Are you all for ultra competitiveness or do you prefer to just play with what you like and have fun! It's only a game right?...

We all, The Kimzi, like to play for fun. It's only a game to us. But we always lose, so maybe we need to revise our strategies...
We also like the word competitiveness, and are very proud of ourselves for spelling it correctly without the help of a spell checker.

Always for fun. I find the process in which people dissect a new codex / army book for the most competitive units and disregard the rest as a bit soul destroying and I didn't even write them.

The games are about tactics of course, but IMHO armies shouldn't be selected with tactics in mind. Strategy begins when you deploy your army and you make the best of whatever men/orcs/skeletons/elves/dwarves you have at your disposal.

Oh and those armies should look like armies, not a collection of wizard lords and monsters, but ranks and ranks of infantry... with the odd bit of insanity to add some character.

I play for fun as well but when you read all the articles on here you can't help but sucked in and before you realize it you're using your favourite guys because the latest thing is to use something else and I feel like a tit for it. So then I use the guys I want and I feel good again.

I think this topic comes up pretty regularly. I am of the opinion that the two do not need to be mutually exclusive, but if you want to have fun you have to learn to have fun (or find a way to make it work) both when you win or lose. It's not just about being ultra-competetive OR fun, it's about do you have fun being competitive or do you feel you need to play a different way to have fun. Just remember that your fun isn't the only fun that matters

I won't intentionally gimp myself but I'm not into the hypercompetitive stuff. If I'm at a tournament I'll bring a tougher list, but it's just a game about rolling dice and pushing toys around with your buddies.

Flashman wrote:Strategy begins when you deploy your army and you make the best with whatever men/orcs/skeletons/elves/dwarves you have at your disposal.

This.
We always pick whatever army/models we find prettiest and then try to make the best of things. It doesn't always work out but that's where the fun is.

I suppose I count as competitive, though I really don't care about tournaments much -I go to maybe one a year. I savor a hard-fought battle that comes down to the wire more than an easy victory.
I owe it to my opponent to do my best and give 100% to every game. That doesn't mean I need to be cutthroat or have a bad attitude, simply that I respect my opponents and recognize a one-on-one format as an inherently competitive one. If you and your opponents are equally skilled, you'll both lose half the time,(or tie the vast majority if your game has ties).

Relaxed fun with narrative preferably. Though I do like the odd competitive game as well.

I gave up on strategy a long time ago and just play purely for fun. If I think it would be amusing to send X unit against Y just to see how it goes, or decide to fixate on one rule I like and try it out... currently I'm trying to hunt down daemon princes with a big group of Hellions plus a stunclaw... I'll just go with that. Winning is okay but I just don't find it important at all, heck loosing in an amusing way... like abyssmal dice rolls... can have me amused for ages.

That said I do make sure my opponents know I play this way well in advance... I know a few who hate my playstyle and quite frankly I don't really like playing against ultra competative types... though that may just be the bad attitude shown by those I have met. I am almost stubbornly non-competitive though, so going to a tournament would be a big no for me. Some people like to play for the win and its not for me to say thats wrong... because frankly it isn't... I just don't play that way!

If it's anything other than a tournament with a prize, I'm an easy-going kind of guy. Even in a tournament, I'm only competitive against people I don't know.

fun > win any day of the week. if i get stomped into the ground/ocean/ether and it was a fun/funny/entertaining battle, it was infinitely more enjoyable than me having to purposely blow one of my own guys up to catch the enemy general in a blast because i couldn't get the general myself. Stuff like that.

Fun FTW?

I like to play for fun, but i'm firm with the rules, if it's a tiny thing like forgetting to shoot a squad and it's only his assault phase then thats ok.

At tourneys go for fun mostly and to experience other peoples take on the hobby, seeing many great armies is the best part about tourneys IMO.

Both, of course. No question about it.
I happen to have the most fun when playing all-out with someone of equal or greater skill who's also playing all-out, with well-loved armies that have personality and presence.
I'm a glutton, I want it all: A fun and casual hardcore-competitive game with a narrative to go alongside it.
A good general plays like his men on the table were real, and like his own life and livelihood depends upon his victory. A good player is someone who you feel glad to have been across the table against regardless of the results. A person who is both will give the enemy 100%, and still not be a jerk about it. And that's what I strive to be, and what I ask in my opponents.
I see little reason to choose in what is ultimately a false dichotomy.

I prefer to play for fun, but right now I only have time to play in competitive tournaments

Hi all.
It totaly depends on the game system we are playing.

Narrative co operative games are played as such.(Senarios and lots of narrative fun.)

If we use a rule set developed for ballanced compatative play.(The games systems that have provable levels of game ballance.)

Then we sometimes arrange a 'competative' game, to see how our strategc and tactical acumen has developed, since last time...

As long as the players agree on how they want to play the game , they can have fun.

deathstreak2000 wrote:Are you all for ultra competitiveness or do you prefer to just play with what you like and have fun! It's only a game right?...

I am equal amounts of both. I certainly recognize there is a place for both competitive and fluff gaming. I enjoy tournaments and playing at the highest level I am capable but I also enjoy playing story line driven league games and huge Apoc games. The key with story line driven and Apoc gaming is to be able to turn of the rules lawyering side of you who wants to break the missions and rules and gain an advantage and just have fun. Especially since Apoc/Planetstrike and most home/FLGS brewed theme leagues have a much better chance of rules lawyering your way into a win by shutting down a mechanic that should work but as written it doesn't.

That was me rambling, my apologies, I will summarize. I like both but the key is to be able to turn your two gaming personalities on and off; which isn't something we are all capable of.

Fun, fun, fun! I love the game, always play with friends and love the fun of it!
I have a buddy whom I always call to shout my WHAAAGHs! even if he is my enemy.
He just has the character...
So yes, it's all for fun.

I play for fun.

I will take what units i please, regardless of how 'optimal' they are , and take a huge dose of pleasure in downing an optimised list with 'garbage' units

Home games- fun all the way, with wierd house rules, talking in the general's voice on occasion and way way too much caffiene and sugar.

Tournaments - less wacky lists, but i'll still put my favorite units in if i like them better than the 'best unit' in that slot, and will usually run a themed list rather than a math-hammered one

I play for fun, can't play competively and if my opponent is competative or a power gamer just practicing on me I do little annoying things to get a little victory (hum an annoying tune like battle hymn of the republic, point out they're pathetic power gamers for playing me, fire jelly beans from my big proxy hellcannon at them lol)

Also in a tournament I play even less competively I just can't play competively lol. And i don't do any of the above in a tournament because my opponent is being so competative that me being laid back and having fun seems to annoy them more XD

I only play for fun, which to me means 100% full out competative games. I don't really enjoy games where people use models based on some internal aesthetic judgement that, with respect to balanced play, might as well have been random.

Beerhammer is the best hammer. Always play for fun.

Oh God... so we’ve replaced ‘I don’t play to win! ’ with ‘I only play for fun’, have we?

Both of these are utterly meaningless statements because the logical opposite of each statement (‘I play to lose’ and ‘I don’t play for fun’) don’t make any sense! Of course you all play for fun – no one plays to not have fun just as no one plays to lose.

Competitive gaming and ‘having fun’ are not mutually exclusive, and the more time we spend attempting to separate the two (and feel smug for not being a competitive gamer) is time spent making an ‘us and them’ mentality. I am not a competitive gamer (at least, not any more). The desire to build ultra-tweaked super-competitive lists left me over an edition ago. I only like making forces that have a story behind them, with my own characters to lead them (one of the reasons why I dislike 40K’s current emphasis on special characters), and playing scenarios that makes sense rather than having arbitrary win conditions (kill points... *groan*).

But I’m not going to denigrate those that want to play competitively, nor make meaningless statements like “I only play for fun and the power of friendship!”.

How about:

I only like to use an army and units because they look and/or the fluff is cool and it makes no odds being competitive any way cos I be Colonel Crud at army stuff but some people like being competitive and that is fine too

I think you can play the game any way you like so... mitigate any angry and ignorant posts referenceing my opinion by this fact.

For me ULTRA competative play makes the game less fun. for one, many of the codex are totaly unbalanced with each other. In fact i would go so far as to say that the only balance game of 40k is one in which you are facing your own codex, and even then the units that you select will have a major impact since some units are clearly not balanced when compared to other units in the dex. Therefore you can end up facing someone with no hope of winning and it would be less of an excersize in frustration to just pick up your stuff and walk away.

I also feel that since the game is not balanced nor is it desiigned to be a fair test of skiill etc. that the game should not be played as such. Its more about having fun with your freinds. Since placing an emphasis on winning leads to win at all cost attitudes, it can also lead to a more stressful gaming environment. which is not why i seek out a game of 40k.

For these and other reasons i dont believe in playing hyper competative games. Its more fun to play matches where your opponent and you are both cheering each other and really immersed in the game with less of a fixation on winning and more on the fun aspect.

One of my best recent games was in a tourni agaisnt a double lash DP list. My foe cheered and high fived me after a scout held his own agains a DP and a berserker killing both after three rounds of melee and winning the game for me. How cool is it that my foe cheered me like that. I gave him the highest marks as a foe durning that tourni because it was more like a fun game with a freind than a stessful beatdown.

Flashman wrote:Oh and those armies should look like armies, not a collection of wizard lords and monsters, but ranks and ranks of infantry... with the odd bit of insanity to add some character.

If that's how the game should be played then GW should make those armies good, so people will play them. But they make powerful characters and new, big monsters because they want to sell those expensive models, so as long as they're doing that then don't count on it.

Personally I disagree with what everyone else thinks armies "should" look like. It's a Fantasy game, if you didn't want to play with wizards and monsters then why did you buy the game? Aren't there historical games that would better suit your tastes?

When I play, I usually take the units I like and stick with it.

There's no reason that competitive can't be fun, and vice-versa. I don't always play to smash the opposition, but I don't take armies that gimp myself.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh God... so we’ve replaced ‘I don’t play to win! ’ with ‘I only play for fun’, have we?

Both of these are utterly meaningless statements because the logical opposite of each statement (‘I play to lose’ and ‘I don’t play for fun’) don’t make any sense! Of course you all play for fun – no one plays to not have fun just as no one plays to lose.

Ah, but that is not true.

Just because you "don't play to win" does not mean that you "play to lose". There are other possible goals of playing a miniatures wargame than to win or to lose, surely you know this?

H.B.M.C. wrote:and playing scenarios that makes sense rather than having arbitrary win conditions (kill points... *groan*).

I hate the new mission system so much. The old style with distinct missions (Take and Hold, Strongpoint attack, the original Spearhead, Cleanse and Burn, etc) made for much more fun games. My friend and I basically ran our own campaign using those missions before they released that campaign addon by picking the missions that made sense as we went.

I might have to figure out how to showhorn them into 5th edition.

The new system is (probably) better for compatitive play, since it mostly still just boils down to killing the other army while maybe getting a troop unit to a particular spot. But games lost their, I don't know, character?

I play for fun.
My ego doesn't require that I win at the wardollies.

My (little) brother was an over-competitive little tw*t and probably pushed me in the opposite direction as a result.

I take the units and models that I like the look of, regardless of how effective (or not) they might be.

I don't win many games, but I DO draw a lot of them - and to me, a tight game is a good game.

If someone hands you a win, it's no fun (unless you were the kind to take the lunch money from first year students) - and it's certainly not a lot of fun from the losing side, either (when their army is stomped).

-Loki- wrote:The new system is (probably) better for compatitive play, since it mostly still just boils down to killing the other army while maybe getting a troop unit to a particular spot. But games lost their, I don't know, character?

It is best to design games to be competition viable. If you want missions with more character, GW did kind of make an entire book of missions




That is not to mention Planetstrike, Cities of Death, and I guess even Apocalypse can get a shout out.

chromedog wrote:I play for fun.
My ego doesn't require that I win at the wardollies.

What's the bet that the guy who wins overall at 'Ard Boyz this year also plays for fun?

I play for fun, but I need some competitive aspect for the game to be fun.

Simply moving toy soldiers forward and throwing dice is not fun. It's boring and menial. Adding some tactics and strategy makes it fun. And in order to do that, you need to have the incentive to beat your opponent.

Devising a badass force, or employing complex tactics is all part of the fun for me. Playing to a somewhat competitive and competent level is an essential aspect of the fun.

...which makes it all the more difficult to swallow GW's horrible game-balance.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

chromedog wrote:I play for fun.
My ego doesn't require that I win at the wardollies.

What's the bet that the guy who wins overall at 'Ard Boyz this year also plays for fun?

I'd bet against the 'Ard Boyz winner playing for fun, unless he finds only winning fun and the actual gameplay and social aspect of the game unfun, in which I would definitely say he would play for "fun".

We don't HAVE 'ard boyz to worry about down here.

GW don't DO tourneys of any kind. They did for a while, but they were crap at it - so they let the blokes who did it before them pick up the ball after they dropped it.

We don't miss them.

I would not say I am competitive as such. I would have a really close gaem and lose rather then desimate an army and win, no fun in that.

I literally do it for fun and can not stand it when you around bad losers or bad winners which are just as bad

chromedog wrote:We don't HAVE 'ard boyz to worry about down here.

GW don't DO tourneys of any kind. They did for a while, but they were crap at it - so they let the blokes who did it before them pick up the ball after they dropped it.

We don't miss them.

Hear that wooshing noise? That's the sound of the point I was making sailing right over your head.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

chromedog wrote:We don't HAVE 'ard boyz to worry about down here.

GW don't DO tourneys of any kind. They did for a while, but they were crap at it - so they let the blokes who did it before them pick up the ball after they dropped it.

We don't miss them.

Hear that wooshing noise? That's the sound of the point I was making sailing right over your head.

*Throws up a glove and catches the point.*

I played against some big D-bags this year at Ard Boyz. Thankfully losing a round or two didn't put me too far off the game for any length of time...

I play to win.

Explanation for those who care: I feel that not playing to win is a disservice to my opponent by not doing the best I can do, it says "look at me I don't need to play well against you" and the much worse after winning "I didn't have to try to win to beat you".

I don't run extremely over powered/ tournament lists, I always have a smile, I am always polite and never cheat.

I play to win.
My ego is so fragile it will be crushed if I don't.
If it looks like I might not win, I cheat.
I hate everyone who plays for fun, and love to crush their 'fluffy' armies flat with my Blood Angel/Necron combo army and call it fluffy just to watch them cry - then I tell them their army sucks, and by extension so do they, then I feel fulfilled for the next week - two if I get them to cry a few tears.

In a more serious vein;
When i play, I play to win the game, and I have fun either way.

curtis wrote:I play to win.

Explanation for those who care: I feel that not playing to win is a disservice to my opponent by not doing the best I can do, it says "look at me I don't need to play well against you" and the much worse after winning "I didn't have to try to win to beat you".

I don't run extremely over powered/ tournament lists, I always have a smile, I am always polite and never cheat.

I think you'll find most who play for fun also smile, are polite and don't cheat. Plus most of us don't have either "look at me I don't need to play well against you" or "I didn't have to try to win to beat you" on our minds at all... nasty generalisation there.

Playing for fun is playing to win.

If fun to you is tabling every person you play then more power to ya. But in most cases people just want a win and in some cases even a draw. I personally enjoy a narrow victory that is hardfought. Both players tend to walk away in better moods.

Aurelia wrote:

curtis wrote:I play to win.

Explanation for those who care: I feel that not playing to win is a disservice to my opponent by not doing the best I can do, it says "look at me I don't need to play well against you" and the much worse after winning "I didn't have to try to win to beat you".

I don't run extremely over powered/ tournament lists, I always have a smile, I am always polite and never cheat.

I think you'll find most who play for fun also smile, are polite and don't cheat. Plus most of us don't have either "look at me I don't need to play well against you" or "I didn't have to try to win to beat you" on our minds at all... nasty generalisation there.

I added the smiling bit so i didn't get called WAAC, TFG, etc which is not me. Also maybe I should of put it feels like I'm saying "look at me I don't need to play well against you" and the much worse after winning "I didn't have to try to win to beat you" cause well it does feel like I'm saying that which isn't fair to my opponent, you should always give your best you can, which means aiming to win even against impossible odds. hmm... should prolly insert a gurren lagann quote here.

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Playing for fun is playing to win.

If fun to you is tabling every person you play then more power to ya. But in most cases people just want a win and in some cases even a draw. I personally enjoy a narrow victory that is hardfought. Both players tend to walk away in better moods.

This^^

I also find that the "I don't play to win, I play to have fun crowd" are basically just those people that really suck at the game and try to make up excuses for their poor playing skills. I also find that those are the type of people that are more likely to cheat,either inadvertently because they ignore the right way to play the rules, or because they don't agree with some particular rule and insist that you have to play it their way, etc...

PhantomViper wrote:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Playing for fun is playing to win.

If fun to you is tabling every person you play then more power to ya. But in most cases people just want a win and in some cases even a draw. I personally enjoy a narrow victory that is hardfought. Both players tend to walk away in better moods.

This^^

I also find that the "I don't play to win, I play to have fun crowd" are basically just those people that really suck at the game and try to make up excuses for their poor playing skills. I also find that those are the type of people that are more likely to cheat,either inadvertently because they ignore the right way to play the rules, or because they don't agree with some particular rule and insist that you have to play it their way, etc...

I dont agree with the above statement.
Specificaly i have trouble with the statement that the play for fun crowd suck at the game. I base this on my experience against the load of chaos players in the area. Many local players are playing to win but they do so with a different tact than the WAAC players do. One local player only plays 1000 sons. He has a beautiful 1000 sons army, and he will field anything that has the mark of Tzneetch. I dont believe he has ever put together an army with the intent of loosing but he always fields a fluffy, flavorful 1000 sons list. Another local player insists on only fielding units with the mark of Slaneesh. These players are both good players who play the way that they do because it makes the game more fun for them to have a strong theme. They are playing for fun, not WAAC. when i play against them i often field units that i would not field facing a WAAC opponent. It makes for a more varied game when you have loads of scouts running around the field being pursued by chaos dreads and spawn. Against the local WAAC space wolf player every game is going to be Long fang spam with razorbacks and some terminator with ML spam. Boring. The WAAC player feilds the same list every time because it has the greatest likelyhood of winning. Winning matters that much to him that he has given up variety for the assurance that he will overpower his foe via list creation.

How much fun is it to win knowing that the only thing that won the game for you was the list you created. especially if the list you wrote was the same spam from last week etc.

I dont really like to play WAAC gamers, especially since the codex are so poorly balanced that often the codex is what determins tha winner in a WAAC faceoff, not the player.

My opinion boils down to the fact that close games are better than a slaughter any day. Its nice to know what what level of competition your foe will be fielding before you build a list. We often agree to either play a fun and fluffty game, a tournament list, or an ardboys style list befor list creation, that way we have well balanced games. If the game is balanced it really does make for a much more fun experience. Which returns us to the point that codex are not balanced well to begin with...

See, nerfing a list to play with someone who has a terrible army isn't fun to me.

Would I play someone with a really bad army? Sure. Would I bring a fluffy list to give them a chance? No.

Imo, learn to build lists and make a competitive one for fighting randoms and a fluffy one for friendly games. Just because we are playing 40K doesn't mean we have to hug after a game lol

Making competitive players out to be villains is whack too. The is nothing wrong with WAAC with netlists, it only becomes a problem when a sore lose throws a temper tantrum.

Fun. Don't mind losing. Don't mind winning either.

PhantomViper wrote:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Playing for fun is playing to win.

If fun to you is tabling every person you play then more power to ya. But in most cases people just want a win and in some cases even a draw. I personally enjoy a narrow victory that is hardfought. Both players tend to walk away in better moods.

This^^

I also find that the "I don't play to win, I play to have fun crowd" are basically just those people that really suck at the game and try to make up excuses for their poor playing skills. I also find that those are the type of people that are more likely to cheat,either inadvertently because they ignore the right way to play the rules, or because they don't agree with some particular rule and insist that you have to play it their way, etc...

This left me feeling mildly offended, tbh. I play for fun, am I a bad player? Yes? Why, then, have I won every one of my games in the last oohh... 3 months or so? Hell, I rarely lose these days unless I throw the game... which I do to keep it fun all around or because I think of a really funny really stupid thing to do. But, I play for fun, I must suck at the game. Jeez oh and I have no Spehss Muhreen armies, does that mean I suck too?


Anyway, I play for fun by and large, one of the main reasons I rarely field my Tau any more... because it's no fun for the other person to play cat and mouse with me for 2 hours don't mind losing, sometimes do it on purpose for whatever reason (newer players, someone needs a motivation boost, whatever). What I dislike, really, are WAAC players... they're rarely any fun for someone like me to play against, really, and tend to be very... over-zealous about what they do. This thread is a good example, really. "You play to win or you suck/don't know what you're doing/are a cheater"... wtf? Different people, different ways of doing things guys. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just that I don't like it oh except assuming people are more likely to cheat if they're non-competitive, that just makes no sense.

sennacherib wrote:*snip*

First of all, you clearly have no idea what WAAC even means. You seem to be under the impression that simply bringing a competitive list to the table is WAAC and it's not.

Second, you're implying that competitive lists are never fluffy, when personally I've found that the opposite is true more often than not. About the only example I can think of off the top of my head that isn't, is the aforementioned long fang spam since Space Wolves are always shown to be this epic close combat army, and their best list relies almost entirely on shooting. Other than that I would argue that the average idea of a "fluffy" army actually isn't all that fluffy, because no real army would take a nonsensical mish-mash of units that have no synergy together, and deliberately avoid using their best assets just to give the enemy army a break. Oh, and let's not forget that we can't take similar units either, since real armies never go to war with more than one of anything that isn't a basic unit of grunts. "Spamming" isn't "realistic" because a real army would never go to war with more than one jet, or more than one tank, and they sure as hell wouldn't waste their time and money giving most of their guys an actual transport or anything and would force them to walk everywhere. Real armies take one missile launcher and two machine guns and tell themselves "Okay that's enough, we got all our bases covered!"

Seriously, I'm getting tired of this bs. Same old thing every fething time a thread like this comes up. "Playing to win is EVIL, I'm a better player and a better person because I play with uncompetitive armies and never actually try to win games! If you don't play the way I do you're wrong, and probably a big, fat, smelly failure at life who doesn't care about anything other than winning gakky games because your life is sad and pathetic and you literally have nothing else!" I'm sick of the dickish, "holier-than-thou" attitude that all of you self-segregated "fun" players have, and your unwarranted animosity towards people who write better lists. And the worst thing is you guys even know who the real one at fault here is, every time this topic comes up I see people bashing GW for their gakky game balance, but they keep blaming the competitive players for their lack of enjoyment while continuing to bend over and empty their wallet for GW every week anyway.

Grow the feth up, god damn it. I swear to god no other game has a fanbase this whiny and clueless. Even if they do have a reason to bitch, like Magic players and the "Caw Blade" archetype dominating Standard for the better part of a year (and Jace the Mind Sculptor being so over-the-top broken that almost every deck splashed blue just for him), most people are just like "Ugh, that Caw Blade...oh well, better learn how to beat it!" and keep playing anyway. I don't know what it is about 40k that turns everyone that plays it into an elitist, close-minded douchebag.

Beregond wrote:This left me feeling mildly offended, tbh.

After some of the crap I've seen so-called "fun" players say about competitive players in general (crap that's equally unwarranted and untrue), I think you have no right to complain about feeling offended.

Beregond wrote:Hell, I rarely lose these days unless I throw the game... which I do to keep it fun all around or because I think of a really funny really stupid thing to do.

Remember people, if you don't intentionally throw games and let people win or act childish and do stupid things for no reason, then you're WAAC. lol...

Beregond wrote:Anyway, I play for fun by and large, one of the main reasons I rarely field my Tau any more... because it's no fun for the other person to play cat and mouse with me for 2 hours

I haven't because it's no fun being forced to play a perfect game all the time, since one mistake means you've lost. Even if you make a mistake when deploying your army you can cost yourself the game with Tau.

As for "cat and mouse", that's how GW designed the army...so obviously it's the Tau player's fault, going by the logic present in these "I hate winning" threads.

Beregond wrote:This thread is a good example, really. "You play to win or you suck/don't know what you're doing/are a cheater"... wtf?

Oh come the feth on, who's saying this? I saw one example of a guy saying "If you play for 'fun' then you're just a bad player" and all of a sudden this thread is just full of good examples of how competitive players are terrible people? Apparently you haven't been reading these threads for very long then, or even paid that much attention to THIS one really, since there's countless examples of "for fun" players being dicks to people who don't play like they do.

The "WAAC" label is a very good example. You guys literally say that competitive players are more likely to be donkey-caves or cheaters in every single thread because you've gone so far as to label anyone with a slightly competent list "WAAC", "win at any cost". But one guy in one thread says the same thing to you and all of a sudden you're "offended", lol, sure...

Sidstyler wrote:

sennacherib wrote:*snip*

First of all, you clearly have no idea what WAAC even means. You seem to be under the impression that simply bringing a competitive list to the table is WAAC and it's not.

Second, you're implying that competitive lists are never fluffy, when personally I've found that the opposite is true more often than not. About the only example I can think of off the top of my head that isn't, is the aforementioned long fang spam since Space Wolves are always shown to be this epic close combat army, and their best list relies almost entirely on shooting. Other than that I would argue that the average idea of a "fluffy" army actually isn't all that fluffy, because no real army would take a nonsensical mish-mash of units that have no synergy together, and deliberately avoid using their best assets just to give the enemy army a break. Oh, and let's not forget that we can't take similar units either, since real armies never go to war with more than one of anything that isn't a basic unit of grunts. "Spamming" isn't "realistic" because a real army would never go to war with more than one jet, or more than one tank, and they sure as hell wouldn't waste their time and money giving most of their guys an actual transport or anything and would force them to walk everywhere. Real armies take one missile launcher and two machine guns and tell themselves "Okay that's enough, we got all our bases covered!"

Seriously, I'm getting tired of this bs. Same old thing every fething time a thread like this comes up. "Playing to win is EVIL, I'm a better player and a better person because I play with uncompetitive armies and never actually try to win games! If you don't play the way I do you're wrong, and probably a big, fat, smelly failure at life who doesn't care about anything other than winning gakky games because your life is sad and pathetic and you literally have nothing else!" I'm sick of the dickish, "holier-than-thou" attitude that all of you self-segregated "fun" players have, and your unwarranted animosity towards people who write better lists. And the worst thing is you guys even know who the real one at fault here is, every time this topic comes up I see people bashing GW for their gakky game balance, but they keep blaming the competitive players for their lack of enjoyment while continuing to bend over and empty their wallet for GW every week anyway.

Grow the feth up, god damn it. I swear to god no other game has a fanbase this whiny and clueless. Even if they do have a reason to bitch, like Magic players and the "Caw Blade" archetype dominating Standard for the better part of a year (and Jace the Mind Sculptor being so over-the-top broken that almost every deck splashed blue just for him), most people are just like "Ugh, that Caw Blade...oh well, better learn how to beat it!" and keep playing anyway. I don't know what it is about 40k that turns everyone that plays it into an elitist, close-minded douchebag.

I play to have fun.

I don't play to win (40k) because 40k is a lot like Magic or any other Game of the Week where you have to reconfigure your list every time a new codex is released. In most cases, this means spending at least several hundred dollars to rebuild your army when there's a new edition or your army gets an update. Sometimes new armies change the meta so drastically that you have to retool your list (Fzorgle) mid-way through an edition/codex cycle.

I buy miniatures I like and play with them. I don't have Obliterators in my Chaos army because they're terrible models. I don't play plague marines because I don't like the aesthetic or fluff. I don't switch to a "more competitive" army (BA, SW) because I don't want to spend $700+ to make a decent army.

In WHFB, I have armies based on the miniatures I have, rather than buying miniatures based on what's the most competitive.

Fortunately, WarmaHordes makes models that look good, are effective, and don't get rendered irrelevant every few minutes. I play to win in WarMachine.

Beregond wrote:
This left me feeling mildly offended, tbh. I play for fun, am I a bad player? Yes? Why, then, have I won every one of my games in the last oohh... 3 months or so? Hell, I rarely lose these days unless I throw the game... which I do to keep it fun all around or because I think of a really funny really stupid thing to do. But, I play for fun, I must suck at the game. Jeez oh and I have no Spehss Muhreen armies, does that mean I suck too?

Really? You spend countless hours getting your army ready for a game, painting assembling and converting your minis so that you can put them down on the table and have a contest of wits against a like-minded opponent. You spend another 30-45 minutes actually deploying your army and then another hour playing the game just so that your opponent throws away the game because he thinks you are not good enough to earn the win by your own?

If you did that to me, that would be the last time that we would ever play. That is the most condescending thing that I've ever read about.

By your own admition, you are saying that you build uncompetitive lists and even then, the only times that you loose a game against anyone in your gaming group is when you throw the game on purpose? And that you do that often to keep things "interesting"?! Yeah, you really should be a barrel of laughs to play against.

And I don't own any Space Marines also, just for the record, but I'm sure that all the SM players out there really appreciated your jab at them.

Fafnir wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

sennacherib wrote:*snip*

First of all, you clearly have no idea what WAAC even means. You seem to be under the impression that simply bringing a competitive list to the table is WAAC and it's not.

Second, you're implying that competitive lists are never fluffy, when personally I've found that the opposite is true more often than not. About the only example I can think of off the top of my head that isn't, is the aforementioned long fang spam since Space Wolves are always shown to be this epic close combat army, and their best list relies almost entirely on shooting. Other than that I would argue that the average idea of a "fluffy" army actually isn't all that fluffy, because no real army would take a nonsensical mish-mash of units that have no synergy together, and deliberately avoid using their best assets just to give the enemy army a break. Oh, and let's not forget that we can't take similar units either, since real armies never go to war with more than one of anything that isn't a basic unit of grunts. "Spamming" isn't "realistic" because a real army would never go to war with more than one jet, or more than one tank, and they sure as hell wouldn't waste their time and money giving most of their guys an actual transport or anything and would force them to walk everywhere. Real armies take one missile launcher and two machine guns and tell themselves "Okay that's enough, we got all our bases covered!"

Seriously, I'm getting tired of this bs. Same old thing every fething time a thread like this comes up. "Playing to win is EVIL, I'm a better player and a better person because I play with uncompetitive armies and never actually try to win games! If you don't play the way I do you're wrong, and probably a big, fat, smelly failure at life who doesn't care about anything other than winning gakky games because your life is sad and pathetic and you literally have nothing else!" I'm sick of the dickish, "holier-than-thou" attitude that all of you self-segregated "fun" players have, and your unwarranted animosity towards people who write better lists. And the worst thing is you guys even know who the real one at fault here is, every time this topic comes up I see people bashing GW for their gakky game balance, but they keep blaming the competitive players for their lack of enjoyment while continuing to bend over and empty their wallet for GW every week anyway.

Grow the feth up, god damn it. I swear to god no other game has a fanbase this whiny and clueless. Even if they do have a reason to bitch, like Magic players and the "Caw Blade" archetype dominating Standard for the better part of a year (and Jace the Mind Sculptor being so over-the-top broken that almost every deck splashed blue just for him), most people are just like "Ugh, that Caw Blade...oh well, better learn how to beat it!" and keep playing anyway. I don't know what it is about 40k that turns everyone that plays it into an elitist, close-minded douchebag.

perhaps you are the one who should grow up. calling names and getting as upset as you obviously did about my opinion are all hallmarks of an immature person. If your sick of seeing opinion that differ from yours perhaps you should just stay home, draw the shades and never, never venture onto the web. Cheers.

I just play for fun. I'm looking forward to putting my models down and having a fun game. It's taking foreveeer to put together my orks. Machine painting 40 guys at a go is mind numbing. Think next time I'll go with just 10. I don't mind competitive people but I avoid them almost entirely for any game anymore. Mainly for their atitude in general. Example would be some of the biggest tantrum posts above. I don't care if the units/cards I choose aren't the best for the slot. I just wanted to come and spend my free time in a friendly shop and have some fun. I don't feel like being told that I'm an idiot or a noob or listen to you rant all game about how ubber awesome you are.

So because someone enjoys playing competitive lists, they all have to automatically have an attitude of superiority? I've never had someone who played a competitive list be disrespectful of other players because they ran uncompetitive lists. However, I have been berated for running a competitive list. In fact, with no exception, I've always found that the stalwart non-competitive camp have been the meaner group of players and in general less fun to play against. Not only because playing against them is incredibly boring, but because they tend to get quite hostile in the company of a player running competitive army.

I wouldn't play if I didn't have fun. if youdon't play for fun that seems a little silly to me BUT (someone probably already made this point) the idea that "playing for fun" and "playing to win" are two SEPERATE things is simply false. I have been gaming since i was 9 (very little of GW) and have almost always tried my darndest to win. Whenever my opponent does the same the result is almost always fun.

What makes it not fun is whining. Whining about rules, how something isn't realistic, how the dice are againsts you, how a ruleset is 'broken' because something bad happened to you etc... These are the games i will throw just to not hear the other guy. Understand my emphasis here is on the word 'whine'. Noticing something is wrong with a ruleset or being disappointed with a roll is one thing, making everyone around feel as if you have been horribly cheated and all is wrong with the world is another. I guess I would say guys like this aren't 'playing to win' but are playing to 'beat the other guy'. As long as everyone else looses they are happy. Perhaps I let 'whiners' get to me more than I should. luckily my run-ins with them are very few and far between.

At the end of the day I would say I play for fun by playing to win. (exceptions being when I trying to learn a rule set.)


edit* after reading what I just wrote I feel like a should clarify that if youre not necesarily "playing to win" there is nothing wrong with that. I was more trying to make a point that I think playing to win does not necessarily mean a player is putting victory over having fun.

This is always a pretty pointless conversation as everyone lumps themselves into the "competitive" or "just for fun" categories and then vehemently defends their side of this imaginary conflict despite no-one defining what each category means in the same way.

The reality is that most people posting in these threads would probably play against each other and have a decent game because, really, it's rare to play against someone so completely abhorrent that you can't enjoy blowing up each others toys with dice rolls to at least some degree.

I see nothing wrong with playing competitively, I just don't find it fun outside of a tournament.
I go to a FLGW to play games, not to win a contest.
So that's fine to have a tournament with so many Razorbacks on the field that it begins to feel like a wilderness safari but I wouldn't ever enjoy it in a friendly setting.

Tl;dr I'm all for good lists, but I don't like the structure of comp lists.

plastictrees wrote:This is always a pretty pointless conversation as everyone lumps themselves into the "competitive" or "just for fun" categories and then vehemently defends their side of this imaginary conflict despite no-one defining what each category means in the same way.

The reality is that most people posting in these threads would probably play against each other and have a decent game because, really, it's rare to play against someone so completely abhorrent that you can't enjoy blowing up each others toys with dice rolls to at least some degree.

^^^This^^^

But don't worry, a thread just like this will resurface once every couple of weeks, leading to the same silly arguments...

We play serious lists where we are at and for newbies I tone down slightly on the effectiveness. Playing to have fun means winning and learning from losses. I cant see how someone would want to be just a punching bag, they might as well play solitaire instead of having an auto pilot win.

For newbies who might be stymied or anyone in general I always also make the standing offer to switch lists before the game, Ill play theirs and they get mine.

I am in the vein that they don't have to be mutually exclusive. However, I will say if I had to choose one I would prefer fun to competitive usually.

sennacherib wrote:perhaps you are the one who should grow up. calling names and getting as upset as you obviously did about my opinion are all hallmarks of an immature person. If your sick of seeing opinion that differ from yours perhaps you should just stay home, draw the shades and never, never venture onto the web. Cheers.

"Stop being mean!" is not an effective rebuttal sennacherib. If you disagree with what was said, you respond to the points raised. This... reply... of yours, if you can call it that, speaks of someone with no response other than play the victim and then run away.

Sorry HBMC but she didnt really raise any points, she just put words in my mouth and nerdraged. Any response beyond the little "tut tut" would have only stoked the fires. She can play with her little man dollies any way she likes.

Back on topic, Part of the fun of the game is having a competative match. that implies a challenge of some sort. When you are facing someone with one of the older codex, a list that is tweaked to be as competitive as possible will not be presented with much of a challenge. Same goes for playing a newer player, or someone who has a smaller army that didnt buy the figures sheerly because they had the best stat line for the points. Playing really hard lists against people that fall into these catagories seems like using the list as a crutch to ensure victory.

The whole point is to have fun. If everyone just built their lists to be as hard as possible, where would that leave all of the tau, necron, chaos, nids, and sisters of battle. If you dont have one of the new uber killy codex are you supposed to rush out and buy a new dex and a new army so you can compete, or just quit playing until your dex gets the update so its the new uber dex. I think competative play in a tourni setting is totally fine, or amongst freinds who enjoy that level of play. But not everyone wants to play man dollies that way.

Way to completely misinterpret everything I said, Sidstyler. Well done. Well let's tango, then ^^

Sidstyler wrote:

Beregond wrote:This left me feeling mildly offended, tbh.

After some of the crap I've seen so-called "fun" players say about competitive players in general (crap that's equally unwarranted and untrue), I think you have no right to complain about feeling offended.

So I have no right to be offended when people say things I ALSO disagree with, when the same sort of crap is then generalised to me? I think not, my friend, I will keep my right to complain on the basis that I do my best to play by the rules and remain within the bounds of civility.

Beregond wrote:Hell, I rarely lose these days unless I throw the game... which I do to keep it fun all around or because I think of a really funny really stupid thing to do.

Remember people, if you don't intentionally throw games and let people win or act childish and do stupid things for no reason, then you're WAAC. lol...

Where in that line do I mention WAAC? Hell, where in anything I've said thus far in your quotes mentions WAAC? Please, you're misinterpreting me again. And how is doing something 'fun' in a game 'childish'? When I was aged 8-11 (prime childhood age, really) I was a WAAC person in everything I did, in fact... not saying that it's childish, or anything, just that as I matured I just mellowed out into a person who doesn't care so much for that old desperate need to win... and not saying that all players who play to win are WAAC players... I play to win 9 times out of 10, after all...

Beregond wrote:Anyway, I play for fun by and large, one of the main reasons I rarely field my Tau any more... because it's no fun for the other person to play cat and mouse with me for 2 hours

I haven't because it's no fun being forced to play a perfect game all the time, since one mistake means you've lost. Even if you make a mistake when deploying your army you can cost yourself the game with Tau.

As for "cat and mouse", that's how GW designed the army...so obviously it's the Tau player's fault, going by the logic present in these "I hate winning" threads.

Why yes, Tau are hard to play with. That doesn't change the fact that my girlfriend and good friends who've played against my Tau tell me they just don't find it as fun as fighting another army. Who said I hate winning? The alternate army I play is Guard, and I very, very rarely lose with them either. It's just more of a fun game for my opponent, from what the regulars I play against have said, so usually I field them. I get the same kicks either way.

Beregond wrote:This thread is a good example, really. "You play to win or you suck/don't know what you're doing/are a cheater"... wtf?

Oh come the feth on, who's saying this? I saw one example of a guy saying "If you play for 'fun' then you're just a bad player" and all of a sudden this thread is just full of good examples of how competitive players are terrible people? Apparently you haven't been reading these threads for very long then, or even paid that much attention to THIS one really, since there's countless examples of "for fun" players being dicks to people who don't play like they do.

I'll answer this one with a quote.

I also find that the "I don't play to win, I play to have fun crowd" are basically just those people that really suck at the game and try to make up excuses for their poor playing skills. I also find that those are the type of people that are more likely to cheat,either inadvertently because they ignore the right way to play the rules, or because they don't agree with some particular rule and insist that you have to play it their way, etc...

And you go on to tell me that I haven't been paying much attention here overall I don't pay much attention, but at least I know what posts I've been referring to, and make a point to read any others are referring to...

The "WAAC" label is a very good example. You guys literally say that competitive players are more likely to be donkey-caves or cheaters in every single thread because you've gone so far as to label anyone with a slightly competent list "WAAC", "win at any cost". But one guy in one thread says the same thing to you and all of a sudden you're "offended", lol, sure...

I haven't said that at all... it has, in fact, been said the other way in the above quote. I play serious lists, usually, I play to win, usually, but I also play this -game- to have fun the way I see it. All I've personally said is I don't see playing to WAAC as fun for me, and my least enjoyable games have been against people playing like that. Again, I have never branded anyone a cheater, a bad player, whatever, based on whether they play for fun or play to win. You just assume that I have, paint me to be some weird sort of anti-winner scumbag and seem to think your arguments make sense. Sorry, but no.


Next one.

Really? You spend countless hours getting your army ready for a game, painting assembling and converting your minis so that you can put them down on the table and have a contest of wits against a like-minded opponent. You spend another 30-45 minutes actually deploying your army and then another hour playing the game just so that your opponent throws away the game because he thinks you are not good enough to earn the win by your own?

The difference is I've been playing this game for a lot longer than the people I play against. Fact is that they just don't know as much about this game as me. Now you tell me, what is worse for a newer player, losing countless games in a row or winning a couple of them? I don't go around afterwards going "HAHA I THREW THIS GAME" at them. As I said, I do it because I think of something more fun than 'strategic' to do, or because they're feeling bloody bad about their gameplay lately and could use a bit of motivation. Last time I did that the guy went on to play perfectly in his next few games. Time before that that I did that was against someone I was trying to introduce into warhammer.

If you did that to me, that would be the last time that we would ever play. That is the most condescending thing that I've ever read about.

Well that's fine, because I wouldn't do it to a more experienced player. Usually I don't do it anyway. It's a very rare thing brought on by specific circumstances, that I mentioned in passing to describe how far from a WAAC player I am

By your own admition, you are saying that you build uncompetitive lists and even then, the only times that you loose a game against anyone in your gaming group is when you throw the game on purpose? And that you do that often to keep things "interesting"?! Yeah, you really should be a barrel of laughs to play against.

Wait, what? I never said I build uncompetitive lists... my Tau list atm is about as competitive as I can make it, so... what?


God damn, is it so hard to believe that some people like the middle-ground? Most people here have said they fit more in the middle, really... There are, shockingly, people out there who DO (usually) play to win, don't NEED to win, but also know wtf they're doing and can build a decent list nowhere have I said people who play to win are bad people, nowhere have I said that they aren't having fun, I just said I don't share that mentality and have had bad experiences with players like that... and then I get people who disagree with my view point seemingly going out of their way to get on my nerves... it's a strange old world, to be sure. Once again reminding me why I avoid posting on discussion threads

My response to a friend :

http://pokeminiatures.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-i-play.html

After a Warmachine tournament up in Madison, I was with one of my friends when he said something that made me pause and reflect.

"Felix," he said, "I don't get how you play."

According to him, I don't seem to get upset when I lose, and it just so happens that I lose a LOT.

So how do I play? Or why?



Well for starters, I just want to put it out there that I DO get upset after a loss. I get upset at the things that I have control over, such as knowing the rules or remembering that Bog Trogs can Ambush and kill the Hierarch Severius all on turn 2. However, a simple math mistake or bad dice? I can't get upset about that. You simply have to play past those things.

Secondly, any given game of Warmachine has two end-states: win or lose. Warmachine doesn't even allow for marginal victories or draws (in tournaments a draw after all tie breakers can be counted as a double loss). So any game that isn't fun to play to either conclusion is going to be not-fun 50% of the time. I highly doubt that so many people would play any game if winning were the only point to playing.

So where is the fun in losing?

German game designer Reiner Knizia often gets quoted about his game design philosophy, but I've never been able to track the source of one quote in particular, so I emailed his office. Karen Easteal, his personal assistant, responded with a quote that comes directly from the man himself and not any published source:

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.

How do losers win in Warmachine and games in general?

To answer this question, I turn to Mark Rosewater's three Magic player archetypes.

(Yes, that's Magic, as in, Magic: The Gathering.)

In his Making Magic series, Rosewater identifies "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike". Spike wants to win the game, Timmy loves the experience of playing the game, Johnny wants to express himself through the game. (These finer definitions of the three archetypes are covered in "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike revisisted") Based on these definitions, I definitely think I'm a Timmy/Johnny player.

How does this apply to Warmachine?

Warmachine's solid ruleset is based in a fantasy universe filled with tropes that many gamers are familiar with: Mining Dwarves, Imperialist nations, Secretive Elves, Religious fanaticism. In addition, many of these tropes are explored in different ways through the actual models. The religious faction, for example, has both lawful paladins AND secret church enforcers. Choosing to play means you are, on some level, role-playing as one of the game's factions.

In addition, the gameplay allows for different ways to approach each faction. Thus, if you want to collect and play the religious angle of burninating the countryside, there are models in the range that you can use to do so. If, however, you prefer running with an untrained mob of religious zealots, you simply select the models int he range that make it possible. Most of the lists that I plan out are based on the idea that you can select a list of crazy rule interactions that is a blast to play with on the table.

That doesn't mean I'm not trying to win. Winning and excellence are markers that I strive to reach. However, along the way I want to build, I want to explore, I want to play.

And that is why I play.

sennacherib wrote:
perhaps you are the one who should grow up. calling names and getting as upset as you obviously did about my opinion are all hallmarks of an immature person. If your sick of seeing opinion that differ from yours perhaps you should just stay home, draw the shades and never, never venture onto the web. Cheers.

I don't have any problem with you or anyone else stating their opinion, but you're posting on a public forum. Other people are also allowed to post their opinions, and sometimes those opinions clash with yours. In my opinion you have a misconception about what WAAC play really is, you're making unfair judgments about competitive players in general, and when it comes to fluffy army composition you're just flat out wrong (if you think the majority of competitive lists aren't "fluffy" anyway), and I said as much. I don't really see what's wrong with that, maybe my language was a little too harsh and made it seem more like an attack or an angry rant than anything, but I wasn't coming out and calling anyone names like you said. It was more like saying "People act like this or that", not "sennacherib is a douchebag and so is everyone like him!"

sennacherib wrote:Sorry HBMC but she didnt really raise any points, she just put words in my mouth and nerdraged. Any response beyond the little "tut tut" would have only stoked the fires. She can play with her little man dollies any way she likes.

I'm sorry, what? You accuse me of namecalling and then start doing this? I don't buy for a second that you seriously think I'm female. No one posting on an internet forum dedicated to a hobby like this just assumes that someone they're arguing with is a woman.

I don't see how I put words in your mouth, either. You were calling a style of play WAAC when it really wasn't.

sennacherib wrote:Back on topic, Part of the fun of the game is having a competative match. that implies a challenge of some sort. When you are facing someone with one of the older codex, a list that is tweaked to be as competitive as possible will not be presented with much of a challenge. Same goes for playing a newer player, or someone who has a smaller army that didnt buy the figures sheerly because they had the best stat line for the points. Playing really hard lists against people that fall into these catagories seems like using the list as a crutch to ensure victory.

But competitive players don't purposely seek out "weak" opponents playing older codices or with a smaller pool of figures to choose from in order to get easy wins. If you see someone that does this or seems to get a lot of enjoyment out of curb-stomping people new to the game then they're not a competitive player, they're just an donkey-cave. That is WAAC play, they care more about winning and bolstering their own ego, but that's not what competitive play is about.

Anyway, it sucks if you bring Necrons to a tournament and get paired up against Space Wolves but you don't have to play in tournaments, so that's not really the competitive player's fault, either. New codices do have an undeniable advantage though, there's no arguing that, but I think it's wrong to suggest that people only play them because of that fact. I'm only buying Dark Eldar because I've been waiting years for them to get new models, and the new models exceeded my expectations. I'm even collecting sub-par choices like incubi and I plan on having a full court of the archon just because the models look great (if you can get good casts).

sennacherib wrote:The whole point is to have fun. If everyone just built their lists to be as hard as possible, where would that leave all of the tau, necron, chaos, nids, and sisters of battle. If you dont have one of the new uber killy codex are you supposed to rush out and buy a new dex and a new army so you can compete, or just quit playing until your dex gets the update so its the new uber dex. I think competative play in a tourni setting is totally fine, or amongst freinds who enjoy that level of play. But not everyone wants to play man dollies that way.

If you wanted to play competitively you'd have to accept that you're at a disadvantage and build the best list you can with what you have, or just avoid playing with them in tournaments until they get a competitive codex. No, you don't have to "rush out and buy a new army", but if you really want to win that badly and insist on playing in tournaments then yeah you would, but you can play the game in any way you want and aren't just limited to tournament play so it shouldn't be a big deal. In any case, it's not the competitive player's fault that you have an old/uncompetitive codex, your real issue is with GW, their chosen business model, and their lack of interest in making sure every army is balanced, which they could do if they really wanted to, but won't because that's obviously not where the money is.

Personally I think it's a good idea to have at least two armies anyway. Playing just one army the whole time gets old after a while, and doubly so if your codex is sub-par. Yeah, that gets kind of expensive, I can barely afford to collect one army myself, but 40k is an expensive hobby and it's not going to get any cheaper. We all knew that when we got into it.

And no one's saying you have to play 40k that way, either, no one's trying to force you to be a strictly competitive player. All I'd like to see is a little more tolerance for competitive play and an acknowledgment that it's not only a viable way to play the game but that people who enjoy playing competitively aren't lesser people than those who don't care for it. We really don't need more people picking "sides".

Beregond wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Beregond wrote:This left me feeling mildly offended, tbh.

After some of the crap I've seen so-called "fun" players say about competitive players in general (crap that's equally unwarranted and untrue), I think you have no right to complain about feeling offended.

So I have no right to be offended when people say things I ALSO disagree with, when the same sort of crap is then generalised to me? I think not, my friend, I will keep my right to complain on the basis that I do my best to play by the rules and remain within the bounds of civility.

Fair enough.

Beregond wrote:Where in that line do I mention WAAC? Hell, where in anything I've said thus far in your quotes mentions WAAC? Please, you're misinterpreting me again. And how is doing something 'fun' in a game 'childish'? When I was aged 8-11 (prime childhood age, really) I was a WAAC person in everything I did, in fact... not saying that it's childish, or anything, just that as I matured I just mellowed out into a person who doesn't care so much for that old desperate need to win... and not saying that all players who play to win are WAAC players... I play to win 9 times out of 10, after all...

Okay, so I admit at that point I was being a bit of a jerk because of the WAAC thing brought up before, lol. As for "fun = childish", in my opinion it's doing intentionally stupid things that you normally wouldn't do that could potentially be detrimental to your army. When you mentioned intentionally throwing games I imagined things like "Hurr durr I'm going to drive this tank full speed over difficult terrain and try to wreck it on purpose!", or "I'm gonna try to purposely force a Deep Strike mishap just so I can make a joke about how these guys teleported into a wall! Splat!", you know, stupid moves that you know are stupid that could potentially hamper you pretty bad, but you're going to do it anyway.

To clarify, I'm not exactly super serious when I play games either (I believe one time I even made a joke about fried chicken when a Kroot squad of mine fell victim to a CSM flamethrower), but I don't like the feeling that the other player isn't even trying, or worse yet, they're doing it deliberately because they feel sorry for me and think I need the help. I don't think playing like that is really all that fun. I wouldn't intentionally put my Kroot squad out there for them to get cooked to death so I could laugh about it...unless it was all part of some great plan I had and I thought sacrificing them like that could help me win later. I don't really see HOW that could help me win but still, lol.

Beregond wrote:Why yes, Tau are hard to play with. That doesn't change the fact that my girlfriend and good friends who've played against my Tau tell me they just don't find it as fun as fighting another army. Who said I hate winning? The alternate army I play is Guard, and I very, very rarely lose with them either. It's just more of a fun game for my opponent, from what the regulars I play against have said, so usually I field them. I get the same kicks either way.

First of all the "I hate winning" comment wasn't directed at you in particular, it was a flippant comment I made about threads like these in general, because based on what I've seen, saying "I play for fun" is about the same as saying "I play to lose" or "I hate winning". The idea seems to be that the less you care about playing the game the cooler you are, and that if you take it any more seriously than "I get wasted while mindlessly throwing dice on a table" then you take the game too seriously.

Anyway, Tau are kind of odd like that, it seems like it's not really all that fun playing with or against them. If you're playing against them and doing badly then it feels like you can never touch them and all you're doing is taking models back off the table, and if you're playing with them and doing badly then it's just as hopeless as you watch entire squads wiped out in a single round of combat or just run off the board due to poor leadership. Maybe it's just because I'm a bad Tau player, I don't know, but hopefully the next codex fixes that.

Beregond wrote:I'll answer this one with a quote.

I also find that the "I don't play to win, I play to have fun crowd" are basically just those people that really suck at the game and try to make up excuses for their poor playing skills. I also find that those are the type of people that are more likely to cheat,either inadvertently because they ignore the right way to play the rules, or because they don't agree with some particular rule and insist that you have to play it their way, etc...

And you go on to tell me that I haven't been paying much attention here overall I don't pay much attention, but at least I know what posts I've been referring to, and make a point to read any others are referring to...

...wait...I don't see what your point is. I acknowledged that one guy said something like that, and you posted a quote from that one guy. It's still one guy out of a now 3-page thread so I'm technically not wrong here, right?

God... the "playing for fun" reason really gets on my nerves. EVERYONE plays for fun. If its not fun, why do you even bother doing it. Unless of course you are getting paid for it, then that's another story. You're just doing your job.
Anyone who claims that they are just "playing for fun," and that they are "not competitive" are just making lame excuses for being terrible at a game they play.

Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are games where there are winners and losers. That single fact means that it is a competitive game. In a competitive game, the only action a rational man would do is to "play to win," because the only other option is to "play to lose," in which case, one can just save time and forfeit the game before it even begins.

Assuming you are all rational people (I'm giving you "playing for fun"ers the benefit of the doubt.) it means you all play to win, and therefore, are competitive.

There are only two reasons this argument is going on: one, the rules for warhammer armies are so unbalanced it boggles the mind. This tends to create a very wide gap between people who bought their models based on knowledge of the rules, and those who bought stuff that just looked cool. So it's understandable that players divide themselves into two camps since it's inherently hard to have a balanced game between two people with such different approaches.

But the second reason is that people aren't mature enough to just accept that players have different approaches to playing, and just play people on the same wavelength as them, without getting bent out of shape. My gaming group sort of had an arms race where our armies evolved into quite competitive shapes. When I went to a new club, I had a game against a guy who obviously did not expect to face 9 tanks. We had as fun a game as possible given how hard it was for him to hurt me, and if we play again I will either tone down my list or he will take more tuned up weapons and units. Because we're adults who can adapt to changing circumstances.

Long story short, you can't make the game designers write decent rules, but that doesn't mean you have to always take the obviously best units/take only cool units without regard to effectiveness. And it certainly doesn't mean you have to see people with the opposite approach as being 'wrong' or even worse 'the enemy'.

plastictrees wrote:This is always a pretty pointless conversation as everyone lumps themselves into the "competitive" or "just for fun" categories and then vehemently defends their side of this imaginary conflict despite no-one defining what each category means in the same way.

The reality is that most people posting in these threads would probably play against each other and have a decent game because, really, it's rare to play against someone so completely abhorrent that you can't enjoy blowing up each others toys with dice rolls to at least some degree.

I completely agree

I have to be honest, my worst experiences of playing have been at a narrative-focused event, where a couple of competition players turned obviously having got the wrong end of the stick in terms of what the event was about (there was no particular bonus for individual victory or scoring). The old adage, "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" comes to mind. Not that I had a particularly good or bad army list, but I play infrequently and have a very error-prone game. Fine at the club on a Sunday night in amongst pints of beer, but one guy absolutely made me realise there are different planes of existence in terms of how even a game as simple as 40k can be played. To put it simply, I had my ass taken, neatly packaged and wrapped, and then FedExed back to me. As I moved my models from the dead pile and into my carry case, I actually apologised to him for not giving him more of a game!

He wasn't rude, or aggressive, but just sat quietly and made no attempt at small talk or friendly banter as he systematically took me to pieces. Hmm, I'm not quite sure what point I was trying to make here, other than I think perhaps the environment in which we play can be the most important thing. I don't have as much enjoyment in a 'chess club' style environment as I do playing with friends or at the club, and the few times I have played ultra-serious tournament 'pros' left me with a rather empty feeling afterwards.

Agreed i dont mind competitive players at all. i avoid them in general becuase i know that nether of us would have a fun game with one another. I wouldn't be much of a challenge and i don't feel like being lectured everytime i do something. thats not why i go to play. I'm not saying that all competitive players are that way but the ones in my area are. they dont understand why i play just to play. I dont care if i win. Am i trying to win when i play Yes but do i, usually no. Im there for the experense of playing a game that i spend time building and painting my models. Not to mention chating with like minded individuals.

I play for fun, but my local area appears more competitive in nature (not WAAC level, but competitive nonetheless). So I tend to adapt my lists more than I usually would.

So ... both.

When a game becomes so 'grim dark', the tonge in cheek humor, and character become obscured.
Some can only see W/L/D ratios.

Who is a fault?

The gamers for wanting to play the game to thier play style?
Or the company that pretends is games are suitable for ALL play styles to maximise sales?

A well defined rule set with provable levels of ballance IS suitable for ALL game playstyles.

Its just a shame GW plc dont think 40k gamers deserve a such 'good' rule set...

Playing an unbalanced game like 40k or Fantasy competitively is a joke. Dont get me wrong, theyre both fun, great games that I love to play and try to win at. But to play them at WAAC level is frankly slowed and in doing so youre just asking for a boring, fromage flled time as you only have a few factions to choose from.

Well, of course. 40k just wreaks of bad game design choices. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with making an optimal list using optimal tactics and strategy with the tools provided.

Fafnir wrote:Well, of course. 40k just wreaks of bad game design choices. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with making an optimal list using optimal tactics and strategy with the tools provided.

Well, maybe nothing wrong with it, pre se. Its just a weird thing to do when you can be competitive with game systems that have the balance to facilitate that kind of level of play. GW games just arent built for competitive play, in that certain armies routinely win more often than others. It just becomes a matter of checklists and tactics sort of begin to take a back seat.

I just dont understand why anyone would want to waste their time playing competitively with an unbalanced system. But hey, thats just me.

Well, once you become aware of the optimal tactics and the like, anything less becomes just throwing dice on a table, which is in itself not particularly enjoyable or interesting. You end up shortchanging both yourself and your opponent. If I just wanted to roll dice, I'd play Yahtzee.

Agreed - I can't think of a game I play where there isn't some inherent unbalance (even Chess and Checkers are unbalanced) but that hardly prevents me from playing to win the game and having fun whether I win or lose.

Why does an imbalanced game equate to me having to not play it to win? What if I always took the "weak" side, then am I allowed to play to win and bring the most aggressive and effective army I can for my unbalanced and weak codex?

Fafnir wrote:Well, once you become aware of the optimal tactics and the like, anything less becomes just throwing dice on a table, which is in itself not particularly enjoyable or interesting. You end up shortchanging both yourself and your opponent. If I just wanted to roll dice, I'd play Yahtzee.

In a proper game system tactics have very little to do with list building. Tactics should occur on the table. Maneuvering, exploitation of terrain and trap setting should be the definitive factors in the outcome of battles, dice rolling is secondary and just to add an element of unpredictability. In 40k, dice rolling based on your super built list is almost the entire game (if you play WAAC). For an example, when was the last time you had to roll a pinning check in 40k? Shooting in that game is always about killing something. In a system such as FoW, shooting at your enemy not to kill them, but to hold them in place to take a shot from something bigger, or to delay that unit from assisting another on the other side of the table is extremely important and means that any unit's shooting counts.

Thor665 wrote:
Why does an imbalanced game equate to me having to not play it to win? What if I always took the "weak" side, then am I allowed to play to win and bring the most aggressive and effective army I can for my unbalanced and weak codex?

Oh, Im not saying that by any means. I have a tonnes of fun playing 40k and I do like to win and try to when I play it. I just dont understand taking the super competitive mindset to it particularly, when you can take that same mindset to a game where it counts, where it shows real skill and difficulty.

Las wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Well, once you become aware of the optimal tactics and the like, anything less becomes just throwing dice on a table, which is in itself not particularly enjoyable or interesting. You end up shortchanging both yourself and your opponent. If I just wanted to roll dice, I'd play Yahtzee.

In a proper game system tactics have very little to do with list building. Tactics should occur on the table. Maneuvering, exploitation of terrain and trap setting should be the definitive factors in the outcome of battles, dice rolling is secondary and just to add an element of unpredictability. In 40k, dice rolling based on your super built list is almost the entire game (if you play WAAC). For an example, when was the last time you had to roll a pinning check in 40k? Shooting in that game is always about killing something. In a system such as FoW, shooting at your enemy not to kill them, but to hold them in place to take a shot from something bigger, or to delay that unit from assisting another on the other side of the table is extremely important and means that any unit's shooting counts.

I never said 40k was a deep game. I'm just saying that even with its shallow breadth, there's still some value to be had actually playing the game, as opposed to just throwing around some dice.
Mind you, I would rather play some more tactically/strategically deep games (I'm looking at you, Infinity!), but no one in my current gaming group has any interest of expanding beyond the GW koolaid.

40K is fun for three main reasons:

1) It's a *flow activity* (See Csikszentmihalyi et al). That is, at its best, it can be immersive, a passtime that lets you forget all else other than the game, as you play a good close game where your ability closely matches the challenge. Even in a game that is less close, you can still find flow -- annihilate your opponent in the most efficient manner, or try to do as much damage as possible before you are taken down, or (better) try to finagle out a win using sneaky tactics and headology (see Pratchett et al).

2) It has a strong community built around it, further strengthened by fluff, "the hobby", getting together to build terrain, conversions, painting, etc. etc. etc. This makes playing an inherently social activity, one with a low price of failure (i.e. it's fine to lose a game because you stay friends, because sportsmanship is paramount, and because there are other enjoyable factors other than the purely extrinsic reward of winning).

3) Again relating to the fluff, *and* to the design of the game rules, there is a tendency for stories to emerge directly from play. Stories of heroic last stands, valiant and well-intentioned but dreadful blunders, horrific massacres, desperate heroism, and sheer blind luck.

You can find any one or two of the above more enjoyable than the others -- that's a personal taste thing -- but given that you *can* have fun from all three, without reducing the fun you can get by doing so, why not do all three?

WOW. just F'ing WOW.

"im not WAAC!"
"Well i am"
"Well your stupid"
"Well YOUR stupid"

its a game.

ITS.
A.
GAME.

yeah, we casual players may not be WAAC, You WAAC players may not give two @$#%%# about the fluff and making sure your other opponent gets much enjoyment out of the match.

we all play for different reasons.

To me, the definition of WAAC is someone that puts the need to win above the social aspect of the game. This is what i dont understand. I have seen WAAC players with terrible lists, and i have seen non-competitive or casual players with competitive lists.

its all in how you play it. Its all in how you view the experience for the other player.

A fun game, for me, is a close game, fighting tooth and nail to get that last objective and keeping my opponent off of it. I like to talk about the game, and discuss the models, and generally RELAXE when i play a game of 40k. WAAC players typically don't see the world from that lens.

One of my closest friends is WAAC. He doesn't care about the social interaction in the game. he doesn't want to chat. He doesn't care about paint jobs, has little patience for anything that is sprung on him, and will rules lawyer the the devil himself if he has too. He will admit to it too. I know, i am the same way when i play magic the gathering.

there is nothing WRONG with this.

until you run out of opponents.

keep in mind, my friend will openly tell you the only fun he is interested in is winning. because winning is fun.

problem is, there are a lot more casual players in my area than there are hard corps tournament level players. He has to be careful, because whether or not you WAAC players want to admit it, it is a social game.

you see, i can get away with being WAAC in magic the gathering. there is a tournament every week. i can go play in an environment where my opponents dont have much of a choice to play me, or they loose the match from concession.

in warhammer, you have to be careful. Because no one likes to get tabled. no one likes to get leaf blown off the field, no one likes to play against 4 different grey knights lists in one weekend, all of which are the most current form of baddest that was cooked up by someone who won a tournament with it. the reason why its different between magic and warhammer is because there is no time investment in magic the gather other than practice and opening packs. in warhammer, there is the game, there is also the modeling, and table, and set up, and a lot of other things that mean people don't want to spend 2 hours setting up for a game that's over in 10 min.

WE.
ALL.
PLAY.
FOR.
DIFFERENT.
REASONS.

i would tell you WAAC folks to relaxe, but if you dont feel like your winning this argument, you will just fight back harder.

WAAC has it's place. Although even in tournaments it pays to be sociable. I myself prefer playing fluffy, character driven lists.

It can also be good getting hammered by a 'list of ultimate doom'. Every game of 40k is a learning process, and the best way to learn any game is to get thrown into the deep end. If you have just started playing it pays in the long run to play against grizzled tournament vets, as you will learn so much more than playing against fellow noobs.

At the end of the day though, as was stated above in sone detail, it's a personal choice.

Sidstyler wrote:

Flashman wrote:Oh and those armies should look like armies, not a collection of wizard lords and monsters, but ranks and ranks of infantry... with the odd bit of insanity to add some character.

It's a Fantasy game, if you didn't want to play with wizards and monsters then why did you buy the game? Aren't there historical games that would better suit your tastes?

There's Fantasy and then there's "OMG, the Old World has turned into the Realm of Chaos, Wizards are more common than peasants and everyone has a Manticore chained up in their garden shed."

There's a line in The Incredibles which neatly sums up my view on this. "When everyone is super, no one will be." i.e. The more magic and monsters you get in the game, the less special they become. It's like Warhammer has turned into a Micheal Bay blockbuster.

So yes, I do like Fantasy. I just like my toned down approach compared with the OTT stuff they are feeding us in 8th.

Flashman wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Flashman wrote:Oh and those armies should look like armies, not a collection of wizard lords and monsters, but ranks and ranks of infantry... with the odd bit of insanity to add some character.

It's a Fantasy game, if you didn't want to play with wizards and monsters then why did you buy the game? Aren't there historical games that would better suit your tastes?

There's Fantasy and then there's "OMG, the Old World has turned into the Realm of Chaos, Wizards are more common than peasants and everyone has a Manticore chained up in their garden shed."

There's a line in The Incredibles which neatly sums up my view on this. "When everyone is super, no one will be." i.e. The more magic and monsters you get in the game, the less special they become. It's like Warhammer has turned into a Micheal Bay blockbuster.

So yes, I do like Fantasy. I just like my toned down approach compared with the OTT stuff they are feeding us in 8th.

I do kind of agree with the OTT thing. I stopped buying Dark Elf stuff after 8th hit, at first it was just because I was pissed about the rulebook being so god-damned expensive, but I hear bad things about the rules. Especially the magic phase, ugh.

Sc077y wrote:WOW. just F'ing WOW.

"im not WAAC!"
"Well i am"
"Well your stupid"
"Well YOUR stupid"

its a game.

ITS.
A.
GAME.

yeah, we casual players may not be WAAC, You WAAC players may not give two @$#%%# about the fluff and making sure your other opponent gets much enjoyment out of the match.

we all play for different reasons.

To me, the definition of WAAC is someone that puts the need to win above the social aspect of the game. This is what i dont understand. I have seen WAAC players with terrible lists, and i have seen non-competitive or casual players with competitive lists.

its all in how you play it. Its all in how you view the experience for the other player.

A fun game, for me, is a close game, fighting tooth and nail to get that last objective and keeping my opponent off of it. I like to talk about the game, and discuss the models, and generally RELAXE when i play a game of 40k. WAAC players typically don't see the world from that lens.

One of my closest friends is WAAC. He doesn't care about the social interaction in the game. he doesn't want to chat. He doesn't care about paint jobs, has little patience for anything that is sprung on him, and will rules lawyer the the devil himself if he has too. He will admit to it too. I know, i am the same way when i play magic the gathering.

there is nothing WRONG with this.

until you run out of opponents.

keep in mind, my friend will openly tell you the only fun he is interested in is winning. because winning is fun.

problem is, there are a lot more casual players in my area than there are hard corps tournament level players. He has to be careful, because whether or not you WAAC players want to admit it, it is a social game.

you see, i can get away with being WAAC in magic the gathering. there is a tournament every week. i can go play in an environment where my opponents dont have much of a choice to play me, or they loose the match from concession.

in warhammer, you have to be careful. Because no one likes to get tabled. no one likes to get leaf blown off the field, no one likes to play against 4 different grey knights lists in one weekend, all of which are the most current form of baddest that was cooked up by someone who won a tournament with it. the reason why its different between magic and warhammer is because there is no time investment in magic the gather other than practice and opening packs. in warhammer, there is the game, there is also the modeling, and table, and set up, and a lot of other things that mean people don't want to spend 2 hours setting up for a game that's over in 10 min.

WE.
ALL.
PLAY.
FOR.
DIFFERENT.
REASONS.

i would tell you WAAC folks to relaxe, but if you dont feel like your winning this argument, you will just fight back harder.

(I will warn readers this is a long post as I have a great deal to say. )

I agree with you ( sc077y) whole heartedly, at the end of the day it is a game, some people will get different enjoyment out of different things, I myself love to optimize any game I am in be it MTG 40k DnD Shadowrun, you name it I will powergame it. I know some people see this as awful, why? That is the way it is FUN for ME, if it is not fun for you to do this then that is great.

With the frequency that this argument pops up, and the preverbal fence that people put themselves on, you would think we would have clear definitions of what "WAAC" and "fluffy" are. If I asked everyone on dakka what defines a WAAC play I would get several if not all different responses. If I asked what made a list "fluffy" I would also get a wide variety of responses. The fact is there is no clear definition of either. Some will claim that WAAC is this or that and vice versa for fluffy players.

All people will play this game to have fun, be it either painting, modeling ( despite what sc077y says I can appreciate a good paint job ) some enjoy playing it more. Take my self for example. It is true that I will play unpainted armies as I work on them as I enjoy playing, it is some of the only social interaction that I get outside of work ( My wife and I only have one car atm and she works nights and I work days) So I love going to my FLGS and playing a game or two before I go home to work on my minis, I am a new painter and it takes me an incredibly long time to do it, to where it will be at least an acceptable standard, I enjoy winning, I actively try to win I will admit that, I don't believe that is wrong. I will not do something in game for shock or hilarity factor, ( although I can appreciate a good laugh) everything I do will be for the sole purpose of winning the game. ( Of course I will not break rules to do this, as cheating is NOT something I will do.) I would expect the same of my opponent, I would be slightly disappointed if someone "threw" a game for me as that would have rendered the entire thing pointless, and a waste of his/hers time and my own.

Now 40k is a social game, and I believe that even if you bring your best list to the table ( purifier dread spam for example) you and your opponent are perfectly capable of having a great time, now there will be some mismatches, however that is BOTH players faults if it was a prearranged game as there was a break down of the social contract that we all enter into when we play. I will always offer my army list ( army builder) to my opponent before, during and after game. I play with usually the same opponent every week we we both know the caliber of list we are bringing and we laugh and have a good time. Now if it is a pick up game, this is mitigated as I did not plan to play you, I will almost always play someone if they ask me ( I can only think of one maybe two people that I would not) and I will endeavor to win just as I do in every other game, if they are looking like they will be tabled I will ask if they wish to concede to save time, as well as mitigate frustration. I will ask this rather matter of factly, as it will simply save time it is efficient to do so. I would expect the exact same thing from my opponent.

Where this Gaming social contract breaks down is the the preconceived notions that everyone has about playing this or any other game ( in magic there are lots of "casual" players, that abhor tournaments and would rather play with there friends at the kitchen table, which is fine but it is just different from other peoples expectations.) are simply different from one another.

If this breaks down it will be very difficult for everyone to have a good time. I brought a really funny ork army ( I tried out a huge variety of TERRIBLE units such as Flashgits, tankbustas and storm boys in the same army) and lost horribly to ultramarines ( and I did very badly), I did not feel bad for loosing that game I had a good time as I was with my best friend, but the game itself was of little enjoyment, I and some others do not get enjoyment out of this style of play.

On the issue of netlists. The Internet has changed the way we all play games FOREVER, there is no denying this, with all of this information at our finger tips and the ability to share our information instantaneously with many different people, the optimum combinations will be found more quickly. Take GK for example. Before the codex was even released publicly the few people who got to see the black boxes reported in there information, al of the accounts were complied and lists and theories started, then when games were played with it, this information was added as such with in 1-2 days of the codex being released nearly optimum results had been found, and lists had been posted. I saw such a list, it was JY2's purifier list, and battle reports, it looked incredibly strong as such I wanted to play it, all of the hard work had been done, and it was so easy to pick it up ( the actually list not tactics as I am sure Jy2, and may others would clean my clock) it was great. I could print off the list at work then play after, with out having to agonize over the codex for hours. It along with its strengths and weaknesses were right there. That is the power of the internet, it is not a bad thing it is a great thing. Now if someone doesn't want to play a "netlist" then simply don't, but why would you deamonize ( sorry papa nurgle) those who do?


At the end of the day its a game, there are different ways to play, but we all play we all enjoy some aspect of this hobby, no one way to better or worse than the other they are simply different. There are some people that will look down on you if your list is not very competitive, conversely there are people who will look down on you if your army is not painted. There are just different types of people. Find people that YOU can play and have FUN with, but don't look down on anyone for how they play toy solders with rules.

* gets off of my soap box)

augustus5 wrote:

plastictrees wrote:This is always a pretty pointless conversation as everyone lumps themselves into the "competitive" or "just for fun" categories and then vehemently defends their side of this imaginary conflict despite no-one defining what each category means in the same way.

The reality is that most people posting in these threads would probably play against each other and have a decent game because, really, it's rare to play against someone so completely abhorrent that you can't enjoy blowing up each others toys with dice rolls to at least some degree.

^^^This^^^

But don't worry, a thread just like this will resurface once every couple of weeks, leading to the same silly arguments...

They aren't silly! It's serious business on the internet! The Space Pope declares this thread to be serious business.




OT-This discussion is just crazy because everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and tries to claim the moral high ground. I'll give everyone a hint, you are always on the low ground when you argue on the internet...

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:WAAC has it's place. Although even in tournaments it pays to be sociable. I myself prefer playing fluffy, character driven lists.

It can also be good getting hammered by a 'list of ultimate doom'. Every game of 40k is a learning process, and the best way to learn any game is to get thrown into the deep end. If you have just started playing it pays in the long run to play against grizzled tournament vets, as you will learn so much more than playing against fellow noobs.

At the end of the day though, as was stated above in sone detail, it's a personal choice.

100% wrong. WAAC has NO place. It means you are willing to cheat, bully, bribe your way to victory. THAT is WAAC. It means you're willing to tell someone you just wanna play a fun game and convince them to bring a funzies list and then you bring your tailored mega list. Win AT ALL COSTS belongs nowhere, in any game, ever.

To answer the OP: Fun. Always fun. This doesn't mean you need to bring a super fluffy list or whatever... this means obeying the social contract you set out with your opponent. You both bring tourney lists, you both bring funzies lists, you have an understanding of the type of game you want to play. With BOTH players having the same understanding then it's fun. Too often the rift is caused when a group that isn't ALL TOURNAMENT HARD LISTS ALL THE TIME has those players show up with those lists and expect to fit in. Or vice versa. Don't show up at say the BoLS gaming club with some silly list. you'll get creamed and won't fit in. It's not in the social contract of that club. You should play to the guys you are going to be around. If it's a tourney club, then play that. If it's not, then play that.

But in the end, people just need to quit using every thread to bitch about GW games not being balanced. That act is getting really stale.

Normally I like regular old friendly games, and even in a normal tournament I don't advocate extreme behavior.

If everyone knows that WAAC is the name of the game, then it can be fun. I like 'Ard Boyz for that reason. One day out of the year, we all put away the kid gloves and go all fight club on one another. I lost 'Ard Boyz because one of my opponents flat out cheated. I'm not sore about it. Not at all. Saying 'WAAC has NO place ever ever ever' just sounds to me like 'I don't like WAAC behavior because I can't play with the big boys.' When it gets to the upper tiers, I fully expect tournament players to use every dirty trick, rules redline, and underhanded exploit they can think of. If I lose to them, it's because I wasn't trying hard enough.

As far as cheating goes, the former governor of Minnesota once said "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat."

I've learned to do both. I was a big themed army fan. My example is that I've got a bunch of Dark Angels PA marines painted up with about 6-7 vehicles. So I like playing out of the DA codex, but as we know the DA codex is kinda gak if you're playing regular marine armies and not Deathwing or Ravenwing. So I started playing out of the vanilla codex and was having a good time with it and a friend suggested after a game I try using Forgefather. So next game I eeked a win. I had a good time, I was fairly competative, and I was inspired to kitbash a new HQ model.

@ walls, did you miss the part where I said 'even in tournaments it pays to be sociable'? Bullying your way through a game is plain wrong. As is cheating. But maximising your list so it does massive damage to the opponent? That's playing by the rules. What you described is TFG, not the way I see WAAC....

I have the most and least fun in competitive environments. It all depends on how well I do and why I lose when I do. If I lose because I made a mistake, or played badly then that's ok. If it's bad dice rolls then I can get through it. If I lose because vanilla space marines can't compete in a high level competitive environment against leaf blowers or draigowing then I tend to get aggravated. The bones of this game aren't built for good competition and that aggravates me at times.

So, I probably was a little too harsh on jacetms. He does advocate painting and definitely appreciates a good paint job. He also will play fluffy games and if anything I have been overly sensitive twoards WAAC play.

It's good that the social contract was pointed out. I think understanding the expectations is a key point of the game and having fun with it.

I just wanted to publicly redact my statement about my closest friend not caring - after all, I was the ultramarines player he spoke about and it was obvious he didn't have a good time with the game.

Sc077y wrote:So, I probably was a little too harsh on jacetms. He does advocate painting and definitely appreciates a good paint job. He also will play fluffy games and if anything I have been overly sensitive twoards WAAC play.

It's good that the social contract was pointed out. I think understanding the expectations is a key point of the game and having fun with it.

I just wanted to publicly redact my statement about my closest friend not caring - after all, I was the ultramarines player he spoke about and it was obvious he didn't have a good time with the game.

No need to recant, I have said many times that I only play to win, and that winning is fun, I did have a good time as I played with one of my friends * brofist* ( an ork and an ultra marine can brofist right, I mean if blood angels and necrons can. ) and while I can appricate a good paint job, I will rush to get it done so my army will be "done", I am trying to take my time with the GK then I get a sisters army with 120+ models and 10 tanks

I don't care if the guy across from me is a WAAC or Fluff player.

His stuff better be 100% painted or I get +1 to all of my rolls. ALL OF THEM!

So make you take lots and lots of leadership tests got it

40k is heavily unbalanced. Playing only the toughest lists is unfair to most players since most players dont own the uber broke new codex.

I play every game to win, but i will moderate my list so that i am not always taking the roughest toughest stuff. I would like to think that my tactics had more to do with the win than my dex did.

In my games i usually like to scale the level of the list to my foe. i know my freinds and the lists that they like to play and i try to build lists that will make for a close game. Winning by sheer brute force gets boring.

When I first started, I was a tourni player. Super competitive with no regard for flavor or fluff. I must say that I still run competitive lists , however the fluff of the list and fun is more important.

Net lists dont impress me, and my skill level at this stage gives me fair odds against them. Whether I beat the net list or not, Fun is most important.

My last tourni appearance I took 3rd overall and players choice mostly due to the love I put into my Worldeaters.

Im not a paint snob, but its always awesome to see two painted armies on the board. Even if some of the stuff is still WIP.