|
|
Post by Tom_Bombadil_ on May 3, 2017 19:20:17 GMT
So hey everyone, I was wanting to ask for a little advice. I have some new players in my meta that have just reached the point where they have a single 75pt list and I was wondering what have your guy's experiences have been with new players. There are some guys in my group that simply drop their strongest competitive list and smash them game after game but I don't feel that its the best approach. I want the new players to have a fun experience and not feel like they are losing because they only have a single list they can play. Any advice?
|
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 3, 2017 19:50:41 GMT
My way has been deemed a little "manipulative" but I think it succeeds where it should.
I play very generously. I just put models on the table that I don't normally (blight wasps, beast mistress, etc) but still not a push over. I let them take back order of activation conflicts. I walk them through what they can do; asking "What do you feel is the most threatening thing to your list?" and go over what answers they have to it. I still put in the effort to attrition them to a point they think they might be losing. Then I present my caster as an assassination target in a generous way. (Like running transfer targets to max fury. Or not taking a certain board position. Or staying just inside jank threat range) I talk them through that move, at this point some people figure out what I've been doing,and they win the game.
Then I go over a bit of Q&A. What did they like about their list. Which model did the most work. which did the least amount of work. Did they like how they deployed. and so on.
I just feel that anytime someone outright loses they immediately see that game in a bad light. They feel that there was nothing they could do and were doomed to fail due to skill or meta or bad lists. If you let them work for it and they edge out a win, they are far more positive and receptive to discussion/critique. They also just learn a bit more about getting models to work together or punishing enemy weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on May 3, 2017 20:33:38 GMT
My way has been deemed a little "manipulative" but I think it succeeds where it should. I play very generously. I just put models on the table that I don't normally (blight wasps, beast mistress, etc) but still not a push over. I let them take back order of activation conflicts. I walk them through what they can do; asking "What do you feel is the most threatening thing to your list?" and go over what answers they have to it. I still put in the effort to attrition them to a point they think they might be losing. Then I present my caster as an assassination target in a generous way. (Like running transfer targets to max fury. Or not taking a certain board position. Or staying just inside jank threat range) I talk them through that move, at this point some people figure out what I've been doing,and they win the game. Then I go over a bit of Q&A. What did they like about their list. Which model did the most work. which did the least amount of work. Did they like how they deployed. and so on. I just feel that anytime someone outright loses they immediately see that game in a bad light. They feel that there was nothing they could do and were doomed to fail due to skill or meta or bad lists. If you let them work for it and they edge out a win, they are far more positive and receptive to discussion/critique. They also just learn a bit more about getting models to work together or punishing enemy weaknesses. This is exactly the right attitude. Encourage new players. Help them out. Play a softer list. You don't learn anything about a new game if it's over after the second turn. Vets that smash new players are being jerks. |
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685 
|
Post by Cyel on May 3, 2017 20:41:47 GMT
The good thing about WM&H is even "bad" models are decent, so you can build an army fo whatever you want without it being a pushover when you factor in the skill difference.
Going for risky plays you wouldn't normally do (overextending etc) is also advisable for added excitement and opportunities for your newbie opponent to take advantage of.
If they have 75pts you don't need to guide them to their victory step by step as with battlebox demo games, but pointing out any and all traps they have to into account would be good.
At this point I think playing well is the way to go, but have the (even if both artificial) unusual and far from optimised list and a risky playstyle make up for the difference in experience. In other words, use sub-par tools, but use them well so they can learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 3, 2017 20:51:25 GMT
All the advice listed is pretty perfect. Just play with models you'd probably never bring to a Tourney. Or play really unique lists you don't normally get to try. Always be generous with them, and help them along, make jokes and try to keep things lighthearted when the dice inevitably fail them. This game can get intense and I think its our Job as game vets to help newbies adjust to the more intensive environment the game can create.
|
|
|
|
Post by mallios on May 3, 2017 21:29:43 GMT
I actually have a list saved in Warroom that I built specifically because it is a challenge for me to run it. The models don't work well together, so i get a bit of a learning experience myself.
Another upside is i don't have to manufacture a situation midgame without being obvious, because i already set myself at a disadvantage during list building.
|
|
|
|
Post by Demeritus on May 3, 2017 22:03:34 GMT
My way has been deemed a little "manipulative" but I think it succeeds where it should. I play very generously. I just put models on the table that I don't normally (blight wasps, beast mistress, etc) but still not a push over. I let them take back order of activation conflicts. I walk them through what they can do; asking "What do you feel is the most threatening thing to your list?" and go over what answers they have to it. I still put in the effort to attrition them to a point they think they might be losing. Then I present my caster as an assassination target in a generous way. (Like running transfer targets to max fury. Or not taking a certain board position. Or staying just inside jank threat range) I talk them through that move, at this point some people figure out what I've been doing,and they win the game. Then I go over a bit of Q&A. What did they like about their list. Which model did the most work. which did the least amount of work. Did they like how they deployed. and so on. I just feel that anytime someone outright loses they immediately see that game in a bad light. They feel that there was nothing they could do and were doomed to fail due to skill or meta or bad lists. If you let them work for it and they edge out a win, they are far more positive and receptive to discussion/critique. They also just learn a bit more about getting models to work together or punishing enemy weaknesses. This is basically what I do in a nut shell. I actually enjoy it sometimes as it allows me to play models I wouldn't normally play and try things I would not normally try because more experienced players would immediately push my stuff in. I tend to let them ask questions and encourage them to do so, so when they ask me what they think they should do I ask them what they feel is the most dangerous piece or what they should do, and they tend to have the right idea so I either let them go with it or give them a nudge to encourage them to think a bit further. |
|
regleant
Junior Strategist
Sometimes things go right
Posts: 267
|
Post by regleant on May 4, 2017 1:59:25 GMT
The only thing to add, you should always discuss the game play afterwards. Talk about:
- Things you were concerned your opponent could do. What did they miss? What would have hurt your plans?
- Smart plays that your opponent did make
- What are opportunities did you consider that you didn't take? And why?
- For the future game, what synergies should your opponent take into account within his own list?
That way your opponent actually LEARNS something, not just gets squashed. That's pretty much what happens here in China - everyone ends up using the same exact lists because people get beaten down and told that they are "doing it wrong". It's quite sad and boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom_Bombadil_ on May 4, 2017 2:32:22 GMT
I feel like that was how I have been playing it. I let them take back silly errors that they were making especially when it was a matter of not understanding the rules clearly and I always try to be gracious. I remember my first full sized 50 pt game back in MK2. I lost to a Kreoss1 Pop and Drop on the top of two. The guys simply looked at me and said 'Well lesson learned always ask your opponent what their feat does.' I learned the lesson but it was by no means a fun game and it was months before I was willing to play that guy again. As far as list compositions go I have never been one to hark on why someone's list is bad. In my experience spending a lot of money on models then being told you are doing it wrong because you didnt buy X is really disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtl1998 on May 4, 2017 3:46:30 GMT
Something else to think about is that as more experienced players its our job to make the game fun for the newbies, even if that means not having as much fun ourselves. That's not to say you can't have fun while helping someone learn (several ideas have already been thrown around here), but I think its not the main purpose. Neither is winning for that matter. Just do whatever it takes to help the newbie have a fun experience. Usually that's not smashing them will an amazing list and more game experience.
|
|
whydak
Junior Strategist
Posts: 288
|
Post by whydak on May 4, 2017 12:42:50 GMT
If I can I try to update my list to be good drop for opponent and bad for me. It makes game easier for opponent and I have some challenge to.
I think intentionally making subotpimal chocies during the game is wrong attitude if we want them to get experience. But don't let them lose due to not knowing your army. If you have some nice combo tell about it, describe what are you doing and what you want to achieve. Warn them when they enter dangerous area ect..
|
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 4, 2017 13:03:33 GMT
Yeah I didn't mention that. Always go over your models first, slowly. I also try to point out what models they have that my model wants to go after; blightwasps want to go for infantry, Carnivean wants to kill heavies, etc... To avoid blindsiding them.
I also lean towards playing lower point games. Even if they have a 75pt list possible. if they are still learning and actually don't want to play a full 75pt game, drop it to 50 or 35.
Another note, and I don't mean this to sound negative, I switch to this kind of playstyle with casual players as well. There are a few players who are distinctly there to have fun playing the caster and models they enjoy, instead of what's most competitive. Granted I don't harp on my model/rules as much. But I still let things slide when it comes to missing a rule interaction or an activation sequence. (Which even the veteran players allow sometimes. I've had games the opponent has let me switch activation as long as the outcome stays essentially the same.) It's about fun and I try to make my games fun for my opponent (learned from playing against my wife at home. When I tried to play seriously I would get seriously grumpy. Legion counters her Circle so she would look at my models and pull out things to directly counter me, and I felt slighted. that's not a good game for either of us.)
|
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on May 4, 2017 13:21:58 GMT
Another note, and I don't mean this to sound negative, I switch to this kind of playstyle with casual players as well. There are a few players who are distinctly there to have fun playing the caster and models they enjoy, instead of what's most competitive. Granted I don't harp on my model/rules as much. But I still let things slide when it comes to missing a rule interaction or an activation sequence. (Which even the veteran players allow sometimes. I've had games the opponent has let me switch activation as long as the outcome stays essentially the same.) It's about fun and I try to make my games fun for my opponent (learned from playing against my wife at home. When I tried to play seriously I would get seriously grumpy. Legion counters her Circle so she would look at my models and pull out things to directly counter me, and I felt slighted. that's not a good game for either of us.) Totally with you. One of the stores I go to for SR has, let us say, a less robust meta. I don't take my hardcore lists to that store. I take experiments, or whatever I feel like playing that day. I'd rather lose games than curbstomp everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on May 4, 2017 16:15:34 GMT
I agree with previous suggestions regarding discussing tactics, explain gotcha's, allowing rewinds etc...When I think back to when I was in that same position I honestly think the most important point is for the opponent to consider the single list of the newer player and play something appropriate against it. It is really demoralizing to show up to a game night really excited to play a caster and you've only brought one list and then face off against a list which is the last thing you'd want to play against. I've had enough games in mk II when I was playing Circle still where I brought kaya 2 and was against a stealth ignoring gunline, or wanted to play Mohsar and played against a million croak raiders that blew up his pillars and murdered him etc... Two lists exist to avoid such matchups, but if someone shows up to game night with a single list they are jazzed to play then presenting them with hard counter to their list 1.) is totally unfun, and 2.) gives them no idea of how their list performs because if they had the option they would never play that matchup in the first place.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on May 4, 2017 23:06:04 GMT
I appreciate this discussion. Thanks for starting it, Tom_Bombadil.
As you guys point out it is tricky trying to teach new players. I don't want to throw the game, because they won't find that at all satisfying, but at the same time you don't want to crush them. The ultimate goal is for them to get a sense for what their army can do and how to spot the significant threats in your army. I agree with others who have suggested that you can put together sub-optimal lists, perhaps dangerously over-extend your army in some areas as you play, make some sub-optimal moves to highlight something about the game (maybe do a slam or throw in some weird place to show them how those work), etc. I want to showcase an exciting and interesting game, so I try to encourage match-ups that will let my opponent utilize some of the cool abilities of his models. I also want to give my opponent a moment of fear, maybe when I launch in and bust up something of his with my heavy and threaten his caster (typically knowing that he has a retaliation move and a clear way out). This is easier when I understand my opponent's models and what they can do myself (not always the case). Anyway, even knowing that I want to do these things doesn't make it easy to pull it off well during the games and dice can sway things and ruin all of your plans. Just the other night I was teaching the game and my opponent missed three boosted rolls looking for 8s in one turn and failed to kill two of my lights that I'd charged into his front lines. Then, on my turn I rolled 16, 17, 16 on three charge damage rolls from models that weren't expecting to do that much damage. That ended up frustrating my plans because things quickly swayed in my favor, despite my efforts to set up uneven match-ups.
Another thing I struggle with when teaching is knowing how much information to give. My problem is that I start by telling my opponent what all of my stuff can do and highlighting things to watch for. Also, as they're planning their turns I ask questions about what they want to do and talk them through the process. During that discussion I also try to point out my threats that they should consider when planning certain moves (this Pureblood can assault charge and spray something 19" away!) Unfortunately, this all ends up being a lot of information for a new player and can be daunting. I want to give them information so there are no gotchas, but I don't want to give them so much that they crumble under analysis paralysis. I can't teach them everything at once, so I'm trying to figure out what are the main things I'd like them to learn this game (about the game, their models, etc.).
TLDR: I struggle with the teaching side of this all the time. Good intentions don't always get me there. Executing the actual teaching is not always easy for me. In the end, it really helps to debrief with my opponent afterwards.
|
|
