I'm not saying the system is perfect, but a lot of the whining comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what Gambit does. And, quite frankly, these whiners sound like very unpleasant people to play with. They're literally complaining, "How dare you win just because you rolled a 12 despite only having a 1/12 chance of making that roll, even though I've been outplaying you the entire game?!" Personally, if my opponent somehow rolls a 12 and overtakes my lead, I'll congratulate him/her, because just based on defying those 1/12 odds alone, he/she deserves to win. This isn't simply about sportsmanship (I mean, the sheer arrogance of assuming you've been outplaying your opponent the entire time aside). I understand the frustration of losing, but to be blunt, if your opponent somehow overtakes your lead with a Gambit, then you clearly haven't been outplaying him/her as much as you thought you did. A lot of these whiners sound like Win At All Costs players who want easy wins or simply to maintain a lead they built at the beginning of the game, and then blame Gambits, luck, balance or everything except themselves when they lose.
However, if you've been outplaying your opponent, then the Gambit wouldn't matter. Let me explain. First, let's start from one example of a Gambit.
For your opponent to succeed in a Gambit and get to roll that 2D6 in the first place, he/she has to have at least one unit within 9" of a corner that's not his/her deployment zone. And he/she has two turns to do that.
Furthermore, your opponent can no longer score Primary. So he/she has to stake everything on that 2D6 roll to score 30 points - and that's assuming he/she is able to plant a unit on a corner outside his/her deployment zone and keep it there until the end of the game. So you essentially have two turns to stop him/her from deploying in a corner - block the paths, destroy whatever units are in the corners, or just let your opponent score the Gambit while building up an insurmountable lead with your own Primary.
I mean, let's look at the scenarios in which you are supposedly outplaying your opponent. Since he/she can no longer score on the Primary, you essentially have two turns to build a 30 point lead to negate whatever advantage he/she earns through rolling a 12 (and again, that's kind of risky, staking everything on a 1/12 chance of rolling whatever he/she needs).
Here's an example of a Primary Mission. Essentially, as long as you control three objectives - objectives that your opponent can no longer score on - you can get a maximum of 30 points over the next two turns. There is no reason for you not to max out on those 30 points in the final two turns. Your opponent will be too busy trying to carry out his/her Gambit, and if he/she is somehow in a position to contest the objectives and deny you those points, then why in Holy Terra would he/she be using a Gambit in the first place? Like, there's literally no benefit for them to use a Gambit if he/she is somehow still able to contest and deny you Objectives - they might as well proceed as planned. And if they are able to do so, what makes you think you are outplaying them in the first place?
The only scenario where an opponent is most likely going for a Gambit is if you're so ahead of Primary and there is no practical way for them to steal the objectives from you from the third turn onward. For example, you're holding 3 out of the Objectives, and they have no feasible way of contesting them because maybe their units have less Objective Control than you. For example, my Armiger is less than one-third of his wounds and only has an Objective Control of 3, and there's no way I can feasibly kill your 10-men squad of Space Marines on an objective, who have an Objective Control of 20. Or another example - an Alpha Strike takes out the majority of their army and they only have 1 or 2 units left on the table, which means they have no way of seizing three objectives from you and outscoring you on the Primary.
I mean, what other scenarios are there? "Oh, this is turn 3, and we both have 30 points on Primary. However, attrition has reduced my army to 2 units to your 3, and I don't think I can outscore you on Primary." This is a very calculated risk, and quite frankly, even if they can roll a 12 on 2D6, you still have ways to prevent that or negate their lead by maxing our your own Primary. No matter what, you're probably going to max out your Primary anyway, so even if you account for your opponent being lucky with rolls, then the only way for your opponent to somehow win with that roll of 12 is because somehow you're behind on Secondaries. And if you're behind on your Secondaries, then are you really outplaying your opponent? There's a reason why we have Seconaries in the game.
Also, it's not like this is "imbalanced" or totally luck-based. You whine about losing even though you "outplayed" your opponent just because he/she had a lucky roll. However, for that defeat to happen, the following factors have to happen:
1. You somehow let your opponent waltz into the corners outside his/her deployment zone and fail to do anything about it (destroy the unit, for example).
2. You didn't have a big of a lead you thought you did. Considering that you should be able to max out on Primary over the next two turns because your opponent should be busily carrying out his/her Gambit instead of contesting Objectives, I dunno how you threw away that 30 point lead.
3. If you maxed out on Primary, and your opponent's lucky roll and 30 points allowed him/her to also max on Primary and still somehow overtake you, then it means that you fell behind on Secondaries. So is it your fault for falling behind on Secondaries, or are you going to continue blaming it on luck and insist that you've outplayed your opponent even though he/she was ahead of you in Secondaries?
4. Your opponent has to roll a 12. Even with the +3 bonus if he/she somehow got units in all 4 corners, that's a 25% chance. And if you let him/her get all four corners, then refer to Point 1. What were you doing? Focusing on maxing out your Primary? Then refer to Point 3. Why was your opponent scoring more Secondaries than you?
5. If your opponent and you are similarly skilled, and the scores are fairly even, then I'm not sure why your opponent would be taking a Gambit because there's an 11/12 chance of it going wrong. Let's say he/she takes a Gambit because he/she has not enough units left after turn 3 to contest the objectives. Again, refer to the example above - both of you have 30 points on Primary by the end of turn 3, so if your opponent takes a Gambit, there's no reason for you to not max out on Primary over the next 2 turns, while your opponent only has a 1/12 chance (or 25% if you're generous enough to let him/her get to all four corners) of maxing out on Primary. Whatever the case, even if your opponent gets lucky and both of you max out on Primary, then refer to Point 3.
6. Your opponent was somehow able to muscle you off your objectives and deny you scoring. Wait a second, then why is he/she using a Gambit instead of just sticking to the Primary? He/she would score more if he/she was able to contest and steal Objectives from you, so why bother staking it all on a 1/12 roll? Also, that doesn't sound like you were outplaying him/her, and that you would have still lost even if your opponent didn't take a Gambit.
7. You're absolutely crushing your opponent and have built up such an insurmountable lead that even if you give your opponent the 30 free points without needing to roll the 2D6 for it, you'll still win. This isn't actually a scenario where you lose, but I thought I should still raise it because I want to illustrate a point: the Gambit gives your opponent at least something to play for rather than be stuck in a despairing situation for the whole game where there's absolutely nothing he/she can do to change the outcome.
Quite frankly, the whining sounds more like, "I've built up a lead and I want to keep it. I don't want to give the opponent any way to catch up." I'm sorry, but that's not how gaming works. The game doesn't revolve around you alone. You can't expect your opponent to surrender right at the start just because he/she was "outplayed." Every player deserves a chance to continue fighting to the very end. And if you truly claim to be outplaying your opponent or claiming that you're tactically superior, then prove it by continuing to outplay them until the every end. There's a reason why games go for 5 turns, and don't just end the moment one player takes a lead. If you claim that you're outplaying your opponent, then the onus is on you to maintain that lead right until the end of the game. This whole "I'm better than you, I should have won! How dare you win because you rolled a 12?!" just smacks of poor sportsmanship and refusal to acknowledge that you weren't outplaying your opponent as much as you thought you were. Not only that - who are you to decide you're outplaying your opponent? And whining about how you lost because your opponent rolled lucky even though you're the "superior" player...man, that's just arrogant and unsporting.
What does it mean by "outplaying" your opponent, anyway? Denying him/her objectives? If that's the case, then your "outplaying" strategy should shift from denying him/her capturing the Primary Objectives to denying him/her from achieving his/her Gambit. Or you can focus on building an insurmountable lead because your opponent gave up scoring in the final 2 turns and you can take the chance to max out your Primary, do your Secondaries and make sure that even in the worst-case scenario that your opponent scores his/her Gambit, he/she still will not be able to overtake your lead.
If you just want an easy win where the the result is clear after you Alpha Strike your opponent off the table and dominate the table with indestructible, resilient units that are hard to shift off objectives, then sorry, quite frankly, you're an unsporting and insufferable Win At All Costs player. You aren't winning by "skill" or by outplaying your opponent, you are winning by abusing the most powerful weapons and units. You complain about "Feels Bad" moments, but you completely disregard the opponent "Feeling Bad" when he/she is getting absolutely crushed and have no chance to get back in the game.
"But if he/she is outplayed, then he/she deserves to Feel Bad!" You cry. Well, right back at you. If you somehow allow your opponent to achieve his/her Gambit and threw away a lead, then you probably deserve to Feel Bad as well.
Now I'm not exactly a huge fan of Gambits, to be honest. I think it's too...swingy and unreliable. Nothing feels worse than to achieve the Gambit after much effort...only to not roll a 12. I understand the logic behind it, though - obviously, if you automatically get 30 points from achieving the Gambit, then there's no reason for players to not take Gambits any chance they have, especially if they turn out to be easier to score than the Primary. Of course, this doesn't take away the fact that your opponent who sticks to Proceeding as Planned can still negate that advantage by maxing out Primary in the last two turns, but it will be a little ridiculous if everyone constantly throws away the Primary Mission for a Gambit - they are meant to be a comeback mechanic, not a replacement. Obviously, you shouldn't be basing your game plan on Gambits. It's not like you know which Gambit you'll end up discarding. But it does give a badly losing opponent a chance to come back in the game, or at least give him/her hope that he/she can do something, one last hurrah. And if you are bitter and resentful of giving your opponent a chance to come back in the game, then...I'd say the problem is you, not the game system. The system might not be perfect, but the sentiment behind it at the very least is sound.
Please remember - you might be playing a tournament and aiming to be a champion, but in the end, Warhammer 40,000 is a game. A tabletop game. The point is for both players to have fun and to enjoy themselves, not for you to ruthlessly and cruelly crush your opponent to the dirt just so you can massage your enormous ego.
I mean, just look at the ego and condescending tone of this guy.
I probably wasn't mature enough, and yeah, I could have worded it better, but Holy God-Emperor, some people are really arrogant and condescending. So you're telling me my opponent massacring me is different from him outplaying him? By the way, it was James Kelling who "massacred" me with his Drukhari - and I'm pretty sure many tournament players will recognize who he is. I have no issues losing to him because he truly is an amazing player who has won tournaments. He's even on Goonhammer, you can check out his articles there. I might not be a top tournament player (I probably can't even be considered competitive), and I certainly am not an expert on balance or whatever, but c'mon. No need for that condescending and belittling tone. Especially with the mocking emoji spam. Throne on Terra, this dude (I'm not immature and petty enough to out him in public, so I'm not going to expose his real identity) is just Herman von Strab reborn. I certainly hope I don't run into him if I ever take part in a GT in future.
Also, I'm not telling you guys how to play or offering tactical advice. I'm simply explaining how the system works, the sentiment behind it, and that it doesn't give an unfair advantage to the losing player based on luck alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment