3
« Last post by Clymer on Today at 11:22:16 AM »
Well, there’s probably more than two ways to do tournaments, but then you don’t get a nice alliteration.
Anyway, reading the other threads got me wondering how people approach tournaments. For me there are two ways, but maybe you have other ways, I’d love to hear what you do and why.
My two ways are:
1: Pick the models that I want and then try like hell to maximize them, even though they may not be the optimal army build. This is a good approach that usually nets me a winning record, but never a top 10 spot. The upside though is that I only ever end up with one game against the super-optimized-tournament net lists. Usually end up in the middle tables playing against strong opponents with interesting armies that aren’t too over the top. It’s usually an overall satisfying experience.
2: Pick the units that I know are the hardest and build an army around them. This usually gets better results and can lead to a lot more fun shit talk and just a different kind of fun interaction altogether and of course the competition for a top spot is pretty engaging and it’s own kind of fun. And with Empire, it’s a struggle to get a top tournament spot. Yes, I think Empire is strong and can get a solid win rate, but the way tournament scoring and scenarios work, they often play against Empire’s strengths and require crushing victories. I find that even though Empire can win more often than not, it doesn’t have enough punch to table opponents every time. And, the down side to this approach is that inevitably I run into someone who isn’t prepared for that kind of play and I feel like I’ve gone out and ruined someone’s day by clubbing them like a defenseless baby seal.
Anyway, I hate the seal hunter feeling enough that I rarely tool up completely, usually self-imposing some kind of restriction. But I’m wondering if people have had similar experiences, how you all approach tournament lists, or if you have other ideas or approaches.