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.

 Bottle wrote:
There we go, thanks for answering the question. :-)

Seems we disagree in opinion. Sure, you are not obliged to tone down your lists. But does it not get boring for both you and your opponent if you steamroll every game? (Either through tactical brilliance or a more powerful deployment).

A good point that the losing team will likely be improving their lists if they constantly lose.

Personally I like to think that one's opponent would soon try different tactics and/or models to counter the winning army if the tactical shift wasn't enough.

I have been in the position in which I was the one repeatedly getting the stomp on the face (when I was starting WHFB, ohh boy) and I find that those matches can be an amazing source of improvement - both gaming and personal. Imo there should always be a bigger fish, because then you will stagnate or worse, grow complacent. If i was back in that same position and I saw my friend/regular gaming partner was toning down his army list/ not playing to his fullest I would have words with him due to his complacency/condescendent behaviour.

Not to say that you are coming out as that - I believe you are thinking/caring too much about what the other player is feeling while he plays. And in this we clearly diverge a lot.

It's like my experiences do far. Mynmoat regular opponent plays Dwarfs. I have consistently been comprehensively beaten by him. The combination of numerous abilities within the army meant my Stormcast really, really struggled to take out the stuff I needed to with any speed.
NB my opponent is normally the one who suggests toning things down, and I consistently decline.
After tearing out what little hair I have left over the problem, some reading indicated that I simply didn't have the right 'toolbox' units to deal with what he was doing.
Which is why I now have a Vexillor, Heraldor and Azyros on my shopping list, and it won't even necessarily require *adding* then to my existing force - I can easily substitute these for other units and still expect an increase in performance.

 Bottle wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Serious question. How do you not play a game to win, assuming your not playing to lose of course.

Read the thread. That's not what we are discussing.

The question was why could someone take a weaker army. That is why I was asking how something like that could happen in the first place. Because one would have to buy weaker models and build a weaker army in the first place and somehow expect that the opponent does the same, and that in a such a situation you still win. Otherwise one would have to play and buy models to lose, which is something I don't see happening ever.

Makumba wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Serious question. How do you not play a game to win, assuming your not playing to lose of course.

Read the thread. That's not what we are discussing.

The question was why could someone take a weaker army. That is why I was asking how something like that could happen in the first place. Because one would have to buy weaker models and build a weaker army in the first place and somehow expect that the opponent does the same, and that in a such a situation you still win. Otherwise one would have to play and buy models to lose, which is something I don't see happening ever.

That is exactly the point. When you're buying models (or more significantly, choosing what to bring to the table itself), buy them because you like the look or the fluff, or anything else that's nothing at all to do with power. To hell with buying models because they're 'good'! AoS is not about that. If you're buying AoS minis purely for the purpose of defeating the opponent then you're probably playing the wrong game.

Especially in a game with potentially infinite armies and no points structure, the idea of pursuing the 'strongest' army build is an exercise if futility; work out the most powerful model (simply the one with the best stats, as there are no point and thus no power-per-point ratio) and buy as many duplicates of that model as you possibly can, then hope your opponent hasn't got as many as you have.

Utterly pointless. Instead, build an army that will be fun for both you and your opponent. Take a mix of models you will enjoy playing with, and that your opponent will be able to match with an army built along similar lines. Heavens forbid, you might even need to discuss it with your opponent before the game and adjust one or both forces accordingly! Once the minis hit the table, then all bets are off; do your level best to win the game. But if you're trying to 'win' AoS in building a list, then you're missing the point completely.

You also act as if not taking the most powerful models as possible, as many times as possible, is somehow an unreasonable thing to expect, when in fact I'd hazard a guess it's something almost all gamers (and definitely a significant portion of people playing AoS) do. Walk into a GW and watch a game of AoS, you're more likely to see two balanced armies agreed upon by cooperating opponents than you are 10 Bloodthirsters facing off against 9 Bloodthirsters.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Personally I like to think that one's opponent would soon try different tactics and/or models to counter the winning army if the tactical shift wasn't enough.

I have been in the position in which I was the one repeatedly getting the stomp on the face (when I was starting WHFB, ohh boy) and I find that those matches can be an amazing source of improvement - both gaming and personal. Imo there should always be a bigger fish, because then you will stagnate or worse, grow complacent. If i was back in that same position and I saw my friend/regular gaming partner was toning down his army list/ not playing to his fullest I would have words with him due to his complacency/condescendent behaviour.

Not to say that you are coming out as that - I believe you are thinking/caring too much about what the other player is feeling while he plays. And in this we clearly diverge a lot.

Firstly, a really interesting point about the opponent perhaps being belittled or seeing yourself as condescending for having weaker units deployed against them. I think that really depends on how you go about it. "My 6 Spirit Hosts rinsed you last time, haha, so I'll leave them out to save you from tears!" Is probably going to sour the experience for your opponent. "I'm going to try taking out my 6 Spirit Hosts and see if it plays for a closer game, if it swings the other way, I'll take 3 next time instead. What do you think?" Is probably going to be a better way of handling it.

I actually find some acted bravado or cockiness can help keep the mood fun but spur competition between the two players. "I reckon I can do this without my Spirt Hosts! What do you think? Show me what you've got!"

I think that secondly, this is a great way to avoid that stagnating or complacency you are talking about. Give yourself a handicap to increase the tactical challenge. Who needs Spirit Hosts with their 6 attacks each!? Not you? Show me! :p

I play whfb (AoS is not for me) but I aim for a 1:0 fun to none ratio. 100% fun is key for me. When I llay tournaments I don't even play to win I bring competitive lists but its just for fun for me.

My thoughts on the original post... honestly, whoever out there is setting up lists with the intention of winning every game they can is completely missing the point of 1) AoS and 2) GW's entire goal for 40K and AoS. That's just to have fun.

I could go 30/70 and still have a blast because I'm using models I really enjoy using and am playing AoS with friends where the game would end up being more about just hanging out with a friend than trying to win.

Forget WAAC lists. Forget lists that favor winning. Play what you want to play and have fun. Don't expect to win all the time. And, if you're just getting started, expect to lose a lot more than win. But, make your top priority fun... not the amount of games you win.

SG