Switch Theme:

Personal Objectives for "bad" matchups  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






New Hampshire

I play IG, so we don't often have the most competitive codex at the best of times. Finding players who want a more relaxed style is not always possible. With how mismatched games seem to be, especially with secondaries, I've started coming up with personal objective that I will play for. I do still try to win, but if I feel the games is to stacked against me, I'll come up with a narrative for how I can "win". Examples so far are...

Rearguard Less then half the enemy out of their deployment zone, I've delayed them enough for other forces to regroup
Goliath If enemy has a HQ beatstick I want to cause >50% wounds, Their Hero will be not able to support further attacks until healed
Asset Denial I choose one unit type (elite/FA/HS) and I want kill >50% of those. Removal of special units will hinder the enemies future operations
Breakout My force is surrounded and any units that survive the game in the opponents deployment zone have escaped to fight another day

I have found this allows me to play more fluffy lists in pickup games (Tallarn; 20 Rough Riders and a Vanquisher TC) and still find enjoyment when going up against more competitive style lists when using less then optimized lists/units would be a auto defeat.

Anyone else have similar approaches to still have fun when things would otherwise not be?

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/09 15:05:50


"Elysians: For when you absolutely, positively, must have 100% casualties" 
   
Made in us
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar





Upstate, New York

Not being tabled has been my goal for a few games.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Absolutely!

If you can find people to Crusade with, this is what the game is all about, since Agendas (Secondary equivalents in Crusade) do not give victory points- instead, they give XP to the unit that achieves the Agenda, which helps you improve your army even if you lose the battle.

Beyond Crusade though, I've always done this in 40k- like since 1989, when I started playing.

I tell the tale often of a key battle for my sisters army; in a huge multiplayer apocalypse game, I ended up being the lowest scoring player, and my team lost the game. But I came away feeling like I won, because my Palatine discovered the Praesidium Protectiva hidden beneath the Altar; this is the sacred shield carried into battle by Saint Katherine herself. Reclaiming it for the Imperium saw the Palatine promoted to Canoness.

You don't NEED to play Crusade to have story hooks like this, but Crusade was made to provide rules that support such story hooks. If it's something you find yourself doing often, Crusade will put more tools in your toolbox.

Of course, since your dex isn't out, you don't have your bespoke Crusade content yet, and once the dex does drop, theoretically, your army will be more competitive in matched and you won't need the Crusade content as much.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




This goes beyond my understanding, if you lose you lose. No inventing of stuff in your head changes that, and I have serious doubts an opponent who is winning is going to allow for a rules change mid or end game. Specially if it would end up with him losing. All of this sound very strange to me.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




I get this totally. Had a pickup game with a local friend, both of us using 9th Ed armies for the first time (me Drukhari, him Grey Knights). We decided to be nice and straight forward and simply keep playing till one of us was completely destroyed. I lost (obviously staying power not one of the Drukhari's strong points) but Drazhar managed to kill his NDK Grandmaster over two turns and my Djinn blade Archon managed to kill a regular NDK in CC too! Bits like that make games memorable, win or lose IMO.
   
Made in us
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar





Upstate, New York

Karol wrote:
This goes beyond my understanding, if you lose you lose. No inventing of stuff in your head changes that, and I have serious doubts an opponent who is winning is going to allow for a rules change mid or end game. Specially if it would end up with him losing. All of this sound very strange to me.


Some games you know you are going to loose. If it’s a tournament, that’s what’s going down in the logs. Nobody is arguing that.

One thing people do is set their own unofficial objectives. You know you are not getting the real ones from the mission, but how about some lower, more achievable ones?

Obviously off the books. Not changing rules. But people can look back at the game and say “I might have got my teeth kicked in, but I was able to make my personal goal despite overwhelming odds”

It’s a way to have fun in a game where power disparity and rock/paper/scissor matchups might just make the game an exercise in removing your army from the table.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Karol wrote:
This goes beyond my understanding, if you lose you lose. No inventing of stuff in your head changes that, and I have serious doubts an opponent who is winning is going to allow for a rules change mid or end game. Specially if it would end up with him losing. All of this sound very strange to me.


No, no rules changes. No change in who officially wins/loses.

For ex:
I've got a very themed, very very very bad Tyranid list. In order for me to win a game with this force? I'd have to playing against a coma patient or something.
You've seen/heard of the movie Alien? The one where the crew goes poking around a derelict alien spaceship, finds the egg pods, one idiot gets hit with a facehugger, then an alien bursts out of him & scuttles off to later return as a full size xenomorph?
That's the theme of the force.

To replicate it I made face-hugger objective markers.
As soon as an enemy seizes control of any of them then I start shooting spore mines at them with biovores & dropping spore mines on (near) them from deepstrike.
My GOAL is to kill at least 1 model via spore mine.
If I can do this by turn 3? Then I'll bring out a ripper swarm from reserve. The rippers goal is to flee off the board.
If that happens? Then I'll bring out a Genestealer Patriarch if theres time & start killing things.
My odds of ever winning a game with this list & playstyle? Well, NIL would be a generous estimation.....

Now this force, & how well it does, plays a role in determining the next Tyranid force I play!
*Should I ever actually WIN? The next Tyranid list I play is the GSC - the infestation took hold!
*If any rippers escaped? Then the next time I'm pulling a Tyranid list I roll a d6. 1 = I use the spore mine list again. 2+ I play a GSC list.
*If all I did was kill models via spore mine? Then I roll a d6. If I roll a 1 the cult gets used next, otherwise the spores are played again.
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






New Hampshire

@Karol; its Exactly as Nevelon and ccs said. The rules don't change, they still win. But by giving myself a different narrative, then a "rock/paper/scissors" match as Nevelon said can still be more than just me taking my models off the table. It's finding a way to still get enjoyment out of what would otherwise be a blowout match. I find it also lets me field less competitive units without getting worked up about their effectiveness is the current meta.

Simply put, it's how to have fun instead of discouragement from loosing (especially with an older codex like IG/AM)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/09 18:12:27


"Elysians: For when you absolutely, positively, must have 100% casualties" 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

We all try to rationalize a lack of success, it's part of playing the game. Have gone through long stretches where even the dice wanted me to fail.

But I don't know if it's a good idea to operationalize personal goals. If you fail to score them, it's like losing twice.

If there's going to be a structure, put it in the form of an affirmative, in a manner that's not dependent on chance. Example: I will keep my Commissar within 6" of 3 infantry squads until they are removed from the table. That way, it's under your control, and you can adjust goals to suit your strengths as a player.

A system that worked for me in 8th edition was tracking units lost / destroyed each battle round. I brought a notepad to each game and recorded what was being removed from the table in detail (including points.) This got me optimizing lists around first turn ranged attacks and gave me stats to understand how my list was performing.

Eventually, my main list became Abaddon in a gunline, deployed on the table edge, with 22 lascannons firing with full rerolls to hit. On average, this list destroyed 600 points by the second turn, usually the only thing I would lose by that point was a laspred, and about half the time my opponent had no way to shoot back turn 3. Worked well until Orks / Dark Eldar / IK all got their Codexes.

Winning and losing didn't matter so much as knowing my list was improving after each game. I did more thinking about 40k with 8th than I have with other editions.

   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





hence we all know why karol simply cannot enjoy his games, possibly life too.

I have had great fun in a game, even when I lose terribly. It might be a single act of heroism from one character, or taking out an enemy monster/character before end of game. There are multiple ways to enjoy this game without looking at the W/L column. There are simply games that you are going to lose, if you choose to be miserable, great....maybe you don't understand the concept of a hobby.

Totally see the POV of the OP.

In the following batrep below, I lost the game pretty badly, but it still ranks as one of my favourite games. I have linked the report starting in my opponent's assault phase, and what happens with my Dark Talon was truly epic that day (watch for about 5 mins to see result).
I have now modeled a Ravenwing foot trooper as a Dark Talon pilot and use him in occasional games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om51IyUSIUw&t=4202s

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

Mine has always been to keep my commander alive.

I remember a game in 6th or 7th edition I was playing as a pick-up game. I was playing Chaos and had an HQ Sorcerer with that psychic power that could force enemies to move. He was Blood Angels with a Vindicare assassin.

On the last turn of the game it was obvious that I was the loser, but had my HQ and a few stragglers alive, and he had the last turn. The board ended in such a fashion that my HQ with 1 wound left was barely within charge range of his super-blender HQ, with two tall buildings in between us creating a super-narrow alley he'd have to cross. His Vindicare was on top of one of those buildings. So, I did a last act of desperation, used a Psychic power to move his Vindicare off the side of the building (he took damage, but lived) and blocked the alley in such a way that no matter how he moved in his last turn I'd be out of charge range.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Dudley, UK

Win or lose, the only time I feel that I've failed in war gaming is when I didn't learn anything over the course of the game (or on vanishingly rare occasions, when I've just had incompatible mindsets with my opponent.)
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Catulle wrote:
Win or lose, the only time I feel that I've failed in war gaming is when I didn't learn anything over the course of the game (or on vanishingly rare occasions, when I've just had incompatible mindsets with my opponent.)


Personally this is why I don't play current 40k anymore. Every game of 9th I've played and most of later 8th I've felt that all I learned was that if I want to participate I need to buy different models.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

In the most outmatched game I've played I purposefully hid everything and didn't give him targets to shoot at. He was very infamous @ flgs for bringing supermeta netlists.

He kept saying it was "unfair" that I wasn't giving him targets. To which I replied "come and get me then".
It was hilarious how increasingly frustrated the guy got after 3 turns of him not doing anything(had all kill objectives). Finally he just said "he was done with the game". I said so you concede, he said "no I just don't want to play anymore". Which was my goal to begin with. So I won which shouldn'tve been possible when facing 8th ed Bobby G spamspamspam.

Last time I saw the dude @ flgs
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Mine has always been to keep my commander alive.


I'm glad I'm not the only one with this objective.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Racerguy180 wrote:
In the most outmatched game I've played I purposefully hid everything and didn't give him targets to shoot at. He was very infamous @ flgs for bringing supermeta netlists.

He kept saying it was "unfair" that I wasn't giving him targets. To which I replied "come and get me then".
It was hilarious how increasingly frustrated the guy got after 3 turns of him not doing anything(had all kill objectives). Finally he just said "he was done with the game". I said so you concede, he said "no I just don't want to play anymore". Which was my goal to begin with. So I won which shouldn'tve been possible when facing 8th ed Bobby G spamspamspam.

Last time I saw the dude @ flgs

I don't get it, if he was winning so hard why didn't he just advance forward and sweep the rest of your units? If he was playing one of those old parking lot lists that can never leave the deployment zone then you just outplayed him and earned the win (though it sounds like he wasn't the type to evaluate his losses).
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Win or lose, the only time I feel that I've failed in war gaming is when I didn't learn anything over the course of the game (or on vanishingly rare occasions, when I've just had incompatible mindsets with my opponent.)


Personally this is why I don't play current 40k anymore. Every game of 9th I've played and most of later 8th I've felt that all I learned was that if I want to participate I need to buy different models.


Most of the armies work perfectly by using only units that already existed in 5th edition. SM for starters. But also Drukhari, orks, tyranids, etc... You really get the feeling you described only if you used to play skew lists in old editions, then of course (and thankfully) you get have that feeling.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/09 20:18:06


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Nevelon wrote:
Not being tabled has been my goal for a few games.


   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Blackie wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Win or lose, the only time I feel that I've failed in war gaming is when I didn't learn anything over the course of the game (or on vanishingly rare occasions, when I've just had incompatible mindsets with my opponent.)


Personally this is why I don't play current 40k anymore. Every game of 9th I've played and most of later 8th I've felt that all I learned was that if I want to participate I need to buy different models.


Most of the armies work perfectly by using only units that already existed in 5th edition. SM for starters. But also Drukhari, orks, tyranids, etc... You really get the feeling you described only if you used to play skew lists in old editions, then of course (and thankfully) you get have that feeling.


I mean, I bought a Primaris army in 8th in the expectation that if I had some newer stuff I wouldn't be in the "no, buy different models" boat again, made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, and guess what? I got my ass kicked repeatedly and told I should have bought different models.

I'm aware in the abstract that it's possible for 8th/9th to be balanced, well-functioning, and fun, but in my experience you either need to be in a group of people who throw whatever on the table and forget half the rules and don't really care, or in a group of people who buy new armies every six months to keep up with tournament trends, there isn't really a middle ground.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Blackie wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Win or lose, the only time I feel that I've failed in war gaming is when I didn't learn anything over the course of the game (or on vanishingly rare occasions, when I've just had incompatible mindsets with my opponent.)


Personally this is why I don't play current 40k anymore. Every game of 9th I've played and most of later 8th I've felt that all I learned was that if I want to participate I need to buy different models.


Most of the armies work perfectly by using only units that already existed in 5th edition. SM for starters. But also Drukhari, orks, tyranids, etc... You really get the feeling you described only if you used to play skew lists in old editions, then of course (and thankfully) you get have that feeling.


Well, I get that feeling when I play Chaos Space Marines, and they *are* new models. I didn't start collecting them until the new Abaddon model happened. The new models I feel the need to buy are... pretty much anything else.

But I guess that's a bit of an outlier.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

It is, you're correct. It's the only army that still has 1W marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


I mean, I bought a Primaris army in 8th in the expectation that if I had some newer stuff I wouldn't be in the "no, buy different models" boat again, made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, and guess what? I got my ass kicked repeatedly and told I should have bought different models.

I'm aware in the abstract that it's possible for 8th/9th to be balanced, well-functioning, and fun, but in my experience you either need to be in a group of people who throw whatever on the table and forget half the rules and don't really care, or in a group of people who buy new armies every six months to keep up with tournament trends, there isn't really a middle ground.


I'm playing full firstborn SW, haven't bought a SM model since 7th edition, and the army works very well. I won't win a tournament with it, and I don't typically play that competitively, but so far I never got a match up that was decided since turn 1 just because I faced a more "modern" army.

If I have a look at lists that placed high in tournaments, most of them aren't really that different from the lists that I remember I play or play against a decade ago. Only skew lists are significantly different, like the 18 ork buggy one.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/09 20:47:46


 
   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





 AnomanderRake wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Win or lose, the only time I feel that I've failed in war gaming is when I didn't learn anything over the course of the game (or on vanishingly rare occasions, when I've just had incompatible mindsets with my opponent.)


Personally this is why I don't play current 40k anymore. Every game of 9th I've played and most of later 8th I've felt that all I learned was that if I want to participate I need to buy different models.


I think this really depends on the community you are playing in. For example, I'm playing in a casual league at the moment and I'm currently undefeated with an all Kroot list. I've only played a couple of games so far, but I've faced both solid and casual lists. (Though nothing super competitive.) It's been a blast.

I've always found it's not what army you're playing, it's who you're playing with.

17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in us
Stalwart Dark Angels Space Marine




Plains World

If it's obvious that I'm going to lose, I just try for some cool goals. Killing that dreadnaught with my terminators, blowing up that tank, etc. Do something that would make a scene in slow mo.

For me the fun mostly comes from playing the game, win or lose.

Only time I've ever played a game that just felt like a waste of time was against a new Tsons sorcerer spam list. My opponent seemed to be having fun rolling his dice and pointing to the units he wanted to remove though.
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






New Hampshire

Tawnis wrote:
Spoiler:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Win or lose, the only time I feel that I've failed in war gaming is when I didn't learn anything over the course of the game (or on vanishingly rare occasions, when I've just had incompatible mindsets with my opponent.)


Personally this is why I don't play current 40k anymore. Every game of 9th I've played and most of later 8th I've felt that all I learned was that if I want to participate I need to buy different models.

I think this really depends on the community you are playing in. For example, I'm playing in a casual league at the moment and I'm currently undefeated with an all Kroot list. I've only played a couple of games so far, but I've faced both solid and casual lists. (Though nothing super competitive.) It's been a blast.

I've always found it's not what army you're playing, it's who you're playing with.
This is why I do my "personnel objectives" My local group doesn't really have any of tfg players, but most of them prefer more competitive games/lists that basically any IG/AM list would struggle against. I also must admit that many units that are currently considered almost mandatory for IG/AM to be effective I do not like (I hate the look of Bullygryn) and I include some units due to the "rule-of-cool"

I tried a different game store that recently opened who was doing a slow-grow league hoping for new casual games. Out of the 3 games I played, 2 were vs face-stomping WAAC lists where I was tabled before the end of turn 2 and the other game was someone tying to use a net list, I have not returned to that store.

phandaal wrote:If it's obvious that I'm going to lose, I just try for some cool goals. Killing that dreadnaught with my terminators, blowing up that tank, etc. Do something that would make a scene in slow mo.

For me the fun mostly comes from playing the game, win or lose.

Only time I've ever played a game that just felt like a waste of time was against a new Tsons sorcerer spam list. My opponent seemed to be having fun rolling his dice and pointing to the units he wanted to remove though.
That is actually what got me started about thinking about this. I would go for the "slow-mo scene moves just for the lols. I'm 100% ok with loosing, but when my list is the paper to my opponents scissors I still want to come up with something to make the game more then just me removing my models from the table while my opponents adds up his VP's.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/09 23:00:05


"Elysians: For when you absolutely, positively, must have 100% casualties" 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I totally do this too. Some of my go-tos:

* Kill the opponent's most annoying unit. You might table me, but at least I'll have the satisfaction of killing those dudes.

* Kill the enemy warlord. Mwahaha! You may have gained control of the area, but your efforts will surely be stalled by lack of coordination/infighting!

* Keep my eldar alive. You may win the game, but my dying race lives to fight another day.

* Kill the biggest thing. This is one I lean towards whenever vehicles are prevalent in the meta. I've actually ended up taking inadvisably large fire dragon squads just so I can have the satisfaction of watching that one specific unit burn.

EDIT: Honestly, if it's a bad enough matchup and there aren't any big stakes involved, sometimes I'll prioritize these little personal objectives over the main mission. Standing on primaries and sacrificing avengers to raise banners isn't all that fluffy for my eldar anyway. I try not to ignore the actual mission, but if my opponent walks away happy that he won a game and I walk away happy that I completed the checklist I actually care about, hooray for both of us.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/09 23:37:42



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

Arachnofiend wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Spoiler:
In the most outmatched game I've played I purposefully hid everything and didn't give him targets to shoot at. He was very infamous @ flgs for bringing supermeta netlists.

He kept saying it was "unfair" that I wasn't giving him targets. To which I replied "come and get me then".
It was hilarious how increasingly frustrated the guy got after 3 turns of him not doing anything(had all kill objectives). Finally he just said "he was done with the game". I said so you concede, he said "no I just don't want to play anymore". Which was my goal to begin with. So I won which shouldn'tve been possible when facing 8th ed Bobby G spamspamspam.

Last time I saw the dude @ flgs


I don't get it, if he was winning so hard why didn't he just advance forward and sweep the rest of your units? If he was playing one of those old parking lot lists that can never leave the deployment zone then you just outplayed him and earned the win (though it sounds like he wasn't the type to evaluate his losses).

Apparently he can't handle adversity. He saw my list and "figured" out how I was gonna play him. Unfortunately(for him) since I didn't do the logical/tactical thing his brain couldn't figure out how to win other than a+b=c. It was actually kinda fun to watch him squirm. You can only club baby seals (beating up on new players)enuff before papa seal clubs you....
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






My warboss is going to charge the biggest thing on the table and fight it, no matter what.

That said, I have lost some of the most enjoyable games I've played. I feel like losing a close game is much more enjoyable than winning by a landslide. To me, getting steamrolled sucks as much as steamrolling someone, one reason why I find good balance to be so important.

It also saddens me that so many people are clearly not having a good gaming experience in their 40k community, while they would have a blast playing with my group where everyone's enjoyment comes before anything else.

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 do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
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. 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Karol wrote:
This goes beyond my understanding, if you lose you lose. No inventing of stuff in your head changes that, and I have serious doubts an opponent who is winning is going to allow for a rules change mid or end game. Specially if it would end up with him losing. All of this sound very strange to me.


I think the best thing in the world for you Karol would be if you got into the lore, and got a narrative crusade league going. learning how to play for fun, not to win is an important life lesson

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Yes, I like do this when I'm badly losing a match (so usually by turn 3 or so). Just simple objectives like;
Revenge! - my opponent has a hero or unit thats done a lot of damage this game. Kill it by any means.
Survive - my warlord and/or favourite unit still alive need to survive the game.
Just a simple way to keep the game fun and engaging for myself in the final turns. Better than giving into despair which could also lower the mood for my opponent.
   
Made in es
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

when i was much younger, i would throw a fit when tossing 1s more than anyone might think humanly possible, losing my head as i lost the game and with that friends and ... i was a stressy cat who i suppose wanted - on the table top - to make up for lack of success in life with people in the real world.

when i was a bit older, i identified more with painting and modeling and theme and spending time in the environment. i guess that i learned from early failures... i mean, i still rolled too many 1s and couldn't make anything really work out in life or tabletop, for the most part... but i had stopped stressing so much about the things that i couldn't control, and held on to those things that i could control, namely the painting and the modeling and the mood, being there so to speak.

as i got older, closer to where i am today, i began to value the experience of the other more, but did grow salty for the competitive mindset, the lack of sportsmanship and charity amongst people, and when i have been able to make time, i have retained my focus on painting and modeling and theme.

for myself, i would like to find a community somewhere, even a single other person who was into the hobby and was within walking distance, but this is really not realistic, and likely will never be... but if i ever did play the game again with any sort of regularity, i would want to focus on realism and recreation, making for beautiful tabletop battlefields and dramatic tides turning and sure, catastrophic losses due to endemic misfortune. yeah, 1s... they taught me a lesson. some lives and some strategies do not work out ideally, as would have been hoped, but to make the best of them, focus on what is there and that is valuable, what is withing our control, and not on how unfair things can be when one player has a new codex with uber powered numarine floaty tanks purchased on a banker's salary, and the other makes minimum wage cleaning toilets and washing dishes while paying for school and - in the space left - cobbles together what army s/he can, with the time available to lovingly paint and convert and so on...

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: