Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wanted to be a girl?

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

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

I play to get my little guys on the table.

Winning is a bonus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

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

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

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

But you're still trying to win.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Agamemnon2 wrote:or against a new guy, etc.

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

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

My win condition is that this is going to be fun

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

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

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

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

Playing to win isn't fun?

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

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