-6? Just curious, maybe its Mark Parker incognito?  I don't know?

All that initialy comes to my mind when I read about major win records is the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is bragging about how he rules his dojo, and it turns out he's the only adult there.
As I think about it a bit more, though, I can see how it's possible in some cases.
Like anything else, if you put a lot of time into something, you can't help but be good at it. Some kids that grow up shooting hoops or practicing piano a lot get to be NBA allstars or concert pianists, while other kids that grow up with toy soldiers and game playing as the big hobby sport incredible win-loss records and do extremely well in tournaments.

My friends that took their drop pod armies to Seattle and finished in the top 10 spent a lot of time and countless games honing their tactics and army lists to a pretty high degree.  I imagine that must be the same with any serious tournament player, they have to be willing to put the time and practice in if they reasonably expect to do well.

Of course, there will always be a lot of Kramers that will seek out beginners and kids under age 10 to play against so they can say they rule the game store.

its true they play little kids who are beginers and build there record up. I was visiting warhammer world and there happenened to be 5 GW stores from london down there running a tournament between there stores for the customers. there were around 50 kids enetered and 3 adults. the adults won 1st and 2nd place. And yes one of the adults was so crap he could not even beet the little kiddies. So when i see records like mauleeds excuese me if i am not convinced.

Yup, that's a trophey that I'd be proud to have. One that proves I can beat any pre- teenager around.

  Like I said, though,  there are some serious tournament players that test out every different situation with the  armies they will take, including times when they role crappy dice, so they can be ready if the same thing to happens and know how to counter it in a tourney.  A lot of these guys do incredible comebacks to win a game that looks lost.

Well I am officially 2-0 with my DE :-D One of them was against iron warriors though which I am pretty proud of!

Posted By beef 08/10/2006 6:18 PM
 So when i see records like mauleeds excuese me if i am not convinced.

mauleed's record can probably be verified in it's entirety. He also has some losses. I don't doubt his 29 game winning streak either as it can also be verified, and is given as tournament play only. Note his total record is around 12-1 or so, which is not as absurd as "undefeated forever". I was hoping he would give some feedback on his bad dice roll games that he still pulled off a victory on, wether he just ended up hiding because of bad rolls or if he ignored enemy models to claim objectives instead.

Also note that mauleed does not appear to play kill or be killed missions only, he can take heavy casualties and still pull of VP's for objectives which he talks about often, which is one way to work around bad rolling.

I have never kept track of my wins or losses with an army to me if that is all your looking for then you miss the point of the hobby.  I know back in 3rd ed my orks were practically auto win, and i did not lose many games but I never counted.  I know right now that my marines are around a 60% win average, but for actual numbers I have no clue.

Back to the main point of this thread dealing with odd dice situations.  I have gone 3+ turns where the 10 missile launchers in my SM army have all missed each turn.  I went two weeks where my average dice roll was a 2.  I failed every armor save for the first 2 turns one game (3+ and 2+)  Then  fail leaderships on top of that .  I never count on my dice to help me in a game.

I need to start gaming with people who are much younger and less experienced at 40K. I swear, I may never have one of those super records that I can brag about as long as I game exclusively with players who are more experienced than me. Maybe I should spend more time at GW stores beating up kids and less time at RTT's playing adults. Hmmmm.

Darrian

Posted By beef 08/10/2006 6:18 PM
its true they play little kids who are beginers and build there record up.....So when i see records like mauleeds excuese me if i am not convinced.

I'm sure one out of every 8 tournament games or so is against a kid. In the 3 40k GTs I've gone to (so out of 16 games), I have played a 14 year old and a 16 year old. The other 14 games were against adults. Both were good enough players to be paired with me on battle points when I faced them.

Beef: It you're not convinced, that's fine. But my biggest boast, my 16-0 40k GT record, can be easily verified on GW's website. If that and the fact that others who's met me verify it doesn't convince you, so be it. It's not going to much matter either way to me. I'm still the king baby.  

Oh, and here's an "overcoming bad dice" story:

Game 1 of the 2004 Baltimore GT. I'm playing shooty 140 model guard. He's got rhino rush space wolves.

The mission is a cleanse type mission, where only quarters matter.

He goes first. Shoots up 12" pop smoke on everything.

I shoot with ~20 heavy weapons and 3 pie plates.

I do nothing but repeatedly blow storm bolters off and shake his rhinos.

So it's turn 2, and all of his choppy space wolves hit me.

He's murdering me on VPs. By the end of the game I have about 10 models, a sentinel, and a single demolisher. But I've whittled everything down to below half buy his venerable dread. 2 quarters to 1, I win. Every single time I had a countercharge or a shooting opportunity I shot things to below half. So he still had about half his army, he just couldn't hold any objectives with it.

16- 0 record i can believe as at tournaments my brother who is a year younger than me has records like that. its just the 93-8-6 and the higher figures i doubt. obviously i have not met mauleed and did not meen to cause any offence. obviously if others have seen him play regurarly and agree with his records than i dont doubt it. i doubt records like that when there is no eveidence to back it up thats all. cos like that without people knowing me i can claim to have a 1000-2-5 record. you get my point??

Augustus wrote:
(Maybe it was poetic justice, if you are out there Xtapl. )

What you put out into the universe comes back to you times three. Brings a smile to my face.... heh.

For my own part, while I no longer have the exact statistics on my own tournament record (and I've come to regard people who keep track of such things with a mixture of amusement and pity...seriously, if you know your tournament record is blah blah blah and who cares so what, you need to get yourself to a psychologist quickly to discuss your masculinity issues), I win a lot more than I lose. I don't have exact numbers, but I have won three overall trophies in the last six months or so, so I'm doing okay.

Augustus, if you're still unconvinced about DE, pay attention to the table assignments at Tacticon and let's keep track of how I'm doing... Didn't lose once at GenghisCon...I'm going to try to repeat the performance at Tacticon. I'm almost guaranteed to face at least two Marine armies, which you can pencil in as wins right now.

#Xtapl, Where/when is this Tacticon that you speak of? Ghengiscon was in Denver, right?

Darrian

For my own part, while I no longer have the exact statistics on my own tournament record (and I've come to regard people who keep track of such things with a mixture of amusement and pity...seriously, if you know your tournament record is blah blah blah and who cares so what, you need to get yourself to a psychologist quickly to discuss your masculinity issues), I win a lot more than I lose. I don't have exact numbers, but I have won three overall trophies in the last six months or so, so I'm doing okay.

So if you take pride in the performance of your army your automatically less of a man? But taking pride in the appearance of your army doesn't? Why exactly are painting and modeling superior skills to playing?

Beef, if you belive 16-0, then how can you not believe 93-8-6? Going by 16-0, he could have 93-0.

I believe Mauleed, his record speaks for itself.

Chuck (busy sucking up to mauleed)

GW publishes the results of its tournaments so Mauleed's claim is verifiable.

Going back to Medusa V, it's not the win-loss records of the leaders I doubt so much as the speed they rack them up. The top scorers claim to have been playing four or five games a day, every day for four weeks. Considering it takes an average 2 hours a game, that's like 40K is their full-time job!

for some people its its there only job, they dont have a life outside there local GW store. they live and breathe 40k. quite sad when you realise that most of these people are adults.

Crimson Devil wrote:
So if you take pride in the performance of your army your automatically less of a man? But taking pride in the appearance of your army doesn't?

That's not what I meant by "masculinity issues." What I meant is that there are far too many people for whom success or failure at a game of toy soldiers somehow determines how much of "a man" someone is. You hear it a lot on Dakka, but especially you hear it with the Privateer Press people. For the love of God, it expicitly says in their rulebook, "Play like you've got a pair." If that isn't f-ing pathetic, I don't know what is. It just belies my general notion about the gaming community that its full of people whose daddies didn't hug them enough...

Why exactly are painting and modeling superior skills to playing?

Because they are. Not every jobber off the street can do it with skill, unlike Mauleed Marines, which I'm pretty sure my cat could win with.

Darrian13 wrote:
#Xtapl, Where/when is this Tacticon that you speak of? Ghengiscon was in Denver, right?

Yep. Tacticon is in the same hotel over Labor Day weekend.

Beef wrote:
for some people its its there only job, they dont have a life outside there local GW store. they live and breathe 40k. quite sad when you realise that most of these people are adults.

In my experience, 97% of all 40k gamers are children. Even when they're 40 years old.

Anyone can have a perfect game score. Head to a GW store and play with your ultramauleens. Have fun.

Xtapl: So what, in your opinion, is a good measure of masculinity? Males need something to contest over to see who has the bigger balls. For some it's sports, for some it's chess, and for some of the chess players it's toy soldiers. Unless you know of a game that takes both extreme mental and physical skill to play proficiently, it's one or the either.

Anyway, I think I know what Xtap's going for and he's pretty much using skill or proficiency as a measure of how well that game/activity is at comparing your skill against others. I agree. 40k's an absolutely horrible game to measure brainpower. I use the same argument regarding music, classical > rock and all that, but that tends to end in flames with rock/rap fanboys and it's OT for this thread anyway.

As for pathetic fanboys, 40k ranks up there with WOW fanatics and paintballers. That's pretty pathetic, but nowhere close to otaku male-sailor-moons...

As for pathetic fanboys, 40k ranks up there with WOW fanatics and paintballers. That's pretty pathetic, but nowhere close to otaku male-sailor-moons...

QFT.

Actually there probably is a positive correlation between "brainpower" and success at 40K.

The game excludes a number of abilities that are required for success in real-world generalship, such as guts, leadership, and the ability to make good decisions under pressure using limited information.

40K requires a good memory and calculation of odds; these are both linked to intelligence.

Luck helps, and Napoleon was a big believer in luck. Coup d'oeil counts as well. It's not all pure brainpower.

i good armu list helps as well. give a really smart player grots only and see how well he does?

A smart player with Grots would do better than a stupid player with Grots.

I have the best Armu list out there.

a smart player with grots would lose to a stupid player with a khorne army

What's your point, Beef?

My point is that a clever player will tend to do better than a stupid player, all other things being equal.

Your point seems to be that if the odds are stacked against someone, they'll probably lose. As this is completely obvious, I don't understand what you're getting at.

whats your point? a clever player will tend to do better than a stupid player, all other things being equal.
No really are you sure?/ state the obvious why dont you.

my point was its not just how clever somebody is its also how good the army list they use.

You're both right.

All things being equal, a smart player will beat a dumb player.

When things aren't equal, there is a higher probability that the one with the higher octane army list will win, regardless of the relative skill of the players.

I win about 80% of the time and I do it with various armies. I enjoy building competative lists and usually pick up the least popular army that all the locals say you can't win with. My latest project is a tau list that's non-mech(with the exception of pathfinders). So far I am 8-0 at various point limits 750-1500. One of my worst dice experiences happened recently were I had 8 2+ term saves to make with a five man squad and failed six of them. This also happened to be my GK's so was extremely painfull because of the high points cost.

Daminen I dont know why you had such low opinions with DE considering their awesome performance tournament wise. look at the gladiator for adepitcon. 3rd place was my Wych Cult. I was tied with you on overall scores in chicago 2006 but the battle scores were top 4. The Team Tournament Marc's crew tied/beat your army.

Look at Atlanta 2004 GT I also won best General with DE.

Show some respect for DE because I sure as hell show respect to any IG army that deploys in my games.

That's not what I meant by "masculinity issues." What I meant is that there are far too many people for whom success or failure at a game of toy soldiers somehow determines how much of "a man" someone is. You hear it a lot on Dakka, but especially you hear it with the Privateer Press people. For the love of God, it expicitly says in their rulebook, "Play like you've got a pair." If that isn't f-ing pathetic, I don't know what is. It just belies my general notion about the gaming community that its full of people whose daddies didn't hug them enough...

Privateer Press's attitude is: "Don't play our game if your going to whine." People expect certain things depending on the game culture. I have seen people lose in Warmachine without complant, then the next week whine during a game of 40k.

No one wants to lose to a toy/weak list. There is a certain dignity to losing to someone "A Game". "He brought a tough list and beat the snot out of me." Its quite differnet to lose to someone pulling their punches.

i lose regularly as i make really crap army lists and use all the really expensive cc units i can feild. so i use fully tooled up honour gaurd in my BA and ultramarine armies and same with my wolf gaurds, totally maxed out on wargear and points. Dont even ask how much gets spent on my IC. But its fun to play with. However when i go to tournies i do go with a competive list and do very well. I am off to a doubles tournie and my list is so crap but i am not looking to win alot but i am looking to take 1st or 2nd in the painting competition there. 40k is about having fun. If you prefer painting than thats cool, if you prefer winning fine, if you just like playing thats even better. If you can do all thing equally you have understood the spirit og the game.
Some people focus to much on wwinning and turn up with nasty painted armies, just undercoated and the min 2 or 3 colours to make it legal for tournie play. I laugh people like that. ~Obviously they dont get laid or have much of a life and if they can get some fulfilment in there sad, desperate hollow lives by winning good luck to them.
Now before i get peoples backs up i am not saying everybody who wins is like that as my brother is really good at winning and paints like a pro. He takes pride in his mini. You know the type of people who i am talking about. the power ego types who dont give a crap what there mini look like. If you cant paint very well thats fine, you can see the difference in models not painted well as to whether the person has tried to make an effort or not.

Ridiculous records are easy to write down, I personally have a record of 479-2-1. See how easy that was to write down...

In all seriousness, my UKGT record is (thinks for a bit) 23 wins, 3 draws, 6 losses. Since my best placing is 16th overall, I can well believe that those people right at the top have an absolutely fantastic record. I've no idea what my overall tournament record is, since I've done a lot of tournaments that I can't remember my results from, but it's probably about the same. I have absolutely no idea what my record is like in pick-up games, not least because I have no idea, even to the nearest thousand, how many I've played

Posted By stonefox 08/12/2006 10:06 AM
Anyone can have a perfect game score. Head to a GW store and play with your ultramauleens. Have fun.

Xtapl: So what, in your opinion, is a good measure of masculinity? Males need something to contest over to see who has the bigger balls.

 

 

All those points are asininely irrelevant.  Here's how you measure your masculinity:

Do you respect others, help the weak, and try to be a good man to your family every day?

Toy soldiers, video games, how great an athlete you were in high school don't mean squat compared to that. 

To badly paraphrase an otherwise excellent war movie (Patton)

-when you wake up out of a cold sleep because your daughter has come runnign in crying her head off after a bad dream, you'll know what to do.

 

 

While your points are good for measuring the worth of a person. Its possible to be a good father, husband, etc, without being very masculine.

Men are hard-wired to measure their masculinity against each other. So anytime your have two or more men competing (and yes a game is a competion) the more likely the base part of our character will begin to show. The less secure men will chafe at losing or brag to much about winning.

Posted By xtapl 08/12/2006 9:22 AM

Why exactly are painting and modeling superior skills to playing?

Because they are. Not every jobber off the street can do it with skill, unlike Mauleed Marines, which I'm pretty sure my cat could win with.

 

 

 

Sigged

Arguing over this stuff is really slowed. This is a game of toy soldiers.

We all want to show off our generalmanship and how good we could be as conquerers or the next Solar Macharius.
Hell I fell victim to that earlier in this thread. Instead of just arguing and trying to one up one another lets just say congratulations.

Congratulations to everyone win or lose for atleast making this hobby one intresting one.

I have only lost twice with my BA drop pod army. I have no idea how many games I have played with them for a total count but it does include three RTTs, two of which were outside my local area. The two losses were to Dark Eldar and Speed Freaks. These two armies were faster than mine and I made a couple of bad decisions that really cost me.

I started a Sisters of Battle army last year, and since then have kept a small diary (like a dwarf grudge book) of all the games I have played, who my opponent was, the games result, where the game took place and notes on any amusing or interesting events during that game. I use it to help me write a copnstantly evolving back story for my sisters and the 'Order fo the Ruby Gaze'.
I havn't had the opportunity for too many games as yet, infact looking at the book there is a total of 15 battles the order has been involved in to date. The results of which are 2 losses, 0 draws and 13 wins.
The order is doing well in my opinion so far. On top of that my last four games have been against different opponents at the Sydney/Chatswood games club, and all four have been victorys.
So I guess the Order of the Ruby Gaze is on a roll and undefeated in the Chatswood club!

I started a Sisters of Battle army last year, and since then have kept a small diary (like a dwarf grudge book) of all the games I have played, who my opponent was, the games result, where the game took place and notes on any amusing or interesting events during that game. I use it to help me write a copnstantly evolving back story for my sisters and the 'Order fo the Ruby Gaze'.
I havn't had the opportunity for too many games as yet, infact looking at the book there is a total of 15 battles the order has been involved in to date. The results of which are 2 losses, 0 draws and 13 wins.
The order is doing well in my opinion so far. On top of that my last four games have been against different opponents at the Sydney/Chatswood games club, and all four have been victorys.
So I guess the Order of the Ruby Gaze is on a roll and undefeated in the Chatswood club!

Arguing over this stuff is really slowed. This is a game of toy soldiers.

Yes, and playing ____ball is a game of trying to hit/push a ball into a stupid goal. Playing computer games is punching keystrokes and watching database numbers go up. And racing is driving a hunk of metal around a track. Every activity can be reduced into existential nothingness if you wanted. What's your point?

i think his point is that most people would say children play with toy soldiers. Which is true. Can most people here say for example if they are lawyers or solicitors when they had an interview did they say when asked "so tell us what you do in your spare time" they replied "well to be honest I play with little toy soldiers."? I know i did not. 40k is like a dirty little secret you keep and most of your friens dont ask about it. You dont tell your boss about it.

Oh you dont mention it to girls you are trying to get with who you have just met either. That does not go down well.

I've mentioned 40k on at least one job interview (and I got the job). My co-workers know I play. Anyone that's been to my place and made it to my bedroom can't help but notice the boxes and whatever my current project is since that's usually on my work table, but at that point it doesn't matter.

As far as girls, you're right, I do brush it off but that's just part of the game. It's funny how acceptable it is now to say I just play xbox with the guys.

Posted By beef 08/15/2006 1:08 PM
i think his point is that most people would say children play with toy soldiers. Which is true. Can most people here say for example if they are lawyers or solicitors when they had an interview did they say when asked "so tell us what you do in your spare time" they replied "well to be honest I play with little toy soldiers."? I know i did not. 40k is like a dirty little secret you keep and most of your friens dont ask about it. You dont tell your boss about it.

 

I was never asked about my hobbies in an interview.  For about a year I would bring in my bag to work (as they would melt in the car) when playing in the summer.  As you get older no one cares.

Interestingly She Who Must Be Obeyed bought a frame thing and ordered me to put some of my 2nd ed termies and orks in it for the wall like a painting-but her side of the family is artsy fartsy anyway.

 

I so know that feeling when your significant other first learns about your hobby, but hey, what really is the big deal? Its better than being a fantasy sports (or whatever) player just to fit in with the crowd. At least we are being true to ourselves. hahah, but off of the soap box, it still is a tense moment when the lady sees the toys. =)

And to those who say that competetive gamers who track their records are "pathetic" or hyper-masculine, overcompensating, etc. I say that we are just very into that aspect of the hobby. There is nothing wrong with that. It is all in how you present it, no one likes a braggart or a blowhard, but if someone takes something seriously, puts time and effort into being good at it, enjoys the comeptition and then keeps track of their record to show their success, then so be it. some people enjoy the competition, others dont. should a golden deamon winner hide his trophies and never tell anyone about them? really, its just different strokes for different folks, and so long as your are a nice person about what you do, its no big deal.

I also love to paint and model and put a lot of time into that side of the hobby as well, but for me, i love a good match up with a tough player more than anything esle associated with wargamming. it is more engaging and exciting to me than painting or modeling ever could be, but again that is just me.



on topic though, i have only lost once in the last 6 months with my marines, and tied twice. I cant really prove that other than my record on the SCGWL webstie (southern california games workshop league, my army is the Taima Legion). Currantly 8-0 and i believe i am still leading the league in VP's, although they have not put the most recent update up yet.

Best lopsided come back for me: i was playing a fluffy marine list against a buddy of mine who brought his nails chaos army. By rights he should have cleaned the table with me. His infiltrating super kitted out lord got a first turn charge on my 5 man bolter scout squad with no sarge, and things were looking grim. When he failed to kill a single model on HIS charge, then was in turn killed by 5 little scouts, we both knew it would be a down hill game from there. he proceeded to have the worst luck in one game i have ever seen and lost. we still laugh about it to this day.

Well, from looking at my sig, I went 18-4-5 this year at RTTs.

I would be up there with Ed's record if I played Ultramaleeds instead of the Thousand Sons and Demonhunters. If I took out the Thousand Sons and Demonhunters I was 13-1-3.

There is a little kid at a the local GW store that claims to be undefeated. He cheats like crazy with the other kids he plays. I don't play at the local GW store because there is nothing but kids there, and if there is one thing I hate, it is playing against children.

I am interested in who has good win/loss records. I want to know who is the best, so I can play against them. I like to play the best there is to see how I match up.

I hope Ed makes it out to Adepticon. I would like to give him a go with my Thousand Sons.

And there is a large element of luck. Just like poker, you can be one of the best players in the world, and still lose. Even when the best poker players are getting the 'best of it' (having favorable odds), they can still get sucked out on (they get beaten by someone who got lucky).

I played a game Saturday against a Nid player, and I shot the crap out of his hive tyrant and I still could not kill it. He was making is 6+ inv save against plasma guns, and I was rolling '1's to wound with lascannons. It ended up killing half of my army, and there was nothing I could do about it.

i love playing cheating kids, but more than that i love playing cheating adults

mauleed,

would you be willing to post or PM me your list? I am curious to compare notes and see what options you take. I have been constantly trying to trim the fat from my own marine list and it sound slike you have a tough one, i wouldnt mind taking a gander at it if you are willing.

and of course i could put mine up, or send you it as well.

thanks.

Just post your list in the army list forum and I'll comment.

But right now I'm chucking my list and redoing everything as Deathwing, in the interests of being a little more fluffy (and getting even more terminators on the board)

Is ultramauleed a reference to your marines?/ I dont see how bad that list could be? you are probably just a good player.

It's a reference to the list I used in 3rd edition. It was a rock hard, fat free list that I happened to do better with than I had any business doing. Of course it's detractors could never do as well with it or any other army, so people whining about it was great amusement to myself and others.

It's performance was made even more annoying because it was painted to a very mediocre level.

by mediocre do you meen crap?? my space wolf army in 3rd edition was rock hard. I wish we could still rhino rush and still assualt after firing rapid firing weapons.

Mauleed wrote:
Of course it's detractors could never do as well with it or any other army, so people whining about it was great amusement to myself and others.

Keep telling yourself that, Ed...

I don't know of anyone around here who's a bigger detractor than I am, and I think I do *fairly* well for myself. As long as everyone's going to keep engaging in this pathetic penis-size party, my (documentable) tournament record speaks for itself, and it ain't all that far behind yours with an army 5x as difficult to win with...

But it is behind mine. So much so no one's naming armies after you.

Lots of people have your record. Only one has mine.

(and no, I don't really care, but you're fun to antagonize, because it obviously matters more to you than me)

 

That's some funny flame bait Mauleed :p Not that I'd think either of you would throw the gloves down. I agree with Mauleed though- there aren't many people around who'er as referenced as often and consistently as he is when it comes to power gaming. Torgosh's Tau are pretty well respected, I'd say he's up there in terms of Mau's level of respect for his army. Same goes for Yak and Nids (he was pretty much the resident advice giver when the newest carnifex came out!).

Posted By beef on 08/18/2006 5:19 PM
by mediocre do you meen crap?? my space wolf army in 3rd edition was rock hard. I wish we could still rhino rush and still assualt after firing rapid firing weapons.

Yes, Id rather get viciously and massively crushed  by a nicely painted army than a badly painted one.
Mainly because theres an element of spite in there when playing against a badly painted army.

Mauleed wrote:
(and no, I don't really care, but you're fun to antagonize, because it obviously matters more to you than me)

Nah. Not really. Truth is, you've never had the guts to put your money where your mouth is. I just have fun pointing out that you're nothing but hot air.

I still maintain the same challenge I've put out there a dozen times: I'll build and take your Ultramauleens army to a major tournament. You build my Dark Eldar list and take it. We'll see if it's in the player or the list.

Because I'll go undefeated, and you'll not crack the top ten, and we both know it.

Well Wins mean nothing when it comes down to Victories proven in GTs for overall or best general and those few individuals I do respect. Sure Marc Parker doesnt have an army named after him but thanks to several of his armies that he has used over the years and has won 5 GTs with 5 very distinct armies, GW has infact had to revise their respective codexes to cover what he found in the army lists and subsequently nerfed them or toned them down.

Not to mention the fact that all the Armies that he has won GTs with are non MEQ.

Shawn Kemp is also another player that has proven himself in gaming and of course the rest of Da Boyz as well are well proven. The said individuals have had top marks in sportsmanship, battle, painting , and drinking. Nothing better than that.

its mainly non space marines armies that have been winning the GT here in the UK. Eldar and chaos being the fav along with tau.

in reply Shadow_Strike i agree its worse losing to a badly painted army. I still reckon my 3rd edition space wolves army would have taken the ulramarine list of mauleeds. not boasting as there is no way to back my claim up. Firstly i am in the uk, secondly we dont play 3rd edition anymore. *sob*

I still maintain the same challenge I've put out there a dozen times: I'll build and take your Ultramauleens army to a major tournament. You build my Dark Eldar list and take it. We'll see if it's in the player or the list.

I don't see how Mauleed can win this. If your right he loses. If he is right, he still had to buy some fugly donkey models and still loses.

We'll see if it's in the player or the list.
Or perhaps somebody's notoriously loose interpretation of the LOS rules

I don't see how Mauleed can win this. If your right he loses. If he is right, he still had to buy some fugly donkey models and still loses.
LOL so true. Although I'll admit good modelers like xtapl can take those fugly models and turn them into an army that doesn't make one poke out their eyes.

hahaha.

Yeah, if I play DE, do I get to use the magic cylinder rules too?

I can tell you I'm not going to be buying any DE models any time soon, but I'm sure Xtapl and I can find some sort of interesting challenge. I propose we both do Eldar, since neither of us have a tournament army now. Then we can see how we both do and also compare the armies, as I'm anxious to show I'm as good a modeller as he is.

why not loan each other your respective armies,

Because we live half a continent away from each other and don't know each other.

 

ok i thought from the way you guys were talking you sorta of knew each other, ok how about you arrange to meet up at some point and play best out of 3

Give DE a try and you will be amazed by what you can do.

I'm always amazed at how they sit on the table looking so ugly.

DE are quite good in CC, i was amazed when i played against them for the first time with my wolves. my wolves took quite a beeting, I won but just, only had my lord and my chaplain left plus a preditor and 2 grey hunters. the DE had nothing left. it was a scare for me.

Their model range is dreck but if you play with an open mind and think like an assassin you can win nearly any game with DE. Most people claim that they suck and smirk when they see my army but then respect my shooting ability along with a powerful assault element. My tactics are pretty damn basic; I play to my opponent's weaknesses in his list. If he is shooting heavy, I throw my wyches at them and with my lord can basically shred them in hth. If an opponent is very choppy, I shoot his squads to hell. Mobility is the key even though a part of my army is static I can still redeploy my heavy weapon squads to another place with a simple 6" move plus a fleet. The only problem is your only allowed to make few mistakes if any. Against a good opponent your almost down to zero mistakes.

My real problem is going up against balanced armies since they are the hardest because I cant take out a particular weakness that takes out their effectiveness. I always championed balanced armies win the tournaments because of their versatility.

Balanced armies are where its at.

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/23/2006 8:46 AM
Balanced armies are where its at.

What game are you playing?

Posted By mauleed on 08/23/2006 10:07 AM

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/23/2006 8:46 AM
Balanced armies are where its at.

What game are you playing?

Green Bloater = BloodyT

Just your friendly neighborhood FYI.

Going through here, I noticed several people post about how they win more then they lose. Well damnit, where are all the guys who pick up that slack? Will all the losers in here please raise their hand?

*raises his*

Honestly, I don't to bad. Since finding my latest gaming group I've won about 40% of my games. Something I can be satisfied with. My current Medusa record is 4-2-5.

And my opinion on the Medusa winners... Kids on summer vacation. I was going through the top guy in Hydra, looking at his games. All against the same group of 5 or 6. Much like my group when I got into the game at 12 years old. There was several of us, and 1 guy consitantly beat the living crap out of us everytime. We would sit there and play 4 or 5 games a day, and we'd lose every one of them to this guy. That's my theory on those people.

i second that, they just keep beeting the same people over and over and make ther stats high of those wins

I keep hearing of this balanced army theory. Someone explain to me balanced. Is this taking as many craptastic options as possible. I understand themed, I understand shooty, and assault oriented but I struggle with this balanced as it's way to subjective.

This one time my tyranids won a game once.

I find it really hard to take win/loss records seriously with a ruleset like this. Its a fun game, but that's all it is... a beer-and-pretzels game... more fun when it's played cooperatively than competitively in my opinion. I wish I discovered this game when I was twelve... oh the stop-action movies my buddies and I would have filmed!

I got two 40k armies right now, but when 7th edition fantasy rolls out, I may sell once so I can hop onto the essentially better game.

Posted By Lemartes on 08/23/2006 1:40 PM
I keep hearing of this balanced army theory. Someone explain to me balanced. Is this taking as many craptastic options as possible. I understand themed, I understand shooty, and assault oriented but I struggle with this balanced as it's way to subjective.

The theory is that you can’t serve 2 masters.

 

What that means is that if you are half assault and half shooting, that you can’t do either well. For example you will be out-shot by shooting armies, and out-assaulted by assault armies.

 

Most people think that if you are going to shoot, really shoot. Take a look at Mauleed’s armies and they are about 90%+ committed to shooting, with a small counter assault force.

 

The same goes with assault armies. If you are going to assault, go whole-hog and really assault. If you have any shooting elements, they will get easily get killed, and add nothing to the synergy of the army.

 

Personally I like to go with a mix of 70% of one aspect, and 30% of the other with several units that can fill either roll.

My point exactly unless someone can prove otherwise. Balanced = unfocused and losing many games.  I just hear people say you need to use a balanced list to win.  

Posted By Lemartes on 08/23/2006 2:57 PM
My point exactly unless someone can prove otherwise. Balanced = unfocused and losing many games.  I just hear people say you need to use a balanced list to win.  

A "balanced" list has nothing to do whether or not it is all assault, all shooty or a mix,  but how well that list can react to any potential list an opponent can spring on you, and one where any weaknesses have been minimized and all strengths maximized. Far too many think "balanced" = "fluffy", which it does not, though the fluff nazi's would like you to think otherwise.

A "balanced list" is this mythical creature that allows a 50% chance of winning while enhancing the fun play experience of your opponent playing companion. Warm fuzzy hugs are optional.

Its advocates are mainly brain dead model pushers.

Yeah, that's always been my definition of a balanced list. One that has a way to handle any and all situations. Those lists are the reason why balanced lists are the powerful ones.

I think every scrap of empirical evidence I've seen since I've started has pretty clearly shown it's the unbalanced lists that dominate the tournament scene. The most effective lists are always the ones that have a bunch of the same things filling just a few limited rolls.

"Balanced: ability to react to any list an opponent can spring on you"

So, what some might call WAAC is by that definition also 'balanced'...as it will deal with every opponent in the same way.

Guess what, they are balanced lists...Thus effective lists.

Fine Here is some evidence; Paul Murphy's Blood Angel List had a mix of Power assault units with many shooty squads and it won Baltimore. I think Ed you remember baltimore. Marc Parker's Feral Ork list dominated shooting thanks to multiple rokkits and 9 kannons yet he had +80 Madboyz ready to chop people that list won Chicago 2005 GT. Shawn Kemp's Word Bearers had predators and several rapidfire shooting squads and a load of demons to back them up, he won Chicago 2006 GT. 2005 Minneapolis GT Marc once again won with a balanced Wych Cult army that kept your head down with miltiple lances and disentegrators while coming at you with crazy chics. Baltimore 2004 Shawn Kemp wins with lost and the damned and his army had a mix of traitor squads, tanks and a crap load of mutants for some chopping. Seems these armys have either 50/50 in shooting/assault or 60/40 either side. Thats 5 GTs and perfect examples of balanced armies.

My definition of a balanced army is an army that is capable of dominating any 2 phases of the game at any time. A friend once told me that and it holds so true to the game. If you can dominate 2 phases of the game, you can win it.

Without those actual lists, you can't say if any of them are balanced or not. For example, I very much doubt many people would say a feral ork list with nothing but mad boyz and the biggest squggoths is "balanced". I don't recall Paul's list being particularly balanced either. I recall it being your typical shooty blood angles list with a small, ubernasty hth element.

Edit: and besides, all of those would have lost terribly to my unbalanced list!

I've actually given up on trying to force people to the middle with balanced lists. I've decided that I absolutely *love* playing against the unbalanced lists. Love it. Because they go down easy, just like a high school cheerleader on prom night, or Ed's mom on Saturday. (Okay. That was out of line. I take it back. Heh.) If you can't get them on your side, show 'em why their side is f-ing stupid, I always say. To that end, I have begun to max my list out as well. But I do it better.

For example, say my opponent takes a "heavy shooty" list. Good. First turn, I hide my two small squads of Warriors, give him nothing to shoot at, open my WWP, and soar out with five units that have a potential 26" charge range. Add that to the 12"-15" forward deployement, plus 3" for the WWP, and I'm on top of the guy before he can shoot anything. Good thing you took all those guns, huh?

Say he goes "heavy assault." Yay me. I have Wyches. Wyches turn your "heavy assault" units into a fine, syrupy paste, striking first to thin your numbers with as many as 6 power weapon attacks right off the bat and reducing your WS so you barely hit, then 4+ invulnerable saving your best shot. And that's if I don't get the Disintigrators on your assaulty units before they get to me.

Say what you want about "shooty" or "assaulty." It's the ability to take on all comers that counts. Unbalanced lists can rarely do that, especially if the opponent (i.e. me) maxes out in the most important phase of all, and that's *movement.* If you can't stick and move in 40k, you're going to get beat by someone who can, and that's been proven over and over again.

I really hope people continue to overlook that fact. It helps my winning ways tremendously.

(Ed, PM me if you got my message. The PM editor on Dakka is TheSuck(tm), and I never know if my messages actually get sent.)

I got your message.

Incidentally, you're dead right about how to handle unbalanced lists: don't play to their strengths. But just because a list is unbalanced doesn't mean that it's going to be effective either. The whole point is to make an unbalanced list that still trashes you even if you try to adjust. Just look at all the debates about my 3rd edition marine list. People said the same thing you said now, that they're exploit it's weaknesses, and then I'd show them that those weaknesses had been identified and plugged with changes in list or tactics. So of course you're going to be able to beat up on an unbalanced list when it's designed and run by an inferior player. You've just been lucky enough to continuously run into inferior players.

But we can settle this all with our Eldar challenge! You take your balanced list, I'll take an unbalanced one, and we'll see who ends up with the better record.

Mauleed wrote:
But we can settle this all with our Eldar challenge! You take your balanced list, I'll take an unbalanced one, and we'll see who ends up with the better record.

But that doesn't prove anything.

My hypothesis is that you are an average player, at best, who just happens to be the most devious, laser-precisioned, gifted list-builder in the country. Your inadequacies as a player are covered and neutralized by your ability to exploit any given Codex. You taking an "unbalanced" army and winning with it is no challenge at all. My response to that is, "Well, duh." Of course you'll have a better record with an unbalanced list than I will with a balanced list. That does nothing but prove *my* point, not yours.

In order to really be a challenge, you have to take a severely *balanced* Eldar list. Designed by someone who is not you, i.e. me. Let me design your list, you go undefeated with it, and I will retract any and all previous statements I have made about your playing ability.

Or, we can, as you've suggested before, step it into my realm, and make it an army design contest. Painting and modeling, with the public (on both this forum and on TWF, so no home field advantage for either person) deciding the winner.

Or both.

I'm open to discussion on the specifics.

 

In order to really be a challenge, you have to take a severely *balanced* Eldar list. Designed by someone who is not you, i.e. me.

 

This is a good thread for that.

You should make a list, and everyone who wants to participate will take it to their local RTT. Then we will compare records.

Call it the Dakka RTT challenge.

(Of course different people have different play styles so the list will do better in some hands, and also the local 'talent' of gamers will also be a factor.)

So apparently we have several different definitions of what a "Balanced Army" is. So we should develop one for the dakka glossary. A so called balanced list has no focus, so it has no strength. While a "Jack of all trades" army will have something that can handle any opponent, its just as likely to have units that make no difference in the game. Balanced armies are easier to beat, destory the effective units first. The rest will follow.

xtapl your arrogance is simply amazing.

Crimson Devil wrote:
xtapl your arrogance is simply amazing.

You have no idea. You can't even hear my vocal inflections, because you have to read my comments on the Internet instead of in person.

Trust me when I say you know *nobody* as arrogant as I am, and you know *nobody* who cares less what a bunch of forum monkeys think of him than I do.

Posted By xtapl on 08/24/2006 11:39 AM
My hypothesis is that you are an average player, at best, who just happens to be the most devious, laser-precisioned, gifted list-builder in the country. Your inadequacies as a player are covered and neutralized by your ability to exploit any given Codex. You taking an "unbalanced" army and winning with it is no challenge at all. My response to that is, "Well, duh." Of course you'll have a better record with an unbalanced list than I will with a balanced list. That does nothing but prove *my* point, not yours.

Then clearly, to prove your point you must take my list and win with it as much as I do.

So I get to write the list.

And I promise it won't require ramming any illegal interpretations of the LOS rules down our opponents throat to make it work.

Sure, I could take a balanced list like yours, and I'm sure I could at least match your unexceptional performance, but what would that prove? Lots of people do that. No one has matched my record. So let's see if you can really do it, like you so casually claim.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 08/24/2006 12:38 PM

xtapl your arrogance is simply amazing.

Particularly since the record reflects that his performance is so inferior to mine.

It's all excuses with Xtapl.

Let's see if he shuts up and steps up for the "eldar challenge".

 

Balanced Army List - as defined by Games Workshop - An army that incorporates at least one choice from each selection in the army list, thus requiring the player to purchase at least one of each and every model produced no matter how inneffective they are on the battlefield. An exceptionally well balanced army list contains multiple selections from the poorest selling units of a given army.

Mauleed wrote:
It's all excuses with Xtapl.

S-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-re it is.... that's me, all right. Always "making excuses." Of course, much like your "interesting" interpretation of the LOS rules, you have nothing to back up the statement.

At any rate, we are agreed. You design the list, and I'll go undefeated with it.

I'll design your list, and see how you do.

Something tells me that although we'll both step up, neither of us will shut up, so it's pointless to even consider.

Regardless, the deal is on.

I always thought that a "Balanced" list was something that wasn't very over powering but wasn't completely min/maxed or tooled up either. This is the kind of game that you'd normally find in pick up areas. "Friendly" lists and all that, warm and fuzzies, etc. IMO, this is an entirely different game than playing 40k in a tournament where it is perfectly acceptable to bring the hardest-most tooled up list you can think of. They're very different games and are played differently, and both are fun so long as you know what kind of game you're going to play.

A game where someone takes a normal, "balanced" list when fighting tooled up army isn't going to be that much fun for either player.

Saying that a balanced list is something that mixes things like assault and shooting in equal parts is pretty hard to do since some armies simply can't do that. You don't see Tau armies with good counter charge units or Orks with really shooty mobs - it just doesn't work.

Actually those Lists I have seen and can give you an accurate list of each barring wargear on some.

    Its Highly arrogant of you to say you can beat all those lists when its all fine and dandy in TheoryHammer but there will always be extra variables when it comes to game time and no game is ever 100% won. Pauls list had 3 power assault units that made up for his shooting and most of his list was mobile as well.

    I do remember when you backed down Chicago 2005 GT when you knew Marc was coming to play. Now I am not saying you could beat him or vice versa, I am only saying that when it comes to wins He is along with Shawn Kemp are exceptional gamers that are the best in the nation and not because they win every game, its because they make solid lists most of them non MEQ, making sure both sides have a good time win or lose, and lastly superb paintjobs and great conversions. Maybe I am wrong and its not a balanced army that wins but infact the balanced individual.

How may balanced gamers do you know?
I can count them on one finger.

I'm one. I have never fielded a single Las/Plas squad in my Marine Army. I usually run a 40/60 mix for assualt and shooty (respectively) with my Marines.

I didn't "back down" from going to the Chicago GT. I just didn't go. I travel to more than half a dozen tournaments a year. If I don't make every single one I'm suddenly ducking people? Mark and Shaun are fantastic players, and while I'd love to play them, jumping on a plane so you can see if I'd beat them isn't exactly a priority of mine.

But the Daboyz GT is coming up in a couple of months and I might be able to attend that one. Why don't you contact them and request I be paired against Shaun in round 1. I'm sure they'll be just as concerned with the matchup as you are.

Xtapl:

Bravo sir. Game on. Once the codex comes out, I'll post a list and the challenge.

Posted By mauleed on 08/24/2006 10:01 AM

Edit: and besides, all of those would have lost terribly to my unbalanced list!

Funny, I've always found your lists to be quite balanced...Especially the most infamous one.

Posted By mauleed on 08/24/2006 5:09 PM

I didn't "back down" from going to the Chicago GT. I just didn't go. I travel to more than half a dozen tournaments a year. If I don't make every single one I'm suddenly ducking people? Mark and Shaun are fantastic players, and while I'd love to play them, jumping on a plane so you can see if I'd beat them isn't exactly a priority of mine.

But the Daboyz GT is coming up in a couple of months and I might be able to attend that one. Why don't you contact them and request I be paired against Shaun in round 1. I'm sure they'll be just as concerned with the matchup as you are.

  fair enough

this challenge sounds like fun...maybe some DCM donations could go to providing Xtapl and Ed cheap air tickets to throw down and settle this once and for all. bookies should start making a line.

Alright another wang measuring contest!

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/25/2006 8:51 AM
Alright another wang measuring contest!

Spoken like someone that knows he shouldn't enter these sorts of contests.

Posted By mauleed on 08/25/2006 10:18 AM

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/25/2006 8:51 AM
Alright another wang measuring contest!

Spoken like someone that knows he shouldn't enter these sorts of contests.

Ed, you do know that Green Bloater is BloodyT, right?

And getting back on topic.... I think that an all star gaming showdown would be pretty enlightening.

Posted By bigchris1313 on 08/25/2006 10:34 AM

Posted By mauleed on 08/25/2006 10:18 AM

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/25/2006 8:51 AM
Alright another wang measuring contest!

Spoken like someone that knows he shouldn't enter these sorts of contests.

Ed, you do know that Green Bloater is BloodyT, right?

Of course.

If anyone cares, (which I know they don't) I am undefeated with my Latest Mech Tau incarnation 5-0-0

Although I have a game against a necron player on Saturday and will probably get rocked.

Posted By happypants on 08/25/2006 12:14 PM
If anyone cares, (which I know they don't) I am undefeated with my Latest Mech Tau incarnation 5-0-0

Are they tournament games?

No, but 3 of them were against tournament players, 1 was GT champ '04 which I am pretty proud of. (Crushing victory)

I probably won't be playing heavy tourneys until next season b/c the kids are a bit young for me to be taking off for the weekend and leaving the wife at home more than I already do for business.

I probably won't be playing heavy tourneys until next season b/c the kids are a bit young for me to be taking off for the weekend and leaving the wife at home more than I already do for business.

  I can sympathize with that, since I've got kids of my own.  In the past couple of years, I've been able to play in  only three local tournaments(RTT's).   When the kids are older, I think it would be fun to go to a GT with some of my buds and get some games in.

No chance you are around Toronto is there?

I'm spoiled because I only have my kids every other weekend, and the future mrs. works most saturdays.

So if I'm not too hung over to wake up, I go to two tournaments a month.

So if I'm not too hung over to wake up, I go to two tournaments a month.

Die!

Maybe you should change your name to "Angrypants"

He does ALWAYS seem to have anger issues. I hope he is not like that around his kids. Those are his kids in his avatar, aren't they? If, by some chance, those are not his kids in the avatar I am VERY concerned about a guy who calls himself Happypants.

Darrian
(Concerned citizen of the US wondering about the laws of Canada)

Doh, sorry for triple post, I thought it was blocking out "Screw" and now it won't let me nix them.

Oh, and anyone who has kids hates hearing about people sleeping in :p

And yes, those are my kids, Sky and Tao, 2 years and 3 1/2 months respecitively.

Posted By happypants on 08/25/2006 3:28 PM
And yes, those are my kids, Sky and Tao, 2 years and 3 1/2 months respecitively.

Are those their superhero names or are you a stinkin' hippie?

Hippies can bathe too!

Are you sure of that? I mean, in my limited experience with "hippies" I have seen NO evidence of bathing. On the contrary, I have seen a very strong aversion to any act of personal hygene.

Darrian
Hippie = dirty

I said they can, not that they did! :p

Edit: Also, note that older "hippies" most certainly do. It's just the pseudo nouveaux riche hippies in thier German automiboles paid by mom & dad that don't. Gamers seem to bath less than most hippies, which also at least have the decency to at attempt masking their stench with cologne.

Are those their superhero names or are you a stinkin' hippie?

Little from column A, little from column B

All star gaming contest? So what are the requirements to enter? Just a big ego or some proof of a phenomnal (sp?) gaming record (e.g., GT and RTT best overalls)? I will probably sit this one out.

Actually, as you stated earlier, it's a unit you don't mind being measured publicly.

So you're right, you better sit this one out.

Ah so the taunting. Pretty good for a laff out loud. Good luck with yer awesome record in the future. A lot of peopls are gunning for ya.

Its only a game played with toy soldiers. Anybody would think there manhood was in question.

Anybody would think there manhood was in question.

Don't take it away from Mauleed, 40k seems to be the only way to prove himself.

I for one can't take online win ratios seriously- the internet is anonymous, we can all bullsh*t on here- the more insecure, the steamier the bullsh*t.

Though the level of ass-kissery displayed around Mauleed leads me to believe there is some truth to his claims.

Anyway, I second a post way back in this topic- it appears everyone wins a lot more than they lose- so where are all these losers? (Awaits obvious pun aimed at me).

And it's not the size, it's how you use it...and whether it is fixed to your groin or head!

Shadow: Actually, that's why tournament results are probably one of the more reliable
ways to track wins/losses. There's a written record...SOMEWHERE. Some leagues also
have tournament trackers amongst several stores, such as Russ's Dakka software so
that there's a way to verify wins/lossess.

Gone are the days of BYOR.

True. I'm too lazy to do background research on Mauleed's gaming history- I'll just take the words of his sycophants (I'm not refering to you, don't worry) that he has a good win ratio.

It brings up my favourite paraphase: "You may win more games then me, but your still an a*$%&*)"

It also highlights a glaring flaw in Competitive 40k, the army list is 60% at least of the reason someone wins or loses. It's not like Football, or Chess where only the player's game knowledge and skill/talent affect the outcome.

Actually in chess with all other factors being equal, white will win. They get the first turn.

Except talent/skill normally isn't equal- and that will ultimately decide who wins the chess game- though I conceed the White side may have an advantage, so bad example.

But in 40k the army list plays a humongous part in the probability of someone winning. I hear these outrageous win ratios all the time, and assuming (though unlikely) that they are true, I have no doubt that they are won with uber, min-maxed power armies.

This doesn't prove your the better player, only the 'better' army list writer.

One idea our gaming group was considering for a tournament was for the organiser to design a moderate/mediocre SM army list- and everyone would use that list. Then only how they use the army would decide the winner.

Of course this would be boring to play several games against the same army with the same army- and would require everyone to buy/ acquire that army...

I agree that it's at least 60% list in 40k.

Which of course begs the question of why people who are always whining about it being 60% lists can't manage to figure out how to make one that wins, or simply copy one that already does, but instead blame their own losses on the other guy's list, instead of the other 40% factor: their play.

Here's the thing if it's 60% the list then how much of it is luck? This is a dice game, chess isn't. The dice can completely screw you over so long as you mess up/roll big on some crucial rolls.

For fun example I had I had a 3k point 2 on 2 battle this weekend that seemed to defy all sorts of statistics throughout the game. Sisters + Marines vs. Nids + DE Web Way Wych Cult

First round of shooting the nearly all Genestealer Nids faced off against 68 BS4 Bolter Shots and 2 Missile Launcher templates. Out of all his 4+ saves, 2 failed.

Of course it went the other way and we ended up winning the game because it was Escallation and when it came time for the Dark Eldar to come on, none of the Wytches made it in on Turn 2, leaving 2 Ravegers and an HQ to face off the bulk of 3k points of Marines + Sisters. They lost the game on the dice rolls for reserves on Turn 2 because we got most of our stuff and they didn't.

To top it off at the end of the game I had his Head Wytch HQ with combat drug/shadow field locked in assault with an Assault Chaplain, 10 Assault Marines, and 5 Tacticals, with 2 PF Sarges. He made every single 2+ save and died in the second round of combat to rolling 3 6's for his combat drugs.

While I completely agree that having the right army list is most of the game a LOT of this comes down to luck. If you can't roll that crucial 5 or 6 at the right time or you get a bunch of 1's at the wrong moment, the game can end right there.

Hey, I was voodoo boy's gaming partner against our 2 friends in that 3k 2vs2 battle. They had some very bad dice rolls especially with the reserves. Anything involving dice, takes luck into consideration(IMHO).  One important roll could win or lose a battle. Tactics are important but someimes I think that bad dice rolls could make you lose. I'm sure people have gotten bad rolls at crucial times which caused them to lose the game. When Voodoo Boy and I play every week, he has gotten bad rolls at crucial times such as having terrible luck with rending with the assault cannon(I think he has only managed to do it 2 or 3 times so far) To me both players could have great tactics and play very well but it's that one crucial roll or series of rolls which decides if you will be the winner or loser. I've had my tactics blow up in my face because I got some bad rolls.

Hey now, rolling bad dice is a skill, I tell you. A skill!

Yes, luck plays a part, but theoretically both sides have an equal chance of bad luck/good luck. So it could theoretically be removed from the equation.

In practice, it comes down to the army list again. A power gamer list tries to minimise the reliance on luck by:

1) Having multiple redundancies- counting on your Predator to blow up that enemy tank requires luck, having 3 Predators waiting to do so is far more reliable.

2) Reducing the interference of the dice- hoping your opponent fails his Armour Saves depends on luck, not giving your opponent an Armour Save due to low AP doesn't.

3) Choosing armies and units that don't have a huge dependence on luck.

So even with luck- the army list plays a huge part. Which IMO is dissappointing- any monkey can copy and paste a netlist. And many times a game has already been won or lost before the players show up.

If the list is so important and so easily copiable, and luck can be discounted, why is it that we find people with high win-loss records?

I absolutely agree that luck can be mitigated somewhat by tthe army list, by taking lots of redundant, efficient units you can mitigate luck somewhat to get the desired result.

But that just doesn't change the game. I've lost or have seen games lost over a single dice roll. The example above was perfect, when the DE player in our game didn't get any Wytches on Turn 2, and our side got Speeders, Dreads, and Exorcists - the opposing players were screwed.

Skill comes into play even with the most tooled up "I hate Statistics) lists, which is why you have a few players who know the game well enough to have excellent gaming records. But even they aren't without getting screwed by luck - all it takes is one bad roll at the wrong moment and your game can be over.

If the list is so important and so easily copiable, and luck can be discounted, why is it that we find people with high win-loss records?

Because some people have more powerful lists than others- gee, that was tricky.
I didn't say that army lists are 100% what wins games, I'm saying that the army list accounts for most of the game- a fact that I don't like, but it doesn't stop it being true.

A counter question: If army lists don't have much affect on a game, why are there numerous copy and paste army lists, and a limited number of 'beardy' tournament winner armies (e.g. IW's)?

Of course, I think we've all ignored the possibility that these people are the master of the tactic of getting their opponents so blind stinkin' drunk that running their own units off the table seems a great option.
Twenty star cannons? My command squad'll stand out in the open, naked to counter 'em...hic!

>>Because some people have more powerful lists than others- gee, that was tricky.

If lists are so easily copiable, why doesn't everyone play with a powerful list and win?
Your theory is that it's easy to win with a good list, and it's simple to copy a list. Why doesn't everyone have a good list then?
Why aren't results trending to 50/50?

>>If army lists don't have much affect on a game, why are there numerous copy and paste army lists, and a limited number of 'beardy' tournament winner armies (e.g. IW's)?

Of course lists have an effect. Everyone knows the game is unbalanced.

Some players use good lists and win more games. Does that mean they have no skill? You have to explain why the same players consistently place high in tournaments. Is it just their list, not them? Why doesn't everyone use the same list to win?

My worst 40K experience was in a two on two with some friends of mine. Nids and Iron Warriors vs. Imperial Guard and Vanilla Marines. I was playing Marines at the time.

I Deepstruck a 5-man squad of Termies, right on target. I had waited until the horde of tyranids had reached the edge of rapid-fire range in the trench where most of my squads were. I rapid fired in the range of about 60 bolter/bolt pistol shots, a half-dozen ML/Plas/Lascannon shots, and 10 shots from a Destructor (2 Autocannon, 6 HB, 2 SB). Its been awhile since it happened, but I believe I ended up hitting with about 10 shots, and killed 3 or 4 guants. I shot with my Termie squad at the same group of nids (8 Assault Cannon, 6 SB), and hit with 1 AC and 1 SB. Again, I killed nothing.

The next turn, his gaunts kill ~18 Marines and about the same number of IG in close combat, but not before the Iron Warriors player deepstrikes his own Termie squad right next to mine, killing 2 with combi-bolters. In adding insult to injury, the remaining 3 Loyalist Termies I had ended up getting rended by a half-dozen genestealers.

I still marvel at how we managed to pull a Draw out of that one.

CK

the reason not everybody copies the same winning list is due to the fact they look crap on the board, i would rather win/lose with a list that i like the look of. i can make cheasey list just like most people but they just look to boring. winning is not my main priority, having fun is. People need to get some help with there issues about there gaming records. its like little kids comparing the size of there pencils. Grow up. Have fun, Seek theraphy

As others have said:

1) Not everyone must WAAC. They may choose armies for style, looks, theme, models, etc.

2) Not everyone is a 'Vet'- noob's won't automatically know to go on the net and copy a list, they will quickly learn to after being stomped a few times.




Please read my responses.



Before jumping to conclusions. You need to provide better counter-arguments, these just aren't cutting it.

i don't really keep track.
in my last tournament i was 1-1-1, but then i don't attend many of them.
my best tourney score was 2-1-0 (playing an IG player, he was so slow we never finished so it was a draw)
in pickup games, i can't remember the last time i lost. i've had a couple of draws but no losses.
unless you count fantasy. i couldn't win at fantasy if i held a gun to my opponents head.

it's not something i like to brag about though, sooner or later the dice suck and there's nothing you can do.

wait, just remembered, i got hosed by a mech tau army a few months back.
couldn't make a save, couldn't make any night vision tests to see any of the sniper teams/stealth suits.
some days the dice suck.

can't think of any others though. it's not something i consider important. i'd rather have a close fought battle i lost than win by a huge amount. it's more satisfying.

As to perfect records, my Father use to say to me:

"Son, don't worry about not being perfect, there was a perfect guy once... Know what happened to him?"

I said "What Dad?"

he said, "He got crucified."

Of the two, Victory and Loss, the latter is the better teacher.

> Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 08/25/2006 4:17 PM
Hippies can bathe too!

Liar!!!

my record is more average, when i remeber the victory conditions i tend to win most of the times. my losses (most of them anyway) are down to not paying attention to the mission objectives and just trying to kill everything.

I play good opponents, bad opponents, average opponents, have experience good luck, bad luck, and average luck, and I think I've played enough games to know how good I am, I win about 7 out of 10 games I play.

My batrep in the batrep section is a game of pretty average luck where I won. Recently I've had absolutely shocking luck in 2 battles in a row, nothing went right, but in both I managed to pull out a draw.

My w/l/d record would be a bit higher for sure if I used more powerful lists, but it would be lower for sure if I only played powerful lists.

Check out this guys profile i would love to play him he sounds awsome!!!!

http://www.40konline.com/mos/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=833&action=profile;u=20067

"Check out this guys profile i would love to play him he sounds awsome!!!!

http://www.40konline.com/mos/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=833&action=profile;u=20067"

He's the man, all right. Been playing since he was 10 years old and only ever lost 6 games!

yea`h an those 6 games he lost were to me. lol