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 people,

What does it mean?What are the properties you have to have to become a good player?

i know you gotta be good at writing lists,and have some tactics in mind,but what else?

Thanks for reading

the good player is able to assemble the proper resources and deploy and use them in such a way where they can implement a strategy which achieves its objectives better than their opponents.

Obviously this implies list building, deployment, movement and proper target priority to achieve objectives and the ability to disrupt the opponent's ability to do just that. Usually what separates a great player from a good one is their ability to do this on the fly regardless of the particulars of their situation when they're actually in the thick of it on the table top.

How you get this intuitive sense, this knack this through a combination of natural talent and practice (and getting help/training from others), just like playing a musical instrument or learning how to make art with oil paint and a canvas.

A good player writes a list he wants to play, will play to the best of his abilities and will 4+ any rules issues they may have.
They will lose without complaint and win without rubbing it in.

A good player also bathes...

Ailaros wrote:the good player is able to assemble the proper resources and deploy and use them in such a way where they can implement a strategy which achieves its objectives better than their opponents.

Obviously this implies list building, deployment, movement and proper target priority to achieve objectives and the ability to disrupt the opponent's ability to do just that. Usually what separates a great player from a good one is their ability to do this on the fly regardless of the particulars of their situation when they're actually in the thick of it on the table top.

How you get this intuitive sense, this knack this through a combination of natural talent and practice (and getting help/training from others), just like playing a musical instrument or learning how to make art with oil paint and a canvas.

what he said.

another prerequisite, i believe, for being a good player is to be able to adjust tactics on the spot when an unforseen variable enters in; even if you have an almost perfect strategy, you have to be able to adapt if it doesn't go your way. otherwise it's the strategy that's good, and not the player

If your name starts with an R, that is a really good start!

The ability to adjust is paramount IMO.

For example; Attack down both flanks. If one flank draws a lot of fire and counterattacks, pretend that was the feint all along, fall back and focus the remains on helping the other successful flank.
In short, fake it! Pretend that was your plan all along. This will demoralize your opponent.

This of course requires that one can build armies that can pull it off. Which happens to be another definition of a good player.

Last but not least. A good player is a player that realizes this is a game you play for fun.

A good player doesn't care if his opponent's force is painted or not, but cares about his own, a good player is a good tactician, and writes solid, balanced armies, then learns how to play them by pitting them against stiff competition.

Sanctjud wrote:A good player also bathes...

Sanctjud wrote:A good player also bathes...

Tacticz!!!

Sanctjud wrote:A good player writes a list he wants to play, will play to the best of his abilities and will 4+ any rules issues they may have.
They will lose without complaint and win without rubbing it in.

A good player also bathes...

I agree fully.

A great player dose all this and wins.

Tournamet/power gamers play to win and mostly win through an unbeatable list that makes any game rubbish for their opponent, a good/great plater would never do this.

Also a good player shouldn't mind listening to Judas Priest played very loud while gaming

Orkimus Maximus wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:A good player writes a list he wants to play, will play to the best of his abilities and will 4+ any rules issues they may have.
They will lose without complaint and win without rubbing it in.

A good player also bathes...

I agree fully.

A great player dose all this and wins.

Tournamet/power gamers play to win and mostly win through an unbeatable list that makes any game rubbish for their opponent, a good/great plater would never do this.

Also a good player shouldn't mind listening to Judas Priest played very loud while gaming

agreed; it's far better to win by your own merit than simply win because you have the most competitive list. list-writing is, naturally, very important, but tactics and bathing are just as, if not more so, important to being a good gamer

Maybe the opponents "merits" were that hes a good list builder? Those kind of statements seem only to tell the person is hiding a weakness in their playing style (Or trying to blame their opponents when they lose)

Perhaps a better statement would be, "A player who CAN make insanely killer lists chooses to instead play an average list. He is able to beat opponents who use tougher lists still"

That means the player has the ability to make good lists and play well.. instead of just hiding a flaw in his game style

I understand what you meant, just dont fault tournament players because they use all their strengths against other peoples disadvantages.. bringing the correct army has been a staple of GREAT generals for all human history

Defeated generals dont get much sympathy if they say "I didnt want to bring my best troops because that wouldnt be a fair fight.. so I brought my new troops.. and whelp looks like we lost! "

List building IS a strength. I distinguish "fun to play against players" from "good players".. I know plenty of great guys who are awesome to play against who never win a game. So theyre certainly not great players, but fun to play

However imo a great player is someone who doesnt give up and continues to fight for objectives regardless of how many models they have. They also keep victory in mind throughout the game

Sanctjud wrote:A good player writes a list he wants to play, will play to the best of his abilities and will 4+ any rules issues they may have.
They will lose without complaint and win without rubbing it in.

A good player also bathes...

Good players are also the players who help out newer players with tactics, army building etc


but bathing is a MUST of a good player

@ kirasu:
I get your point entirely; I wasn't insinuating that having an unbeatable list makes one a bad player; what I was trying to say is that no matter how good the list itself is, I believe that relying entirely on the list with no thought to tactics, even if it frequently wins, doesn't really represent being a good player. Just as how a tactical genius wouldn't be a good player if he couldn't write a list; IMO it's about beign profecient in all areas of the game. Saying it's better to win by tactical superiority rather than with a more powerful list is just a personal preference (for casual games, of course)
and the reason I used the phrase 'by their own merit' is because someone who I play against sometimes is using a list (a good one) that a GW employee had written for him; I can't see how he can be considered a hood player when he relies entirely on a list that he made no attempt to come up with himself

Ashtaroth wrote:

Ailaros wrote:another prerequisite, i believe, for being a good player is to be able to adjust tactics on the spot when an unforseen variable enters in; even if you have an almost perfect strategy, you have to be able to adapt if it doesn't go your way. otherwise it's the strategy that's good, and not the player

Quote for truth.

A good player knows ALL the variables, not exclusively mathhammer. They know what to expect out of their opponents list and how to counter it, which is their strategy. And even then they have a plan B for each plan A. They know that not all their dice are gonna roll well/right, and that if they do or don't that there is something else that will help get the job done without putting them at too much risk. This means also that they know how to prioritize, balancing their strengths and weaknesses against their opponent and utilizing all available resources, e.g. terrain, rules, etc. I also think that a good player employes manipulation and deception.

Think of it as an RPG called Good Gamer. You have your stat sheet. There are two categories to spend points on: Gameplay and Social. The subcategories of Gameplay are Tactics, Intuition and Knowledge. Tactics is how good you are at formulating a gameplan. Intuition is how well you react to events on the tabletop. Knowledge is how well you know your codex and the rules that apply to other armies.
The subcategories of Social are Agreeableness and Sportsmanship. Agreeableness, because not everybody can be friendly, but everybody CAN be polite. Sportsmanship, because dealing with defeat, making reasonable concessions to your opponent and not cheating are widely understood to be Good Things.
You have 5 points to spend in any way you like. The rest you gain from experience.

The way the term "good player" gets used around here defines such a player as one who always has the resources and tactical wherewithal to counter whatever resources or stratagem you deploy against them.

For example:

P1 "Use grots to screen your boys. That way your boys will get the charge after the Blood Angels have splattered your grots all over the landscape."

P2 "A good player would be expecting that; he'd just tank-shock the grots out of the way."

Orky-Kowboy wrote:Think of it as an RPG called Good Gamer. You have your stat sheet. There are two categories to spend points on: Gameplay and Social. The subcategories of Gameplay are Tactics, Intuition and Knowledge. Tactics is how good you are at formulating a gameplan. Intuition is how well you react to events on the tabletop. Knowledge is how well you know your codex and the rules that apply to other armies.
The subcategories of Social are Agreeableness and Sportsmanship. Agreeableness, because not everybody can be friendly, but everybody CAN be polite. Sportsmanship, because dealing with defeat, making reasonable concessions to your opponent and not cheating are widely understood to be Good Things.
You have 5 points to spend in any way you like. The rest you gain from experience.

summed up perfectly there, i think.

To me, a good player

-Knows all the rules, including which rules readings are controversial and why.

-Has all of his own army's stats/rules memorized (correctly), and has at least a good familiarity with the stats/rules for other armies as well.

-Plays briskly and efficiently in tournaments, without wasting time, especially for armies with a lot of models and/or dice.

-Is willing to play against opponents of all ability levels: seeks out challenging games, but is also willing to teach newbies.

-Doesn't depend on his opponent's stupidity or ignorance to do well; assumes all opponents know the common tactics and their counters.

Those are the basics. In addition, I think a really good player also

-Doesn't care if you know what's in his list well in advance of the game: it's not going to help you because the list doesn't depend on gimmicks or gotchas to do well.

-Doesn't blame other people's lists for his losses, doesn't cry "cheese" or "powergamer" or pressure others to conform to his own idea of what army lists should be like.

-Never ever blames his dice or his opponent's dice for a loss (even if they are responsible).

-Always tries to play better.

Be able to win humbly...and lose with flair.

I think I've got half of what it takes to be a good player,which is the sportsmanship part,but I don't think Im at the level of winning
Thanks anyways

Some great stuff has already been posted.

Some more qualities of a good player:

Always keeps focused on the mission. Never forgets it because of other distractions.

Knows how to create mismatches on the table- assaulty unit vs. opponent’s shooty unit, or superior assaulty unit vs. opponent’s weakened assaulty unit.

Knows the capabilities of own and enemy units. Even though 8 Grey Hunters with two fists are an assaulty unit, they’re not strong enough to take on an undamaged unit of 30 Shoota Boyz with a powerklaw Nob.

Aware of secondary effects of rules, and how to use them to advantage. Examples: Assaulting a unit you cannot hurt to make use of the free movement. Assaulting an enemy unit which is holding an objective in such a way as to force them to move off of it. Shooting an antitank gun at a Drop pod next to a unit of enemy infantry, recognizing that the chance of getting a Vehicle Explodes result is more likely to do significant damage than a single antitank shot.

You dont play eldar....

What do you mean by you dont play eldar?

Tony the guardsman wrote:What do you mean by you dont play eldar?

grambo hates eldar. QED, eldar players are bad players. not knowing any eldar players, i'm disinclined to agree; hating eldar, however, i can agree with.
sort of.