Topic: The Importance of Losing

[Gutstikk]

However, I never "commit to losing".

Perhaps what I was trying to get at in this stage was rather than get frustrated and walk away, or flail about blindly, accepting the fact that defeat may be inevitable and shifting the dynamics of the game to try out those things that you've never done before. You must be willing to accept defeat in order to expect victory [as only one player may win]. Once a defeat has been accepted, and you are "committed" to it, then you will be willing to try new tactics that may lead to a victory, rather than continuing in the same vein that saw you over the brink of a loss. That to me is muscling for a victory; when self-assurance causes wrath at the damage inflicted to your force and to prove superiority you keep fighting in the same manner, striving to force your way to the top rather than change.

I think the way I describe it is not accurate enough, but more or less people are getting the gist of what I'm saying.

Another way to illustrate this is occasionally I request a match where I am hideously handicapped and see what cunning and wit can get me out of the match. Generally setting myself up for a failure results in it, but sometimes I learn some surprising things. And sometimes it is possible to win.

I played against a dual-lash chaos list, 1000pts of eldar to 1250pts of chaos in my first game vs the new codex, and sure enough I lost. But looking back at it... if I had done a couple things differently I had a good chance of moving to a draw and a chance of some kind of winning. I picked my battles wrong that game...

I'm glad this sparked some interest. I'm always happy to see how thoughtful people tend to be here, and I like the glimpses of different strategic philosophies.

[tzeentchling]

First off, a distinction should be made between losing in a tournament setting and losing in games against your friends or down at your local store.  While I will never resign myself to losing, I'm still less likely to take large risks even if losing in a tournament setting - you still get more points from a draw or minor loss than from being massacred.

Having said that, you do make an interesting point.  Much like in chess, when you find yourself down in a game, your mind can suddenly become much sharper due to desperation.  You start looking for combos or tactics that you might not normally see, try to make things trickier for an opponent.  Nothing frustrates your opponent more than having a won game but the opponent not folding in on themselves.

I also think playing at a points disadvantage is a good way of training yourself.  You get an idea of how to maneuver, how to make the most out of what you have.  That's why I like playing missions other than the basic 5 - Raid or Recon or Meatgrinder or Breakout type missions - it shakes it up, makes you think of different tactics, how to play differently.

Also, for all the people who claim not to have lost for some time - are you playing the same army all the time?  Do you find yourself using the same units over and over again because they're "the best" or because you're most familiar with their strengths and weaknesses?  When playing other armies, do you only play with certain units because of their perceived effectiveness?  How about in a certain play style? 

Changing any of these, taking units that "underperform," might cause you to lose some games, but you'll often get a better feel for how to use unconventional and rarely seen units, and when you do win with them it feels good.  For instance, try taking Vespid, or Repentia, or Possessed/Spawn, or Guardian Storm Squads, or whatever.  See if you can't figure out a way to make them work.  Sure, you might lose a few games, but when you get the hang of using them you have gained so much more.

[The Hobo Hunter]

Speaking of trying out 'other' games, I've been doing quite a spot of CoD at the moment. Funnily enough, I still can't beat my Chaos opponent yet, but I do believe I'm getting better. Sometimes, however, lady luck just doesn't like me. I could have held a building till turn 6, but after 9 turns (!!!) of carnage, I ended on a draw yet again. Every time, I get off to a good start, but by T 4-5 the game tips, and by T 6, I'm lucky if I can still contest the objective. But I am getting better. I always take the opportunity afterwards, such as when painting, to have a banter about the battle, and get an idea of what worked and what didn't, how we'd build upon our knowledge next game etc. In my opinion, you should always be able to learn something from a game, even a loss. If not, then either A) you know everything already (how'd you lose?), or B) you didn't bother to learn from your mistakes at all (how do you expect to win?)

[Lazarus]

Posted by: tzeentchling

Also, for all the people who claim not to have lost for some time - are you playing the same army all the time?  Do you find yourself using the same units over and over again because they're "the best" or because you're most familiar with their strengths and weaknesses?  When playing other armies, do you only play with certain units because of their perceived effectiveness?  How about in a certain play style? 

As most people know I only play in tourneys and I don't practice at all. I do tend to use the same list or a variation most of the time. However, when I do a radical departure usually the very first time I play it at all will of course be in game 1 of the next tourney.
Since I've been playing this game (and war games in general) for so long I've got a pretty good grasp of what I'm doing.
As far as choosing units due to the "perceived effectiveness" - I choose armies / units that ARE effective in competition. Sure, in a comp environment I may depart from the norm in order to raise that area a bit but other than that I know what works inside and out. I've looked at nothnig but tourney lists for years.

Trying out "subpar" units is not really a place for a tourney unless you really know what you are doing. Save that for casual games.

Lazarus.

[spiderbite]

In the general scheme of things I really don't mind losing. Honestly, it's all about playing the game and having fun with some friends. If I ever do feel upset about anything, it's more than likely about something that I did grossly wrong and got spanked for it! (and probably deserved it too) Our group is pretty laid back about playing, sometimes it seems it's more about socializing! Having said all that, I do learn from my mistakes, in this game as well as life - everybody should.

[tzeentchling]

Trying out "subpar" units is not really a place for a tourney unless you really know what you are doing. Save that for casual games.

Lazarus.

I agree with you, Laz.  A tournament is not the place to try out a new unit or technique, particularly if it's "subpar" (however you define it).  And of course, after playing for many years, especially in competitive environments where you want to win a prize, you get a good idea of what's useful, strong, and powerful, and can make good lists.  But that's not my point, nor, I think, Gutstikk's.

Because you only play in tournaments, the idea of playing risky, varying units to gain skills, and so on has less of a meaning.  I'll typically play most of my games in a non-competitive atmosphere, or at least not as hyper-competitive as tournaments can be.  This gives me the opportunity to practice my skills with an army or two, various units and unit configurations, particularly if I've never played with them before, and I'm not as concerned about winning the game as I am from learning about my army.  I guess in your case you might use minor tournaments this way, before you buff up for the big ones.

[Lazarus]

I might add in a single new element to the alreay tried & tested list as a variation. Play that for several tourneys and then switch up again....

Lazarus.

[Archonbjorn]

So maybe it is the dark eldar? :p It was a good time though by far and I really want to do it again and finish it.

Not really, I have faced other DE players over here and massacred them with Craftworld Eldar. I can do the same with imperial guard if needed. I can basicly beat DE with any army [aside of DH WH because I ain't familiar with them]

Correct placement of units and preparing for the impact is the way to go. There is nothing overpowered at the army, you simply need to know what to do versus it.

[Toad_Raider]

Somewhat strangely, I tend to play more recklessly when I am winning a game, rather than losing.  It's not entirely intentional, it just seems to happen.

Sure, losing can teach you things, and often more things than winning.  However, I think that fighting games to the very end (I believe the term used was 'muscling kills') will teach you more than just pulling crazy things on the off chance they might work brilliantly.

[Yyseth]

Somewhat strangely, I tend to play more recklessly when I am winning a game, rather than losing.  It's not entirely intentional, it just seems to happen.

Eldar players call that "The Arrogance" and it's fantastic!

[Lazarus]

I too read the article on the "arrogance". I do find myself being a bit arrogant with my skimmers occasionally....lol

Lazarus.

[catachan55th]

So maybe it is the dark eldar? :p It was a good time though by far and I really want to do it again and finish it.

Not really, I have faced other DE players over here and massacred them with Craftworld Eldar. I can do the same with imperial guard if needed. I can basicly beat DE with any army [aside of DH WH because I ain't familiar with them]

I have never lost against Dark Eldar, though it is know within the company as a 'broken codex'... the belife is that there is one way in witch the DE always win, set up any other way they always loose... (apparently)... what I can say is that my insiders have said that the codex is deffinatly going to be re-written very soon (it may already be complete)

[Archonbjorn]

I dunno who your sources are but it has recently been confirmed that they started with concept ideas, which means that it will take some time before we are done.

Our codex is not broken, it simply is lacking on certain areas which forces a large lot of the players to take the same kind of units all the time. We can also win in different ways yet the WWP is out main tactic which works best, not using it will not guarantee a loss for our race but makes it harder to win.

Just because a certain player loses if he doesn't stick to the main guidelines doesnt mean that the race is broken and can only be played that way. It tells more about the player itself, that he is not capable of improvising and walking away from the main guidelines to experiment.

Rumours till now stated that Dark Eldar are going to be a shooty race, I tend to find this sad as we are heavy CC orientated at this point and I really like the speed + CC power we have. What good does it has if you have transports of paper armour when you are a shooty army? Our biggest advantage [speed] will not be benefited this way and we will most likely thus lose allot of our current players that loved the old codex its style of play.

[MoonMan]

If losing generates experience, man... I've got the experience of an Eldar Farseer.

Seriously, though. I would rather lose horribly but have an enjoyable game with a great opponent, than lay the smack down on some jerk and beat the pants off him. I'll have more fun in that enjoyable game than I ever could in the winning one.

[Archonbjorn]

Yes if its a enjoyable game then it will be. pleasant. Otherwise it wuldn't be enjoyable now would it?

I think you mean that you prefer to lose versus a nice opponent which with you can laugh with then winning a serious battle from a jerk?

I tend to agree with that, yet its often hard to see the fun in seeing all of your units being blown apart by failing every save, or they won't be doing anything that you designed them to do so. It frustates me in those cases, I however like really close battles where the outcome of the battle isn't to be foreseen untill the last couple of units have moved and shot eachother.

[Satanic Joker Jester]

 i gotta say, and yes this comes off as cocky, and etc etc, but out of the  8 games i've played, i've won 7, and drew only 1,  and i have learnt a lot from those games, they weren't easy wins, well, maybe one or two of htem, but the rest, i had to really fight for them, tried out some crazy stuff,

 yes i would learn from losing, but winning can teach just as much, more so when the game is very close, hard fought,

 really im not disagreeing, losing can be a very good experience, but i believe only when its hard fought, if you get beaten pretty soundly, even if you decide to try and do some new tings, your limited in what you can do due to your situation.  close hard fought games bring out the best in players IMO,

 but i must say, this post is a really good one, people need a reminder ( myself included) that losing shouldn't always be taken hard, it can be very helpful, and im sure i'll eat my share of loses soon enough,

[Tarrin the Space Marine]

i find my games go better when i am more reckless. if i try to be sensible i  tend to make errors.


fortune favors the bold. The arrogance does bolster luck.


saying that i never like winning all teh time. if i am on a winning streak i will change my army around to include lesser used units.
except with tournies , where i look at complementary stuff.

[Satanic Joker Jester]

about the arrogance...i was dominating an imperial guard player who decided to try and deep strike portions of his army, i decimated almost all of what he had on the table, and when 4-5 of his squads deep struck in one turn, i ran my falcon with my farseer, and 5 warlocks ( 3 destructor, enhance and embolden, spear on farseer and spear on warlock) right into the middle of them all thinking "he wont take it down, and i can flame ALL his squads in a line on my turn!"  of course, he took it down...and took out all my warlocks, down to my farseer with one wound,

 still won the game but...that was a kick in the nuts

 lesson learned : its not over till its over 

[catachan55th]

Reguards the DE codex...
I admit when I was told that within the company it is taken as a broken codex, I was a bit supprised... I am sure poeple must have success with army by using a range of tactics.... as said, I'm sure its more down to the individual player.
But the codex is under re-write to make it more flexible for alternative tactics... but I to hope it retains its CC creed, I love the rapid moving strike action of the DE, makes for an intresting enemy.
(plus my IG army is designed very well to deffend against such attacks..lol)

Back to winning and loosing though...
I love going into games blind, using my experience of 20yrs to judge the best deployment  for my forces and yet not knowing my oppants army or having a new opponant... can be full of supprises and is always fun, win or loose