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.

So, tourney gamers, we've all been to 3 round RTT's and gone 2-1. (Ok, maybe not all of us, but most.)

Given that you lose one game, do you have the most fun when you:

A: Lose in the first round
B: Lose in the second round
or
C: Lose in the finals?

I think A.

Largely because you can then relax and enjoy subsequent games, rather than feeling the stress of still trying to remain undefeated. Also, you get to play "easier" games in the later rounds, which means you're more likely to play against armies that aren't the top-tier-of-the-month type.

I would say c. I enjoy nothing more than a close game and if you get dumped into the lower bracket in the first round there's less chance of having that in the later rounds.

I like A and C. I don't like losing in the middle. If you lose the first game you get to be more relaxed as redbeard mentioned, and if the top players run a draw you sometimes get back into the rankings if you have a good second game. If you get to the last game and lose you know you gave it a good go and were trounced by one of the potential winners. If you lose the second game its too much I have a chance, no i don,t maybe I do, oh heck. Messes up with enjoying the competion of C or with being relaxed like A.

Meph

I prefer to lose the last game. I tend to do well in tournaments and if I lose an early game it usually means the next one is going to be a cake-walk, and that's not really much fun for either opponent.

Problem with the current enviornment is it's much better to lose in the first rounds because you can come all the way back in the losers bracketts with 2 massacres and win the whole tourny. I have seen it done numorous times. I even think in one tourny the guy purposely had a minor loss and let the vet players beat the snot out of each other and win the whole thing. Unscrupiolous maybe, but if all you want to do is win it can happen.

You gotta lose the second game.

You start out good, and you're all heroic (as winning 40k makes you a hero), then things turn against you, and you lose, and it looks like you're done for, but then you pull it up and win the final game, and you're a hero again.

All good plotlines go like this.
Just look at Star Wars (the real movies, not those new ones).

Sometimes a tie in the first round can help you to win the whole shabang.

G

If I am going to loose, I prefer it to be the first game. Makes the rest of the tournament much better. I hate loosing second and usually loose the last game to the cheese list with a cheese mission. Nothing like playing take and hold against anti-marine guard.

Techboss wrote:If I am going to loose, I prefer it to be the first game. Makes the rest of the tournament much better. I hate loosing second and usually loose the last game to the cheese list with a cheese mission. Nothing like playing take and hold against anti-marine guard.

Is this just joking around? How can a mission be cheese?
IG aren't really the greatest cheese warehouse either.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Is this just joking around? How can a mission be cheese?
IG aren't really the greatest cheese warehouse either.

I'm talking 4th edition, with virtually no terrain. Every guard player in my local group at the time played las plas gun line. I had one mission where there was a defended, guard, and one assaulter, me. Love having to run across open terrain into that crap. Guard player never moved, which is my biggest "you get no sports score issue".

I'd rather lose in the 1st round and get it over with. I'm usually a little over-anxious in the first couple turns of the first game anyway.

Techboss wrote:I'm talking 4th edition, with virtually no terrain. Every guard player in my local group at the time played las plas gun line. I had one mission where there was a defended, guard, and one assaulter, me. Love having to run across open terrain into that crap. Guard player never moved, which is my biggest "you get no sports score issue".

Wow, seriously? What did you want the guard player to do? Try to charge you in assault just to "mix it up"? Do random maneuvering that wouldn't help him? That's like saying that I'm giving you a 0 on sports, because your assault squads tried to assault me.

ph34r wrote:Wow, seriously? What did you want the guard player to do? Try to charge you in assault just to "mix it up"? Do random maneuvering that wouldn't help him? That's like saying that I'm giving you a 0 on sports, because your assault squads tried to assault me.

I hate playing armies that sit in their deployment zone the whole game. It irks me to no end. Is it fair to some armies, probably not. Either way, I find it extremely annoying for a player to move no more than 1 squad for the entire game. I find it equally annoying when playing such armies, that the player will set up all the terrain they place on the table edges. Again, is this fair to the army, probably not. As I find both of these actions beyond annoying, I refuse to play these armies most of the time. The only exception is some one playing a fluffy army (non-las plas) or some one I like. Basically, if your playing las plas, don't move, set up all the terrain on board edges and aren't friendly, I'll give you low sportsmanship. Fair, probably not, but I sure as hell didn't have fun in the game.

If you don't have fun in a game it doesn't mean the opponent was a poor sport. Setting up terrain against edges I can see as bad sportsmanship, but not moving for much of the game is just what is in the best interests of some armies.

Techboss wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Is this just joking around? How can a mission be cheese?
IG aren't really the greatest cheese warehouse either.

I'm talking 4th edition, with virtually no terrain. Every guard player in my local group at the time played las plas gun line. I had one mission where there was a defended, guard, and one assaulter, me. Love having to run across open terrain into that crap. Guard player never moved, which is my biggest "you get no sports score issue".

Techboss wrote:

I hate playing armies that sit in their deployment zone the whole game. It irks me to no end. Is it fair to some armies, probably not. Either way, I find it extremely annoying for a player to move no more than 1 squad for the entire game. I find it equally annoying when playing such armies, that the player will set up all the terrain they place on the table edges. Again, is this fair to the army, probably not. As I find both of these actions beyond annoying, I refuse to play these armies most of the time. The only exception is some one playing a fluffy army (non-las plas) or some one I like. Basically, if your playing las plas, don't move, set up all the terrain on board edges and aren't friendly, I'll give you low sportsmanship. Fair, probably not, but I sure as hell didn't have fun in the game.

You don't sound like a very fun opponent anyway.

Techboss
I hate playing armies that sit in their deployment zone the whole game. It irks me to no end. Is it fair to some armies, probably not. Either way, I find it extremely annoying for a player to move no more than 1 squad for the entire game. I find it equally annoying when playing such armies, that the player will set up all the terrain they place on the table edges. Again, is this fair to the army, probably not. As I find both of these actions beyond annoying, I refuse to play these armies most of the time. The only exception is some one playing a fluffy army (non-las plas) or some one I like. Basically, if your playing las plas, don't move, set up all the terrain on board edges and aren't friendly, I'll give you low sportsmanship. Fair, probably not, but I sure as hell didn't have fun in the game./quote wrote:


I know what you mean. I really hate people that play to their armies strength. I think all IG armies should charge full bore into Demon and Ork armies without firing a shot. If their tanks shoot, then I really take them to the cleaners on sports scores to show the rotten bastage a lesson, unless the templates land on IG units of course.

If I have to lose I prefer to do it in the 1st or last round. I'd rather be playing for the whole ball of wax or at least feel like I have a chance to submarine.

Redbeard wrote:I think A.

Largely because you can then relax and enjoy subsequent games, rather than feeling the stress of still trying to remain undefeated. Also, you get to play "easier" games in the later rounds, which means you're more likely to play against armies that aren't the top-tier-of-the-month type.

Word-for-word what I would have said, too.

In any gaming tournament (not just GW) that I've been in - once you lose the first round, and see some of the scores and realize that you're pretty much out of the running - the situation seems to just kinda relax all on its own.

Most of the players that I know who play ultra-competitively, get more and more tense the further (and higher) they go in a tournament. Building up hopes and expectations and having them dashed in the final round, at least for me, is worse than losing in the first round and not having that build-up.

Then again, I rarely play in tournaments of any kind anymore, either.