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 recently I was doing a pick up game at the local store. Looking at the mission and my opponents army it looked very unlikely that he would have been able to win. However if he had planned for it he might have been able to play for a tie. I know we've all come across those games where you look at your model's you look at your opponents list and then you look at the mission and mentally go f***. So what do you do?

So is it a viable tactic to play for a tie?

Would you do it in a pick up game?

Would you do it in a tournament?
Does it matter if you know that if you do you will make the final three, like for ard boyz.

I guess you can expand it a bit to something like adepticons primary, secondary, tertiary, would you just give up on the primary and go for the secondary and tertiary?

I havn't personally had a situation where I've done this, but I think its a good question to bring up. Playing for the tie would probably be influenced by the outlying factors as you've mentioned. If I thought that it was a game I had little chance of winning for some reason but knew that if I could pull a tie I would be able to stay up in the top of the rankings then it would be a viable option.
As far as missions with multiple objectives it would come down to playing to my Army's strengths and what those objectives were.
In friendly play I try to win even if thats unlikely. It just makes for a more interesting and fun game. If there was weight added from competition play I think that it would require more thought before doing so.
Just my thoughts.

I will play for the tie should the mission be not in my favor or I come across an army that is a paper to my rock.

I would only do it in tournies, because I dont hold anything against anyone in tournies, you play to win.

It's bad sportsmanship in friendly matches though. Your opponent beat you, let him have his win (but don't just roll over and die, make him earn it)

Rory, I think you're misunderstanding.

He's asking if you ever come into situations where winning seems so out of the question that it would be more tactically advisable to play for a tie than try for a win (risking a potentially crushing loss).

I don't think it's bad sportsmanship in any match, either - I can't think of any situation where I'd "let my opponent have his win" - I always try to do my best to keep the fight going. If my opponent just gave up, I'd feel robbed.

It's pretty hard to "not give up" and yet not tie if you can't win. My W/L/D ratio is a matter of pride for me, and I find no shame in fighting to a tie in a match that I cannot feasibly win. In addition, competitors at my local gaming store tend to find themselves quite happy to earn a tie against any of my armies that I play regularly. So if someone has a list that mathematically should slaughter mine, a tie actually makes everyone involved quite satisfied.

Personally I probably wouldn't start the game playing for a tie in a friendly game. I'd come up with some strategy to try to get myself the win, usually that's how you come up with tricks and things no one else has thought of.

In tournaments I think minimizing losses is acceptable. Although I don't condone score fixing.

I've never played for the tie. I got a tie once; it was an Ork vs. Tyranid game and we were equally massacring each other for killpoints when the game ended.

I've honestly never sat down at a table and thought, "How am I supposed to beat this?" If you do, perhaps its worth reconsidering the army that you are playing or the tactics you are playing it with.

I go for a tie only midgame after winning has gone out the window. Most of the time though I think anybody who wants to win would be utterly screwed when they admit the hope of a tie. Before, however, I never think I can't win this and I should aim for a tie, but how do I get around this list's strength.

With Mecheldar it's easy to play for the tie when you're being slammed. You get those games where your small numbers of actual troops get devastated by templates and you have to play runaround for a chance at anything but a loss.

At the last tourney I played at, where I had one draw and four losses (Killpoints mission against corner tau? Central relic vs. Necron Warrior spam? Give me break!), every loss was practically one successful dice roll from being a tie, and trust me, I went for it hard. I made up three killpoints in the last turn against the Tau army, and my chance for a tie depended on my weaponless Falcon ramming a skyray's side armour into oblivion. I immobilised it instead. :(

Against the Necrons I did quite well, killing Nightbringer and taking 11 warriors with him on the third turn... it came down to a single WBB roll on my final charge, as there were two small units or warriors left on the objective and I only charged one... but no. Like 80% of the WBB rolls that game, it was a good one.

I failed to draw a VP game by 9 points against a dual lash list because I forgot to move a vehicle away from some Berserkers.

I failed a last second tank-shock to draw a terrain grab game against Marines (that was a pretty thin chance).

The tied game was quarter objectives against a foot IG list - he covered the field, and I somehow just couldn't kill Marbo for three turns, but I got a last second charge in and forced the tie.

Overall, a terrible weekend.

In the 'Ard Boyz qualifier, I made the mistake of playing for a tie (on the last turn) in the KP mission rather than just going all out. It came back to bite me in the rear as my fresh out of reserves Bike Squad with Captain ate a single Rhino tank shock and promptly failed their leadership test, running off the board. For future reference... fortune favors the bold!

I'd play for a tie, because I think even in pick-up games you should play to the best of your ability (this, of course doesn't mean you should act like a jerk, and be annoyingly-competitive) while still having fun. If this means playing for the closest result to a victory, then so be it.

I was in a four game tournament a couple years back, and was way out of my league. I tied all four games, and won best sportsmanship (<- story of my gaming career).

I'd play for a win.
Failing that, I'd play for a tie.
Failing that, I'd go down fighting.
Failing that, I'd give the enemy the finger as I was obliterated!

I generally pay for the win, but will try to force a draw if it's obvious I can't win. I never give up a game until the final turn is finished...though I may complain bitterly about the result.

In friendly games I like to try to go for the win as I stated before. If its terribly bad and the opportunity for the tie presents itself late in the game I'll take it.

Generally though the games turn out to be more fun when you make a decision that may not be tactically sound and the gamble pays off. Many times it wont pan out, but when it does it gives you some fun stories and games that are a blast to play.

Like Arbites killing kharne the betrayer over the course of a round of shooting and then a round of assault. Will it happen regularly, no, was it hilarious and fun, you bet.

Here's my thoughts on how I play (casually or otherwise):

I will make my opponents fight tooth and nail for every inch... I expect my opponents to do the same. I find the most enjoyable matchups I've ever played are knock-down, drag out fights that come close to both sides being tabled in the process.

but that's just me.

I play to win until about turn 4. Then I decide wether I can win or not. If not, i will try to draw. I never sit dwn and say "Gee, guess I'd better try to draw."

Necron players tend to go for draws the most since it's there most reliable way of being played these days.

I never go into a game looking for a draw.

If I have 2 scoring units, there is 5 objectives, and you have 15 scoring units, I'll still play to win, I'm just going to try and win by tabling you.

Maybe I'm too competitive for my own good, but some of things I've read in this thread....*shakes his head in disbelief*

Dashofpepper wrote:Maybe I'm too competitive for my own good, but some of things I've read in this thread....*shakes his head in disbelief*

QFT.

If I can't win, I will move to secure a draw rather than give up a loss. And while I understand that drawing your first game in a tournament almost guarantees a win in all of your following games due to how TO's tend to match opponents, I have yet to try that tactic as it seems a bit ... well ... dirty.

SJ

For me it would be something like in an objectives mission where he has killed all my troops, I would go for his, and contesting with tanks . Then again, the best I can hope for there is a tie, so it doesnt really count.

I will most certainly play for the tie.

I never do straight from the start but if I'm getting demolished I'll change the plan up if its capture points or bases to make sure I have a chance to win or at least tie. If its killpoints and I'm getting smash I either just bonzi charge at him or run like a coward till the game is over.

I got nerfed once, I couldn't come on my board edge (he blocked the whole darn thing) in annialation. anyway we ruled any units that couldn't come on were dead, I managed to get about 750 points crammed in behind where my tanks crused two of his termies giving me space to deploy.

With my 750 points I took on his 2500 point army, so then yes, I was playing for a tie. I managed to deny him a massacre though, just a major victory.

the thing I don't get here is what's the difference between playing for the win and playing for the tie? It's not like tying has a different set of requirements than winning, winning just has ever so slightly more of the same ones

Cannonness Rory wrote:don't just roll over and die, make him earn it

winning is the successful result of making someone earn their win. tying is the bastard child of winning.

In a compeititve match I will try to attain the most points possible in each mission in order to further my chances of winning the competition. If I tie is the best result possible in a given matchup then I'll play for that. In tournament play I don't think there is necessarily a problem with this as if you're playing in the tournament you want to win it just as much as your opponent and you need to score points to win the tournament. If the opposing player doesn't understand this then there is something wrong.

In a game in which I/my opponent is testing a list for a tournament... same idea as compeitive play.

In a friendly/casual game... probably not.

Dashofpepper wrote:Maybe I'm too competitive for my own good, but some of things I've read in this thread....*shakes his head in disbelief*

Hmm, nearly everybody has said "I try for the win, but if it looks like it isn't possible, I'll go for the tie". Are you stunned that people don't instantly concede once they see that their only option is a tie?

I always find this question odd. How do you know you can't win? How do you know your opponent can't win?

Do you start every game by looking at your opponent's list and then declaring the winner? What about playing the game? Don't the dice have some say as to what happens?

Opportunity can be found everywhere but playing for the tie will make it harder for you to advantage of that opportunity. A player can make mistakes and forget things. A cell phone goes off and the next thing you know you are starting your shooting phase. Oh Noes! You forgot to move your assault troops. Now the foregone conclusion is an actual contest.

Play for the win - it makes for a better game for everyone.

Edit:
Just wanted to add that this is in the context of starting the game. Conceding a game well under way that you have clearly lost (i.e. one turn from being tabled) is not necessarily a bad idea. Sometimes packing it in a little early might give you time for a second game. Going down fighting and making your opponent take 2 turns to chase down your last Falcon is not fun.