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.

I haven't tried it, but I was wondering if anyone had. It seems like a great way to try out two armies at once, and alot easier if you don't have anyone to play with...

Doesnt work for me because i prefer feinting and tricking my opponent.

And i cant exactly do that to myeslf....

Why not, I trick myself all the time!

I think it's kind of boring, trying to figure out your opponent's strategy and trying to countering them is much more entertaining, plus the social interaction. It's a good way to learn rules and an army/unit's abilities and limitations but is as intellectually stimulating as reading the tactica forum.

As for the thread title I would have gone with "Play with yourself?" But that's just me.

Sidstyler wrote:Why not, I trick myself all the time!

Everytime I pick up that porno, dude.

I've always wanted to do it as a mental experiment. You would have to try your hardest for each side and it would be more about finding out which units truly do well and which don't because you couldn't pull any tricks.

You'd know what you'd have to do for each side and then force yourself to do it, then when you switch you'd be in the same situation.

I think if you did it right it would give you a lot of insight into how you play and how well your armies do when faced with the fact that conditions will never be optimal.

Wayfarer wrote:I've always wanted to do it as a mental experiment. You would have to try your hardest for each side and it would be more about finding out which units truly do well and which don't because you couldn't pull any tricks.

You'd know what you'd have to do for each side and then force yourself to do it, then when you switch you'd be in the same situation.

I think if you did it right it would give you a lot of insight into how you play and how well your armies do when faced with the fact that conditions will never be optimal.

Dunno , i just use calculator to math hammer :<

I thought about it but could never be bothered..

I voted yes to skew your poll that lacks the Cupcakes/Pineapple option.

Solo wargaming has a long history, with pure standalone rules and solo adaptations for normal rules.

The Spulk 1e expansion Death Wing included solo rules.

i did it a couple of times, but its not the same. i always go ohh na i can make and exception for that model he is a awsome SM captain he cant die from a guard squad of las blasts..... oh no he killed the squad and the sm force won OOOPS MY BAD so much for army testing >.>

Bias is rife.

Only when I have a ridiculously cool Warhammer Fantasy Maneuver, in which I try to find every possible way for my enemy to exploit that maneuver.

In the end, it just looks like I'm playing with toys...

/sigh

When I wasn't aware of our local gaming club (which, sadly, went down but we play at our friend place) I used to play myself all the time, cause I had to blackm-I mean kindly ask my brother to play, which was usually no.
Nowadays, never gonna do that. But in past, yes, many times.

I used to Solo Wargame back in Secondary School when I had no friends anything from small skirmishes to huge battles Epic,40k,WHFB,Heroquest,Space Crusade,Battlemasters you name it.

A couple of months ago I seriously considered testing out the Apocalypse rules on my own.

Then the day developed and I seriously thought how sad that might be and thought on second thoughts............no..

Warhammer is now a social thing built for two..

Cryonicleech wrote:In the end, it just looks like I'm playing with toys...
/sigh

I thought that was what we were doing...

Tried it.

I keep cheating.

Having to explain to an ER doctor that you were injured after getting into a fist-fight with yourself is embarrassing the 1st time, let alone the 7th...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tried it.

I keep cheating.

Having to explain to an ER doctor that you were injured after getting into a fist-fight with yourself is embarrassing the 1st time, let alone the 7th...

Just so long as you don't start making soap...

It can be helpful for working out tactics, especially those where cover or LOS might be a major factor. Not the math-hammer part, but verifying how "feasible" your new master plan (insert appropriate evil chuckle here) will hold up when you have to pull it off around a "real" hill/building/woods/minefield/hello kitty lunchbox/etc., not just the once you've imagined in your head.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tried it.

I keep cheating.

Having to explain to an ER doctor that you were injured after getting into a fist-fight with yourself is embarrassing the 1st time, let alone the 7th...

You should probibly be an unbiased judge as well from the sounds of things.

'Played with myself' when 7th ed. Warhammer came out to refamiliarise myself wth the rules... I'd been out of fantasy for a while.

Sometimes I like to roll dice to see what happens, and sometimes I have models at hand to go with it. If all we needed to play was an army book and a calculator, the game wouldn't be half as interesting.

Wow talk about anitsocial. I am surprised its this much of a split! Makes me want to try it.

I did it once. I had 1000 points of Blood Ravens newly assembled and painted that hadn't been fielded sitting around for about four months (because there are very few people to have a game with out here).

It was nice to win a game.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tried it.

I keep cheating.

Having to explain to an ER doctor that you were injured after getting into a fist-fight with yourself is embarrassing the 1st time, let alone the 7th...

Bah, playing Battleship or Connect Four against yourself are the real challenges! At least with games that have dice rolls or card pulls, you have some form of random chance to affect the outcome of the battle/game. I have played games "against myself" but most of it was playtesting rules modifications or such.

I did it once, Orks (old codex) vs Tau. I wanted to see if there was anyway for the orks to win.

There wasn't.

I used math hammer to figure hits/wounds/saves etc, to keep dice luck out of the equation. I even played two games, switching table sides, and I believe I played both as strongly and aggressively as I could.

Considering my ultimate suckitude at wargames, it would probably make the universe collapse in on itself, since I would be trying to beat myself, but I always lose, and one side or the other would have to win, but I always lose, well you see.

warpcrafter wrote:Considering my ultimate suckitude at wargames, it would probably make the universe collapse in on itself, since I would be trying to beat myself, but I always lose, and one side or the other would have to win, but I always lose, well you see.

Just play for Draws, then the universe is safe.

I play myself to try out home made rules etc. and try out new characters (counts as of course).

I don't think it's as crazy as one might think. As long as you build both armies "blind", it could be an amazing mental exercise.

[Arrogance] : I consider myself a tactically sound player, one who could challenge myself in ways any other opponent couldn't. For the exact reason some people are saying the game wouldn't be fun, would be my motivation to try something like this out.

Face it, the game is still staggered by first player deploys, second player reacts then first player goes first 84% of the time.

Even against yourself (someone who knows your own tricks), you still have to respond to the positive tempo first player receives. That is enough, in my mind, to validate this scenario as a valid exercise.

But it would obviously only be that. And most of the fun from Warhammer comes from opponent interactions, at least for me.

I've been solo playing a variety of games...since I started gaming with Hero Quest and Battletech 2nd Edition.

1. It's a great way to test out newly-painted units/stuff you've designed in the game's construction system.

2. I can fight huge battles, using obscure game systems, over days or weeks as long as I can find a big enough unused table. Try finding a human who wants to play Succession Wars (Battletech grand strategy game) every day for hours. Not gonna happen.

3. I don't have to leave the house, nor invite anyone to it. Not a fan of guests.

Indeed, many a time-I am completely self-taught at WHFB, and usually solo game with new Spulk.

And I usually win!.....but.....then I also usually lose .

I could see doing it as a sort of extended math hammer exercise if you were trying to figure out how to beat a certain army build or tactic. The major limitation I can see is that you're only going to be as good as yourself, so if you don't understand the tactics you're trying to beat you won't get much benefit out of the exercise.

So, as a "What if ...?" exercise, it seems reasonable. It would probably still work better with a partner, though.