Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey folks.

I haven't written any batreps since last year for a variety of reasons. One of them is because it is hard to take enough pictures during a tournament game to SHOW where things are moving and why...without slowing sown the game. Another reason is because there comes a point when you can look at two lists and say to yourself, "Well obviously X list is going to beat Y list as long as player X doesn't screw up.

If someone brings an uncompetitive army to a tournament and wins with it...and thinks that is proof that their army is competitive when they didn't face any competitive armies it is difficult to not say anything. And indeed,# many comments on battle reports sing to that tune, my own batreps being prevalent among them. Or if facing against and winning against a competitive army, "Player X lost because they made mistakes but your army wouldn't win against that army behind a COMPETITIVE played.

So I was pondering the usefulness of batrepping my hardest armies against each other, all played be myself. That would give me the leisure of taking my time doing it, and also ensure that the game is as competitive as I can make it. There are obvious downsides....like always knowing what your opponent is planning to do.

Do you guys think this would be a useful enterprise in my continual quest to improve the competitive ability of Dakkanauts?

I would look forward to them. Especially any ork Bat reps.

FYI I have no issue with you doing a batrep when we play each other. Both of us are fast enough and good enough with the rules that we could squeeze in pics. Granted they might not be HD but I don't see where we couldn't do that. Plus I always bring enough copies of my lists.

Dashofpepper wrote:hardest armies against each other, all played be myself.

I don't see how that would be useful to you much less other people. It would be impossible to surprize yourself. All your armies are going to be built on the model that you think is competative (not that you are wrong, but it's all filtered through only your perspective). And you will know the strategy and intentions of the other player, whether they are going to play for a tie, what units they want to charge and with what, whether they will go to ground when you shoot at something etc.

Bat reps would be nice, but bat reps against even a half competent opponent would be much more useful.

I'd be interested in seeing this, though I don't know if it will be as informative as playing someone else.

It could go a long way to proving or disproving the luck argument. You're going to be the same person, running your own hardest lists, with your own play style on both sides. So isn't the luck of the dice what's going to determine how these games fall out?

Something else, is that playing against yourself misses out on any ability to feint or mislead your opponent. Playing someone else, I can seemingly make a mistake that I accept as a sacrifice now, in order to put them out of position and recoup that loss later. Sometimes, someone will see the feint, or not take the bait. But if you're playing yourself, you'll know all the feints and all the bluffs. That takes something away from the game. So you're not going to have that aspect of the game in play.

I don't know. Knowing exact strenghts and weakness of both armies it would all came down to rolling. And, as you said, there is little tactics as you know what your opponent is going to do, so no traps, and brilliant moves.

No.

It would be as effective as trying to teach people to play chess well by giving them a step by step guide of you playing chess against yourself.

It would certainly be interesting, and I would most certainly read it, but I don't know how useful it would be. Ketara's chess-simile was pretty spot on. Could still be entertaining though.

I'd like to see them, Dash. It sounds like most people so far read battle reports solely for the tactics they can pick up. This is only my personal view, but I read batreps to keep inspired to paint and play games. I'd rather see a solo batrep with nicely painted armies, than a report filled with tactical genius where everything is gray with coke cans for terrain.

That's just my $.02. I've considered doing this myself, just to play some 40k and share it with others since the rest of my gaming group has been down on 40k since about 2001 when our outrider got "fired" for questioning GW.

I don't think it would be all that useful to play games against yourself. Part of being a good toy soldier general is being able to adjust to something your opponent does that you do not expect. You can not do this in a game where you play the role of both generals. You'd end up with a less satisfying game because it will seem to lack a dynamic. The game will simply break down to which side was more consistant with the dice roles.

I used to play Axis and Allies competitively and was ranked very high world-wide. When I began playing that game it really appealed to me because of the seemingly endless possibilities that could reshape the war. As I became better and faced better competition, the game broke down to a repetitive series of dice rolling. In order to compete at the top level of competition I knew exactly what moves I had to make and what moves my opponent had to make. The dice were the only real deciding factor.

A game like 40k could never break down to a known set of executable moves because it has infinitely more variables than Axis and Allies, but if you were to assume the role of both generals suddenly you would know what moves both sides were making and the game would be decided only by the dice, rather than one general acting/reacting to the other general.

So...you want to play with yourself, and tell us all about it!?

Joking aside, I can see this being situationally useful. By that I mean demonstrating tactics rather than strategy- since tactics are the building blocks and strategy is all about how an opponent uses those.

You could set up mini scenarios, and demonstrate an army/units capabilities to overcome certain challenges or utilize actions many overlook or just have never thought about.

As you have many critics, anything you do in this vein will receive some negative attention and criticism. Much of it will likely be flaming poo, but some of it could be useful if its treated as a bit of brainstorming.

I think what you would have to avoid most is ego. While you might demonstrate a good way to do something- it wont always be the best way and you'll have to be open minded about what others say as there will be some useful information and perspectives provided you may not think of on your own.

Good luck.

DO IT I've considered the same thing, just because it would look like I have friends :3

But yes, you're a great player, so playing games against yourself would be good practice as well (?)

I think it would be a good opportunity to cut through some of the BS circulating tactics forums, and show how some of the lesser known armies of 40k can operate in a competitive setting rather than a full one.

I'd like to see them, if for no other reason than to get an idea of how someone else manages to play vs. themself, and a view of what tactics you use/ how that changes army to army (opponent to opponent too)

augustus5 wrote:I don't think it would be all that useful to play games against yourself. Part of being a good toy soldier general is being able to adjust to something your opponent does that you do not expect. You can not do this in a game where you play the role of both generals. You'd end up with a less satisfying game because it will seem to lack a dynamic. The game will simply break down to which side was more consistant with the dice roles.

This. 100 times this.

It be useful to show some tactics, but a whole battle report wouldnt be as useful as a turn or two to show certain things. There's no reaction to when folks make a mistake or do something you havent or might not expect.

Just out of curiosity dash, why not just find good players in your area (I'm sure you know who they are) and playing them outside of a tournament and bat repping? It would give you the time needed to take pics and you could suggest to them to bring a "competitive" list or what you would expect in tourney play.

Doing them against yourself well it just leaves too much out, you know exactly what your doing against yourself and it will end up not teaching much other than what list can beat what in a "sterile" environment if you get my drift.

I agree with yournamehere. But I also think the batrepping against yourself would be useful, not only to other dakkaites, but yourself, too. I like the idea, and say go for it. It won't have the same type of info a regular battle report has, but should still be full of useful goodies! Hope to see one up soon!

I see your situation and I say...go for it. It's hard to find a good opponent. It's even harder to find a good opponent with what you think is a very good list. Even though you'd know what your opponent's next move would be, these battles can still be very informative. It'll represent 2 savvy, experienced generals duking it out instead of 1 competent general versus another mistake-prone, less competitive general. And I bet that it will make for a close, nail-biter type of game.

I'd love to see some of those. I think it'd actually (aside from the obvious feint type things) be a fairly decent match, especially if you were to play your Orks, since you don't really do much fancy stuff with them. And playing yourself, giving yourself plenty of time, you'd certainly be able to take plenty of pictures. In fact, it'd be pretty awesome if you took enough pictures to make it a stop-motion video, and do voice-over commentary on it. Take a long, long time, of course, but it'd be awesome.

Play vs your wife, i'd love to see her get those orks under her own leadership!

I'd read em just for fun. I read all your bat reps cause you're one of the best ork players i've heard of.

*ponders feedback*

To answer a few things...

1. There can't be any ego demonstrated in a game against yourself. "AHA! I just beat the crap out of myself, I am totally awesome." Hrm....doesn't really have a good ring to it.

2. This isn't for practice; this is to provide Dakkanauts with an analysis of how two (haha) extremely competent players might play against each other using extremely hard lists. That kind of matchup seems to be rare-to-nonexistent here.

3. The mini-scenario idea....I stumbled on that by accident earlier tonight when I was creating some vassal pictures to illustrate some of the tactics I was talking about in my now complete Totally Awesome Guide to Curb Stomping Everyone With Dark Eldar (affectionately know as TAGCSEWDE around here *cough*). That thread is a longer version of what most of my posting on Dakka is.

4. I agree that surprises can be an important part of 40k. I think it is safe to say that I play very straight-forward though.

A. Move Straight ahead.
B. Kill everything.
C. Kill anything that tried getting away.
D. Declare victory.
E. Drink booze.

I'm not particularly worried about not fooling or tricking myself though - because I don't use feints and misdirection anyway. I tried it once with the Deceiver using Grand Illusion to redeploy something and thought to myself, "Well, that was pointless." I tend to cut to the chase.

5. Regular 40k doesn't hold a lot of surprises - I examine what's going on, what can hurt me the worst and how, and presume my opponent is going to do exactly that. If I'm surprised because they didn't, its a good thing. =D

6. To an earlier poster...this wouldn't be to show two beautifully painted armies playing against each other. Although my Orks *are* beautiful.


Rather, it would be so that I *can* do a precise breakdown of tactics, what I did and why.

*ponders more* I'm thinking that mini-scenarios might be more effective...but not really something I can create on the fly, because I'm not sure what to make a scenario of. In the thread I linked above, some very competent DE generals have been like, "Hrm...I can't believe I never thought of that." In a game that I can batrep through, the course of the game can be laid out, why each decision was made...

But on the flip side...arg.

My Orks vs. my DE for example. No surprises there. My Orks drive up the middle trying to get to the DE. The DE hang out at the edge of range trying to kill wagons while focusing on taking down Lootas and deffkoptas to remove ranged anti-tank threats, while using a raider or two to block the advance. Orks try bashing through, keeping Lootas alive, taking down threats to their own anti-tank. By the end of the game, the Orks made it and assaulted the crap out of everything, or the DE popped their wagons and took down the anti-tank Ork support before the Orks could close distance.

DE vs. Necrons: My wyches all rush up to haywire grenade monoliths while I work on taking down wraiths, C'Tan, and the destroyer lord with volume of fire. Monoliths play tag with the wyches while the C'Tan maneuvers to assault them (and wraiths too) to prevent them from applying said haywire grenades to monoliths. Warriors hide in reserve.

I know what would happen on each side since I'd be playing both sides. Is there tactical value for other people in laying out how I go about it? I'm pretty sure that my DE would beat my Orks. My Orks would beat my necrons. My Necrons would beat my DE. That isn't to say that all DE beat all Orks, etc - just that I'm pretty sure how my particular games would end up because I know how to play both sides well.

I say go for it. You can now take as much time setting up things and taking pics showing what or what not to do.

in the end, you win either way.

I don't think that would be particularly effective, but perhaps with good commentary it could be.

Give it a go Dash, and see what sort of response there is.

Just initiate the post by saying that yes you realise that you are playing yourself and the reasons why.
Initially I think it will get a lot of questions RE: validity, but by the 2nd or 3rd it would be a matter of course.

I'd certainly be interested to see what you do.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Give it a go Dash, and see what sort of response there is.

Just initiate the post by saying that yes you realise that you are playing yourself and the reasons why.
Initially I think it will get a lot of questions RE: validity, but by the 2nd or 3rd it would be a matter of course.

I'd certainly be interested to see what you do.

My thoughts exactly. I think it would be benificial, even if I'd have to skim through the odd "whats the point of playing yourself" comment.
Even if you just do one, thats one more useful bit of info here on dakka as far as I see it.

I like the idea of having a scenario.


If everything goes according to plan, then there is not much interesting going on in the game. I think that most players here have a good idea of how to play well when everything is going their way. Also, the tactics threads are a good place for this sort of advice as well.

However, there are a lot of times when chance will lead the game in an unexpected direction. I think that these will be the games that readers will be the most interested in. Use all of the Standard rules, but show some of the fringe situations and how you would react to them. If you are playing 5+ games in a tournament, there is a fair chance that something "weird" will happen in one of those games.

With That in mind, Here are a few ideas I have for games that would be both interesting and informative.


Idea #1. Battle Reports where one of the players seized the initiative.

So put your Dark Eldar up against your Orks. Ork have the first turn and deploy accordingly. Then the DE take the first turn away from them. What can the Orks do to come back from this? How do the Dark Eldar capitalize on this?

Next report, Same lists and missions, but this time the DE are planning on going first, but the Orks take the first turn....and so on.

1 out of every 6 games this should happen, and it can feel like an Auto-lose situation. Is it really that bad?



Idea #2. First Turn Alpha Strike.

I think this one would be good for your Dark Eldar. DE are going first. Only run the top of the first turn, and see how much you can kill. You can use any opponent in this case as the opponent will not need take a turn.

Maybe you could even run the turn a few times, showing different results. This time your Trueborn whiffed, so your ravager does this instead, ect... This would be more of a "First turn Alpha Strike Masterclass" than an actual battle report.



Idea #3. Fighting your worst enemy.

This one is simple, take one of your lists, and then tailor second list that is designed to beat it. You may end up not running a TAC list for the opponent, but it is possible that in a tournament you will come across a list that just so happens to be made to crush you. What can you do in an uphill battle like this?
(If the second list is "bad" then instead take a TAC list that you feel is a strong counter to your list)

Another option, bad missions for your army. Not sure how to work this one, but it might be interesting.


Idea #4. The Wiff

What happens when you plan for a strong first turn of shooting and you shoot well below average? (though this would be a normal game for you right?)

Maybe decide that on Turn 3 for One of the players, Everything will go wrong. Shooting misses more than it should, Terrain tests slow/immobilize you. Assaults are lost that should be won. What do you do to recover?

I too second the idea of the mini scenarios.
Much more useful imo then a full batrep.
Have you any other army tactics you could demonstrate for or proxy in for?

Rather than taking your 3 normal lists, and playing them against each other, why not take one of them, or all 3 of them one at a time and play against the flavor of the month that people are currently up in arms about? While I suspect you don't own those armies perhaps you know someone from your LGS that might lend you the use of that army.

svendrex: I really like that idea. I was having trouble visualizing useful mini-scenarios, but your ideas are probably the way to go. I'm going to have to think about how to plan and execute those.

laughterofgods: I don't think the army on the table is as important as the general. I'm going to beat GK the same way and with the same list that I beat BA and SW - intelligent use of the units I have for maximum effect.