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.

A little background, a local group has started a friendly campaign based on Blood in the Badlands and the first game night was yesterday. I played the only opponent in the group that I know well, and had a great game despite being decimated. We both brought interesting competetive lists that broke many Internet molds (I had a unit of 15 forsaken, the dwarf had bolt throwers instead of cannons etc).
The other games turned out a bit differently.
Our fluff-crazed brettonian ran up against dark elves who brought 50 corsairs with a lord/bsb/wizard lord/assassin in the unit and alter buffing them, and our impressionable vampire counts player ran up againts a gutstar with dual tyrants. During our games I overheard a couple of discretions where the 'star players were breaking out technicalities in the rules to further crush their opponents (old spells being cast with no targetting restrictions and similar).
Needless to say, despite their valiant generalling they were both eventually defeated, and both mentioned in confidence that they hoped not to play against that opponent. That is not a good trend for the inaugural night of the campaign, and is against the spirit of the event, in both my and the GM's opinion. Now the ogre player did take some soft selections, and I personally believe that his list was testing the water, would/will tone it back some, but the dark elf player is a typical rules lawyer that looks for ways to abuse/manipulate/interpret the mechanics of the game, although he claims that "technically the rules say I can, why would I intentionly break the rules?" or "they would have faq'ed it it they didn't want it to work like that" or "I agree, but untill it's faq'ed that's technically how it works" etc. He has a huge army to pull from, yet brought a list almost identical to his tournament one.
So the question then: Im having a non-campaign game against him tomorrow, and would like to ask him to tone it back for the sake of everyones enjoyment. Now the issue is getting through to him. He takes great pride in his army, but only to the extent of making it more effecient/effective, and doesn't seem to care for the campaign aspects: he didn't paint his flags, he didn't make army markers, his list wasn't legal in regards to his army general (which we only found out mid game because he didn't make lists prior to the game).
I know there are a lot of competetive, tournament players here: How do you "turn it off" for the sake of fun? The GM doenst want to have to meticulously make rules to "enforce" fluff, but I think something along the lines of "no more than a thousand points in a unit include characters" would be easiest, just because he doesn't like to break rules that he is aware of. It just seems draconic to have to create arbitrary rules to get someone to relax and have fun with 'friends'.
Communal thoughts?

There are plenty of comp systems around that will tone it down a bit without changing the game dramatically. The SCGT comp, for example, just takes the edge off without changing the game too much.

Respectfully I disagree that comp solves this sort of issue.

Any player like Kiwidru describes will simply view the comp as another set of rules to manipulate. It puts the non-competitive players at even more of a disadvantage because they are already not used to, or have no desire to, maximize list building. Adding more complexity will not help. If someone doesn't "get it", this will not solve a thing.

This is about how to play nice with others. It has nothing to do with rules or lack thereof. I suggest the GM take a look at the specific issues and add "carrots". Give goodies to the players that play nice in the sandbox. Basically, use GM fiat to give the "good" players bonus items, etc, both to encourage them to continue playing and also to aid them in fighting the other guy. GM can say the more fluffy the list, the better chance of finding an item, whatever. (or something like that, you all will need to figure out how best to approach it) Or add a GM "sportsmanship" score. Bonuses for writing fluff, painting in theme, modeling to commemorate victories or defeats or epic moments, whatever floats your boat.

If this rules lawyer starts to get it, and plays nice, he can earn the carrots.

If the guy doesn't get it and plays passive aggressive, throws out the victim whine, well, he's welcome not to play. Allowing one d-bag to ruin everyone else's fun does no one any service.

PS - we have a guy like this who made it his mission to deliberately break every single campaign. He took perverse pleasure in playing innocent, and just all around taking advantage of everyone else playing at an easier/for funsies level. Last time around, everyone just refused to play him, and the campaign died. Nothing anyone could say would ever make him "get it". You know what his response was? "Man, campaigns here never work because no one will ever play me. Hah hah you all are just scared because you know I will win." No, dude, its because you are no fun to play.

Edits - cuz I forgot to say some stuff!

Its simple, make him play a different army (dark elves are meant to be unfair and underhanded )

LOL yeah, that is true, but rules lawyering in a fun casual event is low even for Dark Elves.

Kiwidru, can you just say that this is for fun? Keep it light. Let him know that it is respectable to want to smash face, but only if your opponent is in the same mindset. But, that is not the point of this campaign. Tell him he should play for a tie, take his awesome list and ruin it, and see how he does, something like that. This is sort of what I was getting at with my above post, but you are right, talking to him first is a good idea.

I didn't approach this angle in my first response because I've been there, done that, and it was pointless. But you can give it a shot. At least this way, dude will understand what is going on.

Moral of the story - He wins when EVERYONE has fun, not just him.

EDIT- OMG I just had the best idea EVER. If Mr. Rules Lawyer refuses to play nice, give him a "Baby Seal Clubber Award". Make it a nice adorable stuffed animal seal. Make it so that anyone who bears this cursed item has in-campaign penalties, i.e. if you roll on a table post-game, the bearer adds -2 to the roll, adding for each battle fought as the bearer. It can only be lost if bearer is baby-seal clubbed himself, or through an act of God (or GM as the case may be). LOL that could be absolutely hilarious!

It's a tough question. We play in an area where much of the gameplay is oriented around tournaments, and I think that can make it even harder.

I was expecting him to bring some tough armies, but it essentially unfortunately, it ended up as a trial for his latest tournament build with some fairly inconsequential changes.

One approach that might be successful is to pitch it a little in terms of experimenting with different units. I pulled out my bolt throwers, thunderers and lord on shield-bearers, all of whom have seen fairly limited game time at tournaments for me. I'll plan on encouraging him to try finding some use for his dark riders, black guard, witch elves, and his other units that don't often get to see the table in 8th.

Before I start laying down any more rules, I'd also like to try to make one more non-binding appeal to take things a bit easier. There was some peer pressure going on as much as possible, so hopefully a message can get through.

The other thing I noticed is that he made a beeline for the two least experienced players on the campaign map. I'm not even sure if he is aware that he's doing this or not, but it definitely happened.

Though Kiwidru was kind in his comments about our game, I left our matchup thinking I needed to maybe tone things down a little further with my own list. As a tournament player, its easy to start seeing things that are even slightly suboptimal as being weak, or a concession. Thus, when I took a runesmith with a spellbreaker and balance, I expected to have magic defense issues- but instead only let one spell off during the game- and that was on IF...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/431561.page
Have a read through this thread - it should come off as a mirror to your own post. The "tournament" guys are generally just as frustrated as you are.

If the DE and the Ogre players are truly trouble makers, why invite them to be part of the campaign? If not, you'll need to realize that they are just trying to have fun too.

Explain to him that the game is "Just for fun" not to crush all of your opponents.

If he doesn't like that idea, tell him that he's not welcome to play, because it would take away from his and other players' enjoyment of the game.

Frankly, tournament-style players should be upfront that they're playing to win and nothing else. Then their opponents can make the decision of whether they want to play them or not.

We had similar situations with quite a few players in a tourney roughly a month ago, and found a very interesting approach to toning it down. For the second round, we instituted a "chaos storm" approach. We allowed your opponent to build your army list based on the models you had available. This included creating proxies and altering items taken\not taken.

It was a surprising success. The new players got to learn how a lot of things do and dont work with units theyve never tried before, and veteran generals were actually challenegd to get a victory with completely rediculous lists (can you say an ogre army of ankle biters?!).

YMMV, but it was a nice break from the ordinary and got everyone laughing.

RanTheCid wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/431561.page
Have a read through this thread - it should come off as a mirror to your own post. The "tournament" guys are generally just as frustrated as you are.

If the DE and the Ogre players are truly trouble makers, why invite them to be part of the campaign? If not, you'll need to realize that they are just trying to have fun too.

I'm wondering if you meant to link a different thread, because yes, competitive players DO get frustrated when fluffy bunnies don't "get it" as well. That thread in link above is about someone not understanding the rules at all, and blaming it on the other person being "competitive". Unfairly and in a juvenile manner, I might add. Being unfamiliar with the rules has nothing to do with wanting to play for fun in a casual setting.

Bringing a competitive tourney-style attitude is just not a match to a casual campaign. Its like the people who treat a casual beer league softball game as a life or death cage match contest... It ruins the fun for everyone else. Just like someone treating a competitive league as a beer league ruins the fun, too.

An appropriate "mirror" would be someone bringing a fluffy bunny list to a cut-throat tournament, and the tournament players getting annoyed because it was so easy to beat the fluffy bunny, ruining their fun. Which is totally valid, BTW. Makes an unfair match-up and slants the results.

That is the problem: different expectations from two perspectives on "why are we here".

If everyone wanted to play death match kill 'em all in the campaign, cool, do it. But as described, that is not the case. One person being unable to switch hats can completely break a long term campaign.

Can you guys use the casual beer league sports team vs. cut throat competitive comparison, to help explain? May make it easier to communicate... And also butters him up, as well, if you tell him he's Major League playing in the minors...

That's exactly the thread I wanted to link - a 40K Dark Eldar player who became increasingly upset when the rules (as known by the opposing player) were applied to his game.

Its a lot like this thread where the DE and Ogre players are trying to play according to the rules & the various other players in the campaign are having trouble with it. Or not. Without being there and knowing what is exactly going on, its hard to tell what the real story is.

I guess my point is that the OP of this thread needs to be careful or he's going to look like a heavy when he tries to get the other players to change their game.

Give him a taste of his own medicine. Play super hard on him and bend the rule just as he does to show him what it's like to be on the receiving end of it. That should make him understand

Ravnak wrote:Give him a taste of his own medicine. Play super hard on him and bend the rule just as he does to show him what it's like to be on the receiving end of it. That should make him understand

I think Nietzsche said something on this matter. Anyway, it's a terrible idea. You could lose and only reinforce the guy's behavior. Or you could win, and have the guy become worse in an attempt to win against you. Or, the most likely conclusion, is that it won't change the situation at all.

Interesting input guys, Thanks for contributing.

@Gym: This guy isn't a douche or anything, he just kind of has only child syndrome. No older brother to smack the back of his head when he was being a little gak, and no younger brother that looks up to you and you would sacrifice for; as such he is just kind of socially awkward but still a good dude who is rational and intelligent. This is what makes me get all skywalker to his vader, he ran dual hydra lists a few months ago, so it's possible he feels this army is fluffy as well as being competetive. The beer league thing intrigues me, I think that is the correct attitude.
@Ran: I see the parallels (in the first page at least):
tournament is the opposite of campaign
friendly is the opposite of win at all costs
The logical solution is that the player should accept and adapt to their environment

Where I think they differ is a matter of ignorence vs willpower. The eldar guy was ignorent to the actual rules (and overly invested in the game), and should be expected to read/learn them before attending another tourney. The elf guy just doesnt know how to self-censor his actions: He isn't wrong, he's just an donkey-cave, to use the parlence of our time. Which is exactly why I'm searching for the perfect epiphany-inducing phrasing

I wish I had the perfect solution for this, but unfortunately I don't. I do; however, have some ideas that may or may not sound okay.

You guys could forget about the campaign headaches and finish the Great Chaos Grudge. Just kidding, although I would like to see how that ended. (or did I miss it. I will have to check to see if I missed the rest of it)

My real idea is for one of you to make a DE list for him. Tell him you are thinking about starting DE and were interested in those units and wanted his input on how they handled. It is kind of playing off Gymnogyps idea of buttering him up. He may not feel the need to win as badly since it isn't "his" list while still feeling good about himself because of the need for his expertise. Everyone else is happy because it is an easier list. Maybe he will even discover that he likes challenging himself with weaker lists or enjoys playing for fun.

Gaming communities always seem to have these people. I suppose they are in every community but it's most obvious in games becaus they are so head-to-head.

Speaking as an adult, I try and lay out the situation to the rules rapist power gamers. If they don't get it, I wouldn't play with them. The only thing I, as a respectable human, can do is vote with my feet. If half your gamers are not enjoying themselves because of one person, then one person has a problem, regardless of what's in the BRB. If you have to choose between one person being really upset and not having anyone to play with or five, it's a really easy choice.

I've seen more than a few gaming groups broken up because of this. If no one speaks up, people just start drifting away because they aren't having fun, then going to the movies wins over driving to the campaign. Soon, everyone is ditching.

As a tournament organizer dungeonmaster type GM, approve the lists first. If they aren't fluffy, say why, and send them back to rebuild.

One person will be mad at you, but it's better than not having a campaign and potentially permanently alienating some gamers.

Everything you mentioned about what they did was completely legal.

If you have a problem with the rules then don't play the game.



And 2 Tyrants is a pretty soft list. Not the competitive choice.

Brettonians are on the poorer end of the competitive scale. You should have expected trouble with them fighting Dark Elves.

Undead of any kind have issues with ogres as they negate a couple of the undead strongpoints(numbers with tons of attacks and Fear with Fear)

The point of the game is to have fun. Doesn't matter if something is legal. (And it's questionable whether some stuff was--and they even admitted that it was sketchy.) If they are running a campaign with set players, you can make any rules you choose. That is also legal.

If someone is a jerk and is making the game unfun, no one will play with them. Legal or not, that is life. And life > BRB.

It can be fun to find hidden gems in the rules that let you catch people by surprise.


And you can't whine when you brought soft "fluffy" lists and someone else brought a competitive one. Thats the risk you took when you brought a soft list.

Always assume people are playing hardball unless stated otherwise.

Kiwidru wrote:but the dark elf player is a typical rules lawyer that looks for ways to abuse/manipulate/interpret the mechanics of the game, although he claims that "technically the rules say I can, why would I intentionly break the rules?" or "they would have faq'ed it it they didn't want it to work like that" or "I agree, but untill it's faq'ed that's technically how it works" etc. He has a huge army to pull from, yet brought a list almost identical to his tournament one.

He takes great pride in his army, but only to the extent of making it more effecient/effective, and doesn't seem to care for the campaign aspects: he didn't paint his flags, he didn't make army markers, his list wasn't legal in regards to his army general (which we only found out mid game because he didn't make lists prior to the game).

Ugh, these are the worst kind of players, in my honest opinion. They're in the hobby for all the wrong reasons.

Grey Templar wrote:
And you can't whine when you brought soft "fluffy" lists and someone else brought a competitive one. Thats the risk you took when you brought a soft list.

Always assume people are playing hardball unless stated otherwise.

For what its worth- it *was* stated otherwise. You're assuming the game was played in some sort of vacuum, it seems. The advertised goal of the campaign was to take a bit of a break from tournament style play and trot out some of the less optimal choices in favor of crafting a more interesting story.

I believe this isn't supposed to be a "tournament gamers are bad" thread. Just a "how do you encourage a tournament gamer to adapt play-style to a non-tournament setting?"

We're not saying this is a bad guy, just that a bit of adjustment is in order for the purposes of this campaign. Other, more face-ripping opportunities abound in the area.

Grey Templar wrote:It can be fun to find hidden gems in the rules that let you catch people by surprise.

It can be, certainly. But it isn't the kind of fun everyone wants to have all the time. And so it becomes perfectly sensible for a group to get together an agree to not play that way.

And you can't whine when you brought soft "fluffy" lists and someone else brought a competitive one. Thats the risk you took when you brought a soft list.

You've missed the point, as you tend to do in most threads on this isssue.

The issue isn't with getting thumped in one game. That happens from time to time, no matter how you set up your games. The issue is with people turning up with lists of wildly varying quality, so that you get very few games that are close or exciting. If a player turns up with a strong list, thumps his opponent and sees everyone has lists more in line with his opponents and tells everyone he'll adapt for his next game then it's no big deal and everyone moves on with playing fun games. Same if a player turns up with a much weaker lists, and says he'll bring something more in line with everyone else in future.

The problem comes from players who keep insisting their way is the right way, and who simply won't adapt to the meta in their area or in this tournament.

Always assume people are playing hardball unless stated otherwise.

That's terrible advice. Utterly disfunctional.

An actual, sensible approach is to always talk to your opponent(s), see what everyone else is thinking, and act in good faith.

To be fair it is a bit difficult for some people to turn it off or tone it down. I suggest you let the person know what the purpose of the campaign is and that a fluffy list is preffered rather than a tourney list. Try explaining that you are trying to create a story (if that is the sort of campaign you are doing).
Also make clear to them what your expectations are as well as don't forget to mention the consiquences being him getting kicked out of the campaigne or people not wanting to play him.
Some people don't get it use the direct approach lay it on them that way they have no excuse to bot understand. I'm not saying be mean to the guy just tell tell him what you told us above.

We have a player like this @ my local game store (winner of Ard Boyz Western Region in 2011) who where its gotten to the point that the lists he has built are so ridiculously good that he has HAD TO SHELVE 2 of them (Demons and Dark Elves) because no one wanted to play him anymore (currently he is facing this dilemma with a super crazy zombie horde list and already people have started to deny him games). Its even gotten to the point that people have either threatened or said they are not going to show up for a tournament that is planned this month because he is going to be in it. He is not a jerk about it and is in fact a really cool guy and a friend of mine, however he is extremely good at putting together lists that just dominate and take advantage of the games rules and is a very good tactician (he is undefeated in both 40k and Fantasy @ the store and has played there for over a year). And to make matters worse he ALWAYS rolls well or above average and I can admit it gets very frustrating, especially if its just a friendly game.

Frankly if things get to difficult I have learned to just stop playing him as its not fun getting my face stomped in time after time. Granted sometimes I feel bad that no one wants to play him so I will give him a game and get my face stomped in yet again, and it doesnt help the fact that I play Wood Elves I am not a bad player (in fact think I am a capable WE player) however when coming across certain lists there is nothing that anyone can do. I do understand when you are going over the top (for example taking Teclis in a friendly game) and frankly its just how some people are, playing to win is all that matters. The player may argue that is the point of the game, however to me it really takes the fun away from it as fluff and look are big parts of the fantasy game. All I can say is the best thing to do would be to not play him, he will either get the message or he will eventually ask why and then you can explain it to him.

Grey Templar wrote:And you can't whine when you brought soft "fluffy" lists and someone else brought a competitive one. Thats the risk you took when you brought a soft list.

Similarly, you can't whine when people refuse to play you because you always bring competitive lists to "fluff" games. That's the risk you took when you brought a competitive list.

Grey Templar wrote:Always assume people are playing hardball unless stated otherwise.

If this was the case at my LGS, I wouldn't play there. I suspect a number of other players in the area wouldn't either.

This type of attitude is what drives people out of the hobby.

Red_Zeke wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
And you can't whine when you brought soft "fluffy" lists and someone else brought a competitive one. Thats the risk you took when you brought a soft list.

Always assume people are playing hardball unless stated otherwise.

For what its worth- it *was* stated otherwise. You're assuming the game was played in some sort of vacuum, it seems. The advertised goal of the campaign was to take a bit of a break from tournament style play and trot out some of the less optimal choices in favor of crafting a more interesting story.

I believe this isn't supposed to be a "tournament gamers are bad" thread. Just a "how do you encourage a tournament gamer to adapt play-style to a non-tournament setting?"

We're not saying this is a bad guy, just that a bit of adjustment is in order for the purposes of this campaign. Other, more face-ripping opportunities abound in the area.

You also need to consider that maybe they did bring a fluffy list.


Tyrants are the new fluffy choice for ogres, They arn't the competitive choice.

And a horde of Corsairs is also pretty fluffy AFAIK.

If what their fluffy lists are happens to be better then what your fluffy lists are then we simply have a power difference between army books, which has little to do with the person running the list.


Some people simply can't make a bad list, and for others it simply goes against their very nature.

The first thing I would do is speak with the the player and explain the situation. Basically give him the option to "Get right or get out" especially against the new guys.

I know I tend to be a more "tournament style" player with my Skaven, so when I participate in the nicer campaigns I bring out the Brettonians. So it becomes a win/win since they have fun and I get new set of challenges to overcome.

Hve him face a kid, the kind that cries when he looses, then he beats it makes it cry, and everyone gives him "the stare".
After that it shouldn't bee too hard to get him to pull his cranium out of his rectum.

I still maintain that it doesn't sound like the lists they brought were actually WAAC lists.

Dual Tyrants just sounds horrible from a competitive viewpoint and Brettonians vs DEs is not that hard to predict, especially if Mindrazor is involved.

Because I'm sure y'all are one the edge of your seat I figured i'd give an update after our game.
I arrived to him casually complaining that the dark elf campaign racial bonus is not as good as my warriors one.
After some friendly banter in which I remind him that he has a myriad of rules I don't, he seemed to soften his stance.
The game was good; He brought the corsair'star with the usual goodies and managed to squeeze yet another hero in there, bringing the total to 5 in the unit and the cauldron which is there to buff said unit. We had a decent game, in which I subtly softballed a win in there to butter him up.
After the game, rather than bring this up I started talking to him. My plan was to make him see us more as friends than opponents. He takes warhammer seriously. Apparently there is a ranking webpage that has all the tournament players in the nation, and he is ranked 30-40ish out of 2k. (personally I think the fact that there are only 2000 big-tourney players out of the millions and millions of Americans to be quite pathetic, and don't see it as a particularly useful mountain to want to be king of, but too each his own). On top of that, there are a couple more players in the local shop that are ranked highe than him! This gave me a lot of insight, since even his pickup games are against top of the nation opponents it is quite possible that it has been so long since he had a truely friendly game that he forgot what it is. He even noted that he had analysed my terrain placement and tendencies, of which I was completely oblivious and am not sure of as I generally deploy in whatever manner is aesthetically pleasing to the batlle. We got into the idea that he didn't like the rules of bitb because it was too restrictive (read: wouldn't allow him to run the same list every game) and I mentioned that's kind of the point... It forces you to choose suboptimal unit and actually tweak your game style/strategy... But since this was happening to everyone a general trend of competition (where everyone has set phasers to "Fun") should still be achievable, and that this was the perfect outlet for showing of who can do the most with the least, which is a seed that seemed to take root. We also acknowledged that there were some weaker generals in our group and being a better general while still using a tournament style list just makes it seem like a crutch, might have also sank in.
I think he was also able to flesh me out a bit as well. I was able to relay the fact that I was a gamer but didn't care about warhammer, as well as the fact that I think obsessing about some random rules that some slowed brittish people try to arbitrarily enforce is unamerican. not everyone cares about pushing the rules to the breaking point and of the people that do generally the only thing they can agree on is how stupid and abiguous the rules are. In my opinion it's the old who is dumber: the blind guy leading the way (GW) or the people that choose to follow him (rules lawyers)?
After a good talk, in which I feel some seeds were planted, we parted ways. I guess I want him to be able to have a chance to trend, either towards us or away before actually mentioning it to him and definatly before laying down an ultimatum, as I truely want him to play with us and honestly I'm hoping we might not have to.
@ Grey: please focus. First, I mentioned in the origional post that the ogre player took some 'fluffy' selections and I felt he was testing the water, however the 16-18 iron guts with two lords in a single unit were not part of the fluffy selections. Your obsession with this is bizzare since it's obviously not the focal point of the thread, and literally no one is engaging you on the subject.
Secondly, you clearly don't know the situation, and on top of that you havnt even attempted to use the components to piece it together. For instance, rather than trying to predict the outcome of dark elves vs brettonians when mindrazor was involved, why not read the first post and realize that the only mention of magic in which the dark elf players lone wizard was abusing an old lore with no cast restrictions...
(SPOILER ALERT!)
... It wasn't shadow.
Now I don't mean to be harsh, so allow me to further illustrate: In the last turn of my game the dwarf player broke my knights with a unit of 30ish gw dwarfs and had (in my opinion) a clear overrun into the flank of my main unit, which would have allowed him to engage in that combat as well... Easily chopping my wounded wizard and pushing a tied combat to one I was gonna be killed to a man, or forced into a horrendously unlikely break check. To my utter amazement he claimed that HE didn't think he would contact my unit and as such my named char didn't die, and I was able to save some face by having "something" going for me at the end of the game. This was super classy, and it didn't go unnoticed.
On the other hand in the last turn of the dark elf game he was trying to cast pit out of one combat and into another combat that was not within line of sight or the forward arc of the caster, in an attempt to completely table his opponent.
@ Zeke I though our game was good, and had no problem with your list. I felt the loss could be chalked up to:
1: special battle rules affecting my strongest unit
2: being out deployed, it doesn't happen often but you certainly go the best of me that game
3: poor rolls: first 3 magic phases being under 5, failed reroll 9 on frenzy restrain, 1 on forsaken attacks
4: didn't take advantage of opportunities, I had a couple but they didn't quite pan out (see also #3)
5: poor generaling, I gave the khorn knights up out of lack of planning, realising how crucial they were to my left flank only after they were gone.

Thank you to everyone that has voiced an opinion, especially Grey, the mental gap we are discussing is the biggest hurdle to our community IMO: mostly because there is no easy answer.