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!
Mr x - "Hey i played my skaven army the other day and got massacred by the brets..."
Mr y - "You got massacred by the Brets!? Brets are easy to deal with! The way you beat them is..."
What do i find not quite right about this convo? Its the fact that both players talk about the armies as if they had a mind of their own. It could be that in this particular example Mr x played a grand tournament finalist and Mr y played his 10 yr old kid.
Here on LO we all play players of different levels, but its impossible to tell what level someone else is at. Which means that there is a variable not taken into consideration when we advise people on how to beat particular armies, as opposed to how to beat the player, whom we of course would know nothing about.
Do people agree with me? And to what extent do you think you are guilty of the above at one point or another?
If i'm being honest, i think that sometimes i have been a little too quick to post on telling people how to beat certain army setups, without giving a moment's thought to their opponent (who of course will have his own tactics and countermeasures)
Of course we can all advise on army list composition, etc. But it seems sometimes people are too quick to tick a particular army/unit off they're list and say "right, can beat that"
This thread isn't the result of a post i've seen elsewhere on LO, more a result of my late night musings, i just wondered what other people had to say.
Well, my take on it is that if you get advice on how to beat an army composition, then you have a better shot at winning because you know more of what to expect. After all, If somebody says that they are facing an all swarm nid list, it can probably be assumed that extensive high strength weaponry will not be needed as much. The real problem is when people know nothing of the other list, and take all advice completely.
I think that you can give general advice on how to beat another army, such as their strengths and how to deny them. The human factor should always be considered though, as it is the most important factor in a game, but army composition can usually infer a certain tactic that will likely be used, aiding the gamer in his attempt to win.
Et imperator Invocato Diabolus Daemonica Exorcist!
Rightly so. What if I, the Tyranid player, produced 2 units of 3 Ripper Swarms as my Troops, and then included 6 Carnifexii in my list? All that high strength weaponry would definitely be missed.Originally Posted by JuliusGaiusCaesar
Personally, as long as I'm not a part of this type of thing, I love to hear people talk about how to beat other armies. Surprise is the name of the game, especially when a disposable strategy is employed to beat you. If your opponent thinks the game is in the bag, all the more loss to him when your tactics radically differ and topple his unprepared army over.
2H - LEGIO HYDRA
I guess people assume that both the oposing army is perfect (that is to say the opponent is fairly competant army selection legal etc etc). Then it makes sense to talk about how to beat an army. If the opponent makes mistakes then that is a bonus.
On the other hand not much gets talked about the different styles of play that have nothing to do with armies directly. For example the cautious player the aggressive player the player that relies on characters and elites etc etc.
"God is dead" Nietzsche- 1886
"Nietzsche is dead" God- 1900
Why are there scams? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71FLDIMBc8
I agree that you can not assume that all players of army A are going to play the same. Stereotyping and overconfidence can cause you to lose a game more often than just bad dice rolls. Most of the time we can look at army lists that someone has come up with and think, "I could beat that if I had my army set up *this* way", and some would assume they have tailored an army list specifically to defeat that list. But while they're standing there looking smug, the opposing player makes a move that they didn't expect, and their tailored army list is shattered. I hope that rambling made sense, heh.
I will honestly say that in 5th edition, I had no fear whatsoever of Brets, Empire, Chaos and Skaven, and I did say some derrogatory statements a few times about those armies. In 6th edition however, I was very glad to see those armies got some balancing done to them, and I treat all of them with respect regardless of the which I face.
In the last tournament I played in, I played against a dwarven slayer army. I had never played against one before, and the opponent started telling me about stuff the army did before we even started. I told him unless it was info I direly needed to know or he was required to impart it to me, I didn't want to hear it because I wanted it to be a surprise. That was a heck of a fun game. ^_^
I agree with above. The power of tabletopgames, is to play against new players, and thus gain new experiences. You'll learn more about your army and that of your opponent by playing with/against it. Yeah, you could read all the codexes that are available, but you still need practical aplication with that knowledge from those books. And the only way to gain that, is to play, play and play again.
The player himself is probably more inportant to know then the army, altough it helps to know what your opposing army is capable of. Myself, with about 2500 points of Tnids, I try to be an "non-standard" as possible, to keep your opponent on his toes. With the same army, I can play in 5 different ways.
And indeed, every piece of advice is a nice gain, but you still need to think for yourself with strategy games