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.

SmackCakes wrote:Perhaps since it was your friend you could have thrown together a different less powerful army to play the game with, or let him win? But you can't really be expected to do that for every opponent you might come up against.

This is something that I do reasonably often.

But it leads to a certain nagging doubt. If you're still winning most games (but now only by a small margin) is it because you're subconsciously tuning your army to be just good enough to beat the other guy's? Or are you getting the army just right and are a better player?

Oddly, list tailoring is the one thing I cannot stomach in an opponent. My lists stay relatively static, with perhaps the odd unit switched out here and there.

And indeed, tailoring your list to your opponent I do so as a lack of skill on the tabletop. Are my tactics and selections that potent that your only possible chance is to see my achilles heel (which to be honest, is normally pretty glaring in my army) and exploit it as much as possible? Now if this is done with my prior knowledge, and as a challenge that is a different matter, as it gives me a chance to develop new tactics. But to just spring it on me, and then proclaim your own tactical genius (the two all too often go hand in hand)...that gets on my tits.

Yet of course with the sort of themes I go for, some armies are a natural pain in the arse for me. But I don't get the hump about it, it's an accepted part of the experience. Sooner or later you're going to run into someone with a trump card. In the case of my Dark Elf Monster Army (been using it since 2003, so I'm very much the bandwagon in this one) it's sodding Wood Elves. Try as I might I just cannot beat them. Does this make me a poor gamer? Does this mean my list (which normally slaps seven shades out of all comers, hence I don't play it that often now. Got bored of such easy wins) is somehow less than 'optimal'? Nope. I just met the 'bigger kid' for once. That and I suffer terrible luck against them!

I fully agree with regard to list tailoring. I prefer to stick to a static list and refine it.

But I would rather forgo that and de-tune a list in an attempt to get a somewhat balanced game if I'm playing someone that doesn't have a decent army.

SmackCakes wrote:I really think we are just arguing different sides of the same coin now. We both disagree with people telling other people how to enjoy the game. You disagree with competitive players saying that everyone else is doing it wrong. I disagree with less competitive players (and some competitive players) throwing around statements like WAAC and 'not fun' in order to deride players who have an equally valid approach to the game, and who usually beat them at it.

No, I disagree with anyone telling anyone else how they should play. Note that I gave credit to people in this thread who simply stated they play to win, and do whatever they can to make that happen.

I mean, if a guy turns up to a tournament with a fun but under-powered list, gets thumped and starts complaining that everyone else has taken cheesy lists, then that guy is a jerk. Similarly, if a guy turns up to a gaming club, is told that people place an emphasis on varied, thematic lists, and he stomps all over them with a build picked for power alone, that guy is a jerk.

I think we can both agree that players who mind their own business and let others enjoy the game the way they want to are the real winners here.

That’s all I was ever saying, good to see we agree.

That story is oddly heart breaking . But really... what else were you supposed to do? That was your army. Perhaps since it was your friend you could have thrown together a different less powerful army to play the game with, or let him win? But you can't really be expected to do that for every opponent you might come up against.

I only played with friends, none of whom were WAAC players. I thrashed them all, week in, week out, with the kinds of incredibly cheesy lists that made sure I spent exactly 50% of my points on characters and exactly 25% on war machines (ah, third ed, where you could judge the power of a High Elf list by the number of repeater bolt throwers).

What I should have done was taken note of how my friends played and built armies that produced enjoyable games for both of us.

I personally wouldn't feel quite comfortable having to pull punches all the time in order to accommodate someone else's weak army. Not because I MUST WIN! but simply because I just wouldn't know how much to pull in order to make the game balanced. I just want to bring my best army and expect other people to do the same. At least that way everyone knows where they stand.

Which is cool, like I said the approach isn’t for everyone. It requires a level of trust that doesn’t exist in every group, and there’s no ego boost from winning (I don’t mean that in a negative way, I play sport to win and enjoy coming out on top, but when you’re playing at a deliberately more friendly level there isn’t the same thrill from winning). In it’s place we get more varied games, and typically have lists with more varied options, making for games that are more consistently interesting.

The thing to remember though, is when a guy playing as hard a game as he can comes up against a guy taking deliberately weaker lists, the final result is frequently a not fun game. Neither player’s approach is to blame for this, though typically both sides blame the other. The fault actually comes from a lack of communication between the two, who should have made some effort to make sure they were taking the same approach to the game.

What happened to your friend is always going to be one of the dangers of running a 'for show' army. If that is something someone wants to do then they need to be comfortable and happy with the idea of it loosing often.

He didn’t have a problem with losing. Same guy played Bloodbowl for years and won maybe a half dozen games, and never complained, never worried about it, because the games were still fun.

The problem here was on my end more than anything, as it was the last in a long run of one-sided, boring games. I quit the hobby, not him.

Now I’m back in, and enjoying every game I play because I and the people I play with talk about the lists we’re taking, and we try to build interesting match ups. Which isn’t the way everyone wants to play, but it works for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Oddly, list tailoring is the one thing I cannot stomach in an opponent. My lists stay relatively static, with perhaps the odd unit switched out here and there.

But this is just another thing that can be worked out, from group to group. Among me and my friends we organise games well in advance, and we know what army we'll be facing. So we do tailor, and pick things to face that person, and this is common and quite accepted among a lot of groups.

I think it is only a problem when one player is tailoring while the other is not, either because he doesn't like that approach, or because he can't (because he only brought so many models, or because he only has so many models).

The answer, like with all similar things, is to communicate with your opponent to get as level a playing field as possible.