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!
Hey guys just a quick question that I'm sure can get a lot of feedback:
Do you ever make an army to win?
Upon composition I have found lately I don't make an army to win but rather an army that I know will challenge me and my opponent, essentially i go into a battle with the mindset "... This army can lose", and It will at some point. Now this leads to an extension of the first question:
When you compose an armylist do you try and manipulate the codex/armybook? Do you go in with a mindset of "This will destroy everything? and hope that your optimisim will scare the opponent into submission, are you abit pessimistic and think "Well he's got 120 beastmen to my 40 High Elves, I'm going to die?"
I'm not pessimistic I'm a realest, I know I can't always win, just wanna see peoples views on this
I find I'm making a lot of themed army lists at the moment (I play 40k in the main). I try to avoid tailoring for a specific opponent, instead seeking to make an effective "all-comers" list that fits within the parameters for my chosen theme (Warrior heavy Dark-Eldar, or Rhino-hull-only marines for example).
I don't play in the competative/tourney arena, mostly playing against a group of friends with a mixture of armies and playstyles. Occasionally we'll try out the latest flavour-of-the-month netlist, but more often than not we'll write our own.
That said, I go into each and every game with the mindset of "I intend to win", and I always strive for the best result I can get - taking gambles and using risky strategies to try and salvage a win or a draw, even if I'm getting beaten hard.
By playing this way, my opponents know that they have earned their victories against me - I never rob them of satisfaction by conceding at the first sign of defeat.
I don't think it's possible to write a list to lose (other than taking no anti-tank at all against an all AV14 list say...). Some of the choices from codexs may not be the most optimal, but it's how you play the list, not how you write it which determines whether you win or lose.
I have too many armies to list in my signature!
I think I was aiming more at the mind set. Im the same I try everything to win but I don't neccesarily go into a battle thinking "I'm going to win this"
as for makign an army that can't lose. I specifically made my Skaven so they did HAHA... Was just for fun really, everything in the army was stock standard and there wasnt much going on, but some how even though I didnt use tactics to win I still did win a few games (From memory I only had a dozen or so games before I sold the army)
I dont believe that anyone has a mindset to lose.What one can do is either create a fun list just for laughs,a competitive list for hard core playing or a casual list for just some sportive matches.
My favorite is OFC casual lists.Take what units i fancy and brew strategies.Not for me the endless math hammer and theory of crap and best units.A relaxed game to enjoy the afternoon and shake hands after the battle with your opponent.Unless i want to mop the floor with people i dont like.You know the 'undefeatables' that think winning a 40k game or turney will make them the most important people in the world.
Praise be to the Emperor!!
I get in 1-2 games each week, unfortunately they're usually against the same opponent since my local only has a middling WHFB crowd and one bad-egg who whined enough to turn everyone against the game (stuff like: it's all just luck, GW can't balance a book if they tried, Oh noes why can't my Goblins beat your well-played Lizardmen army). Lately I've been mixing it up, and trying my luck at a few non-gw-based hobby stores that are friendly to walk-in gamers, and have been getting some fresh games in that way.
When playing against my friend, we both tend to play the game for the "theory" of it. Rather than play a netlist, we seek to create the next netlist, and in many ways here on LO, my Warriors of Chaos and High Elf experiences have contributed a great deal of information to the game. Everyone at the local plays Tournament-grade lists, and I feel that is how it should be. When my friend and I play, one of us usually uses one of any number of tried-and-proven lists in our arsenal (I never take the same list to a tournament twice), while the other sort of "messes around" or tries a new theory. Last week, for me it was an army with lots of Cavalry. This helps the 'design' process, since I know that I'm not winning on a fluke, or because he wrote a poor list.
Whether you write it, or you get it from the net, you should always build the best possible list. That way you can guarantee that you give your opponent a challenging game (I hate wasting time setting up and starting a game just to have you fold by turn4, or systematically destroy your army because you brought a "fluff" list), and also, people who say that they don't play 'competitive' games usually end up doing it anyways, as there is a natural instinct to win, and you will therefore start an arms-race with your friends until you are all playing tournament-level lists. Save yourself a few hundred dollars on those "cool-but-useless" regiments and build a winning army.
Ultimately, I don't care if I win or lose (I would obviously rather win) but I do want to broaden my knowledge of the game. In many ways I regard Warhammer as an artistic talent - just like music, golf, performance driving, what ever. I know that there's 'Ard Boyz, but I really wish that Warhammer would get on board with ideas like the M:TG Pro-Circuit, I would definitely be at the top of the sign-ups for an event like that.
I like to test units outs.
If they fail me they go away.
If they work well they stay.
If they are fun to play not great or very expensive then they go into a 3rd area.
I will usually build list out of the ones that work well but then try to add in one unit from the fun side.
That way I know I am gonna be competative whilst also not having just a net list.
Every year or so I will bring back the bad units to retest them and see where they go from there.
I never make fluffy armies but a lot of my friends do, this has led to me playing 2 or 3 fun units instead of just one to make the game better
however, once that army hits the table, I play to win! I would never want someone to let me win so I would never let someone else win. If they beat me (what ever army I have on the table) they have earnt the win, not been given it.
Tau: 6K - W17-D3-L4, Orks: 4K - W9-D0-L2, SM: 7K - W7-D3-L4,CSM: 4K W5-D1-L1, Nids: 3.2K W3-D0-L2
Apoc games (mixture of armies used): W5-D0-L1
Well the actual point I was trying to make was more along the lines that no single list is indestructible. What I mean by this is that I will go into a game wanting to win and knowing I can win, but I never go in thinking fully "I WILL WIN" basically just because of the fact I've seen alot of people manipulate the codices and armybooks and still lose even though they seem unstoppable on paper.
I just find it interesting to see the mindset of players. Thanks for the input guys, keep it coming
I generally try to make an interesting and solid army list all round, with a problem solving unit such as scouts, 2/3 hard hitters and some firm core blocks for stability, the one thing I never do is build an army list specifically for battling against a certain army, I dont really like the idea of putting all my chickens in one basket and hoping for a certain army, for example I built a list to crush armor saves and heroes in challenges because I was expecting to play a Warriors of chaos army that my friend has, only to find he brought his daemons out of retirement ! all that - to armour saves against those beautiful un-armoured daemons ! gotta love points wasting !
So generally I take the strategy with my tomb kings army for army survival because they are strong enough anyway, usually abuse the amount of ranged power that I have and play the psychology game and lure people into getting flanked because they think my necrosphinx and my heiro are a huge threat, when really, killing the heiro doesnt really do all that much anymore and the necrosphinx is a scary tarpit. I like the fun mindset ! There are some army lists that I could write which would destroy people but they're just cheap and nasty and no fun to play at all, either way unless lady averages is on your side your going to lose regardless so why not have fun doing it !
I try to discuss with my opponent before I play what type of game he wants, be it a fluffy scenario game or a tournament style no holds barred game. One of the problems with casual gaming is that it is difficult to test a competitive list. If you are going all out with a tournament list then you learn very little from playing a casual gamer who was there for a bit of a laugh. Equally if you were there for a fun game using a characterful army you probably aren't going to have much fun against someone who has designed an army with the sole intention of decimating his opponent.
To be honest though I used to treat warhammer like chess in that the keener mind will win, but the truth is that past a certain level of skill the game is essentially luck. Its why I don't think you could ever get a 'M:TG Pro-Circuit' style tournament. Nowadays I mainly play it for a bit of fun, taking models I like. I normally try and put in something that might be a little sneaky, or try a tactic or combo I haven't done before.
"God is dead" Nietzsche- 1886
"Nietzsche is dead" God- 1900
Why are there scams? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71FLDIMBc8