Switch Theme:

Self Confidence and Outcomes  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





I go into every single match with a healthy amount of fear of my opponent's lists. I don't consider any match won until I get there, and I'll outright say so when there's something on the table that worries me. I go into every match with a lot of respect for the fact that this is 40k, and yes, I could very easily lose this.

I do very well. My mentality keeps me on my toes.
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

Arbiter_Shade wrote:You can argue with people in law enforcement, we are all just people in the end. I appreciate your mature stance in all of this because post here so often become accusatory and aggressive so quickly that it kills any real conversation.

If all things are equal than yes, attitude can have a huge difference in the outcome of a game. What I am arguing is that in the case of 40k that it is incredibly rare to have things equal unless both players are playing the same army and the same list. I play a lot of miniature games and I only really see this happen in 40k because the nature of this game.

My point in bringing up tactics and strategy is that often peoples attitudes are dictated by the quality of the game they are playing. 40k is a fun game that has great potential to be a lot of fun, if the players involved are of the same mindset. The problem is that everyone has different expectations of the game and the buffet style of serving that 40k offers means that no one is going to happy because it is designed to let everyone play their own way. People in this thread before me brought up how these players that feel defeated just need to get better and learn to work through it, nice ways of saying, "Get good." Sometimes it is not a matter of getting better at the game, if you are a great player looking to play a lore focused list you are going to run into trouble when you play against a tournament list. Hell, even if you play another lore friendly list the games imbalances can ruin that too due to how the current edition favors a lot of shooting. Tau and Guard fluffy list with combined arms are going to have a better time than a World Eaters melee based list or a Goff Ork list favoring a lot of Meganobz and Walkers.

Well, that's very generous of you to say.

A few LEOs spend time at my FLGS, they're some of my best friends and we have a lot of fun together. I've learned a lot from them, 40k seems to play a different role in their lives than most people's (outlet for work / life issues, not just entertainment.) I try to listen when they speak up, there's often something profound in what they see happening that gets me thinking.

I wish more officers would show up to play. They're better with the rules, they set an example by being more physically fit, and they have the absolute best jokes to tell at the table. LEOs just get more fun out of 40k.

That's a really interesting perspective about first turn and the "get good" feedback. I appreciate you for sharing. Yeah, I've run into that, I think where we differ is over the frequency with which a first-turn win happens and maybe the significance of losing a big part of your army right away. I'm not under the illusion a game can't be decided first turn, I just think there are times players might be a little too quick to call it.

I mostly play skew lists designed to give me an overwhelming advantage early game. I've talked about my Black Legion gunline, have played it most of 8th and seen a wide range of reactions. There's the people who see their tanks destroyed right away and want to walk away from the table. Then there's the people who see what's going on and decide they're going to make me earn it even though they're in the hole.

That's what I mean when I say I'm playing against the player. My experience has been that most people will resign themselves to losing when something catastrophic happens. Doesn't mean they walk away from the table. They may continue playing but they've already kind of checked out, making low-odds desperation moves despite the fact there may be better options available to them. And there's nothing wrong with that response, it still takes 2+ hours to play a game of 40k and no one wants to waste their time watching someone else show off. Might as well get it over with, no point in investing yourself in something that's not going to go your way.

That mentality is pervasive, I'd put it at 9 out of 10 players. Who knows, I could be overestimating, and different people definitely have different thresholds. The thing about it is - even when things are going right for me, I don't win every game. An advantage is not the same as having more points after the 5th turn. TBH mid-game is hard with a gunline, once someone starts grabbing cover and moving out of LOS I have to move my army around. There's still objectives to capture, things can and do get screwed up regularly. Suddenly I'm going from 3++ lascannon shots to 5+ and having to make 20+ 5+ saves with a 5 man unit. I've destroyed half of someone's army by second turn without taking a wound and still gotten tabled.

Then there's the times the gunline just doesn't work, where I'm rolling all 1s that night or where I'm going second and my opponent brought snipers. Abaddon's reroll aura becomes moot when someone brings 3 Vindicares and takes him out right away. I don't have a defense for that, now my opponent has an overwhelming advantage that just got me. All I can do is make them earn the win, sometimes I pull it out despite the odds.

Then there's the constant rules changes. Gunlines were really easy the first year of 8th, then Dark Eldar came out, then Imperial Knights and then Orks. I started getting into situations where I was facing 7 flyers or multiple mobs of 30+ boys or a squad of hulking machines that each take out a third of my guns before I can shoot. The gunline does well against some factions and faces more of a challenge against others. What I really hate is flyer spam, I waste a lot of shots while my opponent gets to fire without penalty.

greatbigtree wrote:To clarify my point.

If both players are gritty, never give up players playing close-to-equally powerful lists then, in my experience, the game has been decided by the winner of first turn.

A gritty player might defeat a non-gritty player. I haven’t played against players that are prone to throwing in the towel. I know for certain that I will keep grinding, shifting tactics and priorities to achieve the win conditions of a game. And as I’ve said, some games are close and others blow-outs. But I haven’t seen a game between myself or my friends that didn’t go to the winner of the first turn. Or at best, a tie for the 2nd player.

20 or so games isn’t a statistically significant sample size, but has created a strong anecdotal connection for my group. For us, regardless of all other factors, even some *non-crucially-optimized* lists against net-list hyper-optimized lists, the weaker lists won when they went first.

Which is why we’ve been playing other games. We all feel somewhat cheated when the first roll of our game has predicted the outcome 2 hours before the game ends.

The case may be that without grit, you’re more likely to lose to someone that possesses that trait. In my opinion, that’s just a fact of existence, and isn’t surprising that it would show up in results of 40k. Due to the uncertainty of the dice, if you have a 1/5 chance to pull off a win, but you don’t take it... you’re not going to win.

(Unlike real life, win/lose/tie are the only outcomes in 40k. Losing big, or losing small is a non issue, besides ego. In real life, passing on the 1/5 might leave you in a better situation than risking a long shot. But that doesn’t apply to 40k.)

So we're talking about self esteem. Maybe a better term is mental fortitude or situational awareness. While I appreciate the never-say-die attitude, that may be a little different, I don't want this to be confused with fatalism. I recognize there's times an army is just screwed and there's no point in continuing. Sometimes the best option is to shake hands and say good game after the first turn.

All I'm really saying is there's a small set of players who look at a bad situation, process what's happening, and always act in a way that gives them the best chance for victory. They never act like they're going to lose, they only do things designed to help them win. It's not just with what happens on the table, they're thinking about list maintenance and what they may change before the next game. They can talk about the big buffs other armies get without making it seem to dire, and figure out ways to beat them. I try to be like them, not just in games but in life.

If 40k really seems so proscribed that every single game is decided first turn, there is something I can suggest. This has consistently worked for me, YMMV but I constantly do it and it gets results. Without trying to sound like an ass, when I'm getting frustrated, I talk as much as possible about the situation and get as much feedback from as many people as I can, even if it makes me sound stupid. I even have a name for it, I call it "putting in the work." It's not the same as playing better, I've been playing for a long time and I don't see myself improving beyond where I already am. But putting in the work helps me get out of bad habits and refresh my view of situations I may have mistaken for being unwinnable.

If you want a really long, boring example of putting in the work, I have a lot of tactical conversations on another forum. NuMarines really tick me off, forget about the doctrines. 30" AP-1 bolters screw with the mechanics of the game, their front line troops can shoot more effectively at an increased range equal to how far my guys can move. The advantage Intercessors gain from this mechanic makes them slightly better than all other factions, on top of other mechanics they're just a problem that needs to be fixed. And don't get me started on Triple Repulsor lists - there's no excuse for being the guy who brings them.

Here's a link to the main thread.

Here's a link to my initial assessment of GW's latest loyalist abberations.

Here's a link to my deconstruction of Primaris mechanics and why it screws all Chaos armies.

Here's a series of links to my battle reports against NuMarines, where I slowly turn the corner and work out how to beat them. There's a lot of discussion in between and many, many more examples that can be found all over the forum.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/358395-chaos-vs-new-marines/?p=5393947

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/358395-chaos-vs-new-marines/?p=5400333

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/358395-chaos-vs-new-marines/?p=5401364

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/358395-chaos-vs-new-marines/?p=5401574

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/358395-chaos-vs-new-marines/?p=5407656

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/358395-chaos-vs-new-marines/?p=5407845

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/358395-chaos-vs-new-marines/?p=5409858

And here's my assessment of what will work for Chaos going forward (which is now dated since all the PA books came out.) Something I still agree with is the idea NuMarines are the end of TAAC lists for Chaos.

Although I really, really despise NuMarines and what GW allowed to happen with their precious game, it never affects how I think about my chances. I'm there to beat them and will screw with the mechanics as much if not more to make my opponent feel helpless from deployment until the end of the game. I will bring Mortarion, Magnus and Ahriman to a game just so I force them into a corner first turn. I will bring the gunline and shoot at them with Whirlwind Scorpius tanks from so far out of LOS they can never target me while I delete multiple units from their side each turn. I will bring Chaos Knights and Discolords to chew through their troops faster then they can wound mine. Not only do I have the models, I know how they're going to going to run their army and will optimize mine to put them at the greatest disadvantage possible.

Something I think about, it wasn't possible to do this kind of stuff in 6th / 7th edition. I quit playing 7th edition because it was so bad for Chaos and I didn't want to run Deathstars. 8th edition is streamlined, maybe too much so, but the one thing it has that other editions didn't - flexibility. I miss running Bloodletter Bombs, they were great for clearing entire sections of the board 2nd turn and making people wonder what happened to their army. The mechanics don't support that as well as they used to, but other things do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/17 13:45:29


   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker






Although I really, really despise NuMarines and what GW allowed to happen with their precious game, it never affects how I think about my chances. I'm there to beat them and will screw with the mechanics as much if not more to make my opponent feel helpless from deployment until the end of the game. I will bring Mortarion, Magnus and Ahriman to a game just so I force them into a corner first turn. I will bring the gunline and shoot at them with Whirlwind Scorpius tanks from so far out of LOS they can never target me while I delete multiple units from their side each turn. I will bring Chaos Knights and Discolords to chew through their troops faster then they can wound mine. Not only do I have the models, I know how they're going to going to run their army and will optimize mine to put them at the greatest disadvantage possible.

Something I think about, it wasn't possible to do this kind of stuff in 6th / 7th edition. I quit playing 7th edition because it was so bad for Chaos and I didn't want to run Deathstars. 8th edition is streamlined, maybe too much so, but the one thing it has that other editions didn't - flexibility. I miss running Bloodletter Bombs, they were great for clearing entire sections of the board 2nd turn and making people wonder what happened to their army. The mechanics don't support that as well as they used to, but other things do.


Isn't that kinda the issue?
You are lucky that you got an sizable collection, to pick the countermeasures necesarry. Also isn't it kinda an issue that you have to explicitly build a counterbuild for one faction?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider





 Overread wrote:
I think learning from your mistakes is a skill unto itself.

That said it also relies upon several key ingredients within any area of interest

1) The ability to understand what is happening

2) The ability to reflect on what is happening and why

3) The ability to consider alternative options.


If you lack in those understandings you can't easily self-assess your own results because you've not a full grasp of the situation. When you deploy at random; when your targets are more at random/whatever looks cool to shoot. When your whole decision making process is more driven by "cool" than "ok so my anti-tank wants to shoot their tank" then the ability to absorb information and improve next time is restricted.

Chance games can also hinder this learning because you might use your anti-tank gun on tanks and keep getting bad results for several games/attacks in a row. Then you use it randomly on an infantry unit and kill loads of them. Suddenly the player has learned the wrong thing because of chance and its been reinforced. Remembering that humans are very accepting of the FIRST bit of information we take in relating to a subject. So even if that anti-infantry unit goes on to do rubbish against infantry thereafter; the person is still drawing their conclusions from the first experience.

Especially when their game theory grasp is poor and thus there's not ample evidence for them to change their behaviour and justify it.



Of course if you've a poor grasp of game mechanics at the mechanical level then you are more likely to lose; which will steadily undermine your self confidence. Which in turn feeds into a desire not to improve your situation because the results are a foregone conclusion etc... So it can be a very destructive selfperpetuating cycle.


Of course on top of that is a DESIRE to invest the time in improving. Some people want to rock up, throw some dice and play a game and then go away for the rest of the week and not think about the game. Uncomplicated, simple and just do it.
Others might invest their time into building or painting or lore reading; so that there's less and less time for the other areas.

Wargames don't help themselves either because whilst there are pages of threads; books; dozens of videos etc... all on painting and lore and building there's almost nothing on game theory and understanding. Or at least a drastically reduced amount.

No one shares their video on deployment theory; or how to make target priority selections; or how to read your opponents army etc... In fact its so poorly supported that some get the impression that there are no tactical elements in wargames barring the most overt such as movement based tactics - ergo things like flanking. So when the "rules" don't have specific mention of flanking they consider the game tactically inferior; even if the actual act of flanking would convey a bonus.


Whilst I'm starting to wonder if you have some kind of inside-o-head scope (if that's the case stay out of the redheads section for your own good) this pretty much is the long hand version of my slightly snippy answer

I think the theory side is getting slightly better of late, there a fair few I watch on YT, as whilst not currently playing 40k I do like to keep up to date, but like you say the willingness to seek out and absorb often dry info is the challenge

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I go into every single match with a healthy amount of fear of my opponent's lists. I don't consider any match won until I get there, and I'll outright say so when there's something on the table that worries me. I go into every match with a lot of respect for the fact that this is 40k, and yes, I could very easily lose this.

I do very well. My mentality keeps me on my toes.


Hmm. I'm the opposite. I'm not concerned at all what your list is, I assume that my dice will roll well and that I'll win (or have a damned good chance).
After that we'll just see how things develop during play. Perhaps I will in-fact win. Maybe I'll lose. Sometimes it'll be a draw. Wichever way it goes isn't terribly important though. Afterall, there's always next game/next week.
   
Made in ca
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





London, Ontario

One last clarification.

I'm not saying that the loss occurs on the first turn. We hide out of LOS, we aren't suffering catastrophic losses (usually). We don't experience the "I lost over half my army on the first turn!" because we do play lots of terrain.

But we've also learned the benefits of 2nd turn alpha. Reserve drops on the 3rd turn. Things like that. We have just had a direct correlation between 1st turn and winning. Regardless of player, scenario, lists... in some regards, we are observing our own internal balance. If someone strikes first, then a domino effect results in having a consistent advantage through the game. And we are blissfully capable players, pausing to reflect rather than surrender.

We coach each other after our games. What went well? What didn't? This caught me off guard, what made you try that? I should have gone for the objective on turn 4, instead of holding back... that sort of thing.

Chess has a first turn advantage, and that's all good. We're just seeing a huge swing in win percentages. Please don't see this as a whine, just an observation of the way our games have gone. Hard fought, close, tight games where it does swing back and forth... but every time lands on player one at the end of the game.


So, in the presence of two confident, capable, eager to learn from mistakes and enjoying the hunt as much as the kill... in my experience 1st turn correlates to winning. Maybe not causation, but directly correlated.

Glad y'all are having fun with 8th! I'm hoping for a bit of a shift in 9th, but if not, I'll just have to wait for 10th.
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




Newcastle

The confident player is likely planning to win from the start and trying to execute their strategy. The less confident player is probably just trying not to lose too badly

I'd liken it to tennis. When I'm on a winning streak I'm enjoying myself, going for difficult shots and pulling them off. On a losing streak? Not chancing the shots that win points, just trying to return the ball, and ultimately letting the opponent play the game on their terms

Hydra Dominatus 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






 Snake Tortoise wrote:
The confident player is likely planning to win from the start and trying to execute their strategy. The less confident player is probably just trying not to lose too badly

I'd liken it to tennis. When I'm on a winning streak I'm enjoying myself, going for difficult shots and pulling them off. On a losing streak? Not chancing the shots that win points, just trying to return the ball, and ultimately letting the opponent play the game on their terms


Haha. I usually feel like I'm not trying to win. I'm just trying real hard to make sure the opponent isn't going to win. It's like, "What are they trying to do, and how can I stop it."

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





 Snake Tortoise wrote:
The confident player is likely planning to win from the start and trying to execute their strategy. The less confident player is probably just trying not to lose too badly

I'd liken it to tennis. When I'm on a winning streak I'm enjoying myself, going for difficult shots and pulling them off. On a losing streak? Not chancing the shots that win points, just trying to return the ball, and ultimately letting the opponent play the game on their terms


I disagree. I think it was Justin Curtis as well who said he goes into every single game of 40k, feeling that he's gonna lose. He looks at his opponent's lists and sees all the strongest gak it can do, and all the worst possible scenarios. Then, he spends the game trying to dodge them.

I relate heavily to this mentality. I don't even know if it's something I do my choice or by personality, but it actually feels like it really helps my play.

Getting confident in any other game is usually where the mistakes start to happen for me.
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

 greatbigtree wrote:
One last clarification.

I'm not saying that the loss occurs on the first turn. We hide out of LOS, we aren't suffering catastrophic losses (usually). We don't experience the "I lost over half my army on the first turn!" because we do play lots of terrain.

But we've also learned the benefits of 2nd turn alpha. Reserve drops on the 3rd turn. Things like that. We have just had a direct correlation between 1st turn and winning. Regardless of player, scenario, lists... in some regards, we are observing our own internal balance. If someone strikes first, then a domino effect results in having a consistent advantage through the game. And we are blissfully capable players, pausing to reflect rather than surrender.

We coach each other after our games. What went well? What didn't? This caught me off guard, what made you try that? I should have gone for the objective on turn 4, instead of holding back... that sort of thing.

Chess has a first turn advantage, and that's all good. We're just seeing a huge swing in win percentages. Please don't see this as a whine, just an observation of the way our games have gone. Hard fought, close, tight games where it does swing back and forth... but every time lands on player one at the end of the game.


So, in the presence of two confident, capable, eager to learn from mistakes and enjoying the hunt as much as the kill... in my experience 1st turn correlates to winning. Maybe not causation, but directly correlated.

Glad y'all are having fun with 8th! I'm hoping for a bit of a shift in 9th, but if not, I'll just have to wait for 10th.

No one thinks you're whining, these are all things I've said myself about 8th edition. We just differ about how much they matter.

Hope you don't leave the game entirely, sounds like you've put a lot into it and have a thoughtful approach. More people like you are needed to keep it great.

   
Made in dk
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin






I go into every game thinking that I'm going to be lucky, which I am in almost every game, if not in the grand scheme maybe I get one lucky roll. I usually always pick second turn, it's very OP in both EW and ITC, getting to respond to your opponent is amazing. With good terrain and prepared positions alpha strike is a small price to pay. Yesterday I lost a game going second, big surprise, but I would have gotten absolutely destroyed going first due to my horrible deployment, very happy to go second and have a chance at destroying the things that had to get in range to shoot me!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/18 09:40:12


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 vict0988 wrote:
I go into every game thinking that I'm going to be lucky, which I am in almost every game, if not in the grand scheme maybe I get one lucky roll. I usually always pick second turn, it's very OP in both EW and ITC, getting to respond to your opponent is amazing. With good terrain and prepared positions alpha strike is a small price to pay. Yesterday I lost a game going second, big surprise, but I would have gotten absolutely destroyed going first due to my horrible deployment, very happy to go second and have a chance at destroying the things that had to get in range to shoot me!


i go into the game with the same attitude, however i am falling under the category never lucky (have you ever failed 5 2+ sv throws from lasguns on terminators in one shooting round? or having a predator detonating because thudd guns shelled it. )

but i have not given up hope yet that i may get lucky!

That said, we as a group also came to the conclusion overall that we are a bit (actually more like a lot) unhappy with the terrain rules, in essence, we had a time were we mostly just played killteam. Then we came to the conclusion that we could adapt the KT terrain rules for the use in 40k. That helped greatly overall.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

I think the mental motivation of a confident person in a game will vary. Some might be aiming to win; others aiming to avoid the dangers; other aiming to kill that one annoying unit that bugs them before they get destroy etc... Accepting that the viewpoint might well shift during the course of the game.


The key element is they remain engaged and energised. They remain upbeat even in defeat and their mind remains working on the problem of the game. Or they are focusing on the socialising aspect of the game.


Ergo whatever is going on they have energy, activity and a positive/polite disposition.




Meanwhile the person without self confidence is more likely losing energy and motivation. They are likely now a touch to very morbid; their socialising is affected and they might even just be going through the motions without engaging the game. Or even worse they are quitting the experience early.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





 Overread wrote:
I think the mental motivation of a confident person in a game will vary. Some might be aiming to win; others aiming to avoid the dangers; other aiming to kill that one annoying unit that bugs them before they get destroy etc... Accepting that the viewpoint might well shift during the course of the game.


The key element is they remain engaged and energised. They remain upbeat even in defeat and their mind remains working on the problem of the game. Or they are focusing on the socialising aspect of the game.


Ergo whatever is going on they have energy, activity and a positive/polite disposition.




Meanwhile the person without self confidence is more likely losing energy and motivation. They are likely now a touch to very morbid; their socialising is affected and they might even just be going through the motions without engaging the game. Or even worse they are quitting the experience early.


Very true! That's why I don't like saying anyone's process is wrong. We are all different people and we all play the game in different ways, and have different playstyles, and have different armies that we as players will have molded to perform in a way that suits us comfortably. Well, not in all cases, but in a lot of them. So I think there's a human element at play in this thread, and there is genuinely no wrong answer.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Humans are not infinite, we have a range of behaviours and sufficient study can allow you to predict possible human behaviour quite accurately. So there are wrong and right answers. However most of us are not studying the human population so we vary our results based on our own observations and experiences. Which leads to some variety of interpretation.

That we already have broad agreement on the topic at a general level suggests that there are certainly similar patterns of behaviour.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider





So true Over, I play in a fairly small group but long running group so everyone sort of knows everyone else's "style", most likely why we get middling result if we travel to play

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





 Overread wrote:
Humans are not infinite, we have a range of behaviours and sufficient study can allow you to predict possible human behaviour quite accurately. So there are wrong and right answers. However most of us are not studying the human population so we vary our results based on our own observations and experiences. Which leads to some variety of interpretation.

That we already have broad agreement on the topic at a general level suggests that there are certainly similar patterns of behaviour.

But patterns are a generalisation, which means there is going to be a ton of exceptions at the individual level.

No, I think it's pretty safe to say that while you can "predict possible human behaviour" at a broader scale, there is no flat out right or wrong answer from individual to individual.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I have always approached every game as if I have every chance of winning.

When I used to game a lot in 7th, I was one of the few players who would regularly play against our Eldar player, who was a very good power-gamer who was in his element when 7th made eldar the god of all armies. people would avoid playing him because they knew he was bringing the hardest to beat list that he could. I enjoyed the challenge, and I would say I had a 1/3 win ratio against him - not bad considering I played Orks.

I have found that some people plan things too much, and so as soon as the plan fails or goes slightly out of the lines, they can't think fast enough to turn it back, and they adopt the "I cannot win" mindset which drags the game down. I had a game once where the opponent went 2nd. Rokkit Deffkoptas killed his thunderfire cannon, as it was closer than the techmarine from the angle I achieved, and then he fluffed his turn 1 charge with his deathstar, and declared the game over. The only casualty was a thunderfire cannon. It was a real anticlimax.

My outlook is to try and work out what the next thing I have to d to make it more likely that I win is, and set about doing it. That way I spend all of the game achieving my goals and enjoy it all. If all you want to do is table an opponent, you won't be happy if they make their saves. My goals are "get the meganobs into combat" or "have the battlewagon survive this turn" and so on. just enjoy the game, and as you learn what goals are best to aim for, you start to win more. one big plan is more likely to fail than loads of smaller ones.

Orks in 8th, W/D/L
9/0/3 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 Overread wrote:
Humans are not infinite, we have a range of behaviours and sufficient study can allow you to predict possible human behaviour quite accurately. So there are wrong and right answers. However most of us are not studying the human population so we vary our results based on our own observations and experiences. Which leads to some variety of interpretation.

That we already have broad agreement on the topic at a general level suggests that there are certainly similar patterns of behaviour.

But patterns are a generalisation, which means there is going to be a ton of exceptions at the individual level.

No, I think it's pretty safe to say that while you can "predict possible human behaviour" at a broader scale, there is no flat out right or wrong answer from individual to individual.

Yeah, that's a pretty important point, behavior patterns and how people adapt.

40k is one of those games that's constantly changing, the balance never stays the same very long. It's part of why I like it, there's a constant thrill in figuring out how to adapt and finding models to fit your grand scheme. Nothing ever stays bad forever.

Something I've talked about is flexibility. That word could mean a lot of things, I mean it as the opposite of rigidity. If you expect the game to stay the same, you are going to be disappointed. If you expect the game to change and embrace the fact it does, you are going to be rewarded.

That's true at a macro level, I'd argue it extends to the tabletop.

One of the other things about 40k is it's fair - and I mean that in a specific way. Someone could bring the most outrageous net-optimized list to a game against a trash-tier Codex army and still lose. It's not likely they will lose, but there's nothing in the game that gives one player an absolute advantage over all opponents. No one wins 100% of the time, except in tournaments (and even then very few.)

So players can build armies with serious advantages and opponents have to compensate. The reaction to having to compensate is what I find most fascinating, how some people can do it on the spot no problem, while others see it as a bigger challenge than any other factor related to 40k.

This is a good time to be reflecting on personal resiliency and adaptiveness. I expect all our lives are going to change a little over the coming months.

   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

 Galas wrote:
I have found that losing to first turn is the first sing of one of two things (If we discount some extreme and not really that great of lists like imperial guard artillery with no-los spam or old-iron hands):

-A bad player

-A bad table


I mean, we have an ork player that constantly complaints about how his army gets always obliterated turn 1 and you would laugh if you saw his deployments. He just puts everything on a straight line at the edge of his deployment zone and then gets blasted to bits.

I mean, I did hide 4 imperial knights turn 1 agaisnt a very heavy anti-tank lists in one of our tables so is not like we don't have enough LOS bloking terrain. If you can't wistand the firepower of the opponent list then don't put yourself in danger. Play to the turns 3-4, not the 1-2.


Don’t blame the player, help the player- and not in a GetGuud sort of way.

I had a bad experience back in 2E that has forever colored my opinion of 40K. Overall, I know I’m a bad general but it is rarely fun to play against more experienced players and get so utterly trounced you are clueless how to get out of the crater you just got blasted into. I can, for example, expect to do reasonable well in small games against my son and learn from any mistakes I make while playing. Yet, having tried to play against the local club members with decades under their belt in the largish games they’re used to, I’m easily overwhelmed, outplayed and get little or no feedback on how to do better (beyond, “figure it out yourself”). Guess who I don’t play anymore?

Not all of us are great generals, and I suspect for even those who are, it wasn’t an innate thing. Encourage others you play with and be open and understanding to those lacking self-confidence. That confidence in the person across the table from you can change this hobby from a simple die-rollingfest to an enjoyable experience where both players are engaged and entertained, despite the whims of dice or experience level.

It never ends well 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I love to teach people tricks and how to play better because I love for others to tell the same to me.

That player in particular is a lost cause. He hates 40k, complays non stop and says AoS is much better. But thats only because he plays an OP army in AoS and just boasts about how he won 20 games consecutively. Hes the kind of "I play casual guys!" but then hates to lose kind of guy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/18 20:19:00


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

 Galas wrote:
I love to teach people tricks and how to play better because I love for others to tell the same to me.

That player in particular is a lost cause. He hates 40k, complays non stop and says AoS is much better. But thats only because he plays an OP army in AoS and just boasts about how he won 20 games consecutively. Hes the kind of "I play casual guys!" but then hates to lose kind of guy.


Out of curiosity, what's he play in AoS?
Not that that'll change what I'm about to say....

You know what he needs AoS wise? A good ass kicking. Look at his army, spend the $, & build something specifically designed to crush him. Preferably with some faction that wouldn't seem to be an immediate go to choice for the task (it can be done).
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: