Who plays T9A casually? Any stories?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Shlagrabak wrote:

    Baranovich wrote:

    Orcs & Goblins were never meant to synergize! They were meant to OVERWHELM! With massive numbers. Grind your opponent down to exhaustion with brutal force, terror, and sheer numbers. Same goes for armies like Vermin Swarm and the Undead. Those armies aren't supposed to synergize! Again, it's about the endless, terrifying masses of ratmen and skeletons that makes those factions what they are. When you take factions like that - the classic, massive overwhelming armies - and they get turned into synergizing mechanics, they lose something.
    :thumbdown: I completely disagree. Just ramming big blocks onto the opponent? You might as well not play the game. That large units are a key aspect of some of these armies, I totally agree, but it does not mean list building has to be made without unit interactions in mind. My evil goblin schemes certainly involve saturating the enemy with cheap and frail but punchy troops, shambolic units getting in the way of enemy elite units while my relatively slow blocks maneuveur to set up combo charges, gobbos throwing nets to let gnashers and trolls pound the enemy with relative impunity, or the GGI turning my impact hitters into small wrecking balls with the rerolls. It makes the game more strategic and dynamic, and in my opinion more immersive, as it builds elements for the story of the battle. What was the war chief trying to do this time? How did he succeed or fail? The more the answer approaches "armies rushed and met in the middle, then one side ran out of warriors" the less interesting it is, story-wise, in my opinion.It's not simply a matter of casual versus competitive play, I think all of that has very much an interest in casual play.

    Baranovich wrote:

    if I want to play Orcs & Goblins on a truly competitive level that I have to think about what units synergize and how magic needs to be used in just the right places...???
    I understand that one might care less about this, but it baffles me that it could be considered a negative let alone wishing this wasn't there.
    People like different play, how surprising! Why not make O&G capable of both gameplay?
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    casamar wrote:

    I have 5 kids and a wife who play, while I attend a lot of tournaments, the rest of the family doesn't often go to tournaments. There are causal games on at home with the kids playing each other or myself at least a few times every weekend. Often it is a made up scenario, 3 of us playing in the one game with an army each, using old war hammer scenarios etc

    I think the reason most discussion is held around tournaments is well because in casual games it's just about having a fun game with a friend. Not focusing on winning, min/maxing etc so little prior or post discussion seems required.
    Its almost like some people have forgotten the point that tournaments are supposed to be large events in which the fun should be amplified and new friendships made.


    In my experience they are! Seriously - I had a riot of a good time losing alongside @Shane - I think its why we won a prize for being good sports.

    Baranovich wrote:



    I guess I'm weird in one sense. Many people complain about how Core units suck because they just grind and grind and grind and it would take forever to actually get kills and get models off the table. Like if you had two armies of nothing but Core it would be horrible because neither side would be able to do anything quickly or decisively.

    The thing is - I actually LOVE the idea of two armies of miniatures prolongingly grinding it out like that. Not only do I not think it's boring I actually think it's AWESOME. Maybe it's the military historian in me that's read hundreds of books on the Napoleonic and Civil War and all the great, massive battles of ancient and medieval times.

    I do like Core units.

    I like looking at the cool character found in the mundane middle - the hordes of rats, the lowly spearman, the mass of Goblins, the stoic dwarves - the idea of these blocks of core units fighitng it out.

    That said - I think T9A does a great job of making these units useful. Sure - an all core army will be facing a rough uphill fight - but I think used intelligently they will do a good job.

    My Current VS list is about 3/4 Core (RAA, Footpads, Vermin Guard) - Most of my lists revolve around the core.

    IMO - The whole point of a tournament is to cram a bunch of games into a day/weekend and play some new players and break out of my local meta. Everything else is secondary.

    I love all the stories of casual games here - its been great reading!

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • i have hardly ever had anything other than a fun game at tournaments, whether that’s because challenging play against a good player is fun and engaging, or in the case of games against less skilled or experienced players, because I put forth effort to insure the game is a worthwhile experience for everyone involved.

    It is important to keep in mind what the greater goal is, which is beyond winning any specific game.
  • When not playing on tournament, and just playing with random people, I use every opportunity to test some stupid stuff for WODG. Primarily - I play using combinations of under-performing units. This way I managed to find a working monster mash roster, that managed to bring me some hilarious victories.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Its almost like some people have forgotten the point that tournaments are supposed to be large events in which the fun should be amplified and new friendships made.


    I don't play tournaments myself but my experience was opposite to this. Back in the day I only played a couple, regularly watched friends play in some and in all cases watched players cheat so it put me off. Games are just 100 times better when players are honest and that's been friendly games 99% of the time
  • In my experience, players cheat or they don't. Player are fun to play against or they're not. It has nothing to do with casual or tournament, they do it anyway. I have seen enough people "mistaking" their rules when playing casual, or moving an inch or two more because it doesn't really matter you know, but every mistake is somehow in their favor :rolleyes: It's just their personality.

    The good part of playing casually is that you are generally playing with friends. You know them, you chose them, you know it's gonna be fun. Tournament, well it's a little more random. Most of the time it's fun, sometimes you just play against someone you don't get along with, or a cheater. That's what happens when you meet strangers, most of the time they're fine people, sometimes they're not.
  • I have found that talking to your opponent, and specifically telling them the goal of your actions and getting their agreement, makes EVERYTHING work better.

    For example, say I am moving a unit to try and block a charge. I will move the unit, then say “my goal here is to prevent your unit from being able to wheel around and charge that unit. Does this look like it will do that?”

    Then they say either yes or no, if no I’ll move them again, if yes, problem solved. This absolutely prevents arguments and hurt feelings.

    I also ask opponents when they are trying to set such things up if I think what they are doing is not going to work. “Are you trying to get that unit out of this units LoS? If so, I think I can still see them”.

    Things often look different across the board, and being able to use an agreed upon set of facts just prevents issues and sore feelings.


    It does occasionally throw people off though. I think some players believe i’m trying to unravel their clever strategies, but after a few back and forths they usually get used to it.
  • There Is No Spoon wrote:

    Kdownunder wrote:

    Most of my games are just about casual game.
    Same.
    I'd say 95% of my games are on weekend evenings with beer and snacks. Typically my scratch-written list against either an upcoming tourney-list or an experimental build. 4500 is the go to, but 2-2.5K happens sometimes, and I have enough models/terrain for a good old 9K double-table slugfest if we ever get around to it time-wise.

    The only tourneys I got to are the ones refed by @Blonde Beer in Zeist, but they tend to feel a bit of an uphill for me as an outsider.
    What do you mean casual???? I feel our games are always highly competitive 8o

    On a more serious note, I attend some tournaments when I can, rather for meeting new players/fighting different armies than for the win. I also don't have the proper tournament mindset usually. I just want to smash regiments against each other and see what happens, not keeping my units back so that I don't lose those points and actually win the game... :rolleyes:
  • Our scene favors best sport over best general. In fact, this year the 40k tournament did not even give out a metal for the highest score (best general), they just got an honorable mention. I plan to adopt this as it takes some of the gravitas out of being "the winner", so people chill out a bit and take winning and losing a bit less seriously.

    I have found when playing opponents who have far less game experience that playing a bit fast and loose really makes for a great experience. There is a time to play at a high level when you opponent is also at that level. If you find yourself in the position of power, it's a great opportunity to take stupid risks, do something funny, try something new. I personally don't see the fun or value in stomping a less experienced player.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by The Beninator ().

  • Baranovich wrote:

    Often times I find myself depressed when I realize that if I want to play Orcs & Goblins on a truly competitive level that I have to think about what units synergize and how magic needs to be used in just the right places...???

    Orcs & Goblins were never meant to synergize! They were meant to OVERWHELM! With massive numbers. Grind your opponent down to exhaustion with brutal force, terror, and sheer numbers. Same goes for armies like Vermin Swarm and the Undead. Those armies aren't supposed to synergize! Again, it's about the endless, terrifying masses of ratmen and skeletons that makes those factions what they are. When you take factions like that - the classic, massive overwhelming armies - and they get turned into synergizing mechanics, they lose something.

    I guess I'm weird in one sense. Many people complain about how Core units suck because they just grind and grind and grind and it would take forever to actually get kills and get models off the table. Like if you had two armies of nothing but Core it would be horrible because neither side would be able to do anything quickly or decisively.

    The thing is - I actually LOVE the idea of two armies of miniatures prolongingly grinding it out like that. Not only do I not think it's boring I actually think it's AWESOME. Maybe it's the military historian in me that's read hundreds of books on the Napoleonic and Civil War and all the great, massive battl
    Fully understand where you are coming from.

    The vast majority of my games at local level are casual. When I play in Dublin slightly more serious but still about the game not the result.
    I play 1 or 2 Tournys a year but knowing the group,which does include some serious Tourny players, I find them a great bunch of people.
    Next month there is a Tourny in Limerick to which I will be taking O&G. The list I will be using includes 8 Core Units totaling 2558 pts. So can be done.

    Also a big fan of Napoleonic Period who likewise has read 100s of books on the subject so you are not alone.
  • Shane wrote:

    I have found that talking to your opponent, and specifically telling them the goal of your actions and getting their agreement, makes EVERYTHING work better.

    For example, say I am moving a unit to try and block a charge. I will move the unit, then say “my goal here is to prevent your unit from being able to wheel around and charge that unit. Does this look like it will do that?”

    Then they say either yes or no, if no I’ll move them again, if yes, problem solved. This absolutely prevents arguments and hurt feelings.

    I also ask opponents when they are trying to set such things up if I think what they are doing is not going to work. “Are you trying to get that unit out of this units LoS? If so, I think I can still see them”.

    Things often look different across the board, and being able to use an agreed upon set of facts just prevents issues and sore feelings.


    It does occasionally throw people off though. I think some players believe i’m trying to unravel their clever strategies, but after a few back and forths they usually get used to it.
    I found the exact opposite! I always play that way stating my intended strategies etc. And in the one game that will forever burn in my mind was when my opponent agreed every time to what was trying to be achieved, then next turn would literally nudge my stuff and go "well it actually looks like they are in my LOS so... ." this prompted a swift response of "pfft, how long is left till the next game?"
  • Dilly wrote:

    Shane wrote:

    I have found that talking to your opponent, and specifically telling them the goal of your actions and getting their agreement, makes EVERYTHING work better.

    For example, say I am moving a unit to try and block a charge. I will move the unit, then say “my goal here is to prevent your unit from being able to wheel around and charge that unit. Does this look like it will do that?”

    Then they say either yes or no, if no I’ll move them again, if yes, problem solved. This absolutely prevents arguments and hurt feelings.

    I also ask opponents when they are trying to set such things up if I think what they are doing is not going to work. “Are you trying to get that unit out of this units LoS? If so, I think I can still see them”.

    Things often look different across the board, and being able to use an agreed upon set of facts just prevents issues and sore feelings.


    It does occasionally throw people off though. I think some players believe i’m trying to unravel their clever strategies, but after a few back and forths they usually get used to it.
    I found the exact opposite! I always play that way stating my intended strategies etc. And in the one game that will forever burn in my mind was when my opponent agreed every time to what was trying to be achieved, then next turn would literally nudge my stuff and go "well it actually looks like they are in my LOS so... ." this prompted a swift response of "pfft, how long is left till the next game?"
    a friend asked me what my response would be if that happened to me.

    Assuming it was not a mistake in communication, I would clarify what I had thought I had done and what my opponent had said Vs what they meant, and then leave it alone unless it happened again and then stop the game to discuss what the failure in communication was.

    If what became apparent was that we could not come to an agreement about reality, and that my opponent was absolutely and intentionally willing to be dishonest by saying “you’re out of LoS there” or some such and then saying I was, i’d absolutely tell them to their face what they were doing, and if they understood that and we’re not remorseful, i’d likely stop playing.

    That was my response. An alternative response is a fist fight, which i’d be fine with as well.
  • Shane wrote:

    Dilly wrote:

    Shane wrote:

    I have found that talking to your opponent, and specifically telling them the goal of your actions and getting their agreement, makes EVERYTHING work better.

    For example, say I am moving a unit to try and block a charge. I will move the unit, then say “my goal here is to prevent your unit from being able to wheel around and charge that unit. Does this look like it will do that?”

    Then they say either yes or no, if no I’ll move them again, if yes, problem solved. This absolutely prevents arguments and hurt feelings.

    I also ask opponents when they are trying to set such things up if I think what they are doing is not going to work. “Are you trying to get that unit out of this units LoS? If so, I think I can still see them”.

    Things often look different across the board, and being able to use an agreed upon set of facts just prevents issues and sore feelings.


    It does occasionally throw people off though. I think some players believe i’m trying to unravel their clever strategies, but after a few back and forths they usually get used to it.
    I found the exact opposite! I always play that way stating my intended strategies etc. And in the one game that will forever burn in my mind was when my opponent agreed every time to what was trying to be achieved, then next turn would literally nudge my stuff and go "well it actually looks like they are in my LOS so... ." this prompted a swift response of "pfft, how long is left till the next game?"
    a friend asked me what my response would be if that happened to me.
    Assuming it was not a mistake in communication, I would clarify what I had thought I had done and what my opponent had said Vs what they meant, and then leave it alone unless it happened again and then stop the game to discuss what the failure in communication was.

    If what became apparent was that we could not come to an agreement about reality, and that my opponent was absolutely and intentionally willing to be dishonest by saying “you’re out of LoS there” or some such and then saying I was, i’d absolutely tell them to their face what they were doing, and if they understood that and we’re not remorseful, i’d likely stop playing.

    That was my response. An alternative response is a fist fight, which i’d be fine with as well.
    yea, thats my stance too. Articulate, communicate, and agree.

    You get a few "maybe the models are out of line" freebies - but if you keep it up, i'll just simply stop playing you.

    Im a crap fighter, so i may just do something more passive agressive - like let the air out of your tires ;)

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • kisanis wrote:

    Shane wrote:

    Dilly wrote:

    Shane wrote:

    I have found that talking to your opponent, and specifically telling them the goal of your actions and getting their agreement, makes EVERYTHING work better.

    For example, say I am moving a unit to try and block a charge. I will move the unit, then say “my goal here is to prevent your unit from being able to wheel around and charge that unit. Does this look like it will do that?”

    Then they say either yes or no, if no I’ll move them again, if yes, problem solved. This absolutely prevents arguments and hurt feelings.

    I also ask opponents when they are trying to set such things up if I think what they are doing is not going to work. “Are you trying to get that unit out of this units LoS? If so, I think I can still see them”.

    Things often look different across the board, and being able to use an agreed upon set of facts just prevents issues and sore feelings.


    It does occasionally throw people off though. I think some players believe i’m trying to unravel their clever strategies, but after a few back and forths they usually get used to it.
    I found the exact opposite! I always play that way stating my intended strategies etc. And in the one game that will forever burn in my mind was when my opponent agreed every time to what was trying to be achieved, then next turn would literally nudge my stuff and go "well it actually looks like they are in my LOS so... ." this prompted a swift response of "pfft, how long is left till the next game?"
    a friend asked me what my response would be if that happened to me.Assuming it was not a mistake in communication, I would clarify what I had thought I had done and what my opponent had said Vs what they meant, and then leave it alone unless it happened again and then stop the game to discuss what the failure in communication was.

    If what became apparent was that we could not come to an agreement about reality, and that my opponent was absolutely and intentionally willing to be dishonest by saying “you’re out of LoS there” or some such and then saying I was, i’d absolutely tell them to their face what they were doing, and if they understood that and we’re not remorseful, i’d likely stop playing.

    That was my response. An alternative response is a fist fight, which i’d be fine with as well.
    yea, thats my stance too. Articulate, communicate, and agree.
    You get a few "maybe the models are out of line" freebies - but if you keep it up, i'll just simply stop playing you.

    Im a crap fighter, so i may just do something more passive agressive - like let the air out of your tires ;)
    I had a guy get pissy because my bases are 21mm and not 20mm.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!