regleant
Junior Strategist
Sometimes things go right
Posts: 267
|
Post by regleant on Dec 11, 2017 23:12:29 GMT
Just my thoughts on the topic... neither Death Clock / Timed Turns nor 2-lists should be equated to a "competitive environment."
Death clock: because 3+ hour games suck. Typically it's just 1 guy going long, sometimes both players if neither are familiar with their lists. Unless I'm working with a new player, I refuse to avoid using the clock.
Multiple lists: because when you bring your jack spam lists and your opponent only has weaponmaster spam, it makes for a bad day. Bad match-ups are real, and bringing multiple lists, even on casual night, helps mitigate that. I've seen the Nemo3 dropped into Krueger2 just because those were the only lists brought... it makes for a very bad experience for both players and better off simply not playing.
Again, neither of the above should be equated to being "competitive". It's just about time management and balanced game play.
|
|
|
Post by nohwear on Dec 11, 2017 23:44:11 GMT
You do make some interesting points. This does bring up the question of when a new player should start thinking about their other list(s)?
|
|
|
Post by wolfchild on Dec 12, 2017 1:24:41 GMT
My meta doesn’t really play often enough to accurately judge what we can do with a list or how it will likely fair against a ‘faction:warlock:theme’ list. If we could be more confident (I’m guessing mostly thru experience) of what to expect from a list I’d be more confident doing the 2-list discussion n drop. It doesn’t help that a few of us have serious confidence/self esteem issues and as a result can look at our own very strong list and see nothing but weaknesses.... this too can make perceived fairness challenging to achieve at best.
We had run death clock in the past and will probably return to it once were more familiar with Mk3 rules/cards. I’m afraid I am one of those painful deliberators that struggles to make decisions. The clock may help me and my opponents’ enjoyment in the long run.
We run SR scenarios generally as so many of the book ones essentially leave us playing assassination every time. The ST packet provides more ‘live’ scenarios where a scenario win is actually possible and forces a mix of models in a force. When Mk3 first came out the Hordes players in our group almost universally wept in the face of jack spam from power up and stat improvements on Warmachine forces. SR has brought back some balance and new skews that have more variety. It’s the only reason a few of us bothered to play again.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Dec 12, 2017 3:22:39 GMT
Enjoy warmachine any way you want. The most important part of being part of a gaming group is finding players who want an experience similar to the one you want. If you want to be competitive and Firetruck the prom queen, cool find others who want to do that. If you want to just put whatever on the table and play out a story , cool find someone who wants to do that. Things can get testy when one end of the spectrum ttys to get the other to change.
In my meta we play with death clocks and 2 lists regardless of tournaments or a tuesday meet up. It is a excellent way to standardize the game experience for people who are just visiting or those that do not get to play was much.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Dec 12, 2017 5:19:24 GMT
I've placed in every tourney I've entered but generally play more casually and really don't like playing on clock if I can avoid it (I find it adds stress which is not why I am playing a game in the first place). On LGS game nights unless there's a tourney that weekend people are generally pretty cool with making reasonable accommodations to prevent negative play experiences for casual folks. Tweaking lists immediately prior to the match to ensure each side has a chance is fairly common. This also creates more realistic matchups for tourney practice; if I'm running something like Karchev jackspam I want them to know to bring at least some armorcrack; if I'm running thexus+5 drudge units+alexia I want my opponent to have some infantry clear. For any of these gear-check matchups (ghostfleet, unkillacats, etc) there's generally a pre-match agreement as to how competitive they want it to be.
Even if you don't bring two full lists, bringing a few extra models and/or a second warcaster can help a lot. This can even extend to some proxying which is pretty tolerated in my meta (more so since CID). For instance, I've brought single-list legion (w/o naga) to game night. There was no point in playing against that night's single list Stryker1 double stormwall player without proxying the naga in.
|
|
|
Post by wolfchild on Dec 12, 2017 9:23:52 GMT
I keep reading FLGS and LGS, is that an US thing? I’ve not come across the term in the UK.
I think for my group we’ll have to agree a ‘local’ set up somewhere mid-point between the 2 extremes of play, or decide on a game by game basis. One thing is a given though, unless it’s a demo then there will ALWAYS be a scenario.
I say local, there’s at least 6 gaming groups within 40 miles of me, but to get WM/H and avoid the unflinching hardcore tournament types I have to drive a weekly 72 mile round trip to a group in a pub function room. The things we do to get game.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Dec 12, 2017 10:29:58 GMT
I keep reading FLGS and LGS, is that an US thing? I’ve not come across the term in the UK. It's for Local Game Store or Friendly Local Game Store, as far as I know.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Dec 12, 2017 11:00:36 GMT
I keep reading FLGS and LGS, is that an US thing? I’ve not come across the term in the UK. Yup, apparently in the US gaming is organised mainly around shops, not clubs/private gaming groups.
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Dec 12, 2017 11:22:25 GMT
You do make some interesting points. This does bring up the question of when a new player should start thinking about their other list(s)? It would have to be relatively sharpish. Only due to the fact that if someone brings a similar list week in week out (due to not actually owning any more models) eventually you'll start to create counters to it. Even if you do not mean to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Dec 12, 2017 12:22:14 GMT
My meta doesn’t really play often enough to accurately judge what we can do with a list or how it will likely fair against a ‘faction:warlock:theme’ list. If we could be more confident (I’m guessing mostly thru experience) of what to expect from a list I’d be more confident doing the 2-list discussion n drop. It doesn’t help that a few of us have serious confidence/self esteem issues and as a result can look at our own very strong list and see nothing but weaknesses.... this too can make perceived fairness challenging to achieve at best. As you play more and more you guys will start to figure out what is a good list and what is a bad list. Some of it will be simple "this and that don't go together" that simple logic will help you figure out. Some of it will be "this and that don't go together for me, but maybe for him," that you will figure out the more you guys play the game. But all of this doesn't matter. You and the guy across from you could both throw down absolute garbage armies and play a game. Did you have a good time? That's all that matters. Enjoy the victories and the good times, learn from the defeats and the bad times. There are some analogies that cut across "Art" and "The Art of War." Leonardo Da Vinci once said "A work of art is never finished, only abandoned." The nice thing about a deathclock / turn clock is that it forces you to abandon that artfully rendered tactic or strategy, and the loss you feel over abandoning it due to the clock is what transforms into advancement of your skills and learning from your mistakes. First off, there is nothing wrong with winning by assassination. Heck, when you get down to it, Chess is basically a very abstract wargame of caster kill. If having all of the book scenarios seem to degenerate down to caster kill then play the scenarios with the caveat that caster kill does not win the game (where appropriate.) If someone's caster gets killed have them keep playing, complete with wild warbeasts and inactive warjacks. (That always seemed more realistic to me anyway...) I'm glad that the SR scenarios have helped your group and taught you the importance of a combined arms approach. If you and your group like playing the SR scenarios, keep doing it. My only concern is that you remember one thing: the Steam Roller scenarios are an option, but not the only option.
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Dec 12, 2017 12:26:22 GMT
Hey folks, just wondering what your thoughts are on bringing or expecting players to prepare 2 lists to a friendly, non-event gaming group. Do u think we should always play with 2 lists or is it just something for tournaments/tournament prep? Is 2 list play a core part of the game? When would you avoid 2 list play and how would you change it? I personally don’t enter competitive events, but enjoy WM/H in my gaming club and w friends. One of those friends does play events and has encouraged us all to play Death clock (which we’d started using at the end of Mk2, then had a long hiatus w Mk3 so it got dropped til we’re upto speed again) and now he’s encouraging us all to have 2 lists, “otherwise you’re missing out on a core part of the game”. Thoughts and supported opinions please The ppl you should ask this are the ppl you play with. In my group, we often bring 2 lists, because we are a fairly serious bunch. Many times though, some one has one list they want to test out, and they are prepared to play that against what ever. If you want good and even practice games, then both players should bring 2 lists and do proper list selection. Playing bad match ups is a good way to practice though, so i often bring one list and play that against what ever comes up. You can always bring a second list that you do not intend to drop though, so the opponent has to drop a reasonable list against your pairing.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Dec 12, 2017 12:45:39 GMT
I keep reading FLGS and LGS, is that an US thing? I’ve not come across the term in the UK. It's for Local Game Store or Friendly Local Game Store, as far as I know. Yes, LGS = Local Gaming Store -and- FLGS = Friendly Local Gaming Store. The two mean pretty much the same thing. Here in the United States you typically either game with a group of friends and/or you go down to the store and play games on their tables and use their terrain. A lot of gaming stores have found that having a good gaming area will help improve sales, not only of gaming product but also with side items like food and drink.
|
|
|
Post by wolfchild on Dec 12, 2017 17:05:15 GMT
Thanks folks, I think now I’ve had a chat w the big community it’s time to have that chat w my very much smaller one. It’s always worth asking for a wider perspective before making decisions that could have major impacts (salutes Major Impact), so I really appreciate ur responses. I doubt my group will ever play enough games to accurately judge what’s good into what, we only get 1 game/wk and all play other systems too. I might offer 2 lists for my opponent to choose to face. I’ve been winning recently so hopefully it’ll mix it up a wee bit.
In the UK it seems we have a bit more of a mix of venues; (F)LGS, home games, pubs, church/community halls, etc... I like the pubs cos it keeps the kids away and removes the temptation to buy all the time/guilt of not buying. But home games have to be my favourite venue; comfort, free and I know I have a good mix of decent terrain available, unlike a lot of stores (whose terrain quickly looks worse for wear and can be limited).
@blagaliscious I get almost all my victories via assassination, but if there’s no scenario then the game takes on a very bland form, it makes it about something more. And the reason the SR scenarios are so much better is that u can score points quick enough to make a scenario win viable yet still challenging AND it makes players take a mixed list or be heavily compromised. That’s gotta be better for the game.
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on Dec 12, 2017 17:35:46 GMT
I think you will be able to reasonably judge matchups. I only play 1 game a week on average and it becomes easy enough to spot general bad matchups like my list can't play into a gun line or crack serious armor. I think having an idea of archetypes that your list can and can't play into is enough to bypass bad matchups if you and your opponent each have more than one list with them.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Dec 13, 2017 7:37:45 GMT
I think you will be able to reasonably judge matchups. I only play 1 game a week on average and it becomes easy enough to spot general bad matchups like my list can't play into a gun line or crack serious armor. I think having an idea of archetypes that your list can and can't play into is enough to bypass bad matchups if you and your opponent each have more than one list with them. I agree. I play about a game per week on average (plus tournaments), but eventually something just clicks and it gets easier and easier to think about your lists in the abstract, all you have to do then is practice actual problem matchups.
|
|