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'm sure I will be opening a can of worms by saying this but no, aim for a 100% win rate.

That doesn't mean you have to be a dick, or that you have to cheat or deliberately unbalance the forces on the board, but it is still, at it's core, a game and there is nothing wrong with trying to win a game fair and square.

If you are winning all your games against an opponent try letting them have a few more models to use than you, or swap some stuff around in your list to see if you can do it without X unit or something.

You shouldn't be aiming to lose, just to set up a fair game which you then try to win.




Does that make sense or am I some WAAC donkey cave now?

Personally my aim is not to win or lose, its to play a scenario and have fun. If I happen to win then yay! if I don't win then I look at all the "cool" things that happened. Like my Empire Priest and Wizard going toe to toe with Gutrot Spume for a few rounds before the Wizard blew him away with a fireball while the Priest healed him... still lost the game but it was fun and cool.

With my "lists" (I hate using the word list as it has the wrong connotations for a game where lists aren't a thing) ahem, with my armies, I go for thematic over power every time. Im that guy that takes the crappy state troop swordsman over the more elite greatswords because, well that's what would happen in "reality".

For me the game is more in the scenario than in the army "lists". On average my win/loss ratio is probably close to 50-50 but I haven't played a game of AoS that I have not enjoyed or felt that I had a chance of winning with my thematic lists which is honestly not a feeling I have had in any other system, except maybe Infinity

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'm sure I will be opening a can of worms by saying this but no, aim for a 100% win rate.

That doesn't mean you have to be a dick, or that you have to cheat or deliberately unbalance the forces on the board, but it is still, at it's core, a game and there is nothing wrong with trying to win a game fair and square.

If you are winning all your games against an opponent try letting them have a few more models to use than you, or swap some stuff around in your list to see if you can do it without X unit or something.

You shouldn't be aiming to lose, just to set up a fair game which you then try to win.

100% agree. Its pretty stupid for anyone to go into a game of any variety with the mindset of "oh we're playing four matches today and I just won two, so now I have to throw the next two games". Outside of a few edge cases (like playing with younger relatives) it's just a waste of everyone's time.

Your suggestion is basically what myself and other fans of AoS have been suggesting throughout the points argument. The game is built around the social contract of trying to have a balanced game.

Every time someone would say that though they got bombarded with replies of "but what if I want to field 50 Greatswords, and none less" or "there are not rules so I'm going to field 30 Bloodthirsters and no one can tell me otherwise".

 jonolikespie wrote:
Does that make sense or am I some WAAC donkey cave now?

What you said above has basically been the realistic solution since day 1 (if playing RAW). It's fine if someone doesn't like the style of game that AoS is, since no game can appeal to everyone, but its been clear from release that one of the core intentions is playing by social contract. If said person refuses to abide by that, then other people who enjoy AoS getting miffed isn't really surprising.

Oh yes, that is not what I was arguing at all. I play every game with the mindset to win the game itself, I meant more in "what models we bring to the table".

Take your 4 game scenario where I have already won 2.

If those two games were as close as a single dice roll at the end that could have gone either way, I'll know that everything was pretty much balanced. Even if I win all 4 games, eventually games that close will see me move towards a 50-50 win/lose ratio as the luck evens out.

If I steamroll the first two games, either through my tactical genius (ahem) or through having a more powerful army then I should probably weaken my deployment in the second two games. That will become an art of balance, where if successful will see me move again towards to 50-50 win/lose ratio, wouldn't it?

Thanks for the comments so far!

My rule for this kind of games is:

Before the game, try to balance things out and aim for that 50/50

During the game, give them hell.

The ideal way of playing surely is to set up a balanced scenario, but try to win by using tactics.

The point of using tactics is to set up situations to favour your side, thus making the fall of the dice say 3 to 2 or better in your favour whenever possible.

So in the long run, 'luck' will not generate a 50/50 series of results.

Tell you something I have noticed...

You know when you play 40k or Fantasy Battle, you want to win and you start willing the dice to roll in your favour?

In some AoS games, I have found myself rooting for my opponent's rolls - such as who gets the first turn in a battle round - for no other reason than I think that if he gets the advantage, it will turn into a better/more interesting game.

Anyone else had that?

MongooseMatt wrote:
Tell you something I have noticed...

You know when you play 40k or Fantasy Battle, you want to win and you start willing the dice to roll in your favour?

In some AoS games, I have found myself rooting for my opponent's rolls - such as who gets the first turn in a battle round - for no other reason than I think that if he gets the advantage, it will turn into a better/more interesting game.

Anyone else had that?

I think I know the feeling, but I find it a different way.

Last time I went to a warmahordes tourney I signed up last minute since a couple of people had to drop out and the store owner was looking to replace them.

I lost 4 times at a 3 round tourney (assassinated top of turn 2, game the guy a rematch since we were done 5 minutes into an hour and a half round).

I was not at all familiar with my list (and I only brought the one instead of the standard 2) because I basically threw the models from my painting desk into my case and was off. Despite that I had fun all day because the uphill battle made things more interesting and I can absolutely say I know how I *should* play that list and what units I'd swap out next time.

Oh christ, I've agreed with Jonolikespie twice in one thread...!!

I don't think you should aim for a certain win/loss rate, because you put yourself in the position of either throwing games or breaking them to meet your quota - and your opponents won't enjoy either scenario.

I'm not saying this is a particular quirk of AoS that you couldn't get from other games, but with focussing on scenarios and no fixed balance in place I've found games have gotten more 'cinematic' for me - sometimes I've made decisions on movement etc. that weren't necessarily the smart ones, but they felt more in line with the 'story' of the game.
In that situation, it's entirely admirable to root for your opponent (like watching a whole unit of your Liberators being killed by Retributor hammers' special ability on the charge) or play an uphill struggle (like playing THE RITUAL against a mostly Tzeentch Daemon force).
It's obviously also fine to want to play a one-sided game against an opponent who wants testing. I've always believed that you learn games quickest by having your mistakes punished(as long as your opponent explains things to you!).

In short, I think aiming for a win/loss ratio is missing the point - the important thing is to be the sort of player who - even if you had a 100% win record - people would still want to play against.
What that means will vary for most people, but I think it's a good aim.

RoperPG wrote:
Oh christ, I've agreed with Jonolikespie twice in one thread...!!

Only 3 more signs of the apocalypses to go before Cthulhu devours us all

What I really love about AOS, and the main reason me and the gf bought it, was that it brought back the fun in miniatures games. Without even realizing it, we have been playing to win and not having fun when we lose for many years now. We started years ago playing games to laugh, and over the years I see us getting mad when we lose, because we became very competitive.

What we love about AOS is we just throw a bunch of cool looking models on the table, run at each other and throw buckets of dice until everything is dead, and its damn fun, and we don't really care who wins or loses because its a no points cluster$#@!. Anyway, so I guess our aim to win in this game is zero, and more about what kinda crazy strategies or combinations we can watch unfold on the table.

Lots of interesting comments!

Again, I never meant to throw games and never meant to artificially create a 50-50 win ratio, but that aren't we in pursuit of finding balance between us and the opponent and wouldn't aiming towards the 50-50 win ratio represent that pursuit?

If you won 50% of your games and were giving it your all every game, you would have found perfect balance between your tactical prowess, your opponent's, and the models you bring to the table. Surely?

RoperPG wrote:
the important thing is to be the sort of player who - even if you had a 100% win record - people would still want to play against.
What that means will vary for most people, but I think it's a good aim.

This I can agree with 100%!

I think in the sense that you want to play people of roughly the same level as yourself, (maybe slightly better than yourself) you are looking for a 50/50 ratio that you hope to improve on. If you are winning against people 75% of the time, it probably means you need to find some more challenging opponents.

This is different to the idea of throwing games to keep a win ratio down, but the result perhaps is the same.

Davidian, this topic was not aimed at people who clearly dislike the game. It is aimed at people who play the game and to encourage conversation about it... move on please.

I get what OP means by "aim for 50/50" but I don't think his statement conveys his meaning. He wants it to be fair an balanced, either through player skill or force composition. Early on against my brother I was winning pretty much all the games, it wasn't fun for anyone. I wouldn't say he did anything wrong or I was a tactical genius or anything. His army is khorne Bloodbound so it is all about the charge and the massive amount of close combat attacks, which after reading the warscrolls I knew I just couldn't compete with so I stocked up on shooting units, eventually none of his guys reached my lines so I dialed back on the shooting and put it back into melee units, and now its about 50/50 with really close outcomes and both of us are having a lot more fun. I could have kept up the mass shooting armies and had a 100% win rate but that wouldn't have been fun for either of us.

You could easily "aim for a 100% win rate" by making your armies op/beardy/cheesy etc etc but if you were to "aim for a 50/50 win/loss rate" the games work out better for everyone. Its not about intentionally throwing games to maintain the win/loss ratio, its about not aiming to smash your opponent and every opportunity. You also shouldn't be expecting to win all the time as that is completely unrealistic and quite insulting to your opponents.

You should be aiming to play to your best and to win, always and regardless of the game.

But, honestly, who cares about win/lose ratio to begin with if you're talking about AoS?

With all due respect it feels you're trying to shoehorn something that the designers of the AoS system could not even begin to care about - the win/loss ratio.

There's something in that, to be sure.

Lots of stuff that has come out of GW over the years indicates that the designers don't see winning or losing as the game's objective so much as taking part.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's something in that, to be sure.

Lots of stuff that has come out of GW over the years indicates that the designers don't see winning or losing as the game's objective so much as taking part.

The "We're all winners here" mentality, of sorts.

I don't care about my win/loss ratio. I haven't cared about that in many years.

I care that my games are engaging and fun. If I win great. If I lose and it was a good close game - great.

If I win because my list was better and the game was a foregone conclusion, I'm not engaged and am not happy with the game. Same with the other way if I show up with something for campaign and my opponent decided to try out his latest internet tournament list, I'm probably not going to have a good game.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
You should be aiming to play to your best and to win, always and regardless of the game.

But, honestly, who cares about win/lose ratio to begin with if you're talking about AoS?

With all due respect it feels you're trying to shoehorn something that the designers of the AoS system could not even begin to care about - the win/loss ratio.

Yay for not reading any of my posts!

I was framing this very much in the AoS design philosophy; you and your oppenent having fun.

And nowhere did I say you should not play your best or try to win the battle at hand.

I think you should always be playing to win just don't be an asshat about it. It's all about knowing what is suitable to a game. If you are playing someone who isn't a competitive player, is a new comer to the hobby or just doesn't have a good range of units to choose from yet, don't play certain units or characters. Save those for games against people who will give you your challenge.

Serious question. How do you not play a game to win, assuming your not playing to lose of course.

Makumba wrote:
Serious question. How do you not play a game to win, assuming your not playing to lose of course.

Read the thread. That's not what we are discussing.

 Bottle wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
You should be aiming to play to your best and to win, always and regardless of the game.

But, honestly, who cares about win/lose ratio to begin with if you're talking about AoS?

With all due respect it feels you're trying to shoehorn something that the designers of the AoS system could not even begin to care about - the win/loss ratio.

Yay for not reading any of my posts!

I was framing this very much in the AoS design philosophy; you and your oppenent having fun.

And nowhere did I say you should not play your best or try to win the battle at hand.

Yay for not reading my answer!

"who cares about win/lose ratio to begin with if you're talking about AoS?"
"it feels you're trying to shoehorn something that the designers of the AoS system could not even begin to care about"

Where did I - not - mention AoS. Heck I even mentioned how caring for the win/loss ratio doesn't even fit the AoS philosophy...

Yep because you presumed I was talking about throwing games, and if you had read my posts you would see that's never what I've been talking about.

 Bottle wrote:

In light of that, does this then mean you should strive for a 50-50 win/lose ratio, because wouldn't that show you either challenged yourself tactically at the right level, or were good a balancing lists against your opponent?

What are your thoughts?

You should be aiming to play to your best and to win, always and regardless of the game.

Seriously, read this again - I think this was a pretty straightforward answer. If you really need me to translate it for you, it means "you should strive for a 100% win ratio without being an ass." No toning down, nothing.

I didn't presume a thing. Zero. Zilch.

You asked for the forum's opinions, I gave mine. Do stop seeing things that aren't there.

Geez...

Again, the bit above the section you quoted is talking about bringing less powerful troops if you are constantly winning. I am not talking about throwing games.

Would you like me to say this again?

 Bottle wrote:
Geez...

Again, the bit above the section you quoted is talking about bringing less powerful troops if you are constantly winning. I am not talking about throwing games.

Would you like me to say this again?

Again, why should I tone down the list I am happy and have fun playing with if the others can't keep up with the list I have fun playing with?

AoS rules, by default, say that "The game is meant to be fun so bring the miniatures you want to play with". They can bring whatever they want, too.

And if they are only interested in winning, I guarantee you they will change their lists very soon, too.

There we go, thanks for answering the question. :-)

Seems we disagree in opinion. Sure, you are not obliged to tone down your lists. But does it not get boring for both you and your opponent if you steamroll every game? (Either through tactical brilliance or a more powerful deployment).

A good point that the losing team will likely be improving their lists if they constantly lose.

We currently avoid a lot of this by concentrating on the published campaigns. We scan through the background text of each and if we see, say, Bloodcrushers mentioned, Bloodcrushers get added to the battle.

As a rule of thumb, we then balance on Wounds, with maybe a 30% reduction on the Stormcasts when they are facing ordinary Bloodreavers and Blood Warriors (we have learned to go easy on the Paladins too!). If the Battleplan states which side should be which if it has a third more models than the enemy, we then add 30%-odd to that force - the Battleplan is generally set up so the task will be more difficult for that side anyway.

This has worked thus far but, obviously, only really works for published campaigns.