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.

This is for all the members who have their W-L-D records in their sigs. I was wondering how you count the games.

Tourneys only?
Tourneys + friendly games?
games that end mid-match for whatever reason and its apparent victory is inevitable for one army anyway?
"practice" games?
any games that are played at a location w/ special house rules that go against BGB?
etc etc.

I'm not asking what I should include. I'm asking what you include and if there's any special reason why. Or if there's a general consensus type of feel for record-posting, etc

Thanks!

edit: well, doesn't have to be a sig record...just to anyone who keeps records.

Well, for one, I ignored every loss I had up until my first win. IMO, those first games during the army building stage are all practice for the real deal when you finally have an army that can potentially win.

Given that I can only really potentially play one game a week, I've started tracking every game I play against other people. I don't count games that I play against myself.

I don't keep a record but my friend does. However I hate it because when he losses and I ask why he didn't record that he says "Well I was trying a new army list / strategy / I've never faced that army before so it's only practice and doesn't count. Don't know if people here do that but either way I play for fun & as long as I have fun I consider it a win .

P.S. call me a care bear all you want, I play to win but if I have fun and lose so be it, I still had fun so it was still worth the time.

The only thing I wouldn't count (and seldom play) would be doubles games or such. Anything else, counts. Don't put it in my sig, but we have a tracker program for our club that I enter everything into.

I distinguish between the kinds of games I play.

I track my record at GTs and Major RTTs (a Major RTT being one that has 40+ people, but isn't on the GT circuit). Everything else; FLGS tournaments anywhere I go that aren't major events, friendly games, challenges, gambles, title defenses....all those things are in the second part of my signature.

I track every game I play: win, loss or draw. Wins are meaningless to me except in terms of winning a tournament; I couldn't tell you how many of which armies I've played against. However, I CAN recite from memory my losses, who they were to, what happened in the game, why I lost, the mistakes I made....and why I won't make those mistakes again. Losses are more valuable to me because I learn from them. In fact, I would safely say that my gaming is a continuous search to find players who are better than me, who can beat me....so that I can improve my game.

This might sound elitist, but I ask folks before I game with them to rate themselves on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most superb 40k player on the planet. If they say 6 or less....I pass on a game. I started 40k two years ago, and up until a year ago, beating people was fun for the sake of winning, but that has long since passed into "Its a waste of my time if you can't provide a challenge."
---------------
As for my signature: Dakkadakka has a LOT of trolls. There are many posters here who exist on the forums only to bash on other people. The bulk of my posting is done about orks, either in the ork army list section, or in the tactics section. My signature is not meant to impress people - I couldn't care less anymore. Instead, its meant to lend credence to the advice I give about Orks and Dark Eldar. When someone posts an Ork question about the tactical viability of something, and someone who doesn't even play orks weighs in with their thoughts, which may run completely counterintuitive to common sense....it really irks me. My goal is that when I post something for an ork player to read, or link a tactical article I've written, the fact that I perform amazingly well with my Orks should lend credence to the argument I'm making about a particular ork style, theme, or army build.

During my first year of playing 40k, I got trolled a *LOT* by dickheads posting things like, "You've never been outside your little pond" or "What credibility do you have to post your thoughts" and crap like that. Well, I travel around the country now to play in major events (also in my signature so that folks can see where I'm headed next for a GT - when I show up to a tournament and people see my pink orks, I get a lot of "Are you Dashofpepper?" or "Are you the cat with the lime thing from Dakka?") It makes me feel good. Point being; I travel to big events, I document my battles with pictures, write extensive battle reports, post them on the battle report forum, and generally publicize my gaming wherever I go.....all with the sole intention of building my credibility to dispense advice that will help make some ork players better.

Basically, its all anti-troll stuff. I still get trolled, although when some random jack*** says, "What a fake win record" or something, I'm quick to offer them a game, at a point level of their choosing, preferably with monetary stakes - if you want to be a jerk and call someone out, put your freakin' money where your mouth is. With Vassal (computer means of playing tabletop 40k) within easy reach at any given time, its easy to put people in their place. Its sad that I have to go through all these steps to establish my credibility, but this is the internet and you can't abolish trolls.

I went to one tournament, and at the final round was someone (who knows who he is) who had nicknamed me DashofIdiot because his ork philosophies ran counter to my own. We met at the final table for some ork v ork action, and he told me that he was going to go back to every thread I'd ever posted in after the fight and post that I was wrong with my advice. At the end of the game, I had a 30 point massacre on him. Fortunately, we're friends now...but I pick up flak like this quite often - sycophants from Stelek's blog who agree with his assessment that orks are the worst codex and weakest army currently in 40k will rise up to challenge me when I call him a blithering idiot....and I'll beat them down in a game; those are not friendly games. I have no doubt that before the thread is done, one of the gang of useless personalities that lurk on Dakka will show up to post nothing constructive except an insult to me.

Rambling at this point.

TL;DR: My signature is a verifiable record of my exploits during a tournament season meant to lend credibility to the advice I dispense to people who share a codex with me and solicit help on how to play more competitively. Basically, it is insulation against stupid people whose existence consists of posting disparaging, insulting garbage. Nowadays, I don't have to respond to trolls with in-depth analysis of why my viewpoints on orks are valid, I have a record that does it for me that anyone is welcome to challenge. The existence of my record has significantly decreased the stupid factor in ork threads I'm posting in, meaning that its working!

I couldn't tell you what my record has been the last several months. Seems like a lot of draws in this generation of 40k versus the last time I played. Part of the problem is that I play so many different army lists that I forget how they do individually, and don't really see a point in a W/L/D record outside of a tournament. I get why someone like Dash does, because he puts himself out there as an expert and it's nice to have some stats to back it up.

I keep track of my W/L/D for narrative purposes mostly, and to keep track of how many games I play. I keep track of any game I play, whether it's a 500 point 2v1 or a borderline Apocalypse sized game. I just like statistics for statistics' sake, really.

Personally, I count any 1v1 game that wasn't stopped prematurely. If an opponent had to leave mid game due to an emergency, there's no point in counting it. Also, if it's multiple players per side it doesn't really reflect how your army performs but how well it plays with others.

Dashofpepper wrote:Basically, it is insulation against stupid people whose existence consists of posting disparaging, insulting garbage.

Teehee

Dashofpepper wrote:
This might sound elitist, but I ask folks before I game with them to rate themselves on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most superb 40k player on the planet. If they say 6 or less....I pass on a game. I started 40k two years ago, and up until a year ago, beating people was fun for the sake of winning, but that has long since passed into "Its a waste of my time if you can't provide a challenge."

Do you play for fun anymore? What about uneven games, crazy scenarios etc? Would you play if someone suggested a game you couldn't win, the challenge is surviving longer, that kind of thing?

Sorry to de-rail.

Dashofpepper wrote:
The existence of my record has significantly decreased the stupid factor in ork threads I'm posting in, meaning that its working!

That really sounds big-headed, do you realise that? Your very presence lends an aura of intelligence to the discussion?

Not to mention you give us absolutely NO context for any of those wins. The idea of keeping a public score is just silly.

Dashofpepper wrote:
This might sound elitist, but I ask folks before I game with them to rate themselves on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most superb 40k player on the planet. If they say 6 or less....I pass on a game. I started 40k two years ago, and up until a year ago, beating people was fun for the sake of winning, but that has long since passed into "Its a waste of my time if you can't provide a challenge."

So there's really nothing fun about the game just for the sake of playing for you? That's kind of sad, really.

I'd rate myself as somewhere around 8(never thought about it before, but I win way more than I lose... except against Droofus! Curse you!) and I'll play anybody. It's not about "beating people for fun" for me though, I just enjoy the game of 40k. I don't revel in a win against a sub-par player, but I wouldn't classify it as a waste of time.

bhsman wrote:Not to mention you give us absolutely NO context for any of those wins. The idea of keeping a public score is just silly.

See, this is what I call trolling. I *DID* give you context for the wins - an extensive note that I take pictures, write and record battle reports. Here's a five thread running story about my Golden-Ticket winning performance at the Southern California Slaughter in Space GT several weeks ago.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/290643.page

That's Round 1, with lists, scenarios, objectives, and a running narrative with inserted pictures to give the most complete story of the game. It takes me longer to write a battle report than it does to play the game itself.


@Monster Rain: I don't have a FLGS. I have a few within an hour or two of where I live, but they are focused on leagues, of which I don't have the regulated schedule to commit to - and the leagues around here are always on weekdays, which is a further turnoff. I *do* play for fun, and for the sake of enjoyment of the game. However, outside of a tournament setting for prizes, I take no enjoyment in absolutely slaughtering people on the table. I'll generally play anyone once, and try avoiding the bad players thereafter, but there's been one too many games where I was working on preparation for a tournament, and my opponent was too new to 40k to be useful, and most of the game was spent teaching them the rules. And on that note....most of the games I play are preparation for a tournament, which is fun in itself - but I don't really solicit random games with no purpose. All my "fun" games recently have been 2500 points in preparation for 'Ard Boyz, with a rare exception where someone wanted to test a list against me at a different point level in preparation of a tournament of their own. Before that, I was practicing 2k games, preferably with the scenarios for the SoCal SiS with people in preparation for the GT.

Once the first round of 'Ard Boyz is over, I'll be kicking it down to 1750 and prepping for the next round of the Atlanta Circuit; I have a title to defend. =p After that, back up to 2500 and prepping for semi-finals of 'Ard Boyz....that's my gaming and I enjoy it.

@Cakefool: That's my playing for fun. I play in whatever scenarios people request; I'll give folks my army list ahead of time to try building specifically to beat me, and I actually take pleasure in playing in uneven games. One of Stelek's cronies looked me up and was telling me what a douche I was, how dakkadakka sucks (Stelek got banned from here and just badmouths it now) and went on to elaborate how only losers post here and yakface is a tool and....the list goes on. I was mildly reproachful and asked if he had any reason to think any of this or if he was just repeating what Stelek said....we went on to talking about Orks and he was firmly in the "Orks are the worst codex in 40k camp" so I challenged him to a game. He wanted to test his 'Ard Boyz list, and I hadn't built my 'Ard Boyz list yet, so I played 2k vs his 2500 to prove a point. =p

Locally, I've got a deal with the store I frequent the most; if anyone buys $50 worth of stuff, they earn a challenge token, which they can spend to fight against me at a 25% point disadvantage. If they win, I buy them a free battleforce box of their choice. Helps promote business for the store.

And I don't mean that my presence lends an aura of intelligence to discussions that I partake in, I mean that my signature discourages some trolls to open their mouth and make a fool of themselves. Someone posts something inflammatory, or derogatory or insulting....or repeating the "Orks suck" mantra, to which I can answer, "Lets play a game of 40k. My orks vs. your anything you like. I'll buy you a battleforce box if you win, and we'll have it be a public match with a celebrity judge." Those games usually get 10-15 spectators and a 5-10 page threadnought before getting locked, but thus far they've resulted in a troll getting shut down every time. And if one day I come up against someone where I've offered up money in exchange for putting them in their place and I lose....so? I travel around the country playing 40k and looking for people better than I; I'd be happy to pay the cost of a battleforce box to find someone I can learn from. =)

Thanks for all the input guys.

I'm a bit torn as my new FLGS hosts 40k Friday Nights. But they have special house rules that limit army comp and even tactics. So i'm not sure how i want to consider these matches.

Also, I had a practice match that ended prematurely due to scheduling. Onlookers and my opponent joked i could count it as a win. But another friend who was there said "nah, don't disrespect him like that. it was only practice" lol.

So just trying to get in to the psychology of record-keeping.

I don't presently count W/L/D. Back when I did, I counted any league or tournament game, so that meant a game of equal points within a standardized competitive structure. Not funky handicap scenarios or friendly pickup games.

Of course, that was back when the Dakka site included DakkaStats, a kickass statistical package which tracked them for you, and had all kinds of awesome comparison and data analysis tools. You could pull historical win percentages for different armies, see how different armies did in different missions, see which opponents you had the hardest time winning against, etc, etc. Sadly, the Russ-God stopped supporting that software a while ago.

Ah....sorry, I completely misunderstood what this thread was about. *laughing*

If your FLGS has special house rules and comp....everyone has to work within the same framework. That's all any tournament is; a set of restrictions that you work within to make the best list that you can tactically utilize. If the house rule says no AV14....that applies to everyone equally, and shifts what you need to bring for anti-tank. Enjoy those games, but don't think that they count for nothing because you're pitting your ability to win within a certain criteria against others.

In terms of practice matches....if the game is obviously going one direction...easy enough. If your opponent has to forfeit because they have to leave....that's also easy enough. If the store is closing, or if they need the tables for something else; the best you can do is get a rematch later.

Dashofpepper wrote:See, this is what I call trolling. I *DID* give you context for the wins - an extensive note that I take pictures, write and record battle reports. Here's a five thread running story about my Golden-Ticket winning performance at the Southern California Slaughter in Space GT several weeks ago.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/290643.page

Forgive me for not following your post history on hand and foot. No wonder you are so quick to cry troll, with thin skin like that. That said, I commend you on the extensive battle reports, but only proves my point: you would get more out of linking those battle reports than some arbitrary number.

That aside, I don't place any trust in the idea that 'X army sucks' (except for maybe Daemonhunters, but that's another matter), which is even worse than scorekeeping, but in a more subtle way.

Personally, I don't keep a record. Why? Because I don't care.
Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy winning just as much as the next guy. That isn't why I play the game, though. I play it for the sheer enjoyment of playing a social game with another human. Most often, that means getting together with the regulars in my group & enjoying their company.
I win some. I lose some.

This might sound elitist, but I ask folks before I game with them to rate themselves on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most superb 40k player on the planet. If they say 6 or less....I pass on a game.

Wow, Dash...
That's just sad.
It kinda makes me feel bad for you that you see the game that way.

This isn't a troll, as I've never had a problem with you in the past (that I can recall), and don't intend to, now. It's just a comment based on your stated outlook about the game (the above quote wasn't intended to be a "complete" quote).

I mean, I don't know how I rate. I might be a 4. I might be an 8.
If I felt humble and said "4," and you passed because of that... you'd be missing a fun time. Win or lose, I've only ever played ONE game I had a bad time in, and that was a tourney game against TFG with a horrible attitude (which I won, BTW).

If your only criteria for whether or not you play a game with someone is whether you think they'll be a challenge or not... that makes me feel "Sad panda-y" for you.

Back on topic... @ OP.
Are you thinking about keeping your W/L record on here?

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

I mean, I don't know how I rate. I might be a 4. I might be an 8.
If I felt humble and said "4," and you passed because of that... you'd be missing a fun time. Win or lose, I've only ever played ONE game I had a bad time in, and that was a tourney game against TFG with a horrible attitude (which I won, BTW).
Eric

I'd like to say that if you were an 8, you would know it....but I don't know enough about you to say that.

At a FLGS, I play a game against whomever is up for a game. At a tournament, I play against whom I'm paired against.

I'm talking about Vassal - where people from all over the world gather to play 40k together. Where you don't know one person from another and there's a wide assortment of strangers - I vet whom I play; making sure that they speak English and are a pretty good player. And why not when you have the pick of anyone you want to play against?

I count game plays of all my games (including RPGs) for no reason other than 'I feel like it.' But I don't record any win/loss results. I play for fun and don't want competition to get in the way of that.

I wanted to be one of those players that keeps track. But I've lost so many times that I can't even remember any more.

Dashofpepper wrote:Ah....sorry, I completely misunderstood what this thread was about. *laughing*

nah, you still got it right. I wanted to know everyone's reasoning or approach for keeping records But yeah it was primarily if people record certain conditioned games.


I'm a pretty competitive person. Some people say they play (any game) "for fun", but to me, losing isn't fun. As the great Herm Edwards said, "You play. To win. The game." I'm not some stiffler or stingy person for rules or anything i.e. RAW v. RAI, Codex > BGB, FAQs, etc. But I like to compete and keep some sort of measurement of my success. If i was trying a new random army or if it were 2v1 for some reason, I'd still count those...maybe w/ an asterisk >_> I'll have a lot of friendly games w/ friends in their garage and I won't take things too serious. Doesn't mean I won't try to win. Maybe not WAAC, but i'll still want and try my best to win. I'm a Leo. I have a strong sense of pride


But i do like this mindset

Locclo wrote:Well, for one, I ignored every loss I had up until my first win. IMO, those first games during the army building stage are all practice for the real deal when you finally have an army that can potentially win.

though maybe there should be like a 3-5 loss minimum

I *used* to have a W-L-D on dakka in my sig. I found it got skewed because of the different lists I played, and the friendly vs tournament matches I have played in. I am proud to say that I have placed first in my past two tournaments (3rd & 4th tournaments participated in). I also win most games I play on vassal. (With my fists I have lost to an eldar player who destroyed 4 tanks in turn 1... and a very compitent space marine player, I underestimated his bikes...) I would love to play Dashofpepper on vassal (third time admitting this ) I would either:

Lose: Learn some more and become a better player.

Win: Feel better about my skills as a warhammer 40,000 player.

Unfortunately... I still don't have a mic...

However, back on topic, I would put this in your signature.

Two seperate ones:

Friendly (I wouldn't even put this in there )

Competitive

Also, try to stick to one army and army type, as opposed to armies in general.

I guess I did it for the same reason Dash did as far as, to give my posts credibility.

So, Dash seems to know what he is talking about, so I would listen to him.

(Thinking about it... I might start a vassal W-L-D...)

It helps that my tournament season performance is a reflection of my trend in friendly games.

Hulksmash doesn't post around general discussion, but he's responsible for most of my losses, and I've learned much from him. If you want a truly spectacular opponent, try getting in a game with him.

I'm trying to get my tournament ranking so low in the next 12 months that I drop off the board.

My w/l/d results are irrelevant. All that is important is whether or not the game was a fun one.

i keep a record, but winning isn't as important to me as having fun playing (and making sure my opponent has fun as well)
i generally count everything except when i'm playing in a 3-way game (as they inevitably end up biased and don't reflect a balanced game) and when i'm playing against an army that the opponent has only just started (practise games in other words)

chromedog wrote:W/L/D for 2009:
Is your life really so empty that you need to know this stuff?

Would you accept that there is a higher level of gaming that you possibly don't play in? I've seen it and skirted around the edges, but I'm not good enough / don't know enough to play in that "tier" yet. These are the guys that are always at the top table(s) of a GT regardless of the missions, the army they play, or the draw they face. I'm privileged to know a couple of them. Brad Townsend and David Fay in LA, Alex Fennel from CT, Probably Reece Robbins (as modest as he is) and there's more that belong here that I don't know about.

I daresay that if Brad/David/Alex/Tier 1 players in general is at the other end of the table from you, there are three possibilities.
1. You know who he is and what an incredibly tough fight you're about to have, and will desperately ply every ability you have.
2. You don't know who he is because you don't play at the Tier1 level, and will get curb-stomped.
3. You are a Tier1 player from another part of the world and don't know your opponent, and you get quite a surprise when you discover someone of your caliber opposite you.

Keep in mind that 40k is a wide-hobby, and people get different joys out of it. Some people paint and model, and their enjoyment comes from creating works of art. They might have a signature with a blog, or a gallery to attest to their efforts. Personally, my "fun" comes from being challenged. From NOT winning.

I've got two...TWO losses to my name with Orks this tournament season. Matt Cassidy tabled me with foot-slogging IG, and Tim Hudak's Vulkan-led Redeemer Land Raiders caught me completely by surprise, also tabling me ( I thought those were lascannons hurrr...so I disembarked and charged). I couldn't give you a list of who I won against.

I already explained the credibility aspect of signatures; I posit myself as an Ork expert, and my signature helps validate the advice I give. That doesn't mean my life is empty as your signature suggests. On the flip-side, is YOUR hobby so unimportant to you that your performance in it is meaningless?

I never did for my sig when I played Marines, but I did keep track. Now that I'm going to be starting Guard soon, I might, because I would like to be tournament ready with them. I don't count games on vassel, because I was either stomping one of my friends who were experimenting with a new list, or getting stomped myself learning IG (see Dash's above statement about people learning, its most likely aimed at me) If one day I get a vassel groove going with others, then Ill start keeping it on my sig.


P.S- I'm buying a mic next week. I want a re-match

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:I never did for my sig when I played Marines, but I did keep track. Now that I'm going to be starting Guard soon, I might, because I would like to be tournament ready with them. I don't count games on vassel, because I was either stomping one of my friends who were experimenting with a new list, or getting stomped myself learning IG (see Dash's above statement about people learning, its most likely aimed at me) If one day I get a vassel groove going with others, then Ill start keeping it on my sig.


P.S- I'm buying a mic next week. I want a re-match

Rematch? Have we played? And if we did, what did you play? What did I play? How did the match go?

records are great if you care what other people think I suppose