What makes a game 'Bad'?

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.

**Scott-S6**

Waaaghpower wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:

It's not 'They get two hours, you get one hour'. It's 'You collectively have fewer turns per player'. He's not getting to do twice as much damage as you because his models move slower.
This isn't like previous editions, where dragging your feet can prevent reserves from coming in or otherwise stifle armies that have a long buildup. If your army isn't capable of doing anything until turn 4, you're going to lose regardless of whether your opponent has a slow army.
(I think lengthy armies are still boring, of course, as I've stated above. But they're not cheating.)

And the impact of fewer turns per player is not the same on all armies. Bringing an army that you know full well will not allow you to complete games in the allotted time unless your opponent rushes to accommodate you (and often, not even then) is 100% dick move.

Again, though, you seem to be avoiding the question:
I'm an Ork player.
Hypothetically, I could start playing Guard with little tank support. Or Tyranids that aren't nidzilla.

What exactly do you propose I do? Just avoid the tournament scene entirely, because you might not get to turn five?

If your choice is play an army that you know is unworkable in the time limit and will therefore impact the other player's ability to actually play the game or not go to tournaments then I would suggest that the latter is the more appropriate course of action. There are, of course, third (learn to play fast) or fourth (take something else) options.

**Marmatag**

I cannot wait for the conscript nerf. Super looking forward to it.

**Dakka Wolf**

Games where you know you're outclassed from the first roll but still take several hours to play out.
Had a game against Tau a while back where I realised how the game would play out after the first round of movement and shooting but I couldn't do anything to change it, I just had the wrong units.
It sucks to realise you were beaten at the list building level before your opponent finishes the first turn.

**NenkotaMoon**

Scott-S6 wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:

It's not 'They get two hours, you get one hour'. It's 'You collectively have fewer turns per player'. He's not getting to do twice as much damage as you because his models move slower.
This isn't like previous editions, where dragging your feet can prevent reserves from coming in or otherwise stifle armies that have a long buildup. If your army isn't capable of doing anything until turn 4, you're going to lose regardless of whether your opponent has a slow army.
(I think lengthy armies are still boring, of course, as I've stated above. But they're not cheating.)

And the impact of fewer turns per player is not the same on all armies. Bringing an army that you know full well will not allow you to complete games in the allotted time unless your opponent rushes to accommodate you (and often, not even then) is 100% dick move.

Again, though, you seem to be avoiding the question:
I'm an Ork player.
Hypothetically, I could start playing Guard with little tank support. Or Tyranids that aren't nidzilla.

What exactly do you propose I do? Just avoid the tournament scene entirely, because you might not get to turn five?

If your choice is play an army that you know is unworkable in the time limit and will therefore impact the other player's ability to actually play the game or not go to tournaments then I would suggest that the latter is the more appropriate course of action. There are, of course, third (learn to play fast) or fourth (take something else) options.

Or just not play at all which you slightly imply.

**Tautastic**

My opponent conceding after the first player turn...

...And I went second...

**Dakka Wolf**

Tautastic wrote:
My opponent conceding after the first player turn...

...And I went second...

That's a suck.

**HuskyWarhammer**

Keep in mind, the problem isn't necessarily the army - it's the player. A conscript player can pre-sort dice and have that ready to help cut down.

I had a buddy once who took a good 40 minutes to place 3 drop pods. Not joking, I went out and had a snack and beer while waiting. There were...discussions...after that.

**RogueApiary**

Scott-S6 wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:

It's not 'They get two hours, you get one hour'. It's 'You collectively have fewer turns per player'. He's not getting to do twice as much damage as you because his models move slower.
This isn't like previous editions, where dragging your feet can prevent reserves from coming in or otherwise stifle armies that have a long buildup. If your army isn't capable of doing anything until turn 4, you're going to lose regardless of whether your opponent has a slow army.
(I think lengthy armies are still boring, of course, as I've stated above. But they're not cheating.)

And the impact of fewer turns per player is not the same on all armies. Bringing an army that you know full well will not allow you to complete games in the allotted time unless your opponent rushes to accommodate you (and often, not even then) is 100% dick move.

As an IG player, I feel like ending the game on an earlier turn is more often than not in my opponents favor, which is why I do everything I can to play faster because every game that ends in a loss before turn 5 is a game I probably could have won without a time limit. Two of the three losses in my first tournament I was on track to tabling my opponent by turn 5 but they ended on turn 3.

**Scott-S6**

NenkotaMoon wrote:

Or just not play at all which you slightly imply.

A player that can't or won't learn to fast play that insists on playing hordes may well find it hard to get games.

I have been known to turn down games against people that I know are slow players, especially if they're bringing a horde army. If the choice is one very slow game or two normal games then I know what I'm choosing.

**RogueApiary**

Scott-S6 wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:

Or just not play at all which you slightly imply.

A player that can't or won't learn to fast play that insists on playing hordes may well find it hard to get games.

I have been known to turn down games against people that I know are slow players, especially if they're bringing a horde army. If the choice is one very slow game or two normal games then I know what I'm choosing.

A lot of playing fast(er) comes from experience though. Rather than outright decline, you could play them on a time limit. There were a lot of time saving tricks I didn't pick up on until I started playing tournament games. Even out-of-game things like how my squads were placed in their trays and having a good dice system made a huge difference in play time. Also things like premeasuring ranges on my opponent's turn so I could have targets picked out and ready to go on my following turn rather than hemming and hawing about if I want to choose one target over another.

**Scott-S6**

RogueApiary wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:

Or just not play at all which you slightly imply.

A player that can't or won't learn to fast play that insists on playing hordes may well find it hard to get games.

I have been known to turn down games against people that I know are slow players, especially if they're bringing a horde army. If the choice is one very slow game or two normal games then I know what I'm choosing.

A lot of playing fast(er) comes from experience though. Rather than outright decline, you could play them on a time limit. There were a lot of time saving tricks I didn't pick up on until I started playing tournament games. Even out-of-game things like how my squads were placed in their trays and having a good dice system made a huge difference in play time. Also things like premeasuring ranges on my opponent's turn so I could have targets picked out and ready to go on my following turn rather than hemming and hawing about if I want to choose one target over another.

So that I can play half of a slow, boring game?

If someone wants to learn to fast play there's nothing stopping them from doing that with a non-horde army. Then they'll be able to play a horde list without sucking the life out of their opponents.

**Melissia**

NenkotaMoon wrote:
Or just not play at all which you slightly imply.

Pretty much that's the impression I get.

"Play my way, or don't play at all."

**ALEXisAWESOME**

I think a bad game is a game that is won or lost on the ignorance of one player.

I play Harlequins, and we break nearly all the rules. Before the game starts, I always go through all the important things, point out the special weapons, characters, what they do. Then we play, and the vast majority of my pick up games are over by turn 3/4 because the opponent under-estimates my threat ranges. Or forgets I can leave combat whenever I like, or flip over his models.

Then I'm subject to a barrage of salt when the Solitaire blitz's 20'' and snipes the opponents support character, or when a Troupe of 31pt a piece Harlequins blow up a vehicle or monster with Fusion Pistols.

I don't have fun if the opponent doesn't have fun, but playing an army like 'Quins I thrive off of opponents making mistakes, so I'm having more 'bad games' with 'Quins than I ought to because I am winning then being called Cheese rather than because I am losing.

**Jimsolo**

For me, a bad game is one that I lost and can't see how I could have won.

Alternately, a game against someone who is just a smug douchecanoe while we play.

I really hate when I offer to go over my list with someone, or when I ask if they have any questions and they decline, then later get all huffy because they didn't know a model/unit had a certain ability. (But since that particular aggravation doesn't usually manifest unless I'm winning, it's hard to call those games 'bad.')

**RogueApiary**

Scott-S6 wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:

Or just not play at all which you slightly imply.

A player that can't or won't learn to fast play that insists on playing hordes may well find it hard to get games.

I have been known to turn down games against people that I know are slow players, especially if they're bringing a horde army. If the choice is one very slow game or two normal games then I know what I'm choosing.

A lot of playing fast(er) comes from experience though. Rather than outright decline, you could play them on a time limit. There were a lot of time saving tricks I didn't pick up on until I started playing tournament games. Even out-of-game things like how my squads were placed in their trays and having a good dice system made a huge difference in play time. Also things like premeasuring ranges on my opponent's turn so I could have targets picked out and ready to go on my following turn rather than hemming and hawing about if I want to choose one target over another.

So that I can play half of a slow, boring game?

If someone wants to learn to fast play there's nothing stopping them from doing that with a non-horde army. Then they'll be able to play a horde list without sucking the life out of their opponents.

Except learning to play fast doesn't really work like that. Bringing a smaller army just lets you play slowly with a smaller army because now you have the buffer of extra time that comes from fewer things to do.

You dont need to learn dice management if you're only rolling for a squad of tacs, you don't purposefully decline shooting with a unit to save time even if it might score a couple kills/wounds. You dont pick up any of the tricks you need to play fast because you don't need them. You dont have your trays ordered by deployment order if you only have 40 models to put down.

**Tyel**

To my mind its games that are not close. You need that illusion that both sides were in the game, at least for most of it.

If one side is massively ahead by the end of their turn 2 it kind of takes the fun out of the rest of the game, even if they could fail all their dice rolls. So many games just become a mop up.

Maybe I am just not cut out to be a tournament player - but while there is a fun in building and working out how such a force would play, I don't find the actual practice of tabling or being tabled all that fun. Often because it comes down to the a relatively small number of dice rolls (especially who goes first).

**Scott-S6**

RogueApiary wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:

If someone wants to learn to fast play there's nothing stopping them from doing that with a non-horde army. Then they'll be able to play a horde list without sucking the life out of their opponents.

Except learning to play fast doesn't really work like that. Bringing a smaller army just lets you play slowly with a smaller army because now you have the buffer of extra time that comes from fewer things to do.

You dont need to learn dice management if you're only rolling for a squad of tacs, you don't purposefully decline shooting with a unit to save time even if it might score a couple kills/wounds. You dont pick up any of the tricks you need to play fast because you don't need them. You dont have your trays ordered by deployment order if you only have 40 models to put down.

As I said - if they WANT to learn fast play then they can do that with any army. Playing a smaller army doesn't push them to learn fast play but either they want to do it or they don't.

**NenkotaMoon**

So what you are saying is for them to not play a faction they like or only have models for that. We have to cater to how you play the game and not play factions you don't like.

**Frozocrone**

I find something to be a bad game if I walk away feeling either sorry for my opponent or languishing over how I spent my time.

Common denominator is people. Usually crappy personality equals crappy game.

**Scott-S6**

NenkotaMoon wrote:
So what you are saying is for them to not play a faction they like or only have models for that.

Or learn to fast play.

If you're a slow player then choosing an army that makes you slower still might not be conducive to you getting games.

NenkotaMoon wrote:

We have to cater to how you play the game

Is that not always implicit? If you're going to play in a manner that makes the game less fun for your opponent for whatever reason then those opponents are going to be less inclined to want to play you.

NenkotaMoon wrote:
and not play factions you don't like.

No, I have no problem with any factions. I was perfectly happy playing against scatbikes and wraithknights or suit-spam Tau last edition, for example. I do have a problem with really slow players, armies full of inconsistent proxies and that guy that never has his books (or a written army list) because he can totally remember all of his rules (and the cheaters, both blatant and passive-aggressive, obviously). I'll generally choose not to play against those because that's going to lead to an un-fun game. Likewise, if someone doesn't want to play against me or my army because it doesn't suit then that's fine with me.

**nateprati**

the_scotsman wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, this is a weird paradox.

I see people say gunlines are boring, so I play a superheavy tank company, which has a load of firepower but it's not in very many shots (comparatively) so not too much dice. The tanks are at home in melee so I shove them forwards, jockeying for the best position to tie up as many units as possible while still simultaneously staying in support range of my lesser units and other tanks...

... it's really quite fun, and for my opponents as well (or so I am told).

But then people say that army is boring, and I sometimes wonder if IG can ever be played without being labeled as boring.

Ig is one of the harder armies to make interesting, just like Tau, because so much is frontloaded into just shooting firepower. I don't think a baneblade-focused list is the worst, tbh its probably decent now that they work in melee, but people will get disinterested for the same reason they don't like Imperial Knights - you're playing a miniatures game and your opponent is playing with a few action figures.

The most fun guard army I've ever played is a friend of mine who runs Catachans. He's got a mix of mechanized, shooting, and melee elements, which is never really that competitive, but is usually what people consider the most fun, because the game is usually more about on-the-table tactics than the list checks that you have with most skew lists.

Guard and Tau are hard to do this with because you can still choose a variety of units and come up with something very skewy and one-note. "Look how much variety I have! I have fire warriors, sniper drones, hammerheads, longstrike, skyrays, riptides, ghostkeels, broadsides and a stormsurge! This will be fun and interactive!"

It isn't an impossible task, like you get when you try to make a non-skewed Imperial Knight army or khorne daemon army, but it isn't super easy. But yeah, if you want to never get complaints about a boring army, you're going to have to do a little extra work with Guard, Tau, Khorne, Grey Knights, etc.

I agree with this. Ive played conscripts since 7th when guard were bottom tier and conscripts had to be taken in a platoon (max 50 with 2 normie squads taxed onto it) i honesly dont think conscripts need to be nurfed as much as low damage high output weapons need to be buffed. No one would dislike playing hord if they had a weapon that slaughtered T3 in mass. They took away templates without replacing thier function.

I love the look of a horde army, i love the psycological warfare element to them. That saif gunlines do get boring and when i run my conscripts (just 50 of them) i march them and use my other units to flank. To make any unit not boring is to use them with synergy.

So i guess to me a "bad" game is too static, whether that be in CC or in gunlines

**Dakka Wolf**

Scott-S6 wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:
So what you are saying is for them to not play a faction they like or only have models for that.

Or learn to fast play.

If you're a slow player then choosing an army that makes you slower still might not be conducive to you getting games.

NenkotaMoon wrote:

We have to cater to how you play the game

Is that not always implicit? If you're going to play in a manner that makes the game less fun for your opponent for whatever reason then those opponents are going to be less inclined to want to play you.

NenkotaMoon wrote:
and not play factions you don't like.

No, I have no problem with any factions. I was perfectly happy playing against scatbikes and wraithknights or suit-spam Tau last edition, for example. I do have a problem with really slow players, armies full of inconsistent proxies and that guy that never has his books (or a written army list) because he can totally remember all of his rules (and the cheaters, both blatant and passive-aggressive, obviously). I'll generally choose not to play against those because that's going to lead to an un-fun game. Likewise, if someone doesn't want to play against me or my army because it doesn't suit then that's fine with me.

I'll agree with this.
I know two IG players who move quickly, are plotting and pre-measuring while they watch me take my turn and have practiced ways of picking up their models that I've unconsciously picked up over time. I just realised that on the weekend when I played a fresh face with Imperial Guard, he pre-measured everything, sat and thought for lengths of time and moved his models one at a time, measuring and pre-measuring both as he set up and executed his moves. We got four turns in before the store owner booted us out for the night. Five hours for four turns - the worst part is the stronger my position got the longer he took and my normal IG opponents are better to boot.