If you introduce some teaching games you might start to help them advance their own game skill and how they approach the I can see the point on number 1 and 2, I don't think teaching is the right recommendation in this case (see "Since I'm new to the game - I don't know all mechanics").
Sometimes your opponents lose all the time because they make regular mistakes. Ossiarchs are a great example of a very durable army that can win many games on kills but have a harder time against objective scoresģ) Teaching. If you introduce objective play instead of just for kills then it can change things up a lot in how the game plays out. You might do this already, but in many areas tend to get hooked on just killing models. The idea being that you're balancing your greater skill against your opponents greater force.Ģ) Objective instead of kill based games.
This changes the balance of the game and means that you have more of a challenge against you. So you might use 1500 points and they 2000 in a game. If you win a lot against a specific player then you could opt to take a handicap. There are other ways to lower the power disparity between you and an opponent including:ġ) Point differences. If you want to play Ossiarchs then play Ossiarchs (just mind that they can't ally FEC so you can't zombie dragons with them). So in a way its down to you to make a choice on what you want to play on the tabletop. Even if the army works like you'd enjoy, you'd not likely enjoy the building and painting of an army you dislike. An army that might be fun for me might not be fun for you.Īlso it wouldn't be much use if I said Skaven were the most fun, but you happen to hate Skaven models. There's no real answer to your question, instead its a matter of personal perspective.
0 kommentar(er)
