i agree with Caneghem's way of playing. but also in my circle of players we decide first if its serious or for fun. for us serious is complete surpise and our best efforts and killer combo's. when it's a friendly game we reveal stats, items and just help each other make the best decision generally. In the END serious game or friendly. it's about fun for us. we all put alot of work and love into our models and we feel that if it gets too serious then it's not fun anymore and then there is no reason for us to play anymore
Yes yes. Working on from that I can't help but remember the face of the one guy I happened to talk tournament games with. I mentioned that I play Lizardmen so we talked about them and their combos a bit, and how 8th hit them. The thing is that when I told him that I've never used a slann and aren't planning to either, preferring my Oldbloods and Scar-vets, he assumed I'm no Tournie player. When I told him that I am, and am planning on taking my Lizardmen to a tournie sometime he looked like I had set a live grenade in his face. I am a tournament player after all, and I like it competitive. But I'm not in for the win, which I guess is the hard thing to get. But I spend money on the hobby already, and I do have the money to just throw it out on some casual fun in a non-casual setting. What can we learn from this then? Well first of all this guy had already gotten an image of my army and when he realised he was only correct on one thing (salamanders) it blew his mind a bit. That's the thing I've always been looking for when I try to play competitively. Who can expect a win when your opponent already knows what you've got and how you plan on using it? To be honest you take the things you like, learn to use them, work on how to effectively counter different units even if you've got the worst weapons imaginable for the situation. It's generally told that Warhammer functions somewhat like chess. (used to anyway) Which is true, just that you can have more than 1 queen. Now trust me, you can win a game of chess even if your opponent has i.e. 5 queens when you have none. All you have to do is use your pawns wisely. It's a real pity he didn't play 40k. I'd love telling him about my 4th edition Tyranid swarm which I was quite successful with even in 5th edition. Cheers!
A lot of players have voiced a similar opinion- that 8th edition has cut into the tactical aspect of Warhammer. I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on the ways, for better or worse, the new book has changed the depth of skill involved in the game. I'll start a new thread later, unless someone beats me to it. Edit: New thread here- http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/8th-edition-are-tactics-dead.4786/
This thread has veered wildly off course, I run a lone slaan in big games, a scar vet/ old one in little ones, Personally I like the new movement charging rules, The game becomes less of a I can visualize 8" better than you can so I'm going to win, Probabilities has always been a big part of war hammer, especially competitive war hammer, The only gripe I have is the pathetically small distance you move when failing a charge, Bringing your A game has very little to do with the list you choose to run, but how you run that list, My 2000 point WOC list has 1 model in chaos armor, And that a the war shrine, It's not the most effective army list in the book, not by a long shot, but it's the army I chose to play, and it wins far more games than it looses... I'm going to the UK GT again this year, with skinks, monsters and a slaan, Again, not the most competitive list, but I'm damn sure going to be heading onto those top tables, Saying that using a "weak list" isn't bringing your A game is like telling a pub league rugby side they arnt bringing their A game because they arnt David Campese