| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Daunte
Sergeant
518 Posts
    
 | | 03/26/2006 11:41 AM |
| OK, i had a tournament yesterday. Something came up that i thought i would ask the majority on.
In the swiss rounds i lost to someone who had a damn good band and it was pretty dangerous. Ended up making it past the swiss rounds to the single elimination. One the first round and then had to play him for 1st place. I won map init that really helped me in this game. But the question i have is normally i play a really straight up go kill everything type of game. PLaying him i knew this was going to be dangerous so decided to play points. Well this really pissed him off. He ended up eliminating all but one of my peices and before he could get to it to finish it off i had enough points from 9 rounds in a victory square and killing off all but two of his peices to win.
But does it piss you off when people play the points game? And what do you think about playing it that way? | |
Ha:19 of 80! De:43 of 60! Ar:24 of 60! GoL:60 of 72! Ab:59 of 60! Dk:58 of 60! Af:60 of 60 Complete! Ud:60 of 60 Complete! WD:60 of 60 Complete!
Trade Thread
Excel Trade Calculator
Excel Price guide/Checklist | |
|
XenoZephyr
Underboss
1083 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 12:04 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Daunte
But does it piss you off when people play the points game? And what do you think about playing it that way?
No not at all. If I'm in a tournament and the format is Assault, then points is what wins. The game, specially today, is designed around Assault. Kobold Miner, Warforged Scout. I think it's a little ridiculous people getting mad when someone wins by getting victory area points instead of straight up fighting. That's the format of the game. Yes, call me a chicken or loser or a cheat or whatever else because I didn't charge your Frenzied Berserker with my Kobold Miner.
| |
| |
|
jacksonm
Warlord
5560 Posts
River City
| | 03/26/2006 12:19 PM |
| No, I mean those are the rules.
He had the option of going to eliminate the minis you had in victory areas to stop you from getting points presumably but he didn't.
Good job in adjusting your strategy to match the warband you were facing. | | | |
|
DaemonKain
Warrior
312 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 12:19 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Daunte
But does it piss you off when people play the points game? And what do you think about playing it that way?
This doesn't piss me off at all. In fact, it is a vital part of the game to understand. There is an article linked in the "ultimate skirmish resources" thread that frames this well, entitled "Playing to Win." The actual article is about street fighter tournaments, but the basic principles apply.
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm
Assault points, and playing to win on points, not on elimination, are a core concept in this game. Using them isn't cheap, it's just required. People who get irritated about using them don't understand the tournament level game. Don't get irritated back at these people, but don't let them push you into playing their version of DDM.
| |
-DaemonKain
Proud Mascot of Team Amish | |
|
NightMoor
Sergeant
448 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 12:21 PM |
| | In a tournament, the purpose of the game is to gain more points than your opponent to win. The reason victory areas exist (and the Assault rules too) is to actually encourage fighting since players have to enter their opponent's zone to gain those extra points. I think the only reason someone should be pissed off about it is when their opponent clearly is better at gaining points than they are, meaning they should be pissed at themselves :-). | |
| |
|
Janos M.
Underboss
1015 Posts
Hamburg / GErmany
| | 03/26/2006 12:30 PM |
| @ Daunte
As an opponent I don't get pissed for such game, quite the contratry I respect it as an tatical instrument.
| |
My Haves and wants:
http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=Janos_M.
Champion of Elan Psions
Proud Owner of the "Aura of cursed dice" | |
|
lantern314
Sergeant
684 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 1:27 PM |
| | I have heard it remarked at a tournament, that "I won for real, not with tile points." Which of course acknowledges the validity of a tile point strategy, but sees it as somehow cowardly. I think that represents a mind-set that plays for the fun of beating stuff up, rather than equating winning with fun. It is my understanding that the assault format was developed to combat turtling by creating an incentive to risk a piece in a forward position. It is unfortunate that for some people sitting back for a whole game waiting to be attacked is fun. | |
| |
|
Daunte
Sergeant
518 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 2:43 PM |
| yeah, i didnt get irritated back. I just found it was kind of funny. When i play i play to win. If i think i have a better chance doing that with tile points rather then killing mini's then so be it.
I think the thing that annoyed him more then anything though, is that when i won i had a kobold miner and he had aspect of Kord and Rikka. Just didnt seem right to him that the miner was the mini to win it all.
And Lantern, you need to come down to OKC and GameHQ and get in one of our tourney's. Still want a rematch from the wardrums pre-release. That and our tourney's are starting to be pretty nice. average 8-10 people every two weeks regularly now. | |
Ha:19 of 80! De:43 of 60! Ar:24 of 60! GoL:60 of 72! Ab:59 of 60! Dk:58 of 60! Af:60 of 60 Complete! Ud:60 of 60 Complete! WD:60 of 60 Complete!
Trade Thread
Excel Trade Calculator
Excel Price guide/Checklist | |
|
Pegasus Knight
Sergeant
896 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 4:39 PM |
| No, I don't get irritated in the least when someone plays the VP/clock game. Assault VPs were added to discourage turtling. They do so, and every faction has nearly equal access to a good VA-grabber, and it seems most factions have a way to casually deal with most grabbers.
Assault VPs are probably meant to be a rough equivalent of controlling an area of the battlefield with some sort of mission-critical objective. Not very well represented on most maps, but that's one way you could look at it. "Yeah, I lost some of my best fighters, but we STILL unearthed the +18 Staff of Infinite Ownage, so we won the day."
Winning by ignoring Victory Areas isn't "winning for real." It's winning with what could be a 10 to 60 point point handicap; impressive, but often a rather stupid thing to try. If you can pull it off though, great. Just know it for what it is. It's winning with a self-imposed handicap -- which requires a lot of technical play skill -- instead of "winning for real."
Now, if winning by ignoring VAs makes things more fun for the guy, great. I have more fun playing DDM when I field Pegasi. I admit doing so is often a self-imposed handicap however, and certainly don't expect my opponent to use them. There's ways to counter VP-grabbing strategies, often for as little as 4 to 10 points.
I'd say tossing up Sirlin's Playing To Win article link is a valid response if someone does chew you out or call it 'cheap.' It's a gameplay mechanic that all four factions have viable access to. There's some things in DDM that it's understandable if you get annoyed with your opponent for abusing them, "Playing To Win" or not. Assault VPs aren't one of those things. | |
- Irrationally Fanatical Champion of Pegasus-mounted cavalry
- Proud member of Team Low Tier Beasting: I play CG as my main faction!
- Garland, TX 2006 Qualifier Champion
My trading thread: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19725 | |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 5:39 PM |
| Slow-play is not allowed.
Playing for points, however, is not slow-play ... and if you're not playing it you're not playing the tournament game.
I was wondering if I had to bring out the streetfighter article again; folks lose sight of that. Yes, you can complain that figure XYZ is broken or getting victory points is a bogus strategy and people who use it are cheap, lazy no-good folks ... but that just means you're not playing to win the actual game. Instead, you're playing some other game with a different set of rules based on value judgements you've got in your head. That can be a fun game, and really most friendly games are this way ... but you have to realize that you're not playing "the actual tournament game" and you're likely hampering your chances to be as successful as possible.
This is ok if you're not concerned with being successful all of the time or if playing a non-efficient strategy/piece brings you more enjoyment. There are plenty of players here (and good ones) who often play less-than-efficient warbands. The better players recognize it and are OK with having less of a chance to win because they are having more fun.
Still, that decision is theirs ... and they own it ... and most players don't get cranky when someone does play more efficient bands or strategies.
Long story short, some people are going to be grumpy and there's not much you can do other than address things w/ the judge. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
| Master of the
Awesome Sauce
Teflon Jeff
Warlord
7675 Posts
Sector 2814
| | 03/27/2006 12:02 AM |
| | In the last Prerelease, I had the same situation. He had the bigger titan, and mine was wounded. so some quick round 6 math determined I neede to run around for 4 more rounds. And I did. My titan had like 15 hp left when I won on points. Having the cougar gain points every turn really helped. | |
Official Delegate, Wizards of the Coast
Icons Called Shot: Gargantuan Prismatic Dragon
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen." | |
|
Kalrin
Sneak
90 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 12:23 AM |
| | In a tournament today I both lost a match and won a match based on playing for points. | |
| |
|
forkedmoon
Underboss
1305 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 11:19 AM |
| It can be a frustrating game when you lose on victory points but as everyone said it is the rules that decide victory conditions. I have played the games where we avoided each other and collected our victory points only to have the game decided on closest to the center. Again this is where understanding the rules is critical. My opponent thought we had played to a draw, rules book was pulled and then the light went on for him: new rule to consider if I want to win. Did I get a cheap win? Absolutely but it was not my fault I got it, I played with what the rules allowed me. To have attacked my opponent while he was "holed up" in his voctory area would have been giving him a "cheap" victory since I can't roll well enough with my guys to hit the broad side of a barn.
This same issue came up in a tournament in which I was judge. Time had been called and the game was tied on points. The two playing thought they had a draw, if they had considered the closest to the center as a victory condition, the game might have been won by a different player istead of who won it. Understanding victory requirements is the first step to winning matches.
To answer you question do I get P***ed about losing on victory points not half as much as I do when I lose because I rolled a one at the wrong moment. Don't like losing but when I lose on victory points I try to figure out how to avoid that loss in the future when I lose on a "1" I try to figure out who I can slip this die to while I grab theirs that rolled "20s" [}:)][)] | |
Champion of Cyclops
| |
| Professional Fan of DDM
Shoe
Sergeant
804 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 12:22 PM |
| I prefer a decisive victory - and while one could argue that a higher victory point total is "decisive", I sometimes feel bad when I win by a score of 24-20 (which is great in football, but close in minis). Particularly when I end up playing point-denial, moving my vulnerable pieces away to ensure I don't lose those points.
Doesn't prevent me from going for the win, but I feel a hint of regret that taints the feeling of victory.
But, it doesn't make me mad if my opponent plays that way -- it's part of the game. | |
Professional Fan of DDM | |
|
frogrodeo
Sergeant
706 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 2:42 PM |
| I agree that if people don't play for points, they are missing part of the game. Sure, you can just ignore an enemy that is scoring points each round on a victory area... but if you do so you are playing with the thought that you have a better chance of winning if you focus on other things. In Assault, tile points are a valid strategy, and those that choose to ignore it are really only placing a handicap on themselves. Tile points can add up quickly (very quickly if you also have extra points from Plunder or Bounty), and I think some people really don't realize how devastating they can be until its too late.
There are some computer games that I can think of that illustrate this as well: Counter-strike, BF1942, Americas Army, to name a few. Some of these games have scenarios that can be ended by 1) eliminating the opposing forces, or 2) meeting some other objective (defuse a bomb, rescue hostages, acquire and hold certian victory areas, escort the VIP to safety, steal the enemy plans for XYZ, identify weapons caches at two seperate victory areas, set charges under three supply vehicles... etc). I would argue that for DDM, having assault points is one way to represent many of the "other objectives" in a strategy miniatures game. | |
Champion of Remorhaz, and the Mighty Goblin Frog Riders | |
|
XenoZephyr
Underboss
1083 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 2:55 PM |
| I came up with this when I was composing an email for someone.
If you were playing Blackjack and had a King and Queen in your hand. Would you think of yourself as a coward or cheat if you choose to stand instead of take a hit? No, of course not. That's the game. | |
| |
|
Wish
Sergeant
399 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 2:55 PM |
| | Frogrodeo has hit on something there. It's fine to ignore victory are points if you're doing it with a purpose. I played a match this weekend in which my opponent scored victory points every round, from start to finish. Something like 70 points. I never even attempted to evict his tile grabber. I thought about it once or twice, but it was in an inaccessible area, and I knew that I was also going to be grabbing tile points every round. It never seemed worth exposing one of my hitters to go evict him. So I focused on destroying enough of the enemy warband to get ahead on points that way, since tile points would be equal. | | | |
|
robbdaman
Underboss
2380 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 3:09 PM |
| This is actually one of the reasons I don't care for the assualt format. But my game is to plan against someone playing points (annoying denial) and make dang sure I'm capable of keeping up with them if that's the case. I will say that I hate games where the opponent turtles up and shoots with ranged attacks even more. That is one thing that assualt format takes care of at least. Still I wish there was a better option that didn't annoy the heck out of me or anyone for that matter. Personally I wish victory points only counted if and when time runs out and until then it's all about beating your opponent in a good battle. But sadly they made it so someone can sit and gain VP while being a wuss instead.
R~ | |
Champion of the Titan
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Successful trades with: Tickparasite, Iyceman, Faragdar The Wise's friend, avrivah, Drakkengi, brucemc, Krush, maniacal_mini_monger, hung4treason, Gandy, NarlethDrider, Kunimatyu, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah..... | |
|
Deoxy
Warrior
225 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 4:30 PM |
| On point about the Sirlin article - even it acknowledges "cheap" and "broken" with the Akuma example.
That is, I would be viewd as a "scrub" by that article, as I consider some tactics "cheap" in many games... but I do play to win, I just have a lower "Akuma" tolerance.
That is, for me, I get very frustrated with abuse of "broken" pieces or moves in gams. I have a very low tolerance for "broken-ness". I want the game to depend on SKILL as much as possible, not "whoever uses the uber tactic/piece". Of course, in the real world, such things are very hard to come by.
That's why I liked, for example, Total Annihilation (back in the day), as both sides were 98% identical. That is, each side had access to units that were insignificantly different from each other (with a VERY few exceptions - and the exceptions weren't very competitive, either).
Now, Starcraft managed to pull off 3 VERY different sides that were still ALMOST perfectly balanced. Notice that, 4 years later, Starcraft is still outselling most new games. Balance like that is THAT rare.
So, while I appreciate the article for the point it makes, I think it is rather biased and flawed. | |
No longer active on MaxMinis | |
|
iluvxtina
Underboss
1501 Posts
Spain
| | 03/27/2006 4:42 PM |
| | In my last tournament everybody had in their warbands a first round grabbe tiler.I had a warforged scout and my first rival had a timber wolf.I have realized that everybody scores in each assault 30 to 40 tile grabbing points.But the right strategy is to destroy your rivals creatures while grabing tiles.Its not so difficult.And yes....Its funny!!! | |
LOVE THIS GIRL | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 4:49 PM |
| Considering that warband elimination is not even a victory condition, I have not problem winning with the assault points.
I make every effort to get assault points every round, and am also not too proud to disengage in order to prevent a kill when time is nearing being called. Playing to win on points is not the same as stalling. As long as all moves are made in a timely fashion, I see no reason to stand in a circle and roll dice until someone dies, especially if by avoiding the last few combats, I can win. | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 4:56 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Deoxy
On point about the Sirlin article - even it acknowledges "cheap" and "broken" with the Akuma example.
That is, I would be viewd as a "scrub" by that article, as I consider some tactics "cheap" in many games... but I do play to win, I just have a lower "Akuma" tolerance.
That is, for me, I get very frustrated with abuse of "broken" pieces or moves in gams. I have a very low tolerance for "broken-ness". I want the game to depend on SKILL as much as possible, not "whoever uses the uber tactic/piece". Of course, in the real world, such things are very hard to come by.
That's why I liked, for example, Total Annihilation (back in the day), as both sides were 98% identical. That is, each side had access to units that were insignificantly different from each other (with a VERY few exceptions - and the exceptions weren't very competitive, either).
Now, Starcraft managed to pull off 3 VERY different sides that were still ALMOST perfectly balanced. Notice that, 4 years later, Starcraft is still outselling most new games. Balance like that is THAT rare.
So, while I appreciate the article for the point it makes, I think it is rather biased and flawed.
So, the Sirlin article is a bit ... rough, but the point is the same.
If the Orc Wardrummer was free or the Helmed Horror cost 10 points they'd be something many folks would consider broken.
If you show up at a big tournament and you're not using those and lose, you have to ask yourself if you're really playing to win ... and understand the difference. Using those pieces are not "cheap" nor would they make you a weenie ... they are part of the game. People who use them would simply care more about winning (and have fun doing so) than those who don't - they are playing different games ... and you shouldn't complain when someone is playing the game as advertised and by the rules. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Pegasus Knight
Sergeant
896 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 6:05 PM |
| I'd like to add something to the "Akuma example" that's being discussed, because the point is being somewhat missed. Sirlin is discussing Akuma in a very specific game: Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo ("ST" or "Super Turbo" from here on), which incredibly still sees tournament play despite its age. Akuma in most other games is reasonably balanced, and in any other game that he's overpowered in, it's a non-issue since there's no tournament community for it. But here's the thing:
He's not just 'really powerful' in Super Turbo. He's genuinely overpowered and wrecks the game's inherent design. Akuma in ST isn't a Helmed Horror or Duergar Champion. He's the power-equivalent of a Drider Sorcerer who also happens to be an Eye of Gruumsh that employs a Hill Giant Barbarian as his melee weapon. Whatever you can do, ST Akuma can counter with casual ease. Whatever he can do, there's only a tiny handful of options against and sometimes not even they have a real shot of working. He'll be all over the place, hitting for hellacious amounts of damage, and you won't be able to do much about it if the opponent is reasonably competent. This isn't something that's just now sunk in; ST has a roster of about 24 characters, and in about a decade of play, none of those 24 have been found to counter ST Akuma. I wasn't around for ST's tournament heyday, but my guess is Akuma's been banned for at least five years now.
Sirlin certainly does admit 'cheap and broken' exists when he references ST Akuma. But there are some connected points. First, Akuma was banned from reasonable tournaments after a long, hard look at it. They had years of play data to go by in making this decision, with some of the best players in the world, even as far away as Japan, contributing to the knowledge at hand. Akuma was not banned lightly in ST, much like the Drider Sorcerer wasn't casually removed from DDM tournaments. Sirlin does draw a line; if virtually (or literally) nothing in the game can stop it, remove it from the game or play another game entirely.
Essentially, a Sirlinist view encourages you to genuinely see if there's a counter to X or Y. Let's use Helmed Horrors as an example. They're very effective pieces. But a suitably motivated CG player can casually shut a Horror down by running a unit with DR5, Aramil, and an Elf Pyro (or Dragon Shrine map), using Toolkit pieces. Helmed Horrors in DDM can be dealt with. Akuma in ST cannot. Sirlin wouldn't call you a 'scrub' for refusing to run Akuma in ST; he'd acknowledge that was genuinely for the good of the game since the rest of the 24 character roster holds up well against one another. 'Scrubby' would be refusing to run a strong piece that has genuine counters, due to some 'moral constraint' you've made up and expect others to respect.
Playing To Win basically implies that if something is powerful, and indeed it's the strongest overall choice in the game, go ahead and use it. The only reason not to is if it's not able to be practically, reasonably countered by an option that isn't as good overall. DDM doesn't have an "Akuma tolerance"; it gets rid of genuinely overpowering pieces. Suff like the Duergar Champion, Chraal, Helmed Horror, etc. aren't that amazingly, devastatingly overpowered. Even CG can win against them, and CG's accepted as the weakest faction in DDM. Akuma in ST is entirely different from most of the Toolkit Pieces in DDM.
Or if you want the super-short version: "Sirlin's okay with banning Akuma because ST Akuma isn't merely Aspect of Kord, he is Kord, on a battlefield of mortals and aspects. ST Akuma can't really be compared to many still-legal pieces in DDM. He's that sickeningly overpowering, far beyond anything still legal in DDM." | |
- Irrationally Fanatical Champion of Pegasus-mounted cavalry
- Proud member of Team Low Tier Beasting: I play CG as my main faction!
- Garland, TX 2006 Qualifier Champion
My trading thread: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19725 | |
|
lantern314
Sergeant
684 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 6:07 PM |
| I think that not enough emphasis is given to the idea that Assault points represent taking an important objective. When you think about them in those terms it becomes less, "cheap" and more "strategically important"
| |
| |
|
Feathers
Underboss
1140 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 4:24 AM |
| I think it is silly to get upset because you lost on points. I'm all for playing for points.
But by the same token, as Shoe says, I hate to run away just because I know I can preserve points and eke out a victory. I prefer to win by killing at least one of my opponent's core pieces. Winning by killing 3 fodder and amassing lots of tile points just isn't as cool as winning by eliminating 2 hitters and tile points. | |
Champion of Neogi
Completed Trades/Transactions: sttmxn, Krush, jgsugden, Ayrychx2, Venport, Tysac
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2403 Posts
London
| | 03/28/2006 6:36 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Daunte
He ended up eliminating all but one of my peices and before he could get to it to finish it off i had enough points from 9 rounds in a victory square and killing off all but two of his peices to win.
But does it piss you off when people play the points game? And what do you think about playing it that way?
Not even slightly.
Tile points for assault, are part of the games victory conditions.
If my opponent reaches 200 points before I do, then I lost. (Which isn't my favourite result[)]) But it doesn't "piss me off".
| |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
maijstral
Underboss
2105 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 7:02 AM |
| Ialmost always play for fun so we used to play 'to the death' and I won alot. Recently though we have been more and more into playing tournement style,points.
Not being used to that I tend to lose as my opponent is much better so he ususally gets the victory points I forget about as a result I am losing a lot more. Does it 'piss me off' yes, but not because he wins by points but because I lose by not remembering the stratagies of playing for points, there have been a few games where if we had gone another round or two there is a good chance I would have won by taking out his warband entirely.
I wanted to learn how to play properly in a tournement format so now I am and hopefully I am improving. Points are part of the game and and to get mad because you win on points is, to make a pun, pointless.
| | | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
PatEllis15
Commander
4463 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 9:57 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Shoe
I prefer a decisive victory - and while one could argue that a higher victory point total is "decisive", I sometimes feel bad when I win by a score of 24-20 (which is great in football, but close in minis). Particularly when I end up playing point-denial, moving my vulnerable pieces away to ensure I don't lose those points.
Doesn't prevent me from going for the win, but I feel a hint of regret that taints the feeling of victory.
But, it doesn't make me mad if my opponent plays that way -- it's part of the game.
I too prefer the "Decisive" victory. BUT, I've learned my lesson. I had this bizarre sense of honor back in 2004. There I was at my local qualifier with a chance to WIN a trip to GenCon. I had actually told myself that it was the only way I would go to GenCon in general. I'd never been, and REALLY wanted to go.
Just 8 people showed up to our qualifier... I knew I had a chance.
I had a thoroughly Tier II band, perhaps even tier III! Bladesinger, Copper Sam, Clay Golem, and Evermeet. I played my arse off to get to the finals (a few 20's during a cave of pain round against Pat Lynch didn't hurt!)
So, I find myself in the final round against Eric, who had a bunch of scrub iconics, Drizzt and a Clay Golem. The scrubs are wiped out quickly, and I get his Clay Golem as well. Now, I'm ahead on point, and instead of forcing drizzt to run around trying to collect enough points (and plinking away at a distance with my copper sam and GreyCloaks), I decide to charge in with everything....
He kills nearly every figure as time runs out. Drizzt has 5 H.P. left. GAH!
This because of "honor". I had a chance to win, and I left it on the map... An expensive, hard lesson, but one I haven't had to learn twice.
Pat E | |
"Games evolve. Otherwise we'd still be pushing rocks around the dirt. What do you think the cavemen said when some dude showed up with sticks?" - Chairman7w | |
|
striderlotr
Commander
3370 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 10:18 AM |
| I enjoy playing for fun and playing some kill them all games, but in a tournament, you need to accept that there are tactics that can make or break a game. Prior to the points game, we had the tutle game of sitting behind your LSD and not losing anything. So now you are forced to actually play and not sit and hide... that does not piss me off at all.
I also, like Pat, used to play with a little bit of a need to kill them all, but now I understand that there are tactics that can make or break a game without going for all kills. It is a tactic and people need to understand that.
In the real world (as some people mentioned) would we chastise a captain in the army if he was able to take a victory without losing a single soldier or capture a key location without inflicting any casualties? Tactics are part of many things in life. Learning how do deal with them or work them to your advantage is key. | |
Sean Banks
Champion of Elementals
Official Organizer
Gen Con 05 maxminis Event | Winterfantasy 06 maxminis Event | Gen Con 06 maxminis Event | Winterfantasy 07 Community Event | |
| Master of the
Awesome Sauce
Teflon Jeff
Warlord
7675 Posts
Sector 2814
| | 03/29/2006 12:34 AM |
| I have to agree with the sentiments echoed here. I enjoy, and frequently play, the "gotta' kill 'em all" game. I very rarely have a game end on time called. But I have had games where I won on points, and would have lost had it not been a rule, i.e. severely overmatched. I think it is an excellent balancing mechanism to a bad matchup, allowing skillful play to help overcome the losses.
I expect every opponent to gather Victory points, just as I eexpect to gain them as well. i think in an assault format, it's part of designing your warband, just as much or more as map selection. | |
Official Delegate, Wizards of the Coast
Icons Called Shot: Gargantuan Prismatic Dragon
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen." | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11768 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 03/29/2006 1:05 AM |
| | Losing PERIOD, pisses me off. Whether I lose on points or get decimated by the enemy. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
jacksonm
Warlord
5560 Posts
River City
| | 03/29/2006 8:36 AM |
| I've been in the situation a couple times where I lose on victory points in a close fight but if the game had gone one more round then I would have had the advantage and won. That can be frustrating.
Then again I've been on the other side of the equation. Over time it all tends to balance out. | | | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 03/29/2006 9:33 AM |
| None of my matches were even close to time limit last night, although I still won all of my matches on points, since that is the only way to win, barring tiebreakers. Warband elimination is not a victory condition, only 200 or more points, or highest points, or in the event of a tie, closest model to center of map, etc.
One match only went a little over 3 rounds. | |
| |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |