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.

Taking a bad list to an event and not paying attention to tactics is the battlefield equivalent of panning for gold in your own shower

A lot of the best players make a point of playing against the toughest lists and the best players they know.

And while dark angels arent as good as marines or wolves, they really arent that bad of an army.

scuddman wrote:No, because I don't lose to the best of the best at the biggest gaming store in LA. With the worst armies.

Then the 'best of the best' that you're playing against aren't actually very good.

Good general + Good list > Good general + Bad list

No amount of internet tough guy syndrome is going to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. Your lists either aren't that bad or the people you're playing aren't that good.

Personal attacks are really adding to your epeen factor, by the way.

scuddman wrote:As a red shirt, I've probably contributed more to the hobby community than any of you. Borrow models? Give some tips?
I've worked overtime without pay to run an event in a store, got two hours of sleep, and was back in the store the next day to cleanup.
I've run events, I've tactics classes. I've given away models that I built, bought, and painted because I felt the player deserved it and needed it.

It is so easy to judge others and say all this idealistic crap. There is no feel good feeling most of the time when I go above and beyond the call of duty. People don't appreciate it, and you guys don't understand that because you haven't actually done it.

Working in the hobby, especially as a reshirt, isn't a mark of distinction in and of itself (and certainly no cause for overweaning hubris - most of us have been to GW stores and probably aren't that impressed with Redshirts). I worked at a RT store in my hometown for 5 years while I was in school, I've done all the same stuff you have as far as events and whatnot go (probably a lot more actually, but that's not the point), but without all the nonsense that goes along with having to work directly for GW. I had all the time in the world to spend with whatever custmers needed it, and I wasn't trying to give advice in a context where I was being pressured to sell the newest GW figs without regard to how effective they were. Through my efforts, and the efforts of the rest of the employees and regulars, that store has gone from having one or two good players and one or two good painters to having 5 or 6 golden demon winning painters and a much larger group of very tournament savvy players (in both 40K and Fantasy).

And you know what? I feel good about having been a part of that. I don't regret any of the time I spent with any customer, even though a lot of it ended up being wasted time, because the guys who did listen and did get leaps and bounds better made it worthwhile. I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back either (it certainly wasn't just my doing anyway) but rather to point out that the return on investment when it comes to being 'that guy' at the gaming store and going above and beyond the call of duty will be a direct reflection of what you put in. Am I happy to now have a fantastic gaming community in place that I helped build? You're damned right I am, and not because it makes me look good somehow, but because I've been able to help build something positive. If you want to call any of that 'idealistic crap' then I think your missing a big part of the picture.

So tell me again how no one here understands working directly in th hobby?

Eidolon wrote:In addition theres a lack of hubris or arrogance, always focusing on the goals.

This. There is an inverse relationship between actual skill level and how much that person brags about their skills.

<sigh> All right, you're right.
Personal attacks are uncalled for. I'm sorry, I just got frustrated while posting.

Sorry about that.
I can admit when I lose it. And Fenris's post owned my face.

You know what, you guys are right about the hobby community thing. I'm just being stubborn arguing it as I am, and I know what you guys have said makes sense.

Back on topic
No one can win with a bad list. But even the bad armybooks can have decent take all comers lists.

Gornall wrote:

Eidolon wrote:In addition theres a lack of hubris or arrogance, always focusing on the goals.

This. There is an inverse relationship between actual skill level and how much that person brags about their skills.

Exactly. A good example of this is the fact that when we play, I usually kick your ass

LOL

scuddman wrote:<sigh> All right, you're right.
Personal attacks are uncalled for. I'm sorry, I just got frustrated while posting.

Sorry about that.
I can admit when I lose it. And Fenris's post owned my face.

You know what, you guys are right about the hobby community thing. I'm just being stubborn arguing it as I am, and I know what you guys have said makes sense.

Back on topic
No one can win with a bad list. But even the bad armybooks can have decent take all comers lists.

you are right tho, if your going about it the right way and people are still taking your proffered assistance negatively, dont offer it to them anymore unless they come to you and ask...but you will find some people who genuinely want to learn and grow as a player, and when you find these people they will appreciate any and all assistance/tricks/advice you give them. After while they might even surprise you by thinking of things you havnt and these are the people who you dont want to feel like they cant approach more experienced players

To stray back on topic, (I know, what a surprise...) I'll throw in an instance from glancing over Dashofpepper's Mech Ork List in the tactics forum.

He talks about Ghazzie as a big beaststick, and it's true, he's a pretty tough cookie for all the right reasons. (Eternal Warrior, 2+ INV on the Waagh turn, S10 powerclaw, etc etc etc.) He mathhammers very well against other characters/matchups in just about every case.

However, this might be relevant to how a "better player" finds a way around or turns a weakness into a strength. We all know there is more to mathhammer, but how do you use that to your advantage against say, Dashofpepper's list with Ghazzie jumping out of a battlewagon with 18 boyz as a bodyguard? That unit will put a big crumping on just about anything you have. So how does someone actually win against such a situation?

Well, in 5th edition, there are several rules/stats/etc that come into play and must be understood to exploit this situation:

Fearless - If you lose combat, you take wounds equal to the number you lost by.
Independant Characters - Count as a separate unit in Close Combat.
Ork Mobz - Fearless over 11 models, 6+ armor save, low initiative and only S3.

So basically, in 5th edition, a large unit of fearless troops with low armor saves is in bad shape against an elite CC unit that can pour out alot of wounds. So in this example, we'll use a Khorne Chaos army. Trading off against Ghaz + boyz + Battlewagon is Kharn, 9 berzerkers and a Land Raider.

Now leaving other factors out just so we can see the example, assume that Dash goes first and Ghazzie + company jump some unsuspecting part of the chaos army. The chaos player retaliates by charging Ghaz's unit with Kharn + zerkers. This is where the good player "tactics" emerge.

Being careful how to position models, it could be possible to assault the ork mob, leaving Ghaz unable to "counterattack" into base contact, and then the berzerkers proceed to cause a crap ton of wounds (about 13 or so without even factoring kharne or a champion powerweapon/fist) to the orks 2-3 (not factoring in a powerklaw nob). The orks then loose by a further 10 or so, which also causes Ghaz to take 10+ additional armor saves from No Retreat as well.

This is by no means guaranteed, and may not be how the combat plays out, or may not even come up in the game, but it is a definite weakness of large mobs of orks that can be exploited, that you can't necessarily figure out just from pointing up an army list.

You have to have a very good grasp of the 40k rules, and spotting distances/placing models to be able to use/see this type of thing.

I think that is what separates the good players from the rest.

EDIT:

Wow, much wordier than I intended...but I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.

- This thread is being watched. Keep it civil, and keep it on topic, or it will be locked. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. -


It's also possibly a good time to remind people to not respond to posts they see as trolling. Hit the alert moderator button instead. Responding in kind lands you in the same hot water as the original poster. And quoting a flame post just to point out that it is a flame serves no useful purpose. It's much more helpful to just let the mods know about it through the alert button.

We now return you to your scheduled program...

scuddman wrote:<sigh> All right, you're right.
Personal attacks are uncalled for. I'm sorry, I just got frustrated while posting.

Sorry about that.
I can admit when I lose it. And Fenris's post owned my face.

You know what, you guys are right about the hobby community thing. I'm just being stubborn arguing it as I am, and I know what you guys have said makes sense.

Back on topic
No one can win with a bad list. But even the bad armybooks can have decent take all comers lists.

Accepted. Everyone can get to that point. You are not alone.

Yes, bad army books can have a decent list. The thing about 'bad army books' is it usually can only make one competitive list. That in essence is what makes an army book bad. YMMV.

This is unlike recent releases where solid, multiple lists can be had from one book. I especially enjoy the space marine codex and the recent space wolves codex.

Two books, with similar core units. All you do is expand your collection and start having multiple solid lists to play. This also helps you become a 'how good can you be' player.

This is so totally the opposite of how one of the top players in my area acts. He just teaches anybody anything they're willing to learn.

I was watching a game the other day where a guy was pretty well getting trashed. The other player responded by acting like the game was much more even than it was, and then making suggestions on what the losing player could do. It had the effect of re-engaging the losing player, teaching him some tricks, getting him to fight hard to grab one objective (even if he still couldn't win the game), and making a total throw-away game into something much more fun and constructive.

WHere am I bragging about range estimation?

It's an issue of tone and how things are said. Compare:

"One ability I've trained myself in is range estimation. I can exactly estimate within a quarter of an inch. My opponents don't know what's hit them, they think it's luck that I'm always in range, and they're always wasting shots. It's a major advantage to have this ability that I've perfected."

vs.

"It's very useful to have good range estimation skills. Being able to estimate range accurately means that you can place your models in just the right spot to be in or out of range. It's well worth the effort to learn this, and here's a few tricks I've seen work..."

If the point you're trying to make is the value of range estimation, that's all you need to say. Just say it's useful. You don't have to state repeatedly that it's an "ability" you have. You don't have to recount how dumbfounded your hapless opponents are in the face of your ability. Just mention the value of range estimation. The reader can assume for himself that you've perfected it. You don't need to make so sure that they know.

People don't appreciate it, and you guys don't understand that because you haven't actually done it.

I once gave a guy 10 of the old metal Terminators, painted to a standard far better than he was capable of. Just felt like he'd get more use out of them. I don't think he even remembered my name. But that never bothered me.

It's internal vs. external validation. I don't need approval or reward to feel good about something I do.

Doing somebody a favor with the expectation of a reward isn't actually doing them a favor. It's more like making a trade with somebody, but not telling them first.

You are in the class that we call martyrs.

Most def. There's a real victim complex going on here, with the "I try so hard and they crap on me" attitude, and then actually choosing armies out of the desire to be disrespected and then vindicated in victory.

I don't regret any of the time I spent with any customer, even though a lot of it ended up being wasted time, because the guys who did listen and did get leaps and bounds better made it worthwhile.

I think that it's also worth noting that if people don't grow and "evolve" as players, they tend to leave the hobby. People tend to need to see progress in whatever they're doing, and to feel like they're getting better, doing more, etc. Not everyone is focused on the battle score side of it, some folks are more into painting, or having fun campaigns, but there's a sizeable percentage that just want to win more games, win against better players, feel like they're learning the game. If they fail in this pursuit, they're likely to sour on the hobby and go elsewhere. The more players we have, the better the hobby, the cheaper everything gets, the more players there are, etc. etc. etc.

So, really, there IS a direct benefit to you to help other players learn. The fact that you can't see that is too bad, and the fact that you need a direct benefit is worse.

There is an inverse relationship between actual skill level and how much that person brags about their skills.

Well, not exactly. There are a lot of seriously arrogant doucehbags who are also very, very good at what they do. Kobe Bryant, Phillip Rivers, etc. etc.

I think what's more true, is that there's an inverse relationship between competence and confidence. In fact, they've done actual studies that show that as people learn more about a given topic, they actually begin to reduce their own opinion of their knowledge.

Wow, much wordier than I intended...but I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.

I think this is a good example of the sorts of things that top players do. They see the rules within the rules, and use them to their advantage. It makes no intuitive sense at all that to kill Ghazgkull you'd want to attack everything but him, and then use No Retreat to put wounds on him. But that's actually a great way to do it. Even if you can't avoid him getting to CC, you can still probably put more wounds on him by attacking Fearless Ork Boyz with their awful armor save, than by attacking him directly.

Two books, with similar core units. All you do is expand your collection and start having multiple solid lists to play. This also helps you become a 'how good can you be' player.

This reminds me of something I've always wanted to try... I think it'd be fun to run a tournament (or series of friendly games, or whatever) where everyone has to choose from a small set of "White Dwarf" sorta lists. Ie. no Nob Bikers, no crazy Vulkan lists, nothing of the sort Stelek would turn out, just some really generic lists.

Marines with 3x Tactical Squads with ML and Flamer, a Rhino, a Dread, a Razorback, 5 bikes and a Landspeeder.
Tau with 3x Fire Warrior Squads, 1x Kroot, 3x Crisis suits, 5x Stealthsuits, a Hammerhead and a Devilfish.

Whatever. Just the sorts of "a little of everything" lists you see in the Codex.

Then you could really see who was playing the game, who's building crazy lists, and what it all means.

I think it was Derrida who said that a gift given starts a cycle of debt and repayment. Thats why I always try to give gifts anonymously, as it is a gift if I get nothing from anyone else out of it.

I know this is a 40k forum, but I feel the question crosses all tabletop games. All any of us can truely speak from is experience, and I believe myself to be a competant 40k and fantasy player. At the FLGS I am supposed to give a disclaimer to people that wish to have a game that I prefer to play with a tournament training style of play. This is not because I am that good, but a some players don't find it sporting to maximize your strengths and give no quarter.

In 40K I have never met such a player that I said "Damn, I can't touch this guy", or resorted to the claim of "man, his list is too good". Every army list has strengths, I choose to play optimized lists from reasonable codexes (damn GW grammar). I believe the nature of the movement and shooting phases allow most players to get by with making mistakes, and it is when there is a poor judgement in the displacement of troops that games are won and lost. There are players who don't take obvious baits, who play brutally and bring lists capable of dealing with top tier armies regardless of competition. This isnt a lengthy or difficult process.

In Fantasy I find there to be a distinct difference. Most people seem to pit list against list in my area. Fast cavalry lines up and skirmishes with the enemy fast units. Blocks of infantry move straight forward and knights chase the flanks. The units with higher movement or movement spells get the charge, someone has a tougher unit that fights another tougher unit. Its all pretty average. There are some players who take a different outlook and you'll notice it on turn one.

These players build a list to a certain set of situations and, like 40K, usually have an answer for all expected top tier opponents. Their unit movement changes. Some areas are hit with march blockers while they refuse the flank, focusing all attention on getting their 2-3 kill units into position against their opponents weaker forces. Screening units, such as crossbowmen, turn on angles so that even if you charge (and you're sure to be in range) the pursuit or their survival will result in your flank being exposed and a very poor trade. Alternatively you encounter generals that can swing the momentum of their army so that they are crashing through ranks and numbers of their enemy, culminating with the big point sinks being hit in the flank with a unit of chaos knights, a dragon, a vampire or whatnot.

I met one player that used this set of tactics to great sucess in a 2000 pt fantasy tourny. He had a horde of skaven loaded with shooting (last edition), and was paired against my Cult of Slaanesh. Turn one everything was pushed forward. Turn two, most of his units angled so that any overrun would result in an exposed flank, while he started openning fire with ratling guns. The game involved many overruns through units of 20 slaves, completely denying me of most VPs as I clung to close combat for fear of shooting. He did his best to isolate one unit at a time and eliminate it with shooting or magic, but thankfully most was killed due to my sucess with the Frenzy spell of old slaanesh magic. Eventually my Annointed's unit was hit on all sides by rats, and I suceeded in granting the unit unbreakable and extra attacks. Both our armies were nearly destroyed, with nothing but one or two models in all of my units, and most of his army off the table. We both looked smug walking into the counting process, because we built our lists on point denial. Despite the carnage the points rang in at 800VPs given up from me, and 750 VPs given up from roughly 6 units (with chars and weaponteams) from him. We were both shocked at the tie, and but his positioning made him one of the most dangerous fantasy players I've seen. He the strength his army has over yours, and even if you bludgeon half his force off the table odds are you only hit units he wanted. Thats the best type of fantasy player IMO.

I not sure if I always play as good as I could be.
I play mostly Space Wolves, Deathwing and Space Marines.

When it comes to Heavy Weapons for Infantry I generally have a “Food Chain” for my choices.

1] Plasma Cannons [I’m really good with these]
2] Multi-Melta [I have always love them]
3] Heavy Bolters [I like the M2HB .50 Machine Gun and I can’t have Auto-Cannons]
4] Las-Cannons [Great for Anti-Tank, but I would rather have a Multi-Melta]
5] Missile Launchers [Jack of Trades, Master of None]

If I had my way I would use Plasma Cannons 90% of the time, other than AV14 they are better than Missile Launchers at most thing. However with my Space Wolves I have none.
1] I don’t have that many models with them.
2] I do try to be different.
3] I have tons of Las-Cannons and Missile Launchers [Thanks Mac and Black Reach]

So on the List-Building side.

As for the tactical side, I give a lot during set up.
1] I let them choose and set of the terrain so I don’t have to.
2] I usually take one side of the table and don’t move to the other side once deployment is determined because I don’t want to get out of my chair and move everything.
Yes this is a lazy way to do it, but I am there just to blow [Bleep] up and relax and if my opponent does not mind there is no stress on either side.
I still win more games than I loose, so keeping with the lazy theme it works for me.