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.

I have never kept track of my wins or losses with an army to me if that is all your looking for then you miss the point of the hobby.  I know back in 3rd ed my orks were practically auto win, and i did not lose many games but I never counted.  I know right now that my marines are around a 60% win average, but for actual numbers I have no clue.

Back to the main point of this thread dealing with odd dice situations.  I have gone 3+ turns where the 10 missile launchers in my SM army have all missed each turn.  I went two weeks where my average dice roll was a 2.  I failed every armor save for the first 2 turns one game (3+ and 2+)  Then  fail leaderships on top of that .  I never count on my dice to help me in a game.

I need to start gaming with people who are much younger and less experienced at 40K. I swear, I may never have one of those super records that I can brag about as long as I game exclusively with players who are more experienced than me. Maybe I should spend more time at GW stores beating up kids and less time at RTT's playing adults. Hmmmm.

Darrian

Posted By beef 08/10/2006 6:18 PM
its true they play little kids who are beginers and build there record up.....So when i see records like mauleeds excuese me if i am not convinced.

I'm sure one out of every 8 tournament games or so is against a kid. In the 3 40k GTs I've gone to (so out of 16 games), I have played a 14 year old and a 16 year old. The other 14 games were against adults. Both were good enough players to be paired with me on battle points when I faced them.

Beef: It you're not convinced, that's fine. But my biggest boast, my 16-0 40k GT record, can be easily verified on GW's website. If that and the fact that others who's met me verify it doesn't convince you, so be it. It's not going to much matter either way to me. I'm still the king baby.  

Oh, and here's an "overcoming bad dice" story:

Game 1 of the 2004 Baltimore GT. I'm playing shooty 140 model guard. He's got rhino rush space wolves.

The mission is a cleanse type mission, where only quarters matter.

He goes first. Shoots up 12" pop smoke on everything.

I shoot with ~20 heavy weapons and 3 pie plates.

I do nothing but repeatedly blow storm bolters off and shake his rhinos.

So it's turn 2, and all of his choppy space wolves hit me.

He's murdering me on VPs. By the end of the game I have about 10 models, a sentinel, and a single demolisher. But I've whittled everything down to below half buy his venerable dread. 2 quarters to 1, I win. Every single time I had a countercharge or a shooting opportunity I shot things to below half. So he still had about half his army, he just couldn't hold any objectives with it.

16- 0 record i can believe as at tournaments my brother who is a year younger than me has records like that. its just the 93-8-6 and the higher figures i doubt. obviously i have not met mauleed and did not meen to cause any offence. obviously if others have seen him play regurarly and agree with his records than i dont doubt it. i doubt records like that when there is no eveidence to back it up thats all. cos like that without people knowing me i can claim to have a 1000-2-5 record. you get my point??

Augustus wrote:
(Maybe it was poetic justice, if you are out there Xtapl. )

What you put out into the universe comes back to you times three. Brings a smile to my face.... heh.

For my own part, while I no longer have the exact statistics on my own tournament record (and I've come to regard people who keep track of such things with a mixture of amusement and pity...seriously, if you know your tournament record is blah blah blah and who cares so what, you need to get yourself to a psychologist quickly to discuss your masculinity issues), I win a lot more than I lose. I don't have exact numbers, but I have won three overall trophies in the last six months or so, so I'm doing okay.

Augustus, if you're still unconvinced about DE, pay attention to the table assignments at Tacticon and let's keep track of how I'm doing... Didn't lose once at GenghisCon...I'm going to try to repeat the performance at Tacticon. I'm almost guaranteed to face at least two Marine armies, which you can pencil in as wins right now.

#Xtapl, Where/when is this Tacticon that you speak of? Ghengiscon was in Denver, right?

Darrian

For my own part, while I no longer have the exact statistics on my own tournament record (and I've come to regard people who keep track of such things with a mixture of amusement and pity...seriously, if you know your tournament record is blah blah blah and who cares so what, you need to get yourself to a psychologist quickly to discuss your masculinity issues), I win a lot more than I lose. I don't have exact numbers, but I have won three overall trophies in the last six months or so, so I'm doing okay.

So if you take pride in the performance of your army your automatically less of a man? But taking pride in the appearance of your army doesn't? Why exactly are painting and modeling superior skills to playing?

Beef, if you belive 16-0, then how can you not believe 93-8-6? Going by 16-0, he could have 93-0.

I believe Mauleed, his record speaks for itself.

Chuck (busy sucking up to mauleed)

GW publishes the results of its tournaments so Mauleed's claim is verifiable.

Going back to Medusa V, it's not the win-loss records of the leaders I doubt so much as the speed they rack them up. The top scorers claim to have been playing four or five games a day, every day for four weeks. Considering it takes an average 2 hours a game, that's like 40K is their full-time job!

for some people its its there only job, they dont have a life outside there local GW store. they live and breathe 40k. quite sad when you realise that most of these people are adults.

Crimson Devil wrote:
So if you take pride in the performance of your army your automatically less of a man? But taking pride in the appearance of your army doesn't?

That's not what I meant by "masculinity issues." What I meant is that there are far too many people for whom success or failure at a game of toy soldiers somehow determines how much of "a man" someone is. You hear it a lot on Dakka, but especially you hear it with the Privateer Press people. For the love of God, it expicitly says in their rulebook, "Play like you've got a pair." If that isn't f-ing pathetic, I don't know what is. It just belies my general notion about the gaming community that its full of people whose daddies didn't hug them enough...

Why exactly are painting and modeling superior skills to playing?

Because they are. Not every jobber off the street can do it with skill, unlike Mauleed Marines, which I'm pretty sure my cat could win with.

Darrian13 wrote:
#Xtapl, Where/when is this Tacticon that you speak of? Ghengiscon was in Denver, right?

Yep. Tacticon is in the same hotel over Labor Day weekend.

Beef wrote:
for some people its its there only job, they dont have a life outside there local GW store. they live and breathe 40k. quite sad when you realise that most of these people are adults.

In my experience, 97% of all 40k gamers are children. Even when they're 40 years old.

Anyone can have a perfect game score. Head to a GW store and play with your ultramauleens. Have fun.

Xtapl: So what, in your opinion, is a good measure of masculinity? Males need something to contest over to see who has the bigger balls. For some it's sports, for some it's chess, and for some of the chess players it's toy soldiers. Unless you know of a game that takes both extreme mental and physical skill to play proficiently, it's one or the either.

Anyway, I think I know what Xtap's going for and he's pretty much using skill or proficiency as a measure of how well that game/activity is at comparing your skill against others. I agree. 40k's an absolutely horrible game to measure brainpower. I use the same argument regarding music, classical > rock and all that, but that tends to end in flames with rock/rap fanboys and it's OT for this thread anyway.

As for pathetic fanboys, 40k ranks up there with WOW fanatics and paintballers. That's pretty pathetic, but nowhere close to otaku male-sailor-moons...

As for pathetic fanboys, 40k ranks up there with WOW fanatics and paintballers. That's pretty pathetic, but nowhere close to otaku male-sailor-moons...

QFT.

Actually there probably is a positive correlation between "brainpower" and success at 40K.

The game excludes a number of abilities that are required for success in real-world generalship, such as guts, leadership, and the ability to make good decisions under pressure using limited information.

40K requires a good memory and calculation of odds; these are both linked to intelligence.

Luck helps, and Napoleon was a big believer in luck. Coup d'oeil counts as well. It's not all pure brainpower.

i good armu list helps as well. give a really smart player grots only and see how well he does?

A smart player with Grots would do better than a stupid player with Grots.

I have the best Armu list out there.

a smart player with grots would lose to a stupid player with a khorne army

What's your point, Beef?

My point is that a clever player will tend to do better than a stupid player, all other things being equal.

Your point seems to be that if the odds are stacked against someone, they'll probably lose. As this is completely obvious, I don't understand what you're getting at.

whats your point? a clever player will tend to do better than a stupid player, all other things being equal.
No really are you sure?/ state the obvious why dont you.

my point was its not just how clever somebody is its also how good the army list they use.

You're both right.

All things being equal, a smart player will beat a dumb player.

When things aren't equal, there is a higher probability that the one with the higher octane army list will win, regardless of the relative skill of the players.

I win about 80% of the time and I do it with various armies. I enjoy building competative lists and usually pick up the least popular army that all the locals say you can't win with. My latest project is a tau list that's non-mech(with the exception of pathfinders). So far I am 8-0 at various point limits 750-1500. One of my worst dice experiences happened recently were I had 8 2+ term saves to make with a five man squad and failed six of them. This also happened to be my GK's so was extremely painfull because of the high points cost.

Daminen I dont know why you had such low opinions with DE considering their awesome performance tournament wise. look at the gladiator for adepitcon. 3rd place was my Wych Cult. I was tied with you on overall scores in chicago 2006 but the battle scores were top 4. The Team Tournament Marc's crew tied/beat your army.

Look at Atlanta 2004 GT I also won best General with DE.

Show some respect for DE because I sure as hell show respect to any IG army that deploys in my games.

That's not what I meant by "masculinity issues." What I meant is that there are far too many people for whom success or failure at a game of toy soldiers somehow determines how much of "a man" someone is. You hear it a lot on Dakka, but especially you hear it with the Privateer Press people. For the love of God, it expicitly says in their rulebook, "Play like you've got a pair." If that isn't f-ing pathetic, I don't know what is. It just belies my general notion about the gaming community that its full of people whose daddies didn't hug them enough...

Privateer Press's attitude is: "Don't play our game if your going to whine." People expect certain things depending on the game culture. I have seen people lose in Warmachine without complant, then the next week whine during a game of 40k.

No one wants to lose to a toy/weak list. There is a certain dignity to losing to someone "A Game". "He brought a tough list and beat the snot out of me." Its quite differnet to lose to someone pulling their punches.

i lose regularly as i make really crap army lists and use all the really expensive cc units i can feild. so i use fully tooled up honour gaurd in my BA and ultramarine armies and same with my wolf gaurds, totally maxed out on wargear and points. Dont even ask how much gets spent on my IC. But its fun to play with. However when i go to tournies i do go with a competive list and do very well. I am off to a doubles tournie and my list is so crap but i am not looking to win alot but i am looking to take 1st or 2nd in the painting competition there. 40k is about having fun. If you prefer painting than thats cool, if you prefer winning fine, if you just like playing thats even better. If you can do all thing equally you have understood the spirit og the game.
Some people focus to much on wwinning and turn up with nasty painted armies, just undercoated and the min 2 or 3 colours to make it legal for tournie play. I laugh people like that. ~Obviously they dont get laid or have much of a life and if they can get some fulfilment in there sad, desperate hollow lives by winning good luck to them.
Now before i get peoples backs up i am not saying everybody who wins is like that as my brother is really good at winning and paints like a pro. He takes pride in his mini. You know the type of people who i am talking about. the power ego types who dont give a crap what there mini look like. If you cant paint very well thats fine, you can see the difference in models not painted well as to whether the person has tried to make an effort or not.

Ridiculous records are easy to write down, I personally have a record of 479-2-1. See how easy that was to write down...

In all seriousness, my UKGT record is (thinks for a bit) 23 wins, 3 draws, 6 losses. Since my best placing is 16th overall, I can well believe that those people right at the top have an absolutely fantastic record. I've no idea what my overall tournament record is, since I've done a lot of tournaments that I can't remember my results from, but it's probably about the same. I have absolutely no idea what my record is like in pick-up games, not least because I have no idea, even to the nearest thousand, how many I've played

Posted By stonefox 08/12/2006 10:06 AM
Anyone can have a perfect game score. Head to a GW store and play with your ultramauleens. Have fun.

Xtapl: So what, in your opinion, is a good measure of masculinity? Males need something to contest over to see who has the bigger balls.

 

 

All those points are asininely irrelevant.  Here's how you measure your masculinity:

Do you respect others, help the weak, and try to be a good man to your family every day?

Toy soldiers, video games, how great an athlete you were in high school don't mean squat compared to that. 

To badly paraphrase an otherwise excellent war movie (Patton)

-when you wake up out of a cold sleep because your daughter has come runnign in crying her head off after a bad dream, you'll know what to do.

 

 

While your points are good for measuring the worth of a person. Its possible to be a good father, husband, etc, without being very masculine.

Men are hard-wired to measure their masculinity against each other. So anytime your have two or more men competing (and yes a game is a competion) the more likely the base part of our character will begin to show. The less secure men will chafe at losing or brag to much about winning.

Posted By xtapl 08/12/2006 9:22 AM

Why exactly are painting and modeling superior skills to playing?

Because they are. Not every jobber off the street can do it with skill, unlike Mauleed Marines, which I'm pretty sure my cat could win with.

 

 

 

Sigged