PDA

View Full Version : How you do you spot a 'good General'?



Eternus
03-10-2011, 08:56
Really, how do you determine who is a good general and who isn't? Can it simply be who wins the most battles? Is it a question that can't really be answered conclusively because there are to many variables, like the quality of the opponent, the lists selected, the scenario being played and whether that scenario favours the inbuilt advantages of some races over others? Is a good general a person that uses all the minor often missed rules in the book to their best advantage? Is it the person who knows how best to counter the strengths of their opponents race when constructing their list, or is it the person who can successfully adapt to changing battlefield situations? Is it the person who can decide on what they perceive to be the best battle plan and stick to it to fruition?

Luck aside, how can we really judge who is a good general and who isn't?

Urgat
03-10-2011, 09:06
The good general is the one who kicked mpy **** and I didn't feel the dice gods were particularly against me or with him, while not taking crutch items like the anti-chaos item when playing ogres against chaos (previous OK book), the dwarf slaying axe when playing OnG, and so on.

The bearded one
03-10-2011, 09:08
By looking at me? :angel:


Mmhm.. a good win/loss ratio would normally be present, though even the best general can be ruined by excruciating bad luck or an equally good opposing general.

I guess a good indicator is by judging wether he manages to put the game to his hand and allow things to happen in a way he prefers, without being suprised, outmanoeuvred or forced into a certain position himself. Not to blow my own horn, but in recently battles I often manage to dictate the flow of the battle by use of my skinks, forcing opponents to either attack them and get rid of them/past them but put themselves in an unfavourable position, or ignore them but keep being harrassed and slowed down.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 09:29
So you could say an indicator of a good general is a person that can force the enemy to do things they would rather not do, while avoiding such railroading themselves?

Thraxar
03-10-2011, 09:37
Firstly, to be picky we aren't generals we are gamers/hobbyists. When my armies take to the field I haven't had to think about protecting my baggage train or feeding my men.

As for on the table tactics a good general is one who can defeat the enemy in detail with minimal losses and do it consistently without tinkering with his list for different opponents as stated earlier.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 09:42
Firstly, to be picky we aren't generals we are gamers/hobbyists. When my armies take to the field I haven't had to think about protecting my baggage train or feeding my men.

Hmm, not going to argue about your view, because you are quite entitled to it, though I do disagree. To me it's like saying that if a person paints landscapes for fun rather than for a living, then they're not an artist, they're a hobbyist. I do agree with you're definition of a good general though.

theunwantedbeing
03-10-2011, 10:01
A good general is simply somebody who can turn up with a list which is considered "nothing special" and hold their own for the full 6 turns against an opponent who given the list they have taken, should really have won.

They don't need a great win/loss record, they just need to be hitting well above their weight with the troops they have bothered to field.

You can lose every game and still be a good general.

Leogun_91
03-10-2011, 10:01
By the shiny badges on his uniform....


Nah, measure the greatness of a warhammer general on the fun he and his opponents have.

Oogie boogie boss
03-10-2011, 10:11
I'd say it's someone who can either anticipate and counter what his opponent brings or tries to do tactics-wise, adapt to the varying situation positively (i.e not fall apart if his/her Plan A doesn't work), and control the movement and decisions of his opponent.
Also, it's someone who can consistently win even when they're luck is bad, simply by minimizing the influence luck has on the result.

The bearded one
03-10-2011, 10:37
Nah, measure the greatness of a warhammer general on the fun he and his opponents have.

I'm sure that's what the romans said to themselves at Trebia, trasimene and cannae..


awwwww... you said "warhammer general"? Damn your crafty unintended verbal trap!

Valnir
03-10-2011, 10:56
A good general is simply somebody who can turn up with a list which is considered "nothing special" and hold their own for the full 6 turns against an opponent who given the list they have taken, should really have won.

They don't need a great win/loss record, they just need to be hitting well above their weight with the troops they have bothered to field.

You can lose every game and still be a good general.

Can't agree with this enough. I've always felt the best opponents are individuals who can take the chaff in an army and use it in a way that makes them shine.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 10:56
I'm sure that's what the romans said to themselves at Trebia, trasimene and cannae.

Why? Don't real world leaders say stuff like that? I am reminded of comments about ommelettes and eggs....

The bearded one
03-10-2011, 11:09
well...no, the Romans didn't really go "awwww, well, at least Hannibal had fun." They freaked out instead. :p

The Low King
03-10-2011, 11:29
Someone who whether they win or lose still had a good game.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 11:40
well...no, the Romans didn't really go "awwww, well, at least Hannibal had fun." They freaked out instead. :p

Honestly, not even one commented on the mobile zoo? "If Romans can't go to the Elephant Sanctuary, the Elephant Sanctuary will have to come to the Romans". Really, some people have no sense of humour when threatened with a painful dismemberment...

ewar
03-10-2011, 11:41
A good general is simply somebody who can turn up with a list which is considered "nothing special" and hold their own for the full 6 turns against an opponent who given the list they have taken, should really have won.

They don't need a great win/loss record, they just need to be hitting well above their weight with the troops they have bothered to field.

You can lose every game and still be a good general.



Agreed.

I like playing against someone who has taken what appears to be a weak list and then plays it really well.

At last year's throne of skulls I played against a Dwarf player in the final round on the top tables who was running Josef Bugman as his general and had some scouting dwarfs, a few warmachines, some hammerers but overall a really unconventional list and we had an absolute blast of a game (he won, though it went down to my slann exploding himself on an unnecesary 2 dice casting right at the end).

Can't remember his name, but he was a good warhammer general (and a great sport to boot, which is always important, no point being the 'best' if you act like a pr1ck).

Urgat
03-10-2011, 11:43
well...no, the Romans didn't really go "awwww, well, at least Hannibal had fun." They freaked out instead. :p

Heh, for all we know, the spartans did laugh when they were hidding from arrow fire behind their shields, and maybe so did the romans, maybe they were cracking jokes as much as skulls on the battlefield :p
"Oi, Julius Romanus, they shot you in the back!"
-Ah, Octavius, now you'll find me easier, just follow the arrow!
-Ohohoh!"
Yeah, they were fun fellows, I tell you.

RanaldLoec
03-10-2011, 11:45
A good general

Knows his army

Knows his opponents army

Knows the rules

Applys them fairly and without trying to wrangle every advantage.

Cares about their opponents sense of fun as well as their own.

Knows all the dirty tricks but doesn't feel the need to use them every game.



On a personal note and in an effort to be a good fun opponent as well as a general I have a gamers code of conduct.

Its more for my self than any one else.


Ranaldloec's Gaming Ethics


1) Play by the rules.


2) The aim is to win.


3) The point is for BOTH players to have fun.


4) Apply the rules using common sense.


5) Be prepared to compromise in the face of dwarf like stubborness or elve like arrogance, roll a D6.


6) Brute force and unremitting violence can solve any problem (just kidding).

7) The dice don't care if your screaming topless while burning them in acid but your opponent might.

The bearded one
03-10-2011, 11:47
@ Urgat: Seeing as they were spectacularly slaughtered three times, I doubt they'd be laughing ;)


Honestly, not even one commented on the mobile zoo? "If Romans can't go to the Elephant Sanctuary, the Elephant Sanctuary will have to come to the Romans". Really, some people have no sense of humour when threatened with a painful dismemberment...

hat's because after the initial suprise of 'omGz, elephants in Italy?' it wasn't really that big a part of Hannibals power. Heck, after crossing the alps he only had a handful left and it seems they were all dead by the time of trasimene


but..I'm getting off topic. I stand by my standpoint of being able to direct the flow of battle.

Oogie boogie boss
03-10-2011, 12:00
I think someone who doesn't take the game too seriously is important. I've met people who take losing so badly that you don't want to play against them for fear of winning (one guy, who i thankfully haven't seen since, threw his Dragon mounted general on the floor and stamped on it when he was killed in Combat. I ended the game then and there).
Also someone who is sporting enough to give his opponent (particularly if they are new/playing a new army) the benefit of the doubt.
Seriously, tactical acumen aside, a players mentality and the way they approach playing a game is THE most important thing. If you don't have fun, then you shouldn't play.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 12:04
but..I'm getting off topic. I stand by my standpoint of being able to direct the flow of battle.

I agree with this. I think being able to dictate the flow of the battle by making your opponent do what you want them to do, whilst at the same time achieving everything you want your army to do is a sign of real skill, whether on the tabletop or at Thermopylae.

The bearded one
03-10-2011, 12:31
Thermopylae is the gaming equivalent of asking a third party at the club to set up terrain, resulting in a gigantic bottleneck setup where the opponent proceeds to move his chosen in :D

Eternus
03-10-2011, 12:40
Thermopylae is the gaming equivalent of asking a third party at the club to set up terrain, resulting in a gigantic bottleneck setup where the opponent proceeds to move his chosen in :D

Cool or what!

IcedCrow
03-10-2011, 13:12
There's a good topic. Thanks =)

What do I see as a "good general"? I can typically classify people in the following:

Poor, Average, Good, and Great.

Most people fall into the average category, myself included. Win/Loss record has nothing to do with if you are good, because it doesn't take into account the quality of your opponents.

You can go to a tournament and end up playing three rookies and place high or even be overall winner, but that doesn't make you good, it makes you lucky. Some people also only take on those they know they can beat, and then brag about a high W/L ratio.

Poor players are rare, and typically do not understand the rules, are bad at probabilities, and just don't get the odds and make poor decisions because of it. They typically take sub par C or D lists because they don't understand how the army works together. Given an A or B list, they still manage to make poor decisions.

Good players are not as rare as poor players, but they are not common. Most people I find tend to think that they are good, but instead I'd classify them as average.

Good players understand the rules, understand probability, tend to be able to beat average players regularly and have close games with good players. This is typically because they also know how to build powerful army lists, and are often at the top tables in tournaments because they understand how to build powerful army lists and know how to use them. They do, however, tend to fall to the Great players.

Some average players mistake their abilities as good because they can regularly beat someone else who is average, but they still will typically fall to a good player on a regular basis.

I've met all of four Great players in my life. These guys share all of the characteristics of a good player. They get list building, they know the rules very well, but the one thing that they have over good players is that they can take a crap army book or a B list and win consistently with it, whereas good players tend to shy away from crap army books and B lists in competitions for the most part.

Again most people that I've ever met (a good 80%) are just normal average players.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 13:35
I've met all of four Great players in my life. These guys share all of the characteristics of a good player. They get list building, they know the rules very well, but the one thing that they have over good players is that they can take a crap army book or a B list and win consistently with it, whereas good players tend to shy away from crap army books and B lists in competitions for the most part.

Again most people that I've ever met (a good 80%) are just normal average players.

I can take a crap army book or B list and win with it intermittantly. Does that make me average or nearly Great? ;)

IcedCrow
03-10-2011, 13:49
I think you can come up with your own title. We'll run with that!

The bearded one
03-10-2011, 13:57
I played with dwarfs during 7th and won very often, does that make me good? ^^

Eternus
03-10-2011, 14:04
I played with dwarfs during 7th and won very often, does that make me good? ^^

Just having picked Dwarfs makes you good.

charlarino
03-10-2011, 14:19
A good general in warhammer simply plays fair and has fun whether he wins or loses. and never gets cocky.

Tokamak
03-10-2011, 14:33
It's a great question. I find this question even more interesting concerning Starcraft. Simply because people can play way more matches than in Warhammer.

In Starcraft you can get very far by perfecting one strategy with one race. It gives you a high win/loss ratio than when you would constantly be winging it. But does constantly repeating your single strategy make you a good general? Is someone that follows his intuition and improvises on the spot a worse general if he has a lower win rate?

I can't answer this question.

As for Warhammer, the general's skill has much less weight than in Starcraft. In Warhammer it's not unfeasible for a beginner to win from a veteran. In Starcraft it is.

IcedCrow
03-10-2011, 14:40
I still have not ever seen a beginner beat down a veteran.

Gaius Marius
03-10-2011, 15:32
Beat by a noob? It happens.
The scene: My Tomb Kings, New Players Ogre Kingdoms.
His turn one, Scrap launcher fires, scatters, hits my Hierophant by accident. Oh well, no big deal. I then fail my look out sir roll. Ok, stuff happens. Then am wounded (50/50 chance, so no suprise), oh, but the 6 he rolled is a killing blow... OK, I have a 4+ ward... and failed that too... so, "Let's get ready to Crumble!"
My turn 1, Remaining army lurches forward without magical defense or offense...
End of game, well, I still had models left and he took casualties, but it was a loss. No
doubt about it.
Wereas I have never lost my queen in the opening move of a game of chess, Warhammer is still a game with dice, and luck is a touchy lady.

papabearshane
03-10-2011, 15:47
Luck aside, how can we really judge who is a good general and who isn't?

Someone who has been playing Orcs & Goblins forever and still has fun with the game ;)

Seriously I have to say the the best Warhammer generals are the ones who:

A: Want to win but dont want to Humiliate there oponent.

B: Keep trying new things even if they dont always work.

C: Dont Put all there eggs in one basket or one phase.

D: Know what kind of game they are PLAYING, and will help those who have less experiance. (I hate to see someone stomping a new player and gloating about it.)

Feefait
03-10-2011, 15:54
He has 2 thumbs and is writing this post...

Eternus
03-10-2011, 15:56
I think one of the great levellers of the game, call it luck, call it Karma, call it sods law or just desserts, is that even the best generals lose sometimes, the day that the fates decide to blow a raspberry in your ear at the critical moment. It's a reminder never to get complacent, or more likely that we may as well just accept we won't win every game. In my experience you learn far more from a defeat than a victory.

IcedCrow
03-10-2011, 16:03
I think one of the great levellers of the game, call it luck, call it Karma, call it sods law or just desserts, is that even the best generals lose sometimes, the day that the fates decide to blow a raspberry in your ear at the critical moment. It's a reminder never to get complacent, or more likely that we may as well just accept we won't win every game. In my experience you learn far more from a defeat than a victory.

And it makes some people oh so angry.

UberBeast
03-10-2011, 16:07
The best general is he who makes the fewest mistakes.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 16:10
And it makes some people oh so angry.

It used to make me really angry when I was younger, then I realised that you can only control things to a finite point, so there's no point getting annoyed about it. The sooner I accepted that, the quicker I started enjoying playing again. Now, the less certainty there is, the more fun I find it, because there is less pressure to win all the time.

Remember the line from Gladiator: 'Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back...'

Same principle really.

IcedCrow
03-10-2011, 16:12
It used to make me really angry when I was younger, then I realised that you can only control things to a finite point, so there's no point getting annoyed about it. The sooner I accepted that, the quicker I started enjoying playing again. Now, the less certainty there is, the more fun I find it, because there is less pressure to win all the time.

I used to get angry when the dice would turn on me and all my brilliant, genius-like plans [clarification: this is sarcasm] would be screwed by them.

Then I realized it's only a game. Around that time I stopped fielding A lists as well and started experimenting with things no one else used which opened up my painting a lot more.

Good point on the less pressure =)

Eternus
03-10-2011, 16:17
Good point on the less pressure =)

In my book excitement = fun, whereas too much pressure just equals stress, disappointment and anti-climax. :)

Djekar
03-10-2011, 16:27
A quote I had in my sig for a long time was something along the lines of "he who fights for victory with a naked sword is not a good general". So then a good general is one who claims victory without fighting. In the context of the rest of the book, that is knowledge of the opponent and out thinking and out manuevering him. Another of my favorite quotes when talking about controlling the flow of a battle is (again a paraphrase) "I draw a line in the sand and my enemy cannot cross it." So I'd have to sided with ol' beardy and say that directing the flow of battle has something to do with it too.

Ultimately I'd say that a good general is one who can apply his strength to his opponent's weakness while keeping his opponent from doing the same through a combination of knowledge, forethought, manuever and trickery.

popisdead
04-10-2011, 20:45
Depends what you define as a good general?

Someone who understands the rules but plays in the spirit of the game leaning largely towards fun is a good general. If you want to play them again that lends into it. I'd rather loose every game to someone who is fun over even have a 50/50 score against someone who sucks the enjoyment out of the game.

Someone who knows the rules and game well but finds ways to cheat for a tactical advantage, drains the enjoyment from the game, acts in a manner that is not conducive to the hobby is not a good general.

stashman
04-10-2011, 23:14
A person that brings diffrent lists all the time, and can play with every model in an army book.

Maoriboy007
04-10-2011, 23:33
A good general

Knows his army

Knows his opponents army

Knows the rules

Applys them fairly and without trying to wrangle every advantage.

Cares about their opponents sense of fun as well as their own.

Knows all the dirty tricks but doesn't feel the need to use them every game.



On a personal note and in an effort to be a good fun opponent as well as a general I have a gamers code of conduct.

Its more for my self than any one else.


Ranaldloec's Gaming Ethics


1) Play by the rules.


2) The aim is to win.


3) The point is for BOTH players to have fun.


4) Apply the rules using common sense.


5) Be prepared to compromise in the face of dwarf like stubborness or elve like arrogance, roll a D6.


6) Brute force and unremitting violence can solve any problem (just kidding).

7) The dice don't care if your screaming topless while burning them in acid but your opponent might.Well said actually, rules to aspire to although on a bad day we can prove to be all too human. I would amend however


1) Play by the rules.
2) The aim is to win.

UNLESS they conflict with rules 3 & 4

3) The point is for BOTH players to have fun.
4) Apply the rules using common sense..

BTW if no one has sigged this:

7) The dice don't care if your screaming topless while burning them in acid but your opponent might.
I'd like to :)

russellmoo
04-10-2011, 23:37
How about anyone that can win with wood elves-

I think we have come up with a lot of good criteria-

Flow is important, so is how they play the game, and also winning with sub-par lists, or purposefully fielding weaker lists to make games more fun, and interesting.

It is also about players that make few if any mistakes- these are the players where you end up after the game thinking- "I can't think of a single tactical mistake that player made." These are the players that I usually feel are really good generals- I know 1 such person-

The Low King
04-10-2011, 23:46
-A player who after a game looks back and raher than saying 'damn, those dice let me down' says 'hmmm.....i should have done this'

-A player who when getting owned smiles and tries something different rather than just giving up.

immortal git
05-10-2011, 01:07
Yeah, opponents that give up mid game suck, i rarely play these people again unless forced.

Over reactions make me avoid player (certain tyranid player tearing arms off his hormagaunts as they died comes to mind)

Good generals...

By your comments i would put myself in this catagory, I use ogres and have a 50/50 win loss ratio, when i win I'll smile but you wont catch me cheering or going bragging about it. If something particularly odd or funny happens i might mention it, but thats based on my opponents reaction to the event

Being a good general is based on two things

1. Sportsmanship. (way above number two in my books)

2. Gaming knowledge and good tactics (the stuff that makes you think when it happens and so on

Col. Dash
05-10-2011, 02:06
A good general does not play a net list flavor of the week and instead plays underdog armies and still consistantly wins.

Sh4d0w
05-10-2011, 02:15
A good general is somebody who can beat new players by not just knowing little touchy rules that catch then out and tip the balance, but by using tactics that not only tip the balance for him but also teach his opponent something.

Ratbeast
05-10-2011, 02:35
Wins the good general title at a tourn LOL good times

Jind_Singh
05-10-2011, 07:59
How do I know a good general?

Evey time I look in a reflection and see my amazing looking Greenskinned goodness! Waaagh!

No seriously...

A good General:

1) Someone who is rules as intended over rules as written
2) Someone who is a good sport
3) Someone who plays to win but also keeps their perspective on the game foundations
4) Someone who can react to unfolding situations on the tabletop as the battle unfolds
5) Someone who does not rely on 'crutches' to win them games
6) Someone who can mash lists together and yet have good degrees of success
7) Someone who YOU have to use skills to outwit and outplay on the table top
8) Someone who consistently does well at Tournaments
9) Someone who understands the mechanics of the game, along with the complex interactions the rulebook/armybook/supplemental books bring


Now then, were is that mirror again? Ah ah! ME!

Toshiro
05-10-2011, 08:03
Someone who knows that the aim of the game is to win but that the PURPOSE of the game is to have FUN and plays accordingly :)

Andy p
05-10-2011, 08:57
A good general

Knows his army

Knows his opponents army

Knows the rules

Applys them fairly and without trying to wrangle every advantage.

Cares about their opponents sense of fun as well as their own.

Knows all the dirty tricks but doesn't feel the need to use them every game.



On a personal note and in an effort to be a good fun opponent as well as a general I have a gamers code of conduct.

Its more for my self than any one else.


Ranaldloec's Gaming Ethics


1) Play by the rules.


2) The aim is to win.


3) The point is for BOTH players to have fun.


4) Apply the rules using common sense.


5) Be prepared to compromise in the face of dwarf like stubborness or elve like arrogance, roll a D6.


6) Brute force and unremitting violence can solve any problem (just kidding).

7) The dice don't care if your screaming topless while burning them in acid but your opponent might.

Wonderful post, I agree completely. :D

Ought to be tatooed on some people's heads.

Oogie boogie boss
05-10-2011, 09:34
A good General is someone who plays OnG. Obviously. :D

sulla
05-10-2011, 19:21
Depends what you define as a good general?

Someone who understands the rules but plays in the spirit of the game leaning largely towards fun is a good general. If you want to play them again that lends into it. I'd rather loose every game to someone who is fun over even have a 50/50 score against someone who sucks the enjoyment out of the game.
...The 'good' general you want to play warhammer against...

Someone who knows the rules and game well but finds ways to cheat for a tactical advantage, drains the enjoyment from the game, acts in a manner that is not conducive to the hobby is not a good general....the 'good' general you'd want to go to war with...

BigG28
05-10-2011, 19:38
I don't think that the sheer number of victories determines who.is a good general, someone who is gracious in both victory and defeat and who can take the most from a game and turn it too their benefit and educate both themselves and others when the need arises in the future.

Gary