The Art of Play.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Art of Play.

Post  squalie on Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:12 am

http://www.ogrestronghold.com/forum/index.php?topic=11143.0

I re-read this article recently. I'm guilty of being absolutely infatuated with the Ogre army but never got around to putting one together -- even after practically stealing figs off of Scott. Anyways, it made me realise that I may not actually respect my opponents. This is not intentional. I realised after reading this that in my selfish interest to make sure that I have fun playing the game, all the while honestly trying to make the game fun for my opponent, I may unintentionally offend him by never actually 'trying'. I remember one game with Scott, where it looked hopeless for me and I momentarily conceded. I quickly said (even though I thought I'd still lose) "no, let's play this out". I changed my mind as I thought; I've never conceded before; why NOT just keep playing as we're here anyways, and dice are a funny thing in this game. One roll changes it all. Well, I still lost. Scott told me later that he would have docked me sportsman if I would have conceded...and deservedly so. In my mind doing so would have stolen his moment and told him that his time meant nothing to me.

I love this game. I play just for fun -- even the tournaments. I have said many times before that I will make a charge that I know I shouldn't just to see how it goes. I will play and make decisions for purely fluff reasons even though I know that this is strategically the wrong move and I rarely think more than one turn ahead. I have never appreciated someone using the rules only to their advantage i.e. 'moowalking' a frenzied Bloodthirster to avoid charging. Fluff tells me that a Bloodthirster would never do that -- so I don't. If I see you do that prepared to be punched in the adam's apple. I'm not saying YOU can't do that, I just never would....aaaaaaaaaand you'd get punched in the adam's apple. I'm a what-if-this works? kinda' guy. No guts, no glory. Now, that's fun for me but it's the equivelant of sitting in a sand box, on top of the cat, smashing two hot wheels together repeatedly. No thought whatsoever. In my self interest of having fun with this game, I may not be offering a challenge to my opponent -- which is something I also rarely consider. You see, I like to win, but I could care less if I lose. Understand? I would rather lose, if I know it will mean that my opponent had a better time because he won. I'm a little bit proud of this, but at the same time I'd like to commit to offering more of a challenge. I'm not sure if I'll change my ways but the article did give me food for thought....

....or maybe I'm just an idiot? Anyways how do you guys play? What's the general mindset before a game? Does it depend on who you're playing?













Drunk speech #37 Very Happy

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  nathanr on Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:32 am

Its a bit too philosophical for my tastes. I'm more of a "put the guys on the table and smash them together until somebody wins" kind of guy. My strategy is often to find the move that nobody sees coming and try that. Usually nobody sees it coming because it is a stupid move but at least it keeps my opponent on his toes. I don't believe in conceding either, the only time I've ever conceded a game was when my entire dwarf army fled the table on turn 2 with the exception of a bolt thrower crew. That was something to talk about, 10 rolls of 11 or 12 on 2 dice in a row! If I'd been in Vegas I could have made millions!

I do find that I play much differently depending on the army that I'm using. With my dwarfs I'm usually pretty laid back, when I use my bretonnians I usually try to be really tricky and try really different stuff. When I use my wood elves I'm suddenly very competitive and play to win. I'm not quite sure why that is. Thanks for posting that Don!

nathanr

Posts : 4390
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 35
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Carson on Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:51 am

I Like to win, make no mistakes, but that being said I don't believe I have ever built an army with victory as the sole objective. Whenever I approach an army build I keep in mind the enjoyment factor of my potential opponents. Yes I build competitive lists but I just can't have fun If my opponent is not. I can't see the fun in a game if I know my opponent has little to no chance of winning.

When I read some of the battlereports or army lists on the net it makes me quite disgusted at times. Thats probably one big reason why I dislike 40k so much. Not only crappy rules but its total list hammer for the majority of players.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  ScottRadom on Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:43 am

My favorite games are when both players can get enthusiastic about the game. It's rarely fun if one side is hammering the other, but sometimes that happens when one side makes a bad call, or one key combat goes wrong and an entire flank disolves etc.

For me, I try to let my opponent know what I am thinking, and feeling, and what I am doing. It solves many, many problems and creates mroe fun I think.

If I am playing and I am looking at the table and stuff I like to say things like "DO you think my cannon has LOS to that unit" and let the opponent get involved. Also things like "No way can I take that charge from your unit, I guess I have to back up." things like that. I find it helps my opponent either get into the game a little more, let's him express disgust or whatever. Get's some interaction going.

The feelings thing can be fun too, so long as it's not super whining. Things like "I can't believe I scored zero wounds on that charge... MAN!" I think is usually regarded as better sportsmanship. Especially if after a horrendous bit of good or bad luck you just say nothing. That's the worst. And if a dude moonwalks with a bloodthirster, yeah, I am going to tell him how lame it is. If he didn't want to have a monster that didn't fly around and have to whack things all crazy style he could have spent 600 points elsewhere. And I'll tell him. And we either laugh, or don't.

The tellin' him what I am doing helps too. Things like "I want to put this giant behind this rock so that unit doesn't have LOS, do you think I am there?" can solve a lot of problems in later turns, can do away with any sort of judgement calls seeing as you've both just agreed or disagreed already. My thoughts.

Respecting your opponents is usually easy. For me, the real tough games are the ones where you're playing an opponent who doesn't have a serviceable knowledge of the rules, or their army, yet they look at you with distrust every time you have to tell them how it works in warhammer. I HATE those games but haven't had one of those in years. \

Good post Don.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Mhael on Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:21 pm

I noticed that my own sportsmanship scores are horrendous at the tournies (it pretty much kills me), I fall into the category of barely being able to cite rules and have a working knowledge of my army list. I can't help but fall victim to blurting out exactly what I think about a game at the time. For example the Dice F with me lots so wether I roll insane courage when I need to or my artillery blow up or just reaction to an enemy unit that is tougher than what I expected (ward saves, killing blow due to some magic item or what not). I am pretty open and just naturally react to the game so if this is what causes my low marks I don't believe I will change ever. I think Scott has a good point about asking opponents opinions on los etc as it clarifies for both sides before becoming an issue (many good arguments have started between Dom and I bc poor rule knowledge and what each thinks should happen involving line of site) Does it bother anyone asking questions about toughness ward saves etc in the shooting phase before an actual target has been declared?

Mhael

Posts : 1208
Join date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Carson on Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:43 pm

No ask away, it solves alot of problems in a game if both oppoenents are communicating about the game.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  nathanr on Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:28 pm

I had it explained to me once that you should let your opponent know everything except magic items, virtues, bloodlines etc. Unit upgrades should be obvious on the models (if the unit has shields, model them with shields) or else you need to tell your opponent if they are something different than what is shown on the model. Same goes for characters (other than magic items). If the model doesn't have a shield but does in your list, tell your opponent. It saves time and makes you look like less of a when the time comes to make armour saves. Likewise, any special rules for a unit should not be secret. Your opponent may not be familiar with your army but you shouldn't use that against him. Things like that will hurt your sportsmanship score.

nathanr

Posts : 4390
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 35
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  squalie on Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:41 pm

Does it bother anyone asking questions about toughness ward saves etc in the shooting phase before an actual target has been declared?

Doesn't bother me at all. What would bother me is if you shot at something, found out it had a ward save and then wanted to change your target. The only secrets I'll keep are surprise items, other than that I'll usually even tell you what kind of magical banner I have. (And with that I'll point back to the original post Rolling Eyes )

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  ScottRadom on Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:33 pm

squalie wrote:
Does it bother anyone asking questions about toughness ward saves etc in the shooting phase before an actual target has been declared?

Doesn't bother me at all. What would bother me is if you shot at something, found out it had a ward save and then wanted to change your target. The only secrets I'll keep are surprise items, other than that I'll usually even tell you what kind of magical banner I have. (And with that I'll point back to the original post Rolling Eyes )

If something is supposed to be hidden, but either isn't common knowledge (you're using a new army book for instance) or if you think there is some pretty tried and true tech your opponent SHOULD know but doesn't, I usually at least allude to it. "Does your warboss have a good armor save?". Maybe I say "No, but there's a really good cheap magic item that you can buy that gives him a 4+ ward save." or something like that. At least let the guy know the score a little. Especially if he's new.

I find most of the newer players, or at least new to tourny ettiquette, can be real bad offenders of "rules" they may not know. Things like asking if they can go back and cast spells, or measuring and shooting missile stuff then firing artillery. Shit like that bugs me. If you let me point out and offer for you to go back and cast a magic phase that's one thing, but don't put me in the lose-lose situation of either a)sticking to the rules and getting tanked in sports. by saying "no" or b)getting hammered in the gaem when I had a chance to walk away from a free phase.

I HATE that. Funny thing is most of the time when someone has asked me for that (I always say yes. I am a softy!) I usually get hammered in Sportsmanship anyway.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Mhael on Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:31 pm

I have missed phases or certain maneouvers I wanted to do but the way I see it is if I forget something it is bad generalling on my part and I feel no need to offer a re-do option to others if they make similar mistakes. I know that this has been a point of contention during some of Dom and my games, we both make mistakes and refuse to give in especially when you can see the impending result. Being new to the game still we both believe winning is more important than how fun the game is. Ideally every army book is designed to work evenly with the others books so it comes down to studying your army and your enemies, knowing what you may come up against and how to beat it is where I find the fun and the challenge (every book has multiple options for what you could bring)

Mhael

Posts : 1208
Join date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:51 pm

I play the game as a game that I try my utmost to win. It's not life or death, and I'm willing and able to make certain concessions.

I do expect my opponent to also be playing to win and foolish play bothers me.

But the worst for me, and the times that I may be guilty of getting upset, are when I defeat myself. When I make a stupid play that wrecks everything for myself. I can gracefully lose to my opponent and have a great time. I can lose to the dice and laugh about it with my opponent. But it tears me up inside when I do it to myself.

I do agree with the everyone above regarding communication. Hell, I try to even start the communication before games these days. See some of my discussions about my lists, how I play the Doomwheel, and so on. There is a lot of stuff going on in this game. It really pays off to have everyone on the same page.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Carson on Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:42 pm

I find in this game that my point of view REALLY changed when I started attending alot of tournaments. Before that I strictly built armies on how to beat the single opponent I was facing. When you start to think about beating multiple opponents and sportsmanship scores (lets face it, sportsmanship has as much to do with army build as it does to fair and fun play) your focus really does change.

First out of town tournament I attended was a Rob Kuster affair in Calgary with Similar comp rules that I run. I scored a nice 6 out of 20 for comp. I won all my games but boy did I get a eye opener as to fair play in a tournament.

I really have been influenced by tournament play in how I view everything that goes on in Warhammer. I don't think I've built an army since that tournament with the idea of beating a single opponent. An yeah as Don stated in his first post, I'll do things in the game that makes sense fluff wise but might not be the best move.

Many times I've declared charges near the end of the game knowing it could loose me the game.......I hate points denial, its one of the biggest peaves I have. Now I won't do that everytime, say in a playoff game or such, but in a friendly one off why not.


Good topic here, I'm liken it!

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Ironwoulf on Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:02 pm

2 way communication is good, not just about units but about the terrain - is this difficult going, does it block LOS - before the game begins. I've started putting lables down with my units so there is no mistaking what is there and a reminder to me - such as which unit has the mark of Slaneesh.

Ironwoulf

Posts : 348
Join date : 2008-06-19
Age : 55
Location : Dalmeny SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  squalie on Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:23 pm

I'm not certain if this is relevant or not, but to this day I have never used a special character. 10 years playing and not once. The reason for this is mainly due to the group I have always played with. We/they are insistant on using only GW figs and that you actually have the fig on the table. No proxy's allowed. Period. One of our friends played Ogres and made a Butcher by putting a tin-foil apron on a Bull. That lasted about 2 minutes. Special characters seemed so over the top in previous editions that we decided 'where does it end?' and simply never bothered to use them. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but what I will say is that it influenced my play style. When I hear of special characters allowed in tourny's I roll my eyes, only because that's how I was 'raised' in Warhammer. They have always seemed chessy to me although I'm trying to be a little more open minded. With us in the 'Jaw, it was always either everyone is useing them, or nobody is useing them, and since not everyone had them, we never bothered. We've also instituted strict guidelines for play and these are never deviated from, i.e. - dice rolled only count when they are flat on the table, no terrain influence or tilting. Anything less can cause bad feelings, or that unspoken resentment of giving an awkward dice roll that changes everything. We had to implement the 'out is out' measurement. If your unit didn't make it then it didn't make. If there are no measured standards it creates too much of a grey area that only worsens with liquor or emotion. I'm rambling, but my point is that we've created an atmosphere that helps remove any surprises that may come up in a game. You really notice this when you play in other groups. When I played against a fellow in Calgary, there was a dice that was tilting. His answer was to put another dice on top and see if it would slide off, if it did then it was tilting too much and would have to be re-rolled. scratch WTF? I know that I lost comp because of the ruckus I made. The flat dice agreement before hand would have saved me some face.

Sorry for the all over post, I'm trying to type while not getting caught at work! Very Happy

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  ScottRadom on Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:25 pm

Don, the dice on top of another dice is actually the universal rule for cocked dice. I think it comes from Casino's originally.

As for special characters, I hated ANYTHING that needed your opponents permission to play form 5th and 6th ed. The new look 7th ed. characters seem to be more focused on doing something cool and less focused on super death killyness or a through the roof stat line.

I like Skarsnik for that. He's cool, and not super devestating and 200 points of goblin is a LOT for a LD 8 general. He's got fun rules too.

But in terms of putting our "old school" projections onto the modern age of warhammer, I am right there with ya. Seeing a table full of demons from different gods does my head in. Eric had pointed out that the new codex is designed for all the demons to be there together, but I don't go for that mixed races demon shit. The point of being a demon is NOT to practice tolerance of other's beliefs, or tolerance of those beliefes manifested right there beside you. Your goal as a demon should be to kill that other demon, no?

But times change. I guess.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:29 pm

But in terms of putting our "old school" projections onto the modern age of warhammer, I am right there with ya. Seeing a table full of demons from different gods does my head in. Eric had pointed out that the new codex is designed for all the demons to be there together, but I don't go for that mixed races demon shit. The point of being a demon is NOT to practice tolerance of other's beliefs, or tolerance of those beliefes manifested right there beside you. Your goal as a demon should be to kill that other demon, no?

If we're going to go back in time, let's take a look at chaos all the way back through time:

7th edition: Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen. In the Warriors book and the Daemons book you can mix the units of the different gods freely within the same army. In the Warriors book you can even put a character with one mark into a unit of another. The Daemon characters cannot go into opposing gods' units. There are no gods in the Beastmen book.

6th edition: Hordes of Chaos, Beasts of Chaos. In the Hordes book You have rules for Daemons and mortals. In the Beasts book you have rules for beastmen. You can freely combine all the units from both books into the same army, and may freely mix the units of the different gods freely within the same army but you cannot have a character with one mark in a unit of another.

5th edition: Realm of Chaos, Champions of Chaos. Regular stuff for Daemons, mortals and beastmen in Realm, special characters in Champions. You can freely mix the units of the different gods within the same army, although there ar No such thing as marked units (although the Daemon units are obviously suitably defined) so there's no possibility of putting a marked character into an differently marked unit. There are rules for daemons within 12" of an opposing god to suffer from animosity.

4th edition: Warhammer Armies Chaos box set. Beasts, mortals and daemons all in one book, you can freely mix the gods. Units aren't marked, so nothing there, but to take a unit of Daemons, you have to have a character with that mark in your army. Animosity rules.

That's as far back as I've played, but it seems clear that there hasn't been any hard and fast rules regarding the makeup of chaos armies at all historically.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  squalie on Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:27 am

Don, the dice on top of another dice is actually the universal rule for cocked dice. I think it comes from Casino's originally.
You told me that the first time I bitched about it, but it still doesn't make any sense. How about saying "dice flat on the table". Done. What the hell is with this miniscus test? Sorry, major pet peeve over an absolutely unnecessary test.

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  ScottRadom on Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:26 am

Eric, the point about mixed armies is not rules wise, it's fluff wise. Show me a story about the gods cooperating. They don't.

That's the point of Archaon, he's one dude that every quadrillion years the gods all give the nod of approval too, and he unites the warring chaos factions. Then it's trouble! But what is supposed to keep everyone at bay is the constant warring and stuff. From a fluff point of view.

The first two chaos books, Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned made it very clear how much they hated each other and how the ONLY reason mankind could survive was to play off that hate and stand united. The board game Chaos in the Old World is the very personification of the hatred and warfare the gods play on each other, fluff wise, right?

So that's what I like. That's what I read and expect (or maybe hope is a better word) to see projected into the tabletop recreations of the Warhammer World. What I get instead is an army list with Tzeentch and Nurgle playing side by side. High fiving plaguebearers and pink horrors laughing about the good times they had, When a Khorne dude walks by and says what's so funny, and the other two go quiet and say "Nothin'" then start laughing as the bloodletter walks away with a "KIK MEE!" sign put on his back and the plaguebearer and pink horror lay about laughing and high fiving each other again.

It really has nothing to do with the original thread but it's one part of the game that always has bugged me. I think GW should have SERIOUSLY considered doing one book for each god. Why not? I think they'd sell, and you could make provisions (perhaps) for units from other books being included. It wouldn't be any different than the previous beasts and hordes mixes they did.

So that's me. Chaos has ALWAYS been pitched as a bunch of un-cooperative bastards. Not much about chaos actually makes sense to me fluff wise though. It all goes back to the fact I hate that they do the stock chaos army, then tweek it for each chaos god. Why does a Khorne guy, who trains probably 23 hrs a day, get lumped with the same stats as the Slaanesh guy who does nothing but screw and get high all day? The demons are seperate entities from each other with their own stat lines and models. Why don't the mortal versions get something similar too? It wouldn't have to be radical like completely different stuff, but they could do like the Space Marine sets with stock bodies and seperate bits torso's and such.

This has turned into a sort of rambley thing. Chaos shouldn't mix!

Don- The standard dice thingy isn't so super easy as a dice laying flat when you start playing on tableclothes and shit. It's seems like common sense that flat means flat. But what if it's EVER so slightly resting on a small rise in the tablecloth? 3 out of 4 people say it's fine, but does that make the 4 person and asshole or not? The dice stacking thing is some non discreminatory system. Of course, I am not for it myself and it'd be a cold day in hell that I wouldn't just re-roll the stupid die, but it is what it is.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  squalie on Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:49 am

Don- The standard dice thingy isn't so super easy as a dice laying flat when you start playing on tableclothes and shit. It's seems like common sense that flat means flat. But what if it's EVER so slightly resting on a small rise in the tablecloth? 3 out of 4 people say it's fine, but does that make the 4 person and asshole or not? The dice stacking thing is some non discreminatory system. Of course, I am not for it myself and it'd be a cold day in hell that I wouldn't just re-roll the stupid die, but it is what it is.
Well I suppose I should just fall in and join the herd. I hope you're standing there the next time someone tries to pull it of though.

I have always, always like mono armies. I've always played Chaos and even now I'm trying to build a Tzeentch Daemon army and a Slaanesh Daemon army (again) and never the tween shall meet. I don't care what the new book says, there is no way in hell (ha) that you'll see the four factions united on my table.

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  squalie on Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:00 pm

I think GW lost out on a big opportunity to reward guys that don't like the mixed marks/Daemons. They should have included a bonus, or perk of some sort for playing a mono themed army. Right in the book itself it would have 'If the only mark in your army is Nurgle, then all marked units get X', or whatever. I agree with Scott, that they could have made a book for each Daemon and really went all out with it.

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  GobbladasSquig on Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:24 pm

The problem with fluffy mono-god armies with the new books is that they are horrendously boring. The theme of a god is so prevalent through all the units that in the end you get a rock-paper-scissors list that concentrates on one aspect of the game. Which I guess is GW's idea of a themed list.

Scott wrote:Don- The standard dice thingy isn't so super easy as a dice laying flat when you start playing on tableclothes and shit. It's seems like common sense that flat means flat. But what if it's EVER so slightly resting on a small rise in the tablecloth? 3 out of 4 people say it's fine, but does that make the 4 person and asshole or not? The dice stacking thing is some non discreminatory system. Of course, I am not for it myself and it'd be a cold day in hell that I wouldn't just re-roll the stupid die, but it is what it is.
We have variation here too. Some tournament players find it the easiest to agree that every dice that is touching anything apart from the table and other dice (terrain, movement trays, books etc.) has to be re-rolled. The most important thing is to discuss it before the game and then stick with what you decide upon for the whole game.

To the original post. I used to be a very very laid back gamer, building lists from whatever units I liked not really caring that much about synergy or effectiveness. I played chaos for like three of four years without even touching a unit of knights or a dragon. About 70% of games I played were draws because I played with friends that had the same mind set in gaming. Fluff was always quite important for us, and we often had armies that rotated around named characters that hated each other and every battle was filled with epic duels and stuff. But I must say that in the last year or so I've changed a little as a gamer. I've found out that if I try to play competitive I do pretty well, with clearly more wins than losses and potentially high tournament placings (last was 8th out of 50, with O&G). I still don't build army lists to massacre enemies, but I don't don't really think about fluff or go about naming my characters anymore either. I play with units I like, optimizing the list around those units and taking stuff that supports each other well. I have two playing modes nowadays. One is the laid back, most often with a six-pack of beer and a bunch of friends with the main focus being on talking shit and taunting each other, and the other the tournament mode where I really try to do my best and win the game. I respect my opponent and play fair, but I won't show any mercy or do any "silly" moves. Sometimes I do points denial with a part of my army, especially when facing a stupid broken copy-paste list, but I always play the game to the end, trying to snatch a minor victory or something with a little risk.

I've found the latter style slightly problematic. It gives me a shitload of kicks when I go against a very experienced player and manage to do good, but then again sometimes I play against very young or less experienced players, whose skill level is clearly below mine. In the tournament mode I can't help but to utterly massacre them. And I don't enjoy the game that much, I even feel bad occasionally. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

GobbladasSquig

Posts : 86
Join date : 2009-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  ScottRadom on Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:13 pm

I know what you're saying abotu bringing your A-game to an inexperienced or laid back gamer. It isn't much fun, for either side I bet.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Carson on Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:52 pm

yep totally agree with Gobblas post. I play pretty seriously in tournamentrs but in league or pick-up play I'm more laid back and will do crazy shit just for the love of the game and fluff.

The dice stack is a retarded idea but yeah its the defacto "official" way to resolve the dispute......unless you have two players with a bit of common sense who will just pick up a dice and reroll it without a thought.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Art of Play.

Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:53 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum