Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I have been thinking resently (after games of poker) that looking at how the player is across the table will be as important analysis as the game its self. How do they play what do they rely on in there army. How will diffrent moves effect them etc etc.
So this thread is an idea thread. Anyone who has ideas about diffrent playing styles post it here and i will play test agaist people i find and try make a tatica.
To et the ball rolling i have these:
Agressive gamer: Mass close combat runs at you has a hard HQ unit with body guards. Will take losses lightly unless its there monster HQ.
Passive gamer: mainly shooty and static. Will take losses harder, wont like things getting close and will feel under pressure from fast armies.
Speed gamer: not a fast army always but like to get on with the game can make mistakes if somethink looks good at first glance.
These are just ideas to be improved on, so anyone you play or know think about what there like an let me know!
This is a really good idea. I have a few things to add which you can expand upon in your tactica.
Looking at someone's list can tell you a lot about what type of player they are. For example, an aggresive player will tend to take a Leman Russ Demolisher over the Leman Russ Battle Tank. One thing to keep in mind is that an assault army may be commanded by a very conservative general, and shooty generals can be quite aggresive.
Another thing that would be helpful is how to use this knowledge of your opponent. Here is an example. You and your opponent are each holding one objective, there's one open objective and it's turn 5. Neither of you have troops on the open objective. If you know that he is an aggresive player, you know that he will go after the objective, whereas a passive player would stay back and try to annihilate your troops.
This should give you a sense of what to do in that situation. In the case of the aggresive player, you would want to move closer to the objective, but remain far enough away as to deny them the charge. Against the cautious player, a smart strategy would be taking cover while moving closer to the objective, supported by cover fire from predators or whatever else.
Good luck, I'll be happy to help with this as I'm quite interested by it.
Check out my new blog! http://gamers-gone-wild.blogspot.com/
Thats great idea applying to situations. I think this is going to be something thats going to take a few people playing a range of players to get diffrent styles known so please anyone i you ahve a game take a thought about there play style and let me know!
I feel slightly odd posting this since it describes myself in a lot of ways.
Focuses absolutely on the mission objectives, to the point of ignoring all other concerns. Willingly sacrifices units to ensure victory. Using one list, the player adapts his playing style to the enemy at hand.
This player generally will consider what mission and deployment is before deciding how to play. Regardless of the opponent, this type of player insists that strategy is more important, and that lists shouldn't be tailored to each race. Using a single list, he will be forced to adapt to each race, thereby forcing himself to learn a bigger diversity of playing styles. He can be considered a jack-of-all-trades, but master of none.
Posting how you play your self is even better than observing someone else as you can give a more indepth review. Thanks for your contribution, sounds like me as well!
Anyone else got anything to post feel free even if its something small with out much detail we can then build on it!
The Fluff player: more concerned about the background/coolness of their army then the actual game they play in. Examples: Russ tank shocks a carnifex and the Nid player chooses death or glory (just look at how BA that nid is he wouldint back off)
"Thank him who puts me loath to this revenge on you who wrong me not for him who wrongd"
This may go with what someone else had said, but to also analysis who's going first and second may change the person's style. A Passive player may be a little more aggressive if given first, while an aggressive may play even more aggressive while playing second as the second player is deemed the person who controls the outlook of the game for missions. Playing second is very powerful.
Help the kin TAKE your soul, I mean, take your soul...
I play Vassal. I'm in V40K Open Ladder.
Whilst written from a Magic: The Gathering point of view, Timmy, Johnny, and Spike : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering that article does a fantastic job of summing up player types of all games amd is easily applied to the tabletop wargaming hobby.
Hummm While the MTG on is helpful i think they can be a lot more that can be done! it only describes 3 types of gamer and there are more out there. There are also more sub mixes, i want to have a very complete list as with only 3 styles you won’t be able to deduce much. And they are defiantly more than 3 like the fluff player mentioned.
So people keep playing new players and thinking about player types.
Mean while i have been looking this link is how to read poker players i plan to adopt to a wh method this will be how to recognise play styles (when we have fished the list). Also about how to look at a players list and deduce types will be included.
This second link is on play styles again for poker but i thik changing possibly adding or subtracting ones that dont have a use in wh.
Please note these sites are for poker sites which is gambling i am not encouraging this in anyway it is just for reference. Also do not follow the links on the sites any further as it will be again for gambling