How much does margin of victory matter?

[Mr Ogre]

Hello again my friends.

Another chit-chat-chin-wag thread I'm afraid.

It's most regarding the use of 'netlists' and what I would consider the over application of Mathshammer.

In essence, this stems from my general disregard for the exact margin of my victory. Most of the time, when I rack up a win, it's by a fairly decent margin. The back of my opponents army is broken, and for the last couple of turns it's been a case of consolidating my position, rather than mop up duty. And when I lose, it's typically by a slim margin (though my bum has graced many a silver platter over the years). And to be honest, I could take steps to improve this margin, but I'm simply not that concerned. Indeed typically, I get far more of a kick from a finely balanced game than I do beating my opponent like the proverbial titian step-offspring.

But how about you? Where do you sit on the wide bench of winning? I know some of you seriously enjoy the number crunching aspect that whether we admit it or not, is a fairly standard part of successful gaming.

Please note I'm not looking to call anyone on their preferred level of buttkicking, just hoping to gain an insight into the minds of my fellow gamers and hobbyists! Any distinctions I apply (such as the aforementioned over-application of Mathshammer) is simply my own stance, please don't read too much into my wording!

[The bearded one]

The closer a game is, the more I enjoy it. Steamrolling an opponent, or getting steamrolled, is just too onesided.

[The Low King]

If i table my opponant or win without losing anything it feels different from if we grind eachother down to a pyrrhic victory. Thats not to say it feels better, i enjoy a bloody battle more than a bloodless one .

[vcassano]

In terms of the literal points margin, it doesn't matter. Some games end up being complete massacres points-wise but could easily have swung the other way, others end up tightly scored but one player has been utterly dominant.

In terms of the game itself, a well-executed plan where you outplayed your opponent is always satisfying, especially in a competitive environment. But generally you want a bloodbath which is tight, tactical and fun. I love it when I'm left with the limping remnants of my army having just managed to vanquish my opponent. That is always really cool and cinematic. When you run over someone with ease due to luck/poor match ups, I always feel bad.

[Rosstifer]

We always record our cub games on a 20-0 scale, as we have a club ladder, but I have to agree I enjoy bloody 12-8's than say, walkover 20-0's.

[Graxy]

The best game I have ever had, was a game of my goblins against a lizardmen army. My unit of common goblins had been in combat with a the unit of temple guard with the slann since turn 3. On turn 5, my night goblins had flanked the temple guard. On turn 6, a unit of kroxigor skinks had flanked my night goblins. The result? Turn 6, my goblins with my general and BSB run off of the table, my night goblins are still in play, the temple guard unit had been wittled down to the champion and the slann, the skink krox unit was basically untouched. He had only won he last combat which caused my general's unit to flee by 1 or 2. obviously, I lost the game by about 400pts, but realistically, that combat could have gone either way, either with me winning the game, or him winning the game. THAT, is the sort of game that I prefer to have. The fact that it was with a good friend, who I have participated in a few doubles events with adds even more to the great memory.

[Maoriboy007]

I'm with the view that a narrow victory/loss means a good hard game. Phyrric victory means the "loser" keeps a real victory from the "winner"

[Mr Ogre]

Pyrrhic is mostly encountered in a highly structured Campaign, for instance taking the vital location (say a Watchtower) but being left unable to reinforce it before another opponent capitalises on the skeleton garrison!

[IcedCrow]

Tabling an opponent bores me. Being tabled bores me.

That being said our league gives relics for margin of victory... ala older editions. We have minor, solid, and massacre victories.

[Luigi]

Rather than enjoying some margin of a victory or loss I really like when unexpected outcomes take place: as long as something unusual and enjoyable happens I'm happy with my game.
I remember, for instance, two games that I consider memorable not for the overall outcome of the battle (I lost both :P) but for what hapened. In the first one my 10 models sized unit of Dwarfs warrior with GW surviving a charge from a HE dragon and killing it in the next 2 turns of combat. The other when my Thane challenged the champion of a Night Goblin Unit of archer and DIED (sic!). Now this kind of stuff is what I play for, it really makes me feel like the whole game is worth more.

[Kiras of the flame]

I like a hard fought game... something you can tell your friends and drinking buds about the grand scale of the battle. how your Generals fought to the duel in a sea of blades and fire, how regiments held and broke as you crashed headfirst into the foe... the devastating losses and unbelievable actions that carried the day.

Yeah... win or lose, I want to say that the person I fought was a worthy fight... that or complain on how broken his strategy is (which is something that forever stays with us)

[Sexiest_hero]

I ended a 2500 game with only An necromancer fighting a night goblin shaman on the entire board, The margin of victory doesn't matter as long as the fighting is fair and bloody.

[eron12]

I am conflicted on this issue. As a player I like close contests of skill. As a general, I would like battles as one-sided as possible where I bring as many men home as I can.

Warhammer, as a game that simulates a battle and often has a sizable roleplaying element, brings these two aspects into conflict. I can't help but feel sucess when I win a great victory, as i also enjoy barely scraping a win.

[Dreadlordpaul]

I personally enjoy tabeling my opponent especially if they are really cocky. I remember one guy who was trash talking my HE army. I took on his skaven with my Teclis list and kept spamming the withering and dwellers below. I laughed at the expression on his face when i tabled him by turn 6

[Ville]

The margin of victory doesn't matter that much to me. I'd rather see my strategy and list work as planned, even if I just clinch a win. I don't mind losing either, if I managed to avoid horrible mistakes and everything in my army had a role and a clear purpose, opposed to just shoving units around and hoping for lots of sixes.

[Rosstifer]

I personally enjoy tabeling my opponent especially if they are really cocky. I remember one guy who was trash talking my HE army. I took on his skaven with my Teclis list and kept spamming the withering and dwellers below. I laughed at the expression on his face when i tabled him by turn 6

Clearly making you the bigger man, of course.

If someone trash talks me, I do the adult thing and ignore it. It's just a game of toy soldiers.

[Dreadlordpaul]

Clearly making you the bigger man, of course.

If someone trash talks me, I do the adult thing and ignore it. It's just a game of toy soldiers.

Im still a teenager im allowed to be immature

[Snake1311]

A win is a win, although I can see the necessity of margins (20-0) system in big tournaments.

Although I gotta say the margin of victory in the book is silly - 100pt is not enough. Most win/loss/draw tournies raise it to 300, and thats feels much fairer.


Dreadlordpaul's Teclis has both life and shadow simultaneously apparently :P

[Dreadlordpaul]

A win is a win, although I can see the necessity of margins (20-0) system in big tournaments.

Although I gotta say the margin of victory in the book is silly - 100pt is not enough. Most win/loss/draw tournies raise it to 300, and thats feels much fairer.


Dreadlordpaul's Teclis has both life and shadow simultaneously apparently :P

Teclis had life and i had a level 2 on shadow with the staff which lets him pick his spells

[vcassano]

Must have taken a lot of skill winning with Teclis, Mr. Paul.