Do you ever play for the tie?

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.

**Orkeosaurus**

I frequently play to tie if it seems to be my best option later in the game; however, I've never played a game looking to tie from the beginning.

That's awfully pessimistic.

**Phazael**

In friendly play, I never play for the draw, no matter how outmatched I might be.

In tournaments, if I am far ahead going into the third round, I will play conservative to secure what I need for the win (see this year's Hard Boyz round three for an example of this) because it is just good sound tactics. If you risk total victory just to prove you can table the third guy, you are a dick if you pull it off and an idiot (and a dick) if you lose the tournament because of it. If I am out of contention, I will never play for the draw because it denies my opponent a chance at a good game (and possibly placing).

**Blackmoor**

I play a form of going for the tie when I have a bad match-up and I am really overpowered.

Here is what I do in those cases: A lot of armies out there spend a lot of points on the real killy stuff and scrimp on their troops. So I ignore the killy stuff and I focus on troop killing. I end up going for the win, but by killing troops I know that the worst I can do is get a tie.

**Orkeosaurus**

If you skimp on troops in 5th edition, that's what you open yourself up to.

It's always a good thing to keep in mind.

**darkkt**

I play 'not to lose' so yes, wrangling a tie if I cant win is a valid tactic.

However, I am playing a campaign where the 'attacker' must win to claim the territory - losses or draws mean the defender retains the location. Makes the attacker much more agressive, and the defender much more defensive.

Works best if both players are swapping who attacks and who defends.

The attacker does tend to get other bonuses as part of the campaign tho, generally they get to pick whether its a night-fight or not.

**Battle Brother Loken**

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

wanna game some time punk?

i only play for a tie in apoc games as its hard to tie a apoc game

**jsullivanlaw**

I start off every game with a plan for a win, even against armies that are going to pound mine into the table. However, if my desperate plan fails then i'll abandon the plan and go for the tie.

**doubled**

I have tied, but I have never not tried to win, to get 1 more objective as long as I could maintain any I had, or trying to kill a few more kill points, and as a guard player, when I get a KP mission I curse the gods of gaming dice.

**FoxPhoenix135**

Everybody plays for the tie... when theyre losing.

Sometimes I play for the tie if I am playing somebody new to the game... I don't want to scare away a potential new player!

Generally it just entails taking half the objectives and then making half-hearted attempts at the other half... just enough so that it isn't really obvious that I am not playing to win.

Sometimes its not the destination, but the journey.

**Lockstock**

When playing the capture the flag mission, I forget its name, that seems to be all anyone ever does :(

**FoxPhoenix135**

You should totally trip out your opponent and go all-in on his objective