I don't mind losing. Really, I don't.
My problem is the little guys on the battlefield who get axed because I roll dice so poorly :D
But provided an intriguing battle has played out, that's a win, and the effort was worthwhile.
I was contemplating the following concept; you don't really know if you like a game or not until you lose.
And not just losing because you're learning and don't know how it works, but once you know the rules, have an idea of some basic and intermediate stuff, and then still lose.
At this stage (once you have a clue) you may find there's more of one than the other going on...
a) you lost because you made bad decisions, or to a lesser extent because luck really wasn't with you today.
This is fine. You made a mistake and little plastic people died because of that (I'd make a terrible general). Sometimes the dice favour your opponent (or hates you) and stuff just goes wrong.
b) you lost because your force was not a viable match for whatever it was facing.
This is less fine. If you have to have specific counters to certain army types or weapon types then the game becomes less about what happens on the board and more about meta (sometimes called pay to win - where weapons or units can be bought that are hard to counter with established forces).
An example, Epic...
Certain forces seem to have more flexibility and capability, especially when matched against certain other forces. Sure, people say that lists are balanced and whatnot, but the complexity and wide variety of options can make the system difficult to navigate.
Your choices are to match known strong forces with other strong forces or counters, or certain factions are more or less guarantee a poor results.
An example, Infinity...
Similarly, certain factions and units have a preponderance of 'tricks' that, while there might be some counter-tricks, can be hard to manage depending on what force you have. So learning rules to neutralize tricks is... well, difficult to remember and cater for. I don't doubt that is part of the author's intention but it's more about stats and management than it is playing the battle. If you're building a force to neutralize an opponent's tricks then... dunno, seems like a crappy way to go about making your force, where you should actually like what you're running rather than just trying to win.
In both cases, in a tournament setting where you're building a single list that is trying to deal with the widest range of opposition it's certainly possible to have a sub-standard force that deals with nothing effectively.
If you're playing the same people with the same forces constantly it's less of an issue, but for a casual player it can highlight the 'do I actually like this game?' aspect.
Sounds like sour grapes perhaps, but I personally like a game where e.g. positioning and activation selection is more important that tricks and counters, or fielding a 'winning list'.
We all try to maximise effective dice against the enemy of course but in OPR you have more or less dice (and AP and some minor modifiers) and that's about the extent of the differences. All forces are more or less the same, though there are some less significant army traits (i.e. orks have ferocity which gives an extra attack dice when charging).
Anyway, I still think the concept stands. Find a game you like and don't mind losing when you play it, hope your local crew like it to, and enjoy the wargaming. It's meant to be fun.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment