I have seen a few thread recently with discussions about which is the best race or what is the best killer combo and this got me thinking. Why do we play.

Some people will say they play because they want to win. I have only ever at best been an average player so I have taken my own fair share of whoopings and when I look back some of the more memerable games Ive had it didnt matter if I won or lost.

I feel the reason I play is to have fun and get absorbed in the particular universe, therefore the more absorbing the game is the better. I have always built my armies around what miniature I liked and not what was best and arse kicking on the table top. I was talking to a regular tournie player recently and he seemed so absorbed in what would fight best and creating killer combos, he even said no one would use something in a tournie game so he wouldnt get it.

I just wanted to share my thoughts and see what everyone else thought.
Whos camp are you in Win at all costs, or Have fun while doing it?

I am in the have fun while doing it camp but-

You have to admit it is fun to win one sometimes.

I don't play to lose certainly, but I'm not concerned if I do.

I paint figures because I like the look of them but I select a force to be effective against the opposition I expect to face or to achieve the mission objectives. My main reason for playing a game to have fun and it's not fun if I don't have a chance of winning (I do enough GMing where my forces have to die gloriously to help achieve the players goals).

I play because I've always wanted to be a space marine...conversely, I want to start a Sisters of Battle army because....

Jihadnik wrote:I play because I've always wanted to be a space marine...conversely, I want to start a Sisters of Battle army because....

You wanted to be a girl?

My Penetent engine was the start of my sisters (who are meant to be rubbish), have modified my sisters of battle so now they in corsets and thigh high leather boots.
All about the character of the army. Think it might say a little about the person fielding it.

I started WH40K becus i find it more fun to paint the figures! Just go into every little detail and i simply love it!. Playing the game and win a game is just a bonus!
And when i play i take a fluffy army. I play as Orks and choosen Evil Sunz as my Clan so i am all about verichles and speed! So i put in different kinds of units just to make it fluffy! I take what i like and what i think is fun . But why can't people just play with that they think is fun and awesome? Instead of google ''The Most Invinceble Army Tatic Warhammer 40k'' What fun is there in that? Seriusly?

I play to get my little guys on the table.

Winning is a bonus.

I've never actually been a competitive person though. I've never played competitive sports (Does not play well with others).

I get to use all the spacemen I laboriously paint for hours on end. Painting is the most relaxing thing I do, and doing so actually feels productive, unlike playing videogames or what have you. Not that I don't enjoy that too though.

Winning and losing are both fine as long as you both had fun. Nothing beats a close game.

bubblesflood wrote:I feel the reason I play is to have fun and get absorbed in the particular universe, therefore the more absorbing the game is the better. I have always built my armies around what miniature I liked and not what was best and arse kicking on the table top. I was talking to a regular tournie player recently and he seemed so absorbed in what would fight best and creating killer combos, he even said no one would use something in a tournie game so he wouldnt get it.

No. You play to win. It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

My reason for playing has changed a lot over the year that i've been doing it. At first it was to win, though I play an outdated army and barely understood the rules. It morphed into a storybook when I started writing my chapters fluff then into the character of the army and to hang out with the people at the store. I mean, I'm one of the few people that have become MORE social than I would be otherwise without 40k.

The artistic side of it is the most rewarding of any art I've done. Generally its either been praise by people who have no idea what they're looking at or condemnation by people who are full of themselves. Wargammers tend to be more constructive at the store and thus I get to know what I did right and wrong without being curbstomped about it.

So I'm in the 'fun' catagory. Though I do enjoy a competitive game occassionally.

I play to win, simple as that.
But you have to be careful with your two "camps", I for example is in the middle, or both. (I also enjoy the painting aspect, even though I'm a strictly sub-par painter.)

Like I said, I play to win, but unless I'm having fun, what's the point?

I play to win without bending rules or exploiting grey areas, to me winning games is fun, but i'm not a WAAC player who has to find some small exploit to make sure i do, if i lose i'll learn form it and be better prepared next game

I play to have fun but generally enjoy it more when I win. I must admit however that one of my friends and I are almost exactly the same in terms of ability no matter which of our armies we play with and our games always go right to the last player turn of the game. In these games although I try to win I enjoy the games so much that I don't care whether I win/loose/draw the fun is the game.

At a tournament I play to win I don't particularly enjoy it because there are usually too many WAAC player to have fun.

Every game I play, I play to win. I never attempt to lose, and I never try my hardest to draw. I play to win. Every time.

Does that mean that's my drive? Does that mean that I can only have 'fun' whilst winning? Of course not.

But I don't kid myself into believing that I 'only' play for 'fun' because that very notion is such an insidiously stupid thing to say that I find it offensive.

My biggest drive is campaigns and storytelling. I left my tournament mindset in the dust many many years ago, and only want to tell stories, fight big campaigns and have great storied Apoc battles. I'll do everything in my power to win with the army I bring, but that doesn't influence what else I do, nor does it drive my reason to play.

You can have a fluffy/fun/whatever army and still play to win. They're not mutually exclusive.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Every game I play, I play to win. I never attempt to lose, and I never try my hardest to draw. I play to win. Every time.

Does that mean that's my drive? Does that mean that I can only have 'fun' whilst winning? Of course not.

But I don't kid myself into believing that I 'only' play for 'fun' because that very notion is such an insidiously stupid thing to say that I find it offensive.

My biggest drive is campaigns and storytelling. I left my tournament mindset in the dust many many years ago, and only want to tell stories, fight big campaigns and have great storied Apoc battles. I'll do everything in my power to win with the army I bring, but that doesn't influence what else I do, nor does it drive my reason to play.

I like your explanation better than your harsh rhetoric. The "just for fun" people are also
trying to win, but they're doing exactly what you're doing, trying to win with the armies
that they bring. They're not "only trying to play" just as I know you're not "only trying to
win."

I guess my problem is with the absolutes in the language of these debates. "Win at all
costs," "Power Gamer," "Fluff Nazi," etc. This isn't a politics debate in the OT Forum, it's
a discussion about how we like to play our games, and I think we're all mature enough
to self-moderate our discussions about something like gaming.

While I like winning, I have only won 3 of my top 5 favorite games. I do try to win when I play, but the reason I play isn't to win. The reason I play is because I have fun with the individuals I play against. I have met some really good friends in the past six months since I've started playing. The friendships I make and the memories I have of the games, that is the reason I play. Winning just strokes my ego.

malfred wrote:I like your explanation better than your harsh rhetoric.

My 'harsh rhetoric' is a direct result of the 'either/or' mentality that infests threads like this, or the 'absolutes' as you would put it, as well as those who would smugly sit on a high horse of moral self-righteousness and try to tell anyone that they don't play to win. There is no 'either/or'. Everyone plays to win. You mightn't care when you lose, or you might only care about winning, but everyone tries to win the games that they play.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

malfred wrote:I like your explanation better than your harsh rhetoric.

My 'harsh rhetoric' is a direct result of the 'either/or' mentality that infests threads like this, or the 'absolutes' as you would put it, as well as those who would smugly sit on a high horse of moral self-righteousness and try to tell anyone that they don't play to win. There is no 'either/or'. Everyone plays to win. You mightn't care when you lose, or you might only care about winning, but everyone tries to win the games that they play.

I can agree with this,and while I build armies based on a theme/fluff rather than "what unit must I take to ensure victory",I certainly never come to the table with a "Gee I hope I lose" attitude.

I actually play for the fun aspect of it.. especially since i play most of my armies to fluff. What do i mean by playing to fluff? Well, basically what it means is that, for example, when i run my tyranids, i NEVER try to win the game by holding objectives, i try to win by "eating" all of my opponents models. Why does an extra-galactic entity care about holding that power node, or dead space marine statue (or whatever you use for objective markers) Conversely, my Guardsmen are most definitely a "Hold the Line!!" bunch and dont really move too much or too quickly.

But you're still trying to win.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

malfred wrote:I like your explanation better than your harsh rhetoric.

My 'harsh rhetoric' is a direct result of the 'either/or' mentality that infests threads like this, or the 'absolutes' as you would put it, as well as those who would smugly sit on a high horse of moral self-righteousness and try to tell anyone that they don't play to win. There is no 'either/or'. Everyone plays to win. You mightn't care when you lose, or you might only care about winning, but everyone tries to win the games that they play.

I think you might be guilty of your own absolutes.....I can honestly say I have played a game honestly not caring if I lost I was actually hopeing I would, granted it was against a friend who was just starting and I wanted him to get a win....it's not so much about winning with me but, who I beat...mostly in all honesty it's about "fun" especially when I'm at a buddies house with a few friends drinking some beer.....

Fun and competitiveness aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I generally grab whatever units I think look cool and fit a pre-determined theme and that seem fun to use, then within that develop a strong army list. Now, that leaves a lot of wiggle room, and some cool ideas get sacrificed either because they don't seem fun to play (e.g. aircav with the current IG codex doesn't seem very fun, but aircav with the IA:8 list seems very fun) or because the models look dumb, but you can generally make a competitive army from most things (though admittedly not all, the all-sniper IG army I saw once is testament to that)

If you win games, hooray! If not, oh well.

Its fun to win, of course. But I agree that its better to play for fun. Often if Im already dead if you know what I mean I just hope out loud that my troops make more epic fails! Fun is what the game is about after all.

H.B.M.C. wrote:No. You play to win. It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

Playing with that mind reading helmet again, are we? I've played to lose quite often, thank you very much. Sometimes because it becomes clear during deployment that I have no realistic way to win, or during an Apocalypse game (in Apocalypse, nobody ever really wins), or against a new guy, etc.

UbiSwanky2 wrote:I think you might be guilty of your own absolutes.....I can honestly say I have played a game honestly not caring if I lost I was actually hopeing I would, granted it was against a friend who was just starting and I wanted him to get a win....it's not so much about winning with me but, who I beat...mostly in all honesty it's about "fun" especially when I'm at a buddies house with a few friends drinking some beer.....

Throwing a game might be one of those "exception that proves the rule". You actively lost a game to allow someone else to win. In essence, your goal with the game was to get him to enjoy it. By losing, you actually 'won' in the sense that your goal was met (he enjoyed the game).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Playing with that mind reading helmet again, are we?

Cry me a river sad-sack. I've got little time for your typical morose melancholy nonsense today.

Agamemnon2 wrote:I've played to lose quite often, thank you very much. Sometimes because it becomes clear during deployment that I have no realistic way to win, or during an Apocalypse game (in Apocalypse, nobody ever really wins)

Hold on. I'm just gonna dial the waaaaaaaaaaahmbulance for you. How bloody typical. Everyone loses in Apoc? Oh give me a break...

Agamemnon2 wrote:or against a new guy, etc.

I've dealt with throwing games above. The goal there - the 'win condition', if you will - becomes the opposing player's victory. By throwing the game, you win because you achieve your goal (he thinks he beat you).

Well if you're just going to define the terms then...

My win condition is that this is going to be fun

If we can please avoid the name calling and excessive hyperbole when "discussing" other people's views and arguments it'd be good. Ta.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I've dealt with throwing games above. The goal there - the 'win condition', if you will - becomes the opposing player's victory. By throwing the game, you win because you achieve your goal (he thinks he beat you).

That's a semantic argument that does not take away from the fact that you still lose the game for all rules purposes. That one's playing some other kind of game inside their head does not reflect upon the external reality of the game in progress. Any loss can be redefined into another kind of win using a similar process, and I'm not sure if it's fruitful to do so.

On the other hand, it's perfectly possible in real war for both sides to claim their desired objectives and thus consider themselves the winner of a given engagement (and for "losing" a battle contrariwise the same way), and I think it'd be an interesting game indeed that could reflect this somehow. 2nd edition 40k tried something along these lines by having both sides randomly pick distinct objectives that might or might not directly interact with each other (side A was trying to gain territory while side B tries to kill the enemy command units, etc). But that's a small digression, and I apologize.

Playing to win isn't fun?

No, winning is fun, who has fun losing? If you are playing to lose, what enjoyment are you getting from the game? You might as well do something else, because this is a game, and games are competitive.

Now that doesn't exclude certain models, sometimes fielding one to give myself a handicap, or painting it for my display case to showcase with the rest of my army.

I play for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with winning or losing. The people that explicitly play to win or find the best 'combo' or the best 'army list' are the same type of people that tackle during a flag football game...they are overly competative and let whatever remanence of an ego get in the way of them and everyone else having fun! (this is a blanket generalization)

I play because I love to paint, I think its important in everyone's life to have a creative outlet...and 40k is mine!

I play because the look of a battlefield and a well painted army on the table is aesthetically charming and really captivates my interest in the game!

I play because I love the storylines, its like bringing your favorite book to life when you play a game!

I play because I love to micro manage, and no games other than RTS for computers do it with such eloquence!

I play because I like the gothic feel to the game and the dark and haunting war torn world of 40k!

and finally, yes, I play because I like to win but this is not a primary driver to my fascination with 40k.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Every game I play, I play to win. I never attempt to lose, and I never try my hardest to draw. I play to win. Every time.

Does that mean that's my drive? Does that mean that I can only have 'fun' whilst winning? Of course not.

But I don't kid myself into believing that I 'only' play for 'fun' because that very notion is such an insidiously stupid thing to say that I find it offensive.

My biggest drive is campaigns and storytelling. I left my tournament mindset in the dust many many years ago, and only want to tell stories, fight big campaigns and have great storied Apoc battles. I'll do everything in my power to win with the army I bring, but that doesn't influence what else I do, nor does it drive my reason to play.

+1 Im with you the whole way H.B.M.C

I do enjoy gaming with anyone and everyone but i always want to win and also i never throw a game for a new person. Now before you all decide to throw me under the bus listen.

Letting someone win is only teaching them that bad choices will still let them win games. Yes of course i dont try and take advantage of their lack how the game is played and bend the rules to my favor but you need to understand what you did wrong in a game to fix it so you can win in the future.

Also i am not just talking out of my ass all my first games were against my friends and we were all learning how to play so i very rarely lost or got punished for my mistakes. Then comes my first game with a brand new person that knows how to play the game and absolutly crushes me. I almost stoped playing my army cause i felt as if everything i had done in the past was wrong and my army list's and tactics sucked more than anything so i should just start new.

Then i had a game where again i was tabled but it was by someone who after each phase expalined what he was doing and why and also after i did my turn he would explain the things i should have done(fixing my mistakes) but he still played to win and now thats how i teach new players as well.

Bottom line is...If they never learn from their mistakes when they are learning how to play then the never really learn the game.

[quote=H.B.M.C

Agamemnon2 wrote:Playing with that mind reading helmet again, are we?

Cry me a river sad-sack. I've got little time for your typical morose melancholy nonsense today.

This totally reminds me of the Gieco commerical with the drill sarge from full metal jackect. why dont we take a trip to namby pamby land

H.B.M.C i still picture you as clint eastwood from gran torino.

*edit damn not typing full words
* I hate typing honestly.....

I would rather play than not play.

I would also rather have a fairly even match rather than a one sided battle.

So long as both are met, winning or losing doesn't matter.

I play to win, I mean who doesn't, we all have the little tiny voice in the back of our head saying "do it..... crush his/her hobby....Muhahahhahha". I am not a WAAC player, but winning is pretty cool. I also play to see the plastic toys I put effort into looking good and seeing them on the table where they truly belong.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

bubblesflood wrote:I feel the reason I play is to have fun and get absorbed in the particular universe, therefore the more absorbing the game is the better. I have always built my armies around what miniature I liked and not what was best and arse kicking on the table top. I was talking to a regular tournie player recently and he seemed so absorbed in what would fight best and creating killer combos, he even said no one would use something in a tournie game so he wouldnt get it.

No. You play to win. It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

Playing to win and playing for fun aren't always the same thing to some people. I enjoy the game, win or lose, depending on my opponent (the wrong opponent can ruin enjoyment regardless of outcome).

And you know full well what is meant by the phrase 'play to win'.

I 'play the game' of which winning is the aim. 'playing to win' is a totally different attitude.

I think that trying to pigeon hole this scale int he two boxes is impossible as it is a scale and we are not just looking at the extremities.

If you go into a game with the intention of losing you have already lost. This will also mean that any "story" will not run fluidly on the table as you will be trying t force an outcome. You may as well jst sit down and write a story.

I think the main issue is we like to play with other players who are at a similar point in the scale to ourselves.

I have played enough competatie sports to understand the mentality behind having a positive attitude and to "visualise the win" but this should not come at the expense of good sportsmanship. Which is why I am glad to see tournies having a greater emphasis on fair and balanced play.

I spoke to a tournament player who came up with a tactic that if he got the first turn he could set in motion a combination that would wipe out half the opponents army before they even got to move. We have all seen rare occasions when this happens on the table but in my experience it required a fair amount of luck.

I just feel the WAAC playing style is not for me, but this is a big enough hobby for us all to have fun in whatever group we want to put ourselves in.

I play in character. By this I mean, I play as if I was a Chaos Lord in the fields of the 41st Millennium. So I go WAAC mode if I'm playing against Imperials, and totally apathetic if against 'Nids, 'Crons, Orks, Eldar and Dark Eldar. Why, you ask? To keep the game fun. Also, you have to define "winning". I'd think I "won" a game, even if it was a draw, as long as I maximized my time and efforts to enjoy it.

Excuse me, if my idea seems a bit childish.

Having fun, mainly getting along with my opponent and having a good game, is my main goal. Only if I am consistently defeated by the same character do I start to see it as a challenge that needs to be overcome.

H.B.M.C. wrote:No. You play to win. It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

Yes, but this is, as you say, from the point you put your models on the table.

When I'm playing a game, I'm actively trying to win (unless I'm teaching someone, or something similar). If the game goes badly for me, and it looks like I might lose, I'll figure out what I could do to get a draw, but if theres a possibilty of me winning I play to win.

However, before the game, I might choose a less competitive or suboptimal army because I like the fluff or the models. Hell, ALL my armies are less competitive or suboptimal. This is referred to in the first post, when the OP complains about people purchasing units only based on their effectiveness.

The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

Instead of 'play to win' and 'play for fun', we really mean 'is involved in Warhammer purely to WIN games' or 'is involved in Warhammer for because it's fun, regardless if you win or not'

Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

If you've seriouly number crunched your list unti it is 'competitivael y optimal' I reckon you're taking things just a little too seriously.

juraigamer wrote:I would also rather have a fairly even match rather than a one sided battle.

I like the way you think.

I enjoy a tough game with rock-hard armies. But I'd rather tone a list down than have a totally one-sided game.

And while I do try to build the best list possible I do compromise my lists based on models I like, things that I don't really want to paint, etc.

Mr Mystery wrote:Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

If you've seriouly number crunched your list unti it is 'competitivael y optimal' I reckon you're taking things just a little too seriously.

On the other hand I could say people who write pages and pages of fluff and spend hours making sure every detail of their army's paintjob is accurate as per the fluff are taking things too seriously, too. Don't even get me started on people who give their troops names...

ArbitorIan wrote:The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

What I want to know is why is it a bad thing to be in one camp or the other? I get why playing with people in tournament mode 24/7 might get tiresome, but really there isn't anything wrong with any kind of player*, they just have fun with one aspect more than another. Some people have more fun painting and writing stories for their dudes and other people, believe it or not, actually have fun competing and testing their skill both in list building (yes it is a skill) and tactics.

*Except the guys who give all their troops names and backstories, you're just messed up**. I'm sorry.

Scott-S6 wrote:I enjoy a tough game with rock-hard armies. But I'd rather tone a list down than have a totally one-sided game

The game isn't "one-sided" when both players are playing good armies, though.


As for me personally, I play to win, but if I weren't having fun then I wouldn't be playing at all. In my opinion 40k is a lot like Team Fortress 2, when I'm playing I'm doing my best to get that fething cart across the map, possibly getting frustrated when I keep getting killed by the same guy over and over, but in the end I really don't give a gak who won or lost, who got the most points, what my K ratio was, etc. When playing 40k I want to be the one with the most objectives or the only one with models left on the table, but when the game's over I really don't care anymore. I don't rub it in, I don't keep score and track all my wins/losses, I barely even say anything more than "I guess I won."

And yeah, nowadays I strive to build "competitive" armies, ones that people who take things too seriously will accuse of being "non-fluffy", "spammy", etc., but that isn't because I'm a "WAAC" player, it's because I'm broke and the idea of wasting money (a lot of money, this hobby isn't cheap) on units that suck isn't appealing. I like cool models, but in most cases I'm just not willing to shell out the money for something that's just going to handicap my list.


**This is a joke, don't take it seriously.

bubblesflood wrote:I have seen a few thread recently with discussions about which is the best race or what is the best killer combo and this got me thinking. Why do we play.

Some people will say they play because they want to win. I have only ever at best been an average player so I have taken my own fair share of whoopings and when I look back some of the more memerable games Ive had it didnt matter if I won or lost.

I feel the reason I play is to have fun and get absorbed in the particular universe, therefore the more absorbing the game is the better. I have always built my armies around what miniature I liked and not what was best and arse kicking on the table top. I was talking to a regular tournie player recently and he seemed so absorbed in what would fight best and creating killer combos, he even said no one would use something in a tournie game so he wouldnt get it.

I just wanted to share my thoughts and see what everyone else thought.
Whos camp are you in Win at all costs, or Have fun while doing it?

I don't really see why there has to be a distinction between the two. Why can I not make a great list and still have a good time? I usually run a marine horde and I almost always win when I play (tournaments and in store). I have always felt that having a good time is more based on how you interact with the other person and not who is winning. Certainly there are people who will never be happy unless they are pounding you but that is a very small percentage of the people who play.

Sidstyler wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

What I want to know is why is it a bad thing to be in one camp or the other? I get why playing with people in tournament mode 24/7 might get tiresome, but really there isn't anything wrong with any kind of player*, they just have fun with one aspect more than another. Some people have more fun painting and writing stories for their dudes and other people, believe it or not, actually have fun competing and testing their skill both in list building (yes it is a skill) and tactics.

I think you answer this question later in your own post, but...

No, it's not wrong at all. People can play the game however they like - if someone is only playing to beat other people, fine. If someone is building an army made of only nurglings cause he loves them, then fine. It's not wrong.

The arguments come when people with very different ideas of what they want play each other. Hobbyist players complain that people are taking obvious, identikit cheese lists, and that you should be aware that there are two people playing the game, and the game should be fun for both of them. Competitive players retort that the apparent 'lack of challenge' that a suboptimised list provides ruins their fun.

Neither are wrong. But i DO believe that the Hobbyist mindset encourages diversity in armies, creativity in the way a list can be used, and therefore is of benefit to the hobby, the community and the game. The comptitive mindset only encourages indentikit armies with the commonly-agreed 'best' units in them. I don't want to play the SAME Space Wolves army ten times in an event. I believe this mindset both misses the point and intention of the game's design AND makes the hobby less interesting for other people.

Thankfully for me, as others have pointed out, i think it's a very small and vocal minority. I've played in four tournaments so far this year, and every one featured lovely people with characterful, converted armies, and every single person I talked to was very dismissive of the 'competitive' mindset, to the level of it being a running joke. Three of the tournaments were big enough to be entered on the UK Rankings page, but nobody bothered entering the details, as nobody cares about the rankings. I could only think of one or two people out of the eighty or so attendees of these events who play like that.

Anyway, although I think it's bad for the hobby 'community', and relatively rare, it's not wrong for someone to play like that. If someone spends their money on toy soliders, they can do whatever they want with them.

EDITED for clarity and grammar.

Hear, hear.

I will say the bad thing about disliking to lose is that inevitably you will lose some games and not enjoy them.

I used to be a lot more competitive than I am now, and it got to the point where it spoilt my enjoyment of just playing the game.

I play for fun, and to relax and hang out.
Winning is a bonus.

Losing-losing is still fun, because to me, Warhammer is enjoyable just to play.

Hey.... what's wrong with naming your troops?

Capt_Bowman wrote:Hey.... what's wrong with naming your troops?

Coming up with new ones after every massacre.

I play to win, My friend and I are ridiculous ... we play 9-10 games a week in anticipation of next months tournament. So we can test and define and redefine our lists against all comers. We enjoy the competitive aspect of the game, I enjoy building the lists more, where he enjoys converting. However we both dislike painting ... and have several well painted armies between us ...

We're nice people to talk to and even play the game nicely albeit ruthlessly

I think there is a difference between wanting to win and actually playing to win.

Everyone 'wants' to win, but if you know your list isn't competitive, and you refuse to use certain strategies on the grounds of being cheesy... Then you are not playing to win.

It's like a man hammering on a castle wall with just his fists saying "I'm trying to knock down this wall"... No you're not.

Fortunately miniatures can be quite rewarding even if you never play, let alone win, and Role Playing games (which games like 40K would still come under) are often just as much a journey of imagination as they are competitive games.

Lately I have been trying to play to win a bit more. My main list is more competitive and such. But I still enjoy seeing my models on the table and allow myself a few units that I know I shouldn't take, just as guilty pleasures.

There is also seeking a challenge. Those irritating words 'optimal and competitive' seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win. That to me just seems a little pointless.

I guess it comes down to what margin of victory do you find acceptable. If you are obsessed with crunching your opponent into the dirty every time, then that's great, just don't expect me to play you more than once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

If you've seriouly number crunched your list unti it is 'competitivael y optimal' I reckon you're taking things just a little too seriously.

On the other hand I could say people who write pages and pages of fluff and spend hours making sure every detail of their army's paintjob is accurate as per the fluff are taking things too seriously, too. Don't even get me started on people who give their troops names...
.

Aye true enough there are extremes in all aspects of the Hobby, but the sad truth is those who take competitve gaming to the extreme are most likely to impact on their opponents enjoyment of the game. This is why I avoid tournaments. It's not that the majority of people attending are power gaming knob jockeys, it's because it's an environment I'm most likely to encounter said power gaming knob jockeys. Thus, I don't partake. They get to enjoy the game their way, I get to enjoy it mine, everyone is ultimately happier for it.

malfred wrote:

Capt_Bowman wrote:Hey.... what's wrong with naming your troops?

Coming up with new ones after every massacre.

Mine always seem to have just been knocked out or manage to survive some how.
Can never be bothered to name them all even if they do get eaten by a Hive Tyrant

Mr Mystery wrote:And you know full well what is meant by the phrase 'play to win'.

Yes, it means that you play the game not in an incompetent fashion, that is you play and attempt to win. Playing to win does not mean you cheat or abuse rules or otherwise be unpleasant. People who pretend that playing to win is a bad thing generally just are not very good at playing the game, so rather than learn how to play better attempt to insult anyone who beats them.

Mr Mystery wrote:Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

I think it's pretty grotesque to spend hours and days of your life playing a game but choose not to understand how to actually play it.

And here we have the false dichotomy. I am a very competent gamer thank you very much, and the source of my enjoyment comes from taking armies which appeal thematically, and learning how to win with them. Sometimes I get it straight off the bat, sometimes it might take a few games, and perhaps a couple of tinkers to get my strategy down. Ultimately, I'm just not interested in using an 'optimised' list, or making sure my selections are 'competitive'. I'll let my skill at the actual game determine the outcome thank you very much.

But thanks for the attempt, it is noted.

ArbitorIan wrote:Hobbyist players complain that people are taking obvious, identikit cheese lists, and that you should be aware that there are two people playing the game, and the game should be fun for both of them... Neither are wrong. But i DO believe that the Hobbyist mindset encourages diversity in armies, creativity in the way a list can be used, and therefore is of benefit to the hobby, the community and the game.

It's the hardcore hobbyists that seem unaware that there are two people playing the game, and that the game should be fun for both of them. They're the ones who try to dictate what army the other player is allowed to bring instead of allowing the other person their choice of list. They're the ones who try to enforce sameness of armies by adding rules like 'comp scores' that force narrow styles of list and often make it impossible for less-popular armies to win a tournament. The 'fluff nazis' who will call any list unfluffy unless it sticks to some incredibly narrow idea in the person's head (a salamander's list with a speeder? UNFLUFFY even though every official source says they have speeders) are certainly not competitive players. Ohh, and watch out if you're a new player trying out some guys that aren't painted yet, or proxying because you don't want to spend money on something before you try it out - it's the hardcore hobbyist types that generally get angry about unpainted and proxied guys, not the competitive ones.

People who take some aspect of the hobby to seriously and try to force other people to do exactly what they enjoy are the problem, trying to say that 'hobbyists' cause no issues while 'competitivists' do just doesn't match reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:And here we have the false dichotomy. I am a very competent gamer thank you very much, and the source of my enjoyment comes from taking armies which appeal thematically, and learning how to win with them. Sometimes I get it straight off the bat, sometimes it might take a few games, and perhaps a couple of tinkers to get my strategy down. Ultimately, I'm just not interested in using an 'optimised' list, or making sure my selections are 'competitive'.

It sounds to me like you optimize a list for your playstyle, and attempt to learn how to use your list to win games, which constitutes building a competitive list. For some reason you've decided that 'optimized' and 'competetive' are bad words, so you pretend that any optimizations to your list or attempts to make it competitive aren't really that. And you feel the need to insult people who enjoy that part of list building by calling their daring to play the game well 'grotesque'.

Really? Like....really really?

As said above, when it comes to gaming, I'm fairly relaxed. And if for whatever reason I don't enjoy my game, I'll simply decline to play you again. Trouble is, in my own personal experience, those with the identicheese lists tend also to be bollocks rules lawyers, who reduce the flow of the game to a mind numbing grind.

So I ask again, who is most likely to have an impact on the other? I'll play any list, any time (provided I have equal points of course. I'm not stupid). How many fluff nazis have you genuinely met? As for proxying, couple of games sure, beyond that, and assuming you'll have played against more than just myself, I'd be asling why you haven't purchase said unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooop! Hold on. Missed your addendum.....reply to you starts here...

No, I don't optimise. I just take the units I like, and get good with them. Take my Savage Orcs. Entire army stemmed from the thought of a Frenzied Wyvern with an underslung Warboss, and boom, 2,000 points of frenzied nutters right there. I win about 50% of my games with this, often down to luck (yet to actually get the Big'un Boarboyz into combat. They always mince themselves when I call the Waaagh).

And yes, that's right..sometimes I will include a unit just because it looks or sounds cool. Helll, my Nids include several beasties called useless, and contains no Tervigons. Yet I win most of my games with them, and my Pyrovore is the bane of my opponents best HTH stuff. Why? Well, that would be telling of course.

But trust me, I don't need to number crunch my list, or 'optimise' to slap someone up and down the table. My tactics and strategy (not to mention genuinely outrageous luck when I need it) sees to that.

That really depends on the matter, if you are playing for fun, then play for fun. If you are a tounery players like myself, I'm going to bring my A list and show no mercy on the field.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:That really depends on the matter, if you are playing for fun, then play for fun. If you are a tounery players like myself, I'm going to bring my A list and show no mercy on the field.

So do you take your list to local stores etc, or do you have a group of like minded people to practice against? This is one of the things that stopped me going to my local club. Everything was tournament oriented, practice game after practice game, being told they wouldn't play my army because it wasn't 'comped' etc. That, and you see the same lists coming up time and time again (if I hear Gateway FTW one more time, I might just stab someone).

Now it's cool that they have their way of enjoying it, but when I've paid to attend somewhere, and am being forced to play another persons way, I just won't bother.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:It's the hardcore hobbyists that seem unaware that there are two people playing the game, and that the game should be fun for both of them. They're the ones who try to dictate what army the other player is allowed to bring instead of allowing the other person their choice of list.

Mr Mystery wrote:And here we have the false dichotomy. I am a very competent gamer thank you very much, and the source of my enjoyment comes from taking armies which appeal thematically, and learning how to win with them. Sometimes I get it straight off the bat, sometimes it might take a few games, and perhaps a couple of tinkers to get my strategy down. Ultimately, I'm just not interested in using an 'optimised' list, or making sure my selections are 'competitive'.

It sounds to me like you optimize a list for your playstyle, and attempt to learn how to use your list to win games, which constitutes building a competitive list. For some reason you've decided that 'optimized' and 'competetive' are bad words, so you pretend that any optimizations to your list or attempts to make it competitive aren't really that. And you feel the need to insult people who enjoy that part of list building by calling their daring to play the game well 'grotesque'.

First, against my point, I'll point out (again) that neither 'hobbyist' or 'competitive' players are wrong or right, but bad things happen whe they end up playing each other. But, to echo Mr Mystery...

Seriously? REALLY?

You really think that it's the Hobbyist players who hate varied lists? Bear in mind you're posting on an interweb forum where a small minority declare any list that 'doesn't have X' is uncompetitive, or any Chaos list 'must include X' otherwise it's never going to win. Or that you just shouldn't take certain units in a given codex. All the events I've played in this year are what you'd call 'fun' events - none of them had, needed, or wanted comp scores. I don't advocate comp scoring, but I understand that people who do are trying to DIVERSIFY the sort of lists present my removing the 'most common/popular/obvious' choices. Comp scoring is a reaction against netlists.

I include Mr Mystery's post because I completely agree with him - I choose an army to a theme, then LEARN to win with it. I'll optimise it, but never at the expense of the theme. For example, I play an all-Slaanesh Daemons list. I've been playing Slaanesh Daemons for a long time, and I win quite often now, as I've learned how to use them. I will post on forums to see how I can optimise them, but I would NEVER take the step of including Bloodcrushers or Fateweaver, however much it would benefit the list. Because it doesn't fit the theme for my army. While I want them to do well, and maximise my chances of winning, theme and concept come first.

H.M.B.C., I just have a quick question out of my own curiosity, and please don't be quick to cut me with your obviously scathing rhetoric ( ), but, when you play, do you care if your opponents have fun?

Just curious...

H.B.M.C. wrote:No. You play to win.

I have played against people who honestly did not play to win. Each action taken was to make something that, by their standards, made something cool likely to happen. At one point the Daemon Prince was poised to start ripping tanks apart which would have resulted in a handy win, but the other guy said it should move towards his Captain because that fight would be awesome. The guy did it.

I didn't play with those guys again because that was really not the kind of gaming I'm interested in, and to be honest I think you could make a claim that what they were doing was not 'wargaming'. But people like that certainly exist.

It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

True. It isn't about being one type of player or the other, it's about all the decisions you make and where you're willing to sacrifice your chance to win in favour of a more enjoyable game.

People in this thread have already said they will take an army that is less likely to win if it fits their theme. I will sacrifice some of my own effectiveness for the sake of an army that's got more options and will require more interesting choices during the game to make it effective.

The debate is really more about how much one person or another might sacrifice some portion of their chance to win for the sake of other things. Unfortunately, as bubblesflood recognised, the debate typically results in people arguing about the two extremes (the WAAC player and the just for fun player) - if those two types were the only gamers it'd be simple to see yourself as one or the other and we wouldn't keep having this debate. Reality is most of us are in between, and are willing to sacrifice some element of our chance to win to include some other thing in the game.

Dexterium wrote:Playing to win isn't fun?

Taken to the extreme, where the number of viable army builds drops considerably, and the playing style of those armies is typically very one-dimensional, then it becomes not fun for a lot of people who have more invested in the idea of an engaging game than they do in the ego boost of the eventuall outcome.

No, winning is fun, who has fun losing?

Many people, myself included. I have enjoyed a lot of games that have swung back and forth, and presented all kinds of difficult choices, even when I've come out on the losing side.

If you are playing to lose, what enjoyment are you getting from the game? You might as well do something else, because this is a game, and games are competitive.

No. Your idea of fun is not the only idea of fun.

You are welcome to approach the hobby however you like. You are not welcome to tell people how the hobby should be approached.

ArbitorIan wrote:The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

Again, though, you're welcome to approach the hobby however you'd like, but you're not welcome to tell people how they should approach the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

brettz123 wrote:I don't really see why there has to be a distinction between the two. Why can I not make a great list and still have a good time? I usually run a marine horde and I almost always win when I play (tournaments and in store). I have always felt that having a good time is more based on how you interact with the other person and not who is winning. Certainly there are people who will never be happy unless they are pounding you but that is a very small percentage of the people who play.

Thing is, there are lists that are very powerful but are boring to play with, and to play against. Most of the best 40K lists revolve around maximising a single type of unit, to effectively remove much of the enemy's firepower from the game (a list of nothing but Chimera chassis, for instance, does very well because the enemy's anti horde firepower has no targets, and it's big AT guns are being used on the sub-optimal medium quality armour).

Thing is, while effective these lists are ofen very limited in their tactical options, and when everyone takes these armies you frequently get match up problems, to the point where games can be all but decided before deployment.

That's not to say that people have to sacrifice their chance of winning to increase the chance of a more engaging game. Lots of people really don't like the idea of gaming in an environment where players are expected to take anything less than the most powerful list they can, and that's fine, as long as everyone involved knows that is what is expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbitorIan wrote:Anyway, although I think it's bad for the hobby 'community', and relatively rare, it's not wrong for someone to play like that. If someone spends their money on toy soliders, they can do whatever they want with them.

I don't think it's bad for the community. More players is more better, always, no matter how they want to play. At the end of the day, if they want a play that I don't think I'll find fun, I'll tell them I'm not interested, and they are welcome to do the same to me.

The only problem is when players of any type try to claim their preferred style of play is the correct style, whatever that might be.

Mr Mystery wrote:Really? Like....really really? As said above, when it comes to gaming, I'm fairly relaxed.

It doesn't sound like it to me; you've said that you find it "Grotesque" that someone would attempt to play a game well in the 'pick an army list' phase. If you have such contempt for fellow game players who don't play exactly like you, then you're clearly not relaxed by my standards, but are extremely uptight and judgemental.

So I ask again, who is most likely to have an impact on the other? I'll play any list, any time

But you'll insult the player if you don't like his list, calling his style of play 'grotesque' if he attempts to select a good army. "Grotesque" is not a friendly word to call someone, it indicates that you are disgusted with them and hold them in contempt. You appear to be like a lot of the supposedly friendly players; you'll talk the talk about respect for your opponent, making sure both people have fun, treating it as just a game, but as soon as someone does things a little different from you, all of that vanishes.

As for proxying, couple of games sure, beyond that, and assuming you'll have played against more than just myself, I'd be asling why you haven't purchase said unit.

How can you seriously call yourself 'relaxed' and easygoing, and say that you want to make sure both people have a good time, but feel it's appropriate to question other people's financial decisions? Your 'live and let live' attitude doesn't seem to stand up to much of someone playing differently than you do.

But trust me, I don't need to number crunch my list, or 'optimise' to slap someone up and down the table. My tactics and strategy (not to mention genuinely outrageous luck when I need it) sees to that.

I still don't understand why you think it's OK (and not taking the game too seriously) to use good tactics and strategy during the game, but "grotesque" to apply thought to picking a list. What is the big difference to warrant calling one 'grotesque' and one not? Specifically, why is optimizing your maneuver and/or firing, and trying to be competitive with them A-OK, but doing so when picking a list such a horrible thing that brings out your ire? Why does selecting units intelligently mean that you "seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win" but deploying and picking targets intelligently doesn't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbitorIan wrote:First, against my point, I'll point out (again) that neither 'hobbyist' or 'competitive' players are wrong or right, but bad things happen whe they end up playing each other. But, to echo Mr Mystery...

Oddly enough, in my experience the problem typically only comes when obnoxious, overbearing players of either type try to impose their personal playstyle on other people, or just generally drop basic politeness and/or sportsmanship. And the worst that I've run into are the ones that utter something about 'I don't play to win' before a game, if someone says that then I fully expect them to fill the game with complaints about how unfair the opposing army is, how cheesy this tactic or ability is, how bad their dice luck is, and so on.

You really think that it's the Hobbyist players who hate varied lists? Bear in mind you're posting on an interweb forum where a small minority declare any list that 'doesn't have X' is uncompetitive, or any Chaos list 'must include X' otherwise it's never going to win. Or that you just shouldn't take certain units in a given codex.

I don't have any idea what relevance people discussing lists in terms of competitiveness has to do with anything here. It's the hardcore 'hobbyist' players that complain if an opponent's list is not to their liking when actually playing the game (not when critiquing on a messageboard), that (like your pal) demand answers about other people's financial decisions, and that offer contempt for anyone who plays the game differently than they do.

All the events I've played in this year are what you'd call 'fun' events - none of them had, needed, or wanted comp scores. I don't advocate comp scoring, but I understand that people who do are trying to DIVERSIFY the sort of lists present my removing the 'most common/popular/obvious' choices. Comp scoring is a reaction against netlists.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions; I've never seen a comp score setup that is not either completely subjective (and so just a way for judges to boost their friends) or serves to penalize the less-played armies severely for taking functional lists. The fact that people put in comp scores to try to diversify lists BUT FAIL is what's significant to me, not the intention. It also gives the lie to the 'not playing to win' mantra, since the purpose behind it is to give 'armies like I like to play' an advantage in, well, winning the event.

I include Mr Mystery's post because I completely agree with him - I choose an army to a theme, then LEARN to win with it. I'll optimise it, but never at the expense of the theme.

Didn't Mr. Mystery just get done calling that playstyle 'grotesque'? If you use 'optimize' or try to be 'competitive', you're disgusting in his eyes, so either you have a lot of self-loathing or you don't really agree with him.

You play to win. Everyone does. Not everyone wins, but everyone does their best to win.

If you don't play to win, whats the point in playing?

Want to "do something cool?" "Make something awesome happen?" make a diorama, or heck, play by "yourself."

Not playing to win is just like entering a race, and then being like "oh nope, I'm running to win, just gonna jog and enjoy myself."

then whats the point in racing? Just jog by yourself.

You may have everything stacked against you. You may have almost no chance in winning. However, when it comes down to the game itself, everyone plays to win.

If anyone actually honestly believes they don't play to win, here is one simple way to never win a game. Tell your opponent. "You win." Save time and effort. Save your opponent's time and effort. You get your goal. You didn't win.

I try to win at the games that I play, but I don't have a problem losing (out of the few games that I've actually managed to play, I've lost the majority, and had a good time each game regardless.) That being said, I usually try to set up little self-imposed goals in every game; e.g., whenever I wind up going up against the Crimson Fists that one of the guys at my FLGS fields, I always try to take out Pedro. Doesn't really make a difference if I win or lose at the overall game, but if my Orks can take out Pedro during the battle, then I consider my goal to have been accomplished.

I feel like such mini-scenarios do a lot to help the game, and make it much more worthwhile for both players - if the other guy wins but I get to take out that character of his that I was aiming for, we both have something to gloat about after the game is done. Adds a lot to the fun factor in my opinion.

When Im teaching someone how to play, or helping them get into the swing of their army, I dont just throw a game, but Ill definitely not make an optimal build. Thats usually when Ill take FlashGits or some silly/weird combo. It gives them confidence when they do win though, or if they have one of those really close ass kicking games even better.

But once they start getting better and learned their army more, Ill pull out better builds and play harder to win. Sure I like winning, who doesnt, but to me the best games are the ones where every turn, its going back and forth and the game ends with only 3 or 4 minis left.

Mr Mystery wrote:There is also seeking a challenge. Those irritating words 'optimal and competitive' seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win. That to me just seems a little pointless.

I guess it comes down to what margin of victory do you find acceptable. If you are obsessed with crunching your opponent into the dirty every time, then that's great, just don't expect me to play you more than once.

If you win your games so easily that the only challenge left for you is to play with handicapped lists, then either you're the best player in the world and you should go win ard boyz (et all) and show us all how it's done. Or... You should be looking for better opponents, and quit pawing out your little sister and the kids at the special needs centre. From my perspective it is the guy who keeps bashing the same hapless noobs over and over again (even with his B list) that is really the one looking for the 'easy win'.

If you are really interested in a challenge, try taking your fluffy list against some real players with tough lists, and watch how it gets crushed every single time under the weight of its own mathematical unviability, regardless of how well you play. Eventually you might learn that high level players don't take competitive lists because they are looking for the 'easy-win'; They take them because they want their skill to decide the game, instead of suffering a predetermined loss before the game has even started because they took a list that can't compete.

Try to think of your skill like a dice roll needed to score AP against a vehicle (which in this case represents your opponent)...

If your list strength is 3 and your skill is D6, and your opponent is AV(8+D6). It doesn't matter if you pull out a genius 6 and they play and uncreative 2 game... Pack up your stuff and go home, you're a loser. Why even waste everyone's time playing this game out when it's predetermined that you can't win.

You might go away saying "meh they won cause of their unfair list, they didn't have as much skill". The truth is you both had the same D6 skill. They just didn't need to use any skill to beat your weak list... But who's fault is that? (clue: it isn't their's).

What if your list strength is 3, your skill is 2D6 with a rend, and your opponent is AV(4+D3)? Yeah their list might be better, but they have almost no chance, Where is the challenge here?

Now imagine you enter a tournament, or just play a friendly against some good players. Everyone else averages around AV14. Your skill is D6. What is the minimum list strength you need, for your skill to make any difference to the outcome of the games? Then go think again about whether competitive list are just for cheaters looking for an easy win.

Good lord! So much confusion in this thread. HBMC is the only one speaking sense.

To repeat an oft used phrase: "The OBJECTIVE of the game is to win. The POINT of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused"

Everyone plays to win. I've never met anyone who goes into a game saying "Well i'm going to try and lose this". Yes, you must try your hardest to win but at the same time not at the expense of your opponent. Wargaming is a strange beast in this sense as it is a combination of competition and cooperation (as are online games) with the former though we have the advantage of being in a comparativley normal social situation so we know how to act and know to not be a jeb-end if we can see our opponent thinks we are being one. I.E. we release the pressure somewhat, as wargaming is a cooperative situation.

I emailed the game publisher for Reiner Knizia and his personal assistant responded to me:

Good afternoon Felix



Many thanks for your e-mail and your interest in Reiner and his numerous games! J



Reiner gets quoted a lot, both correctly and incorrectly! However, we do not keep a track of the sources of his quotes.



If you need a quote from Reiner, then this one is directly from him….



Reiner Knizia: “The object of the game is to win. However, in the end, winning is not important because in a good game the ‘losers’ also win.”



Kind regards from England.



Karen



Karen Easteal

Personal Assistant to Reiner Knizia

Kouzuki wrote:You play to win. Everyone does. Not everyone wins, but everyone does their best to win.

If you don't play to win, whats the point in playing?

Want to "do something cool?" "Make something awesome happen?" make a diorama, or heck, play by "yourself."

Not playing to win is just like entering a race, and then being like "oh nope, I'm running to win, just gonna jog and enjoy myself."

then whats the point in racing? Just jog by yourself.

You may have everything stacked against you. You may have almost no chance in winning. However, when it comes down to the game itself, everyone plays to win.

If anyone actually honestly believes they don't play to win, here is one simple way to never win a game. Tell your opponent. "You win." Save time and effort. Save your opponent's time and effort. You get your goal. You didn't win.

Disagree.

Not everyone approaches this "hobby" as if it is a sport.

For some people the potential RPG/story-telling potential (especially as a byproduct or scenario and campaign play) are prime motivators.

SmackCakes wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:There is also seeking a challenge. Those irritating words 'optimal and competitive' seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win. That to me just seems a little pointless.

I guess it comes down to what margin of victory do you find acceptable. If you are obsessed with crunching your opponent into the dirty every time, then that's great, just don't expect me to play you more than once.

If you win your games so easily that the only challenge left for you is to play with handicapped lists, then either you're the best player in the world and you should go win ard boyz (et all) and show us all how it's done. Or... You should be looking for better opponents, and quit pawing out your little sister and the kids at the special needs centre. From my perspective it is the guy who keeps bashing the same hapless noobs over and over again (even with his B list) that is really the one looking for the 'easy win'.

If you are really interested in a challenge, try taking your fluffy list against some real players with tough lists, and watch how it gets crushed every single time under the weight of its own mathematical unviability, regardless of how well you play. Eventually you might learn that high level players don't take competitive lists because they are looking for the 'easy-win'; They take them because they want their skill to decide the game, instead of suffering a predetermined loss before the game has even started because they took a list that can't compete.

Try to think of your skill like a dice roll needed to score AP against a vehicle (which in this case represents your opponent)...

If your list strength is 3 and your skill is D6, and your opponent is AV(8+D6). It doesn't matter if you pull out a genius 6 and they play and uncreative 2 game... Pack up your stuff and go home, you're a loser. Why even waste everyone's time playing this game out when it's predetermined that you can't win.

You might go away saying "meh they won cause of their unfair list, they didn't have as much skill". The truth is you both had the same D6 skill. They just didn't need to use any skill to beat your weak list... But who's fault is that? (clue: it isn't their's).

What if your list strength is 3, your skill is 2D6 with a rend, and your opponent is AV(4+D3)? Yeah their list might be better, but they have almost no chance, Where is the challenge here?

Now imagine you enter a tournament, or just play a friendly against some good players. Everyone else averages around AV14. Your skill is D6. What is the minimum list strength you need, for your skill to make any difference to the outcome of the games? Then go think again about whether competitive list are just for cheaters looking for an easy win.

Such assumptions you make sir! What makes you think I only play younger players? What makes you instantly assume I must chump bash to win with my lists? My gaming circle encompasses all age groups, and there is not a single person I have not ground into the dust with my slightly odd lists. As I said, I am a very competent gamer, and actively enjoy seeking out new tricks to unleash on my opponent. Cookie cutter lists are boring after a couple of games. Take a Gateway list for instance. Depends entirely on getting the same spell off time and time again, and is frankly, a piece of piss to defeat. Simply smoosh the caster, or keep in combat as much as possible. There is no such thing as your purported mathematical impossibility. Seriously, I defy most players to wield one of my armies effectively straight off the bat. As I stated, I don't often manage it. But that is my enjoyment of the hobby. Create list, buy army, field army, see what how it does. Tinker if needs be, or arrange a rematch. I am simply not interested in winning all the bloody time. And guess what, I don't. But I do improve constantly. Right now, my Ogres are knackered every time by the Steam Tank. Do I complain about this? Hell no. Most of the time I ignore it and mess up the rest of his army, yet occasionally it all goes tits up. I know I could take a specific weapon and have it in pieces in time for Cornflakes, but my Tyrant is set up to be a challenge machine, and I really don't want to change this character. So I learn my strengths and weaknesses, and accept them for what they are.

Don't like that? Don't play me, simple as.

SmackCakes wrote:If you win your games so easily that the only challenge left for you is to play with handicapped lists, then either you're the best player in the world and you should go win ard boyz (et all) and show us all how it's done. Or... You should be looking for better opponents, and quit pawing out your little sister and the kids at the special needs centre. From my perspective it is the guy who keeps bashing the same hapless noobs over and over again (even with his B list) that is really the one looking for the 'easy win'.

If you are really interested in a challenge, try taking your fluffy list against some real players with tough lists, and watch how it gets crushed every single time under the weight of its own mathematical unviability, regardless of how well you play. Eventually you might learn that high level players don't take competitive lists because they are looking for the 'easy-win'; They take them because they want their skill to decide the game, instead of suffering a predetermined loss before the game has even started because they took a list that can't compete.

Biased, and I take offence to your description of what I'd call 'overcompetitive' players as 'real players' or 'high level players'. Given that the authors of the game repeatedly state that it's about storytelling and 'coolness' I'd argue that the REAL players of the game are the ones who have a laugh and tell a story with models they like, not the ones obsessively searching out killer combos.

The point is that the 'overcompetitive' players are the only ones who even care about skill levels and their relative standing in a game of toy soldiers. This is why they piss off the majority of players. Because EVERYONE is aware that there are 'top lists', and EVERYONE is aware that these lists make it easier to win (add a +2 bonus to their d6 as you put it), and EVERYONE knows that, if they went out and bought these 'top lists', the gaming world would be an incredibly monotonous and boring place. Because there would only be about ten lists in existence.

The vast majority of players realise that they COULD choose a 'top list' but choose not to, because they like different models, have a cool idea, like this or that piece of fluff etc. Because, although they try to win every game, winning is not SO important to them that they will sacrifice everything else they love about the hobby just to win more games.

This is, of course, going on the evidence of the vast majority of people I've played against, and the vast majority of people posting in this thread.

As for my personal opinion, I'd state that anyone who cares THAT much about their relative skill and 'placing' in a game of toy soldiers is most definitely 'overcompetitive', and needs to grow up.

You know, thinking about it, I guess I enjoy the risk of my armies, knowing there are stronger combinations out there, and going for it anyways.

And you're mathematical nonsense cannot compute my penchant for reckless tactics. In my experience, the dice favour the bold, and being used to my own harebrained schemes, I'm in a better position to exploit my ropey tactics than my opponent who I've just taken by surprise. I mean, last Tournament I played in (which I won btw, just a small affair twixt three shops up at Lenton) my opponent didn't expect my Manticore to jump his Forest Dragon (back in 7th Ed). And he certainly didn't seem to think the Harpies fart arseing around up the back were a threat either....he was wrong on both counts, and guess what....it cost him the game!

ArbitorIan wrote:Biased, and I take offence to your description of what I'd call 'overcompetitive' players as 'real players' or 'high level players'. Given that the authors of the game repeatedly state that it's about storytelling and 'coolness' I'd argue that the REAL players of the game are the ones who have a laugh and tell a story with models they like, not the ones obsessively searching out killer combos.

The point is that the 'overcompetitive' players are the only ones who even care about skill levels and their relative standing in a game of toy soldiers. This is why they piss off the majority of players. Because EVERYONE is aware that there are 'top lists', and EVERYONE is aware that these lists make it easier to win (add a +2 bonus to their d6 as you put it), and EVERYONE knows that, if they went out and bought these 'top lists', the gaming world would be an incredibly monotonous and boring place. Because there would only be about ten lists in existence.

The vast majority of players realise that they COULD choose a 'top list' but choose not to, because they like different models, have a cool idea, like this or that piece of fluff etc. Because, although they try to win every game, winning is not SO important to them that they will sacrifice everything else they love about the hobby just to win more games.

This is, of course, going on the evidence of the vast majority of people I've played against, and the vast majority of people posting in this thread.

As for my personal opinion, I'd state that anyone who cares THAT much about their relative skill and 'placing' in a game of toy soldiers is most definitely 'overcompetitive', and needs to grow up.

That's all very well, everyone has the right to enjoy the hobby in their own way. But lets be clear about some things... real players are the players who play the real game real good, if the real game is (as you say) monotonous and boring at a tournament level and not like the designers intended, then that is the fault of the game designers, not the players. Though I imagine you are wrong there, as most games end up having quite a shallow top tier but still manage to be interesting and varied when played seriously.

I'm not saying that everyone should play super competitively or that it is the only way to approach the hobby. What I do take issue with though is with players who criticise others for just playing a good game within the rules. "This list beats mine so it's OP and boring and anyone who plays it is TFG WAAC and isn't fun". I've heard this same argument probably a thousand times, about a whole bunch of games, and it always comes from the same people.

There is really no point me explaining all this all here again, when other people have already done a much better job of explaining it than I ever could. So I will direct you to the article that no 'play to win' topic shout be without...

David Sirlin's Play to Win 1

Obviously this article only applies to real games. It has no relevance to the craft or storytelling roleplay side of the hobby.

Such assumptions you make sir! What makes you think I only play younger players? What makes you instantly assume I must chump bash to win with my lists?

You claimed that some lists make it easy to win, and that you take other lists in order to challenge yourself. If that is really the case then the only explanation is that your opponents aren't good enough. If you were playing strong opponents then then the games would be challenging no matter what list you took. You also claim that you avoid people who play lists that crush yours... congratulations, you're a scrub.

There is no such thing as your purported mathematical impossibility.

There is, you just never played any games at a high enough standard to realise it. The top players at any game already know all the best strategies, they already know what the other will try to do and how to stop it. Generally that is what happens, they stop each other. If you look at any competitive game where the very best of the best players are matched against each other then you will often start to see a high number of draws and stalemates (chess is actually a good example of this). Inevitably these games end up being decided by increasingly tiny percentages. Percentages that casual players wouldn't even consider significant, top players end up relying on to tip stalemates in their favour. Something as tiny as squeezing one more boltgun into your army can spell the difference between winning and drawing.

Having played other games at quite a high level I have seen this first hand. And the one thing I took away from it is that when both players play a perfect game I.E. no mistakes (which they often do at a high level), the game ends up being decided purely by maths and things like first turn. If your side isn't as mathematically optimised as you can get it, then you will always come in second against someone who makes no mistakes, even if you made none yourself.

Grimtuff wrote:To repeat an oft used phrase: "The OBJECTIVE of the game is to win. The POINT of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused"

I hadn't heard that, it's quite good. I'll use it in future, cheers.

Everyone plays to win. I've never met anyone who goes into a game saying "Well i'm going to try and lose this". Yes, you must try your hardest to win but at the same time not at the expense of your opponent.

No, that's just wrong and multiple examples have been provided demonstrating that it is wrong. Despite the opinion of an internet minority, most of us do not try our hardest to win. We frequently change up our lists for variety, and take sub-optimal builds because they're more fun.

The basic reality is that playing to win has a sliding scale, where different players make different decisions based on how much they want to win compared to other factors. One player might only pick from the strongest troops in his codex, but rotate between different match ups for the sake of variety and not just take the best possible combination in each game. Another player might do the same, but still throw in the odd 'poor' unit from game to game.

wow, lots of good stuff said already.

Personally, the biggest draw to 40k has always been the hobby. If I dont' paint for awhile, eventually I'm like "I should paint something", and that something is invariably 40k miniatures. And, of course, if I have them, why not play with them?

That said, I'm a play-to-win gamer, and I am for a very existential reason. Life is confusing, and my particular lot has had a lot of crummy things happen to me for reasons I can't understand. It often feels like I don't have the opportunity to excel, and I don't often succeed when I do have the opportunity, and don't often understand why.

The game of 40k gives me vindication. Just like in life, there is a serious element of luck, but unlike real life, 40k, though being convolutedly complicated, is actually understandable. I can apply my genius to it, both on and off the field, and in the end I can succeed at something, based largely on my own efforts. This is something which has long been absent from my life, and so it's nice to have it true in at least a part of it.

Now, that's not to say I can't have fun if I don't lose. When I lose, and I lose for reasons I can understand, then it simply provides a new challenge I can conquer. The only time it really pisses me off is when I fail because of really terrible luck, and nothing of my own doing, because this is how much of the rest of my life has felt to me.

So yeah, I'm living vicariously through 40k when I play, but it's better than me taking out my powerlessness issues out by buying a gun and taking a trip to a local book depository...

Saying "I don't play to win" helps those who don't play well with others as it is an easy out when they lose, but can't stomach the loss. After all, it is easier to blame the loss on a WAC opponent or "I wasn't needing to win to have fun." But if the latter is true; does it even need to be voiced?

nikeforever22 wrote:Saying "I don't play to win" helps those who don't play well with others as it is an easy out when they lose, but can't stomach the loss. After all, it is easier to blame the loss on a WAC opponent or "I wasn't needing to win to have fun." But if the latter is true; does it even need to be voiced?

Oh, for feth’s sake.

Is it really that hard to accept that there are players who don’t make every decision in gaming based on increasing their chance of winning and nothing else? Examples have been provided, on a number of occasions now, that explain how a player might choose something more interesting over the best possible option. What have you people got invested, that stops you accepting the idea that other people aren’t as interested in coming out a winner as you might be?

In the post above yours, Ailarose described how he plays and why. Somehow he was able to do this without criticising anybody else’s style of play, or suggest people only adopt that style of play to cover for losing a game.

Sebster has hit it on the nose at least three times without insulting anyone.

Several other people are spouting opinions without doing us all the courtesy of reading the darn thread.

This seems like a good point to re-post a quote I like from the Brikwars rules:

"Things You'll Need:

First and most importantly: fun. It seems obvious, but this item is so often bizarrely forgotten by all types of gamers (especially wargamers) that it bears repeating: don't play a game if you don't mean to have fun. And for the love of God make sure you bring enough to share, because it's not all about you."

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster has hit it on the nose at least three times without insulting anyone.

Really? I find his last post as abrasive and offensive as any. There is a lot of aggression there. Regardless of what might technically be denoted the right hand side of my brain clearly reads that as...

Sebster wrote:Oh, for feth’s sake!

Can't you get it through your thick skull? Not everyone is a WAAC bastard like you!

This is exactly why I am aligning myself on the opposite side of this discussion. Why is it that the people who are the very best at the game. I.E. the people who build sensible lists, play winning strategies, and do well in tournaments. Why is it those people are being criticized for it? They should be respected for being the top of their field.

Choosing a list that wins games does not make you a bad person... It's just the obvious, common sense thing to do. Why would anyone want to build a list that looses games? That just sounds foolish. (I fully expect this paragraph to be taken out of context so read on before quoting it).

Obviously there are reasons... Many of which have been posted here by people who seem to take pride in the fact that their list doesn't work very well.

The first one is that it is more 'fun' and they argue that people with good lists are boring and 'not fun'. Obviously 'fun' is quite subjective but winning and having fun are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would argue that people who take the game seriously, and put a lot of effort into making their army a well oiled machine, and go on to pit their wits and strategies against other good players at a tournament level. Actually get a much more rewarding experience out of the game, and have a great deal more fun than casual players who just turn up with whatever miniatures they happen to think look cool, and hope that their opponent has an even worse list than them.

When these people come against someone with a good list, and get crushed... suddenly they realise that weak lists aren't so fun. But rather than take responsibility they start to make snide remarks about the person who beat them. Look back through the thread you will see a lot of variations on these...

"The guy's list is boring, it's no fun to play"
"That guy just downloaded his list off the Internet, there is no creativity there"
"That list is easy to play with, it doesn't require any skill to win with that list"

But these are all really just defence mechanisms so that people don't have to admit that maybe their list and their strategies just aren't very good.

What these people want is to play a different game where everyone is honour bound not to take good lists (basically list that beat their list). They usually have no problem with people taking lists that their list crushes. But the whole notion is ridiculous. If (for example) tanks were the strategy most likely to help someone win... But people were honour bound to never take more than 4 tanks... Then the best players would be the people who took all 4 tanks (the max number allowed). Soon anyone with 4 tanks would be getting called no fun, WAAC all of the above.

I have units myself that I play just because I think they are cool. But if the unit is just letting my side down and messing up my game, then I don't find it very fun, and the unit will usually get relegated to the display cabinet after not very long. I won't go calling the person who beat me TFG just because he didn't take any ineffective units.

SmackCakes wrote:When these people come against someone with a good list, and get crushed... suddenly they realise that weak lists aren't so fun. But rather than take responsibility they start to make snide remarks about the person who beat them. Look back through the thread you will see a lot of variations on these...

"The guy's list is boring, it's no fun to play"
"That guy just downloaded his list off the Internet, there is no creativity there"
"That list is easy to play with, it doesn't require any skill to win with that list"

But these are all really just defence mechanisms so that people don't have to admit that maybe their list and their strategies just aren't very good.

What these people want is to play a different game where everyone is honour bound not to take good lists (basically list that beat their list).

I have to agree with this.


Also, there are few things less fun than playing someone with a bit-of-everything army who just plonks his models down without a plan.

yeah,
1.Make an Army called the 'Tournament Champion Marines.'
2.Pick the Bestest WAAC List you can <- that's the fluff right there.
3.???
4.Profit.

"Champion Marines - Always the Champions - All the Time"
Everyones happy.

Panic...

Scott-S6 wrote:"First and most importantly: fun. It seems obvious, but this item is so often bizarrely forgotten by all types of gamers (especially wargamers) that it bears repeating: don't play a game if you don't mean to have fun. And for the love of God make sure you bring enough to share, because it's not all about you."

I like that a lot.

SmackCakes wrote:Really? I find his last post as abrasive and offensive as any. There is a lot of aggression there. Regardless of what might technically be denoted the right hand side of my brain clearly reads that as...

Your reading of my post was way off track, and I think it was because by reading it as an attack you were able to avoid having to consider my actual point.

To spell it out to you, there is nothing wrong with being a competitive gamer. It's a perfectly valid approach to the hobby that lots of people enjoy. In my post, I complemented Ailaros for his approach to gaming, and he explicitly said he plays to maximise his chances of winning.

My disagreement was with the frankly absurd idea that other people are simply pretending to be less competitive because they can't handle losing.

This is exactly why I am aligning myself on the opposite side of this discussion. Why is it that the people who are the very best at the game. I.E. the people who build sensible lists, play winning strategies, and do well in tournaments. Why is it those people are being criticized for it?

They're not being criticised for being good at the game, or for winning. To the extent they're being criticised, it's for insisting that their preferred approach to playing is the best or only way to play.

The first one is that it is more 'fun' and they argue that people with good lists are boring and 'not fun'. Obviously 'fun' is quite subjective but winning and having fun are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would argue that people who take the game seriously, and put a lot of effort into making their army a well oiled machine, and go on to pit their wits and strategies against other good players at a tournament level. Actually get a much more rewarding experience out of the game, and have a great deal more fun than casual players who just turn up with whatever miniatures they happen to think look cool, and hope that their opponent has an even worse list than them.

First up, change your phrasing to 'many better lists are less fun to play with or against and many less powerful lists can be really fun to play with or against' and you get something a lot more reasonable.

And yes, 'fun' is very subjective, and many people have lots of fun playing at a highly competitive level, and that's fine. But it is also fine if someone wants to build less competitive lists, in order to showcase models, increase the variety in their army or whatever else.

We don't all fun the same way you do. We don't all have to fun the way that you do. There is no badwrongfun. Let people play how they like to play, and talk to them before the game to make sure you'll both go into the game with similar expectation, and likely both enjoy yourselves.

It isn't a complicated thing. The only way people can fail to understand is if they refuse to understand it, for whatever reason.

When these people come against someone with a good list, and get crushed... suddenly they realise that weak lists aren't so fun. But rather than take responsibility they start to make snide remarks about the person who beat them. Look back through the thread you will see a lot of variations on these...

Problematically, that's a load of bs. I can tell you right now as a younger fella I played to win every game, and spent as much time as possible building lists that were as powerful as possible. I stopped when I played a mate in one game and wiped his Empire army from the field without losing a single High Elf. It was his first use of the army fully painted, which he'd built with an eye to modelling first, and effectiveness second. When it came up against my 3rd ed High Elves with maximum repeater bolt throwers, it didn't stand a chance. The game wasn't fun for either of us, it was just sad. And when I say stopped, I mean I stopped playing WHFB entirely. It was the better part of a decade later that I came back, and I only came back because I wanted to start painting again, I didn't think I'd start playing again.

And now I don't much care if I win or lose, I try to win but I just haven't got any ego invested in the result. I just like to see the armies deployed across the board, and I like to see a game produce at least a couple of interesting tactical questions which I like to discuss with my opponent, even during the game.

Seriously, try actually talking to the gamers in your area you appear to have dismissed. You might find their reasons for playing as they do entirely different to the horrible, manipulative people you've presumed them to be. But please, actually listen to them, instead of inventing some perceived attack, as you did with my post above.

Smackcakes, I'm afraid that you're off base.

There are undoubtedly some unpleasant and unskilled gamers who talk smack about other gamers and their choices of how to play the game.

But you're not going to win any friends or arguments by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being that kind of person, or by trotting out that old Sirlin article and calling people "scrubs".

The "for feth's sake" was, in context, obviously an exclamation of frustration over people reiterating the same tired mischaracterizations and misapprehensions that Seb had already disabused in his last two posts. Posts which folks like nikeforever, kouzoki, and yourself either failed to read or substantially misunderstood.

Why I don't particularly enjoy playing games against overly competitive players.

1. I enjoy banter during a game. Bit of smack talk, general running commentary. In my experience, the more competitive players don't really indulge in this side of things as much.

2. I play primarily for the spectacle of the game. I enjoy a big, middle of the field punch up with the odd cloaked dagger. I also enjoy the drama of a drawn out challenge. The more competitive players thoughts are on a different wave length, especially where challeges are concerned. To be honest, I find the allocation of attacks rule a bit lame.

3. The more competitive players enjoy the game in a different way to me. Whilst it's always good to take on all comers (and I do, despite your uninformed protestations) given the choice, I'll pick a like minded opponent.

Do you get this now? Let me put it another way. Playing as I do for the drama and spectacle, what would be the point in someone honing their list for a tournament playing against me? I'm not interested in that style of play, and he's not likely to gain what he's looking for in terms of added experience.

Yet guess what? I have literally no shortage of opponents. Due to my less than common armies, players of all sorts will ask me for a game at some point. Sometimes for a break from their competitive playing, and at others just for the wildcard experience. You know, just in case. And I am totally happy with this arrangement. I have genuinely tried the more competitive style of gaming, and it just didn't suit me.

So, now do you see?

Final word of advice....never....ever confuse your hobby for my hobby, and never ever confuse your hobby or my hobby for the hobby. We all take what we want and leave what we don't. To suggest any one way is somehow superior is arrogant in the extreme. we do however, share the same pastime.

Mannahnin wrote:Smackcakes, I'm afraid that you're off base.

There are undoubtedly some unpleasant and unskilled gamers who talk smack about other gamers and their choices of how to play the game.

But you're not going to win any friends or arguments by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being that kind of person, or by trotting out that old Sirlin article and calling people "scrubs".

The "for feth's sake" was, in context, obviously an exclamation of frustration over people reiterating the same tired mischaracterizations and misapprehensions that Seb had already disabused in his last two posts. Posts which folks like nikeforever, kouzoki, and yourself either failed to read or substantially misunderstood.

After all, I am TFG...but if it were not for misapprehensions or mischaracterizations then in the grim future there would only be peace on the Internet. The OP was asking for opinions on winning and in the immortal words of mauleed, "next time just play better." emphasis on your definition of "play".

I don't know if you're TFG, but I encourage you to re-read Sebster's posts.

Many of us play to win but deliberately choose not to take that as far as possible. This can enhance our enjoyment of the game by giving a more varied play experience, even if it reduces our win frequency to a greater or lesser degree.

Contrary to the implication of your previous post, not everyone who does this is antisocial, resentful, or what Sirlin so delicately refers to as a "scrub."

I would consider myself above average. Finished top 25% every tournament beside 'Ard Boyz and I just threw a last minute list together for that. I play every game to win. Whether I go ultra-competitive or not is a different matter but my goal from turn 1 is to win, every game, no exceptions.

That's not to say I won't do silly things. I once ran a list consisting of Stormboyz + Zagstruk, 2 big Meks & 5 Deff Dreds. I knew I was going to lose, I still tried my best to win.

Mannahnin wrote:Posts which folks like nikeforever, kouzoki, and yourself either failed to read or substantially misunderstood.

Or possibly just didn't agree with as much as you did.

But you're not going to win any friends or arguments by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being that kind of person, or by trotting out that old Sirlin article and calling people "scrubs".

Hmmm yeah, the play to win article has become quite cliché. I felt a little guilty linking it again. But there are still those who haven't read it, and I think it's a very important article and relevant to this topic. Though I personally much prefer the term 'Losers' to 'scrubs' but some people find that offensive.

The reason the article is important is because it holds a mirror up to those people who spout the same old 'scrub' (for lack of a better word) arguments. I.e. saying people who beat them 'have no skill', 'have no fun', 'have no imagination'. And it shows quite clearly why these notions are absurd.

sebster wrote:My disagreement was with the frankly absurd idea that other people are simply pretending to be less competitive because they can't handle losing.

I really think we are just arguing different sides of the same coin now. We both disagree with people telling other people how to enjoy the game. You disagree with competitive players saying that everyone else is doing it wrong. I disagree with less competitive players (and some competitive players) throwing around statements like WAAC and 'not fun' in order to deride players who have an equally valid approach to the game, and who usually beat them at it.

I think we can both agree that players who mind their own business and let others enjoy the game the way they want to are the real winners here.

I can tell you right now as a younger fella I played to win every game, and spent as much time as possible building lists that were as powerful as possible. I stopped when I played a mate in one game and wiped his Empire army from the field without losing a single High Elf. It was his first use of the army fully painted, which he'd built with an eye to modelling first, and effectiveness second. When it came up against my 3rd ed High Elves with maximum repeater bolt throwers, it didn't stand a chance. The game wasn't fun for either of us, it was just sad. And when I say stopped, I mean I stopped playing WHFB entirely. It was the better part of a decade later that I came back, and I only came back because I wanted to start painting again, I didn't think I'd start playing again.

And now I don't much care if I win or lose, I try to win but I just haven't got any ego invested in the result. I just like to see the armies deployed across the board, and I like to see a game produce at least a couple of interesting tactical questions

That story is oddly heart breaking . But really... what else were you supposed to do? That was your army. Perhaps since it was your friend you could have thrown together a different less powerful army to play the game with, or let him win? But you can't really be expected to do that for every opponent you might come up against. I personally wouldn't feel quite comfortable having to pull punches all the time in order to accommodate someone else's weak army. Not because I MUST WIN! but simply because I just wouldn't know how much to pull in order to make the game balanced. I just want to bring my best army and expect other people to do the same. At least that way everyone knows where they stand.

What happened to your friend is always going to be one of the dangers of running a 'for show' army. If that is something someone wants to do then they need to be comfortable and happy with the idea of it loosing often. Your friend really had no right to be disappointed, his army was built for show, not for winning games. if he wanted to win games too, then maybe he should have thought harder about his list. Either way no one should have to feel bad about it.

SmackCakes wrote:Perhaps since it was your friend you could have thrown together a different less powerful army to play the game with, or let him win? But you can't really be expected to do that for every opponent you might come up against.

This is something that I do reasonably often.

But it leads to a certain nagging doubt. If you're still winning most games (but now only by a small margin) is it because you're subconsciously tuning your army to be just good enough to beat the other guy's? Or are you getting the army just right and are a better player?

Oddly, list tailoring is the one thing I cannot stomach in an opponent. My lists stay relatively static, with perhaps the odd unit switched out here and there.

And indeed, tailoring your list to your opponent I do so as a lack of skill on the tabletop. Are my tactics and selections that potent that your only possible chance is to see my achilles heel (which to be honest, is normally pretty glaring in my army) and exploit it as much as possible? Now if this is done with my prior knowledge, and as a challenge that is a different matter, as it gives me a chance to develop new tactics. But to just spring it on me, and then proclaim your own tactical genius (the two all too often go hand in hand)...that gets on my tits.

Yet of course with the sort of themes I go for, some armies are a natural pain in the arse for me. But I don't get the hump about it, it's an accepted part of the experience. Sooner or later you're going to run into someone with a trump card. In the case of my Dark Elf Monster Army (been using it since 2003, so I'm very much the bandwagon in this one) it's sodding Wood Elves. Try as I might I just cannot beat them. Does this make me a poor gamer? Does this mean my list (which normally slaps seven shades out of all comers, hence I don't play it that often now. Got bored of such easy wins) is somehow less than 'optimal'? Nope. I just met the 'bigger kid' for once. That and I suffer terrible luck against them!

I fully agree with regard to list tailoring. I prefer to stick to a static list and refine it.

But I would rather forgo that and de-tune a list in an attempt to get a somewhat balanced game if I'm playing someone that doesn't have a decent army.

SmackCakes wrote:I really think we are just arguing different sides of the same coin now. We both disagree with people telling other people how to enjoy the game. You disagree with competitive players saying that everyone else is doing it wrong. I disagree with less competitive players (and some competitive players) throwing around statements like WAAC and 'not fun' in order to deride players who have an equally valid approach to the game, and who usually beat them at it.

No, I disagree with anyone telling anyone else how they should play. Note that I gave credit to people in this thread who simply stated they play to win, and do whatever they can to make that happen.

I mean, if a guy turns up to a tournament with a fun but under-powered list, gets thumped and starts complaining that everyone else has taken cheesy lists, then that guy is a jerk. Similarly, if a guy turns up to a gaming club, is told that people place an emphasis on varied, thematic lists, and he stomps all over them with a build picked for power alone, that guy is a jerk.

I think we can both agree that players who mind their own business and let others enjoy the game the way they want to are the real winners here.

That’s all I was ever saying, good to see we agree.

That story is oddly heart breaking . But really... what else were you supposed to do? That was your army. Perhaps since it was your friend you could have thrown together a different less powerful army to play the game with, or let him win? But you can't really be expected to do that for every opponent you might come up against.

I only played with friends, none of whom were WAAC players. I thrashed them all, week in, week out, with the kinds of incredibly cheesy lists that made sure I spent exactly 50% of my points on characters and exactly 25% on war machines (ah, third ed, where you could judge the power of a High Elf list by the number of repeater bolt throwers).

What I should have done was taken note of how my friends played and built armies that produced enjoyable games for both of us.

I personally wouldn't feel quite comfortable having to pull punches all the time in order to accommodate someone else's weak army. Not because I MUST WIN! but simply because I just wouldn't know how much to pull in order to make the game balanced. I just want to bring my best army and expect other people to do the same. At least that way everyone knows where they stand.

Which is cool, like I said the approach isn’t for everyone. It requires a level of trust that doesn’t exist in every group, and there’s no ego boost from winning (I don’t mean that in a negative way, I play sport to win and enjoy coming out on top, but when you’re playing at a deliberately more friendly level there isn’t the same thrill from winning). In it’s place we get more varied games, and typically have lists with more varied options, making for games that are more consistently interesting.

The thing to remember though, is when a guy playing as hard a game as he can comes up against a guy taking deliberately weaker lists, the final result is frequently a not fun game. Neither player’s approach is to blame for this, though typically both sides blame the other. The fault actually comes from a lack of communication between the two, who should have made some effort to make sure they were taking the same approach to the game.

What happened to your friend is always going to be one of the dangers of running a 'for show' army. If that is something someone wants to do then they need to be comfortable and happy with the idea of it loosing often.

He didn’t have a problem with losing. Same guy played Bloodbowl for years and won maybe a half dozen games, and never complained, never worried about it, because the games were still fun.

The problem here was on my end more than anything, as it was the last in a long run of one-sided, boring games. I quit the hobby, not him.

Now I’m back in, and enjoying every game I play because I and the people I play with talk about the lists we’re taking, and we try to build interesting match ups. Which isn’t the way everyone wants to play, but it works for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Oddly, list tailoring is the one thing I cannot stomach in an opponent. My lists stay relatively static, with perhaps the odd unit switched out here and there.

But this is just another thing that can be worked out, from group to group. Among me and my friends we organise games well in advance, and we know what army we'll be facing. So we do tailor, and pick things to face that person, and this is common and quite accepted among a lot of groups.

I think it is only a problem when one player is tailoring while the other is not, either because he doesn't like that approach, or because he can't (because he only brought so many models, or because he only has so many models).

The answer, like with all similar things, is to communicate with your opponent to get as level a playing field as possible.