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.
Thats a fair assesment, im not perfect and I could very well seem that way. And its not that I rules lawyer them, its that I deepstrike turn 1, and my friend completely loses all morale because he didnt know thats a thing. Its on the first page of the core rules.
Then, as I said, teach them. You're doing exactly the same thing I just mentioned even in this post. you could have advised your friend what was coming, or explained that it was the rules, but instead you just said "it's your fault" to them (either in their face or here) and proceeded to smash them. Plus, judging by how you talk about this, you didn't spend any time teaching them game or new rules to them, instead you came straight to Dakka to effectively blame them. That's TFG behavior.
Id argue more, but this is beyond deconstructive to the original point and just piss throwing. Im done replying to you.
With that post, you REALLY come across as TFG.
A Song of Ice and Fire - House Greyjoy.
AoS - Maggotkin of Nurgle, Ossiarch Bonereapers & Seraphon.
Bloodbowl - Lizardmen.
Horus Heresy - World Eaters.
Marvel Crisis Protocol - Avengers, Brotherhood of Mutants & Cabal.
Middle Earth Strategy Battle game - Rivendell & The Easterlings.
The Ninth Age - Beast Herds & Highborn Elves.
Warhammer 40k - Tyranids.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.
Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.
SO you consider it lying to not choose the optimal tactic to win at all times? At that point not bringing the best possible list to a game is also lying because the other person might mistake that they are actually good at the game. There is a difference between playing poorly and not piling on. For instance, if I choose to play a berserker army that I usually play as alpha legion, and bring them as Iron Warriors instead because I don't want to infiltrate turn 1 assault, or even run alpha legion and don't use that stratagem because I know it will lead to a poor game.
Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.
Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.
Which is no different than changing your strategy, if you tweak the scenario to put yourself at a disadvantage due to the rules it amounts to the same thing, as not seeking to destroy your opponent turn 1.
While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,
Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.
Technically not techincality, the point is that there can be discrepancies to the point where that random chance is meaningless to the outcome, having a 0.0001% chance to win because randomness vs a 0.000001% chance without makes no real difference.
it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,
It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.
Because you choose to feel that way, sometimes people take things because they like the model, or the fluff behind it, no real plan involved.
and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.
This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").
The closest thing to "going easy" is "going easy", you can actively choose a bad list (if you own the models), you can actively choose to not employ your most devastating tactics or units. I have news for you I am not a high end tournament player but I've had a number of games where if I go all in, that are all over but the crying on turn 1 in this edition. If I only ever brought my best, this would be even more frequent, but I don't build my list to always do that. However, it was brought up that "The better player should not have to spend extra to play down" so the alternative to that is holding back in some other manner, not playing, or "going easy" on a strategy front. You can still make good plays even if they aren't the best plays, that is what teaching games are about, set up situations from which your opponent can learn. If all I do is cripple you turn 1 what have you learned? Other than that your army is terrible, and the game is no fun. Now you may be fine trying to adapt to that. Many people aren't.
It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,
As with any game, this is our hobby after all.
but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.
Yes attitude matters, but only when they are losing a game where they feel like they actually have some sort of chance, in games where that is not the case no amount of good spirits and tips help much. Unless your plan is to play the game for them, they aren't going to be using all their advantages, and they aren't going to have very meaningful outcomes to be excited about.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better
List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.
This is great if they are close to winning, not really if they are super far away from it. Less so if the reason they take the models they do is because they have a theme to their army. All your responses seem to make the assumption that the desire of every player in the game is to be as good at the game as possible, when that simply isn't the case, some just want to get their cool looking models on the table and have a fun, close game. IN those cases if you do not pull back in some way (I already agree list build is the best place to do this, but again someone was complaining about needing to buy extra models, so I suggested other ways to hold back), do be surprised when the other guy has a bad gaming experience and doesn't want to face you again in the future.
if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.
My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.
it does, but we are directly talking about the game, sure it is nice to have your models appreciated, but many want to use those models in a fun game, not just as art pieces.
If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,
That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.
if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,
Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?
They like the army they own? Want to use units they like the look of? They do change something, who they play against, or what games they play? I think we forget that it takes time and effort to make army changes in this game, and if someone spend hundreds of hours modeling and painting an army, only to lose all the time, that really isn't a great experience.
but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
Any close game is fun for all.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.
I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.
Maybe it is a difference in our best then? When I do my best, in my current local meta, the result is a game over by turn 3 against half the players or more. That isn't a game anyone enjoys, so I don't bring my best everytime. I typically handicap my self with list building, but I'll also pull punches in a game once I am ahead also, or make decisions for fun instead of sound tactics. We're playing maelstrom and I'm up 20-5 and the only way you can win is to table me? Tactics say I should just hide stuff and pull back. Instead I will attack so we can fight it out because that is more fun. I have you nearly tabled, maybe I'll push a target into a fire fight that isn't the best choice so you have something to do that you can build up and enjoy.
So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.
But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?
Depends I change things all the time when I win, some weak areas might get strengthened etc
Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.
Yeah that can be great, but the first 8 games at least had to be fun, and you needed to improve each time. This doesn't always happen. I've literally played people who have never come close to beating me no matter what l do.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.
NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Breng77 wrote: NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Yeah what\s the point even playing game where you have virtually no chance of even damaging enemy army let alone win the game because you didn't bring hard counters required? Where you are actually more likely to kill your own models rather than enemy?
That's just waste of time for both players where neither is going to get any good usage out of the time.
"any game is good game" is most definitely false claim.
vaklor4 wrote: To keep stuff brief, my friends frankly told me I play minmaxing and its unfun to fight my army. Im not gonna get into their inability to read the new 8th rules or the fact one of them plays AM, but is Khorne Daemons + WE meta? Am I cheese for playing that combo? Im asking honestly and not rehotricaly, because as a newer player I simply picked the army up because it looks cool.
If you think you are, you are probably not, most TFG's I have met and know dont think they are and use the "git gud" excuse for being douche bags to people.
Breng77 wrote: NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Great post. I agree with everything you have said.
There is no point in playing any game if even one player is not having fun.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
ryzouken wrote: Gamer's inch: inaccurately measuring distances. Commonly seen during movement. Literally: the extra "inch" added to every measurement due to various factors. Examples include measuring front of base to rear of base during movement, measuring distance to a point on the table and putting models "near there", rushing the movement of a large unit of models such that the rearmost models end up moving more than their intended move, sometimes by a large amount.
Ah, thank you for the explanation. Yeah, gamers that gamer's inch are gamer dicks.
Remember, there is nothing wrong with winning, or even absolutely bashing your opponent.
That's exactly what it means to compete with honesty and integrity, and anyone who hates you for that is just robbing themselves of improvement potential.
Bashing is just the epitome of victory, the natural result of competing as hard as you can and succeeding without holding back.
That said, most people don't really care for improvement and often fear any type of failure, even more so when it is duly observed by someone else, and the failure is clearly catastrophic.
In that context, you should be aware of your opponent's mental state and consider avoiding needlessly complex situations for your own good.
That means you should try and play with people who have the same mindset and welcome actual contest / play rather than "moving miniatures around the table" (or actual WAAC cheaters, who are not really players either).
Since the miniatures are so pretty and the setting so inspiring, there are many 40K players who are not, in fact, players.
I.E. they do not "play" the game, they are not looking for a "contest", a "challenge" or in other words, competition.
As you may have noticed, you cannot compete with someone who doesn't want to, and it makes little sense to compete with someone who doesn't give it a honest hard try.
While they may have been the first to point out that there was something wrong with your games together, you should also realize for yourself that those games are entirely pointless and a waste of your own time.
For your own good, you must either take the opportunity of playing terrible players and non-players alike to train yourself with a severe handicap - even going as far as making your win nigh impossible -, or avoid them altogether.
Also, don't listen to people on the internet, apparently all of them have an opinion and those who talk the most generally have way too much time on their hands - i.e. maybe not who you want to take advice from (and yes, that includes me).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/24 13:01:43
I personally have seen that statement proven to be a falsehood.
People who really appreciate the look of their playing pieces which many are "casual" players look to Forgeworld for that extra bit of "bling".
One of the most casual players I know plays Death Korps of Krieg, it is an awesome looking army.
I do not think I have bought a single bit of Forgeworld but it does not stop me from looking through their website at least once a week.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.
Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.
SO you consider it lying to not choose the optimal tactic to win at all times? At that point not bringing the best possible list to a game is also lying because the other person might mistake that they are actually good at the game. There is a difference between playing poorly and not piling on. For instance, if I choose to play a berserker army that I usually play as alpha legion, and bring them as Iron Warriors instead because I don't want to infiltrate turn 1 assault, or even run alpha legion and don't use that stratagem because I know it will lead to a poor game.
Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.
Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.
Which is no different than changing your strategy, if you tweak the scenario to put yourself at a disadvantage due to the rules it amounts to the same thing, as not seeking to destroy your opponent turn 1.
While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,
Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.
Technically not techincality, the point is that there can be discrepancies to the point where that random chance is meaningless to the outcome, having a 0.0001% chance to win because randomness vs a 0.000001% chance without makes no real difference.
it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,
It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.
Because you choose to feel that way, sometimes people take things because they like the model, or the fluff behind it, no real plan involved.
and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.
This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").
The closest thing to "going easy" is "going easy", you can actively choose a bad list (if you own the models), you can actively choose to not employ your most devastating tactics or units. I have news for you I am not a high end tournament player but I've had a number of games where if I go all in, that are all over but the crying on turn 1 in this edition. If I only ever brought my best, this would be even more frequent, but I don't build my list to always do that. However, it was brought up that "The better player should not have to spend extra to play down" so the alternative to that is holding back in some other manner, not playing, or "going easy" on a strategy front. You can still make good plays even if they aren't the best plays, that is what teaching games are about, set up situations from which your opponent can learn. If all I do is cripple you turn 1 what have you learned? Other than that your army is terrible, and the game is no fun. Now you may be fine trying to adapt to that. Many people aren't.
It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,
As with any game, this is our hobby after all.
but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.
Yes attitude matters, but only when they are losing a game where they feel like they actually have some sort of chance, in games where that is not the case no amount of good spirits and tips help much. Unless your plan is to play the game for them, they aren't going to be using all their advantages, and they aren't going to have very meaningful outcomes to be excited about.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better
List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.
This is great if they are close to winning, not really if they are super far away from it. Less so if the reason they take the models they do is because they have a theme to their army. All your responses seem to make the assumption that the desire of every player in the game is to be as good at the game as possible, when that simply isn't the case, some just want to get their cool looking models on the table and have a fun, close game. IN those cases if you do not pull back in some way (I already agree list build is the best place to do this, but again someone was complaining about needing to buy extra models, so I suggested other ways to hold back), do be surprised when the other guy has a bad gaming experience and doesn't want to face you again in the future.
if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.
My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.
it does, but we are directly talking about the game, sure it is nice to have your models appreciated, but many want to use those models in a fun game, not just as art pieces.
If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,
That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.
if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,
Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?
They like the army they own? Want to use units they like the look of? They do change something, who they play against, or what games they play? I think we forget that it takes time and effort to make army changes in this game, and if someone spend hundreds of hours modeling and painting an army, only to lose all the time, that really isn't a great experience.
but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
Any close game is fun for all.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.
I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.
Maybe it is a difference in our best then? When I do my best, in my current local meta, the result is a game over by turn 3 against half the players or more. That isn't a game anyone enjoys, so I don't bring my best everytime. I typically handicap my self with list building, but I'll also pull punches in a game once I am ahead also, or make decisions for fun instead of sound tactics. We're playing maelstrom and I'm up 20-5 and the only way you can win is to table me? Tactics say I should just hide stuff and pull back. Instead I will attack so we can fight it out because that is more fun. I have you nearly tabled, maybe I'll push a target into a fire fight that isn't the best choice so you have something to do that you can build up and enjoy.
So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.
But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?
Depends I change things all the time when I win, some weak areas might get strengthened etc
Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.
Yeah that can be great, but the first games at least had to be fun, and you needed to improve each time. This doesn't always happen. I've literally played people who have never come close to beating me no matter what l do.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.
NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Thanks for the itemized replies, I was afraid it was getting a bit big to reply to.
As you had stated, it really does depend on what someone would define as a "good" game.
40k is not the height of strategy by a long-shot so looking for "challenge" in a 40k game is a bit of a harder thing to do than with others.
But my preference IS a challenge, I do like the close games, I do like improving my painted model army list(s), I like playing different armies and usually buy all the codex's so I understand the other armies.
I guess I should then state clearly what we had been dancing around: I want to play a "good" game, I will not tone it down and would most likely not enjoy playing a very casual player and they would not enjoy the game with me (maybe the company but not the game).
Yes it may limit what opponents I can play but it really does boil down to respecting players and I do not want to waste their time or mine.
I do so many things in my job and at home to compromise.
I am not going to do that to my hobby as well.
Good talking with you.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
It dawned on me after thinking more about it and seeing replies...Screw it! I play a sub-optimal army to begin with, and my most competitive aspect of my list building is the fact I use a lot of MSU to optimize wargear and CP. My friend wpuldnt tell me at all what he was building and actually built 8 points over to get as much strength against me as possible, and smack talked before hand.
If im TFG for building Khorne, then blood for the damn blood god.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't reach TFG status merely by being competitive or building an optimal list. Those are natural behaviors and anyone who complains about them is simply not looking for the same things you are, so you may as well not play with them anyway.
In my opinion, the line is crossed when you are openly disrespectful of others or are actively being exploitative or dishonest in order to gain any kind of advantage you can whether it's legitimate or not.
Simply playing within the boundaries of the rules does not make you TFG unless you are showing a total disregard for your fellow players and having your fun at the expense of theirs. That goes for the kind of people who run the most exploitative tourney list against new players AND those casual players who try to shame others for forming their squads into MSUs, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 02:44:26
After reading this whole thread, I have to say that I suspect the problem may lie more with the OP’s opponent than with the OP.
I say this because, as a “casual” Imperial Guard player, I see a lot of myself in the OP’s opponent (based on the limited info we have to go on).
You see, as a Guard player back in 5th ed, I was being out-shenaniganed by just about every opponent I faced. At various times, all of these things came as (somewhat nasty) surprises to me in-game:
- Oh, your Drop Pod landed on top of my tank, and my tank has to move? Cool.
- Oh, your Tau whats-it that’s bigger than my Sentinel is actually an infantry model and can duck behind cover before I can shoot back? Cool.
- Oh, I basically can’t kill that Jet Bike seer coucncil because of all kinds of saves, haywire grenades, etc? Cool.
- Oh, your flying crescent rolls of doom can teleport your Necrons into my face? Cool
There’s more, but you get the point. Unlike with some other games I’ve played, in 40k knowing your own faction well does not necssarily prepare you to anticipate how a game might go givenhiw diverse the factions are. This seems especially true for IG, given how the faction relies more on a brute force approach than unique special rules (this seems to have changed a little in 8th, but I have all of 2 games of 8th ed under my belt). Each of the situations I listed above were sources of frustration to me, “gotcha moments” if you will. It felt as if I thought we were playing checkers, and my opponent just captured my queeen with his bishop. I suspect that the OP’s game where he assaulted his opponent’s IG on turn 1 was a similar experience for that opponent.
The problem I had (still do really) is that I just don’t have the time to devote to learning and reading 40k to have a good feel for what my opponent’s force is capable of from just looking at it, thanks to work/family/school etc. Playng one game a week (which was all Incould manage during my 5th ed heyday) was barely enoogh to keep me familiar with the base game rules and the rules for my army, and didn’t begin to address all I needed to know about the 8 or so factions I could realistically face any given week. I finally came to terms with that, and just accepted that I would be surprised a lot on the table. I focused instead on honing my list to something that I enjoyed playng and tried to learn it as well as I could. I even won once in a while!
My point to the OP is that his opponent might not have reached that same conclusion; it sounds like he was frustrated by being blindsided with something he didn’t consider as a tactical possibility, partly because his army doesn’t work the same way. That frustration is not your fault, but if you like playing with your group it might be worth considering explaining to your opponent before hand if your army relies on any particular gimmicks, especially if you know that person doesn’t have the same understanding of your army and the game that your do.
MattKing wrote: See? I point out the fact that you're insulting your "friends" behind their back and you continue to talk about how dumb they're being in order to justify your statement. It doesn't exactly scream "plays well with others".
This.
Yeah, he's definitely TFG.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
MattKing wrote: See? I point out the fact that you're insulting your "friends" behind their back and you continue to talk about how dumb they're being in order to justify your statement. It doesn't exactly scream "plays well with others".
This.
Yeah, he's definitely TFG.
So you're just gonna ignore all the replies i've made afterwards?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 16:42:27
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but I do what you class as impossible all the time.
Did not say impossible.
You are suggesting to actively choose to use bad tactics.
Different ethics I know but it is like a form of lying: I will play bad to make the poor player feel good.
How condescending.
SO you consider it lying to not choose the optimal tactic to win at all times? At that point not bringing the best possible list to a game is also lying because the other person might mistake that they are actually good at the game. There is a difference between playing poorly and not piling on. For instance, if I choose to play a berserker army that I usually play as alpha legion, and bring them as Iron Warriors instead because I don't want to infiltrate turn 1 assault, or even run alpha legion and don't use that stratagem because I know it will lead to a poor game.
Looking at your opponents army, you can very well tell how the game will go if you first turn assault their army.
Completely depends on what they hold in reserve and setup.
Remember you are alternating in setup.
I do agree you can get a "feel" for how it will go just by seeing what models he has.
I tend to make scenarios to ensure the better balance you seem to want.
Which is no different than changing your strategy, if you tweak the scenario to put yourself at a disadvantage due to the rules it amounts to the same thing, as not seeking to destroy your opponent turn 1.
While you are technically correct that dice matter so a worse player has more of a chance than in the case where random chance does not matter,
Not a technicality, a certainty.
I have been thumped enough to have a full understanding.
Technically not techincality, the point is that there can be discrepancies to the point where that random chance is meaningless to the outcome, having a 0.0001% chance to win because randomness vs a 0.000001% chance without makes no real difference.
it is not enough when one player has a tuned list and strategy, and the other does not,
It would be nice to approach a game of any kind with a "plan".
Even Monopoly or anything out there that can have a winner rewards that.
I think the discussion here is that considerations other than "it looks pretty" or some random squads donated to you by a relative.
Because you choose to feel that way, sometimes people take things because they like the model, or the fluff behind it, no real plan involved.
and the other player learns very little by getting tabled in 2 turns, other than. This game isn't fun.
This outcome is rare.
Unless you play someone who is all about tournament play.
It is usually a tuned list that can be very inflexible.
The closest thing to "going easy" on someone is to have a flexible list that has a fair shot at any given scenario (mobility, static defense, deep strike, armor, "cavalry").
The closest thing to "going easy" is "going easy", you can actively choose a bad list (if you own the models), you can actively choose to not employ your most devastating tactics or units. I have news for you I am not a high end tournament player but I've had a number of games where if I go all in, that are all over but the crying on turn 1 in this edition. If I only ever brought my best, this would be even more frequent, but I don't build my list to always do that. However, it was brought up that "The better player should not have to spend extra to play down" so the alternative to that is holding back in some other manner, not playing, or "going easy" on a strategy front. You can still make good plays even if they aren't the best plays, that is what teaching games are about, set up situations from which your opponent can learn. If all I do is cripple you turn 1 what have you learned? Other than that your army is terrible, and the game is no fun. Now you may be fine trying to adapt to that. Many people aren't.
It is fair if you don't want to play against those people, that is your choice,
As with any game, this is our hobby after all.
but if you do choose to play against them, just mercilessly stomping them is bad for the community at large, unless their professed interest in the game is to be as competitive as possible.
As one is "mercilessly stomping them" you explain why something works and another does not.
You help them remember rules.
You ensure they make use of every advantage they have fielded.
You compliment what you can on the models they have.
Give suggestions on thoughts of the next upgrade/unit to their army.
You comment on really good rolls and "you've been robbed" on the bad ones.
Yes attitude matters, but only when they are losing a game where they feel like they actually have some sort of chance, in games where that is not the case no amount of good spirits and tips help much. Unless your plan is to play the game for them, they aren't going to be using all their advantages, and they aren't going to have very meaningful outcomes to be excited about.
The problem with 40k is that list building matters, so if the other player doesn't have a good list you stomping them and telling them they need a better army does not make them better
List building is a start, it is the one concrete decision you get to make without a dice roll.
Yes, telling someone they "need a better army" is too general and is not very nice.
You point out how certain supporting units can be selected to improve things.
Or specific units that would help out matters.
This is great if they are close to winning, not really if they are super far away from it. Less so if the reason they take the models they do is because they have a theme to their army. All your responses seem to make the assumption that the desire of every player in the game is to be as good at the game as possible, when that simply isn't the case, some just want to get their cool looking models on the table and have a fun, close game. IN those cases if you do not pull back in some way (I already agree list build is the best place to do this, but again someone was complaining about needing to buy extra models, so I suggested other ways to hold back), do be surprised when the other guy has a bad gaming experience and doesn't want to face you again in the future.
if they don't want to spend more money, it makes them quit.
My long time gamer friend bought an entire mechanized space marine army chapter online though ebay and the like for $300.
Took every bad model he could find, stripped them, took them apart and made an awesome army.
I find almost everything boils down to time and money.
As a "good" opponent, I helped some players put together their models and give pointers to help.
The hobby is a joy and has more to it than the game.
That is why it is VERY important to compliment the efforts made on the models during a game.
it does, but we are directly talking about the game, sure it is nice to have your models appreciated, but many want to use those models in a fun game, not just as art pieces.
If the people you play are only happy when they win, then yeah they are very unsporting players,
That is a rather obvious statement I think most people would agree with.
if they are unhappy when you table them in a single turn,
Typically very few people as the winner OR loser are happy with that event.
BUT I might add that to be thumped that royally on a regular basis begs the question: why are they not willing to change something?
They like the army they own? Want to use units they like the look of? They do change something, who they play against, or what games they play? I think we forget that it takes time and effort to make army changes in this game, and if someone spend hundreds of hours modeling and painting an army, only to lose all the time, that really isn't a great experience.
but happy losing a close 5 turn game, then they are not.
Any close game is fun for all.
The attitude that "I'm going to stomp you and it is your responsibility to stop me from doing it." Isn't good outside the most competitive communities because it drives away new players.
I think you are confusing the intent to "stomp"/cave-face with "I will do my best", everyone deserves my best.
That includes playing with good humor and supporting my opponent where it makes sense.
Maybe it is a difference in our best then? When I do my best, in my current local meta, the result is a game over by turn 3 against half the players or more. That isn't a game anyone enjoys, so I don't bring my best everytime. I typically handicap my self with list building, but I'll also pull punches in a game once I am ahead also, or make decisions for fun instead of sound tactics. We're playing maelstrom and I'm up 20-5 and the only way you can win is to table me? Tactics say I should just hide stuff and pull back. Instead I will attack so we can fight it out because that is more fun. I have you nearly tabled, maybe I'll push a target into a fire fight that isn't the best choice so you have something to do that you can build up and enjoy.
So your wife beat you through luck her first game of cribbage? Great, that is a much better outcome than you stomping her because she was still learning.
But it took many games after for her to get good at it since the first game pretty much played itself.
If you win a game, there is precious reason to change, ever... right?
Depends I change things all the time when I win, some weak areas might get strengthened etc
Do that often enough and she'll not want to play anymore.
My most memorable game was where I lost 8 times in a row with a guy, kept getting better and I finally beat him.
He got a big grin on his face, shook my hand and said "well done".
Challenges are good, they give us a goal and we can grow.
You learn how to lose with grace and through that, learn to win with class.
I earned that win, he did not give it to me, it was worth those 8 losses by far.
Just a thought.
Yeah that can be great, but the first games at least had to be fun, and you needed to improve each time. This doesn't always happen. I've literally played people who have never come close to beating me no matter what l do.
My ideal way to play as the more experienced player is to take sub-optimal lists and try to win, and teach my opponent when they make mistakes (or I do), and slowly escalate, but not everyone wants to play any game at the top level, so may not want to play against those that do.
You know, I keep hearing the argument that a competitive gamer may be all about the "win".
But I keep hearing the "I wont play you because you bring OP lists", so they are concerned with winning as well right?
If you just want to play a light and casual game: isn't any game good really?
It just seems like people who are afraid of not "all being winners!!!" are looking to create an excuse.
NO any game is not good, we don't all need to be winners, we all need to enjoy the game. A game where you feel helpless to do anything isn't one most people enjoy (to which you already agreed).
Thanks for the itemized replies, I was afraid it was getting a bit big to reply to.
As you had stated, it really does depend on what someone would define as a "good" game.
40k is not the height of strategy by a long-shot so looking for "challenge" in a 40k game is a bit of a harder thing to do than with others.
But my preference IS a challenge, I do like the close games, I do like improving my painted model army list(s), I like playing different armies and usually buy all the codex's so I understand the other armies.
I guess I should then state clearly what we had been dancing around: I want to play a "good" game, I will not tone it down and would most likely not enjoy playing a very casual player and they would not enjoy the game with me (maybe the company but not the game).
Yes it may limit what opponents I can play but it really does boil down to respecting players and I do not want to waste their time or mine.
I do so many things in my job and at home to compromise.
I am not going to do that to my hobby as well.
Good talking with you.
Right, that is the whole point, if you don't play those people, that is just fine. If you play them, and table them in 2 turns, and do so repeatedly not fine. There are a lot of different types of players in the hobby, not all of them will enjoy playing against one another.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
These kinds of threads always devolve into a way for casual and competitive players to lord over each other and take passive-aggressive digs at the other type of play style, which people could do forever if left to their own devices.
These kinds of threads always devolve into a way for casual and competitive players to lord over each other and take passive-aggressive digs at the other type of play style, which people could do forever if left to their own devices.
A self licking ice cream cone that goes on forever and traps them in....ok. sounds good.
