Why do people frown upon "Playing to Win"?

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.

**djphranq**

I have no problem with people 'playing to win' in fact I encourage it. Just don't be a cry baby if you don't actually win haha. I mostly 'play to win' on tourny or campaign games. For casual games I mostly play to get down mechanics or tactics for specific situations so my focus isn't so much to win overall.

**FearPeteySodes**

Relic_OMO wrote:
I obviously don't know you personally, nor do I really want to get into an argument. After all, there is no point to arguing on the internet. However, I will throw this out, just in case you haven't heard it before, and in case you take some parts of it to heart.

Looking at your posts, it seems that your main issue is that those in your local environment don't really like playing you, and you think it's because you play to win, and they don't. You take pride in the competition, and in doing your best, and they don't. And somewhere in that clash of goals is the problem. It may indeed be part of it. However, to be honest, it's far more likely that you might just be a jerk.

I say that based on nothing more than reading the above quotes and many years of gaming and knowing all sorts of gamers, and having seen all kinds. Yes, sometimes there are genuine philosophical differences and/or personality clashes. But generally, if someone is having the sort of issues you describe, it's just because they're a dick.

Believe me, I don't think worse of you. You're 17. That's how 17 year old males are. Rest assured that I was a far bigger arsehole than you at 17, I guarantee it. Furthermore, we're all gamers. The vast majority of gamers are not extremely skilled at social graces - that's why they're gamers. The combination of competitive juices and people with poor social skills produces a very high douchebag quotient - combine that with being a teenage male, add a pinch of testosterone and bake in the internet, and you have a recipe for complete disaster.

This issue of playing 'competitively' vs playing 'for fun' is almost always not really the issue. I've seen gamers in miniature games and other kinds of game, eg. RTS, board games, whatever, who bring nothing but an A game every time and completely destroy everyone, but who are a joy to play with and against, and everybody desperately wants to play them, even if they're going to lose, because they're gracious, fun, and make it a great experience. That's hard to do, but it's something to aspire to. Conversely, if someone is a douchebag, it doesn't really matter if they're playing for fun or to win; however, everyone hates losing a game to a douchebag, even if it's 'just a game'. So it's not about the clash of 'competitive' vs 'playing for fun', it's simply about social graces. If you're genuinely interested in the other guy as a person, rather than a hapless sucker to be dominated to glorify your ego and show off your mad skillz, he will like you whether you play to win or not.

My advice to you is to look carefully at someone who is well liked, and try to emulate them. Tip: it usually starts with a heavy dose of humility. And note that there is a big difference between someone who is well liked, and someone who you personally like. A lot of teenage males make this mistake - they try to emulate the BMOC, because he's the big dog, leader of the pack, and he's the biggest badass around. This is true especially on the internet, where the biggest internet bully who talks himself up the most is worshipped by everyone, not just teenage males. That's not the person to emulate, though. That guy is a dick, guaranteed. The guy who always seems to be getting into a lot of arguments, or who a lot of people don't like 'because they envy him/don't like that he wins all the time/have sour grapes', is not an awesome guy who is just misunderstood. He's just a dick.

I hope that makes sense.

Well said Relic, this was my conclusion to this as well and you put it very respectfully.

**tiekwando**

Hmm have not read every rant but thought I would throw my 2 cents in. I usually have 2 or 3 lists ready to go at almost every game. I ask my opponent if he is playing fluffy, normal or I WILL CRUSH YOU LISTS! And I usually respond in turn. For instance I play fantasy with High Elves. I have my dual archmage list, my slightly better list, and then finally if someone wants I will bring teclis.

For 40k i have necrons and daemons, so most people tend not to care what I bring

**Ascalam**

Until you bring a ringwraith smackdown (9 wraiths plus Nightbringer) then they whine

I love hearing someone say during setup (usually to their friend next table over)

'This guy's playing Necrons. I'll come watch your game inna sec, once he's beaten..'

That list is beatable too, but it's a lot of fun to run, and most opponents seem to forget that Necrons still have a couple of teeth left, even if thay are pullable if you know what you're doing...

**zeekill**

SgtSixkilla wrote:

zeekill wrote:

People who powergame have no sportsmanship

Excuse me? Like any other person, I say "Good Game" and shake my opponent's hand at the end of the game. I never gloat, I try to joke or make small talk during slow parts of a game, and I allow my opponents quiet during close parts of the game when they need to think.

How this argument pans out
1) I get called out and the person says everything from "you play to win, not for fun" to "you're a powergamer" to "you have no sportsmanship"
2) I counterargue everything seen above in my counterargument section, starting for the "I do play for fun" and then ending with "Sportsmanship."
3) He says "there is more to sportsmanship then that."
4) I ask "What?" and restate what I do for sportsmanship.
5) At this point (I think because he has run out of ideas) he says that I am too young to understand (I'm 17, so I doubt that I wouldn't know basic sportsmanship) and that I'll probably learn by the time I'm his age (mid 20's).
6) All I have to say to this is WTF are you talking about.

There IS more to sportsmanship than this. It's a lot to do with trying to ensure a fair game, and not one that only benefits you.

I can well understand those who say you're too young to understand. I know I gained a ton of insight into my own behavior in my late teens early twenties. And my 6 year old niece sometimes thinks that the knowledge she has is all there is to have, no doubt you do the same. It does sound like you have a hard time accepting that you could be wrong. It also sounds like you are nearly violently argumentative, which makes it even less fun.

"There IS more to sportsmanship than this"
Such as?
I abide by the common "sportsmanship protocols" (for lack of a better term.) Unless you give an example of something else, just saying "yes I agree with them you are too young" says nothing. Why should I ensure a fair game? We are playing a flawed system, there is NO SUCH THING as a fair game. EVERY army has a hard or at least semi-hard counter. This is only balanced by superior play and dice rolling luck. The objective of the game is to win. I try to win. I do not gloat, I do not rage when dice rolls screw me, I do not act like a sore loser when I do lose.

SgtSixkilla wrote:
Well. There's a LOT of rules interpretation going on in WH40K for example, and if your interpretation is different to someone else's, what guarantee do you have that your's is the correct one, and not just the one that benefit you the most. Who made you the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules?

I have a mate who refuses to accept anyone else's interpretation of the rules, so since I'm not bothered enough to join an argument, he always gets all the benefits. I can promise that it's no fun playing with such people.

Personally, I don't see why making an optimal list should be negative, as long as it's not made by exploiting the BRB or codex. That's just good strategy. Also as long as you don't mod your models to give you an advantage, like crawling marines and stuff.

It's your "rule calling" as you call it, or "rule bending" as others would call it, which would have made me not want to play you twice. Nothing is worse than people who constantly try to bend (read: interpret) the rules in their favor and who won't accept they're wrong.

Anyway, like I said, if it had just been your list people complained about, I'd have understood your argument perfectly. But when you explain all the other things you do which people react negatively to, I gotta say I understand your opponents more and more.

Well, firstly, I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.

Rules BENDING would be something like Going to Ground and laying your model down, then saying "because I get to lay my model down you can no longer draw LoS, therefore you cannot shoot at me." This is obviously bending the rules - a FALSE RULE someone may use against a less experienced player who does not know any better.

Rules CALLING is calling a 100% fair and legal RULE (or combination of rules) written in the rulebook. I will once again use the skimmer example.

Rules
1a) Moving Flat Out means that you cannot disembark that turn.
1b) Moving Flat Out means all Immobilized results turn into wrecked results
2) Failing a Dangerous Terrain Test on a vehicle immobilizes it.
3a) If a vehicle is wrecked, the unit in transport must immediately disembark.
3b) When a vehicle is wrecked, any models that cannot disembark are destroyed.

Result = My Call
1) You moved flat out into difficult terrain and must take a Dangerous Terrain Test. You fail it.
2) Because of rule 2, your vehicle is now immobilized
3) Because of rule 1b, your vehicle is now wrecked.
4) Because of rule 3a, the unit MUST disembark
5) Because of rule 1a, the unit CANNOT disembark
6) Therefore because of rule 3b, your entire unit is destroyed.

There. 100% Legal. No Rules Bending.

Relic_OMO wrote:
zeekill wrote:
Before starting I would like to say that I am argumentative and that anyone that dislikes argument may not want to post here, just for the sakes of other's sanity and civility.

Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.

What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun
How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp.

Actually now might be a good time to introduce one of my friend's favorite quotes:

If you are not playing a board game with the intent to lose all of your friends, you arn't playing it right.

The one made by the people that are against my way of playing in my LGS. I thought that was obvious.

...
...

I find it almost insulting that you remove the parts of my quotes that make them less harsh.

After the "bloody pulp" quote I go on to correct myself, saying "you know, on turn 4, rather than turn 1." Showing that I don't want to steamroll, but to win tactically over a well played game.

After presenting my friend's quote I go on to say that it is not entirely true. The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents. There is no way to win in 40k without forcing your opponent to take a single casualty (unless that is some kind of scenario with specific win conditions).

Don't twist what people say by removing part of what they say. Only desperate news reporters do that to form fake celebrity relationships. As most should know, taking things out of context often results in poor interpretations of what was being said. Don't do it.

**Scott-S6**

All the codexes can build strong lists - some just offer more variety than others.

If you chose to handicap yourself then your opponent isn't obligated to do the same.

Incidentally, you can build a fluffy army consisting of all nice models that's also a strong list - it's just a lot harder.

**ivangterrace**

liquidjoshi wrote:Fun units/ lists = fun. Optimised list = boring = not fun.

Generally, the only way to counter optimised lists is with
your own optimised list. Which is a bummer for, say, 'Crons.

There we go, another person trying to define fun for everyone else. Really, I cannot make up my own mind?

**Relic_OMO**

zeekill wrote: The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents.

I'm not twisting your words at all. The quotes are the parts that demonstrate my assessment, and the 'modifiers' you think make all the difference actually don't.. The point is that you think that the above sentence is the issue people have with you, but it isn't really. Rather, it isn't the fact that you're competitive and skilled that annoys them, but the fact that you're probably, well, kind of a tool.

Maybe that doesn't bother you. It didn't bother me when I was 17. That's okay. It probably will someday. And you may well figure out how to change your attitude on your own. I hope so. I just wanted to make sure you'd heard it somewhere.

**Sam__theRelentless**

You having fun wargaming should be defined by your friends, who should be like-minded. If you play "friendly yet competitive", you will obviously have the most fun playing against people who have exactly the same mindset as you. Fun is defined by YOUR/ONE'S gaming environment, and not always by yourself.

The only exceptions I can think of to this are true-jerk WAAC players. These poor depraved souls have fun sucking others dry

pity them

**CageUF**

FearPeteySodes wrote:
Relic_OMO wrote:
I obviously don't know you personally, nor do I really want to get into an argument. After all, there is no point to arguing on the internet. However, I will throw this out, just in case you haven't heard it before, and in case you take some parts of it to heart.

Looking at your posts, it seems that your main issue is that those in your local environment don't really like playing you, and you think it's because you play to win, and they don't. You take pride in the competition, and in doing your best, and they don't. And somewhere in that clash of goals is the problem. It may indeed be part of it. However, to be honest, it's far more likely that you might just be a jerk.

I say that based on nothing more than reading the above quotes and many years of gaming and knowing all sorts of gamers, and having seen all kinds. Yes, sometimes there are genuine philosophical differences and/or personality clashes. But generally, if someone is having the sort of issues you describe, it's just because they're a dick.

Believe me, I don't think worse of you. You're 17. That's how 17 year old males are. Rest assured that I was a far bigger arsehole than you at 17, I guarantee it. Furthermore, we're all gamers. The vast majority of gamers are not extremely skilled at social graces - that's why they're gamers. The combination of competitive juices and people with poor social skills produces a very high douchebag quotient - combine that with being a teenage male, add a pinch of testosterone and bake in the internet, and you have a recipe for complete disaster.

This issue of playing 'competitively' vs playing 'for fun' is almost always not really the issue. I've seen gamers in miniature games and other kinds of game, eg. RTS, board games, whatever, who bring nothing but an A game every time and completely destroy everyone, but who are a joy to play with and against, and everybody desperately wants to play them, even if they're going to lose, because they're gracious, fun, and make it a great experience. That's hard to do, but it's something to aspire to. Conversely, if someone is a douchebag, it doesn't really matter if they're playing for fun or to win; however, everyone hates losing a game to a douchebag, even if it's 'just a game'. So it's not about the clash of 'competitive' vs 'playing for fun', it's simply about social graces. If you're genuinely interested in the other guy as a person, rather than a hapless sucker to be dominated to glorify your ego and show off your mad skillz, he will like you whether you play to win or not.

My advice to you is to look carefully at someone who is well liked, and try to emulate them. Tip: it usually starts with a heavy dose of humility. And note that there is a big difference between someone who is well liked, and someone who you personally like. A lot of teenage males make this mistake - they try to emulate the BMOC, because he's the big dog, leader of the pack, and he's the biggest badass around. This is true especially on the internet, where the biggest internet bully who talks himself up the most is worshipped by everyone, not just teenage males. That's not the person to emulate, though. That guy is a dick, guaranteed. The guy who always seems to be getting into a lot of arguments, or who a lot of people don't like 'because they envy him/don't like that he wins all the time/have sour grapes', is not an awesome guy who is just misunderstood. He's just a dick.

I hope that makes sense.

Well said Relic, this was my conclusion to this as well and you put it very respectfully.

After re-reading everything... +1.

Your tone alone implies as much.

**zeekill**

Relic_OMO wrote:
zeekill wrote: The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents.

I'm not twisting your words at all. The quotes are the parts that demonstrate my assessment, and the 'modifiers' you think make all the difference actually don't.. The point is that you think that the above sentence is the issue people have with you, but it isn't really. Rather, it isn't the fact that you're competitive and skilled that annoys them, but the fact that you're probably, well, kind of a tool.

Maybe that doesn't bother you. It didn't bother me when I was 17. That's okay. It probably will someday. And you may well figure out how to change your attitude on your own. I hope so. I just wanted to make sure you'd heard it somewhere.

How am I being a tool? Care to elaborate?

**UNCLEBADTOUCH**

zeekil wrote:I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.

This made me laugh so much, having ran tournaments as a judge and attended them I know exactly the type of player you are.

Your a rules bully.

Not one person in this hobby is 99.9% correct about the rules, this is because you are applying an arbitrary set of rules to abstract situations, this calls for interpretation of said rules and where there is interpretation any any rule there is inconsistency.

Ask the best lawyer you can find how often he is right in the interpretation of the law when it is applied to scrutiny (ie in court) you will be lucky to find one who can honestly say over 50/50.

I have dealt with players Like this at tournaments before, they call a judge over, they say the rule is definately X and they are right. Do you know how I deal with them, they get there first warning, when you call for a judgement you present the facts truthfully and how you believe the rules interpret this. You do not assume "im 99.9% right and therefore tell this noob to do it my way".

This is first class donkey-cave behaviour, luckily in tournaments a good judge can knock it on the head.

However in your case you obviously take this attitude to your local gaming club, and wether consciously or subconsciously, you bully your opponent with this attitude. So how does it feel to be a bully? Does it make you feel good to win that way? Are you proud of yourself? Do you still wonder why you are unpopular on your gaming scene?

Time to take a long hard look in the mirror, the fault lies in you, not others.

**zeekill**

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
zeekil wrote:I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.

This made me laugh so much, having ran tournaments as a judge and attended them I know exactly the type of player you are.

Your a rules bully.

Not one person in this hobby is 99.9% correct about the rules, this is because you are applying an arbitrary set of rules to abstract situations, this calls for interpretation of said rules and where there is interpretation any any rule there is inconsistency.

Ask the best lawyer you can find how often he is right in the interpretation of the law when it is applied to scrutiny (ie in court) you will be lucky to find one who can honestly say over 50/50.

I have dealt with players Like this at tournaments before, they call a judge over, they say the rule is definately X and they are right. Do you know how I deal with them, they get there first warning, when you call for a judgement you present the facts truthfully and how you believe the rules interpret this. You do not assume "im 99.9% right and therefore tell this noob to do it my way".

This is first class donkey-cave behaviour, luckily in tournaments a good judge can knock it on the head.

However in your case you obviously take this attitude to your local gaming club, and wether consciously or subconsciously, you bully your opponent with this attitude. So how does it feel to be a bully? Does it make you feel good to win that way? Are you proud of yourself? Do you still wonder why you are unpopular on your gaming scene?

Time to take a long hard look in the mirror, the fault lies in you, not others.

First of all, you can't compare several hundred years of law, built on top of itself over and over and spanning many hundred thousand pages to a 112 page rulebook about toy soldiers.

Second of all, I don't rules bully, how can one rules BULLY? Its the rules. I know the rules, I've memorized all but the most obscure ones that almost never come up. Unless someone bends the rules so that they are false, there is no way to rules bully.

Am I a bully because I force people to play by the rules? What are you talking about? If a rule is so obscurely worded (and we all know there are some out there) that there are 17.5 different interpretations, then I give my interpretation, my opponent gives his, and if we can't agree then we dice it off. If a rule is correct 100% (such as, again, the skimmer rule) I call them on it. There is no way one can argue against a correctly worded/interpreted/derived rule. That would be like refusing to remove your tank from the field after it explodes by just standing there and saying "no," without any ground to support your claim.

Thirdly, from what I've gathered, you go up to people that call you over during a tourney and give them a warning when they make a rule call and are correct? Do you at least solve the problem? In any case if it is true that you freak over people making rules calls and throw out warnings that easily do your community a favor and refuse the position the next time you are asked to be a judge.

Lastly, I do not say anything along the lines of "I'm 99.9% right and therefore tell this noob to do it my way" I tell them the rule. If they don't believe me then I show it to them in the rulebook. Why I said I'm right nearly all the time now is that I want people to know that I make correct rules calls, not that I pull out incorrectly interpreted or non-exsisting rules.

**UNCLEBADTOUCH**

@zeekil. Do you understand the concept of arbitrary vs abstract? From what you yourself have said you clearly do not.

Not every single ruling is contained within in the rulebook, and just as in law, it must be tempered by application. It is impossible to point to the rulebook for every example, it does not doesn't contain an exhaustive and infinite supply of example and illustration for every example.

As for being a rules bully, it is where some one, ie you, presents there "interpretaion" of the rules in such a forceful manner that the opponent chooses not to question said "decree". This is no different to bullying a kid in school because he doesn't think the band you like "are definately the best band ever", essentially it's being a douche.

As for tournaments it is not for the participant to try to unduly influence a judge In his favour, even should that individual be correct they have acted in an unsportsmanlike manner and deserve that warning.

For instance I can be determined innocent in a court of law but still be found guilty of contempt.

You have to remember it is only your opinion that you are right 99.9% of the time, I'll give you a hint, your wrong.

Suck it up, be a man and make yourself a better person.

**zeekill**

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:@zeekil. Do you understand the concept of arbitrary vs abstract? From what you yourself have said you clearly do not.

Not every single ruling is contained within in the rulebook, and just as in law, it must be tempered by application. It is impossible to point to the rulebook for every example, it does not doesn't contain an exhaustive and infinite supply of example and illustration for every example.

As for being a rules bully, it is where some one, ie you, presents there "interpretaion" of the rules in such a forceful manner that the opponent chooses not to question said "decree". This is no different to bullying a kid in school because he doesn't think the band you like "are definately the best band ever", essentially it's being a douche.

As for tournaments it is not for the participant to try to unduly influence a judge In his favour, even should that individual be correct they have acted in an unsportsmanlike manner and deserve that warning.

For instance I can be determined innocent in a court of law but still be found guilty of contempt.

You have to remember it is only your opinion that you are right 99.9% of the time, I'll give you a hint, your wrong.

Suck it up, be a man and make yourself a better person.

Yet again, it is not all "interpretation." I understand that for several rules there is such poor wording that interpretation is the only way to do it, yes. But for most of the rules the wording is clear.

You are talking nonsence. Most of the rules are stated clearly. If I call that I am in area terrain and that I should obtain a 4+ cover save, a clearly stated rule, there can't be any other interpretation.

Perhaps an example could strieghten things out?

Also, stop acting as if rules arguments are 80% of my game. At most I ever call 2 rules in a game. Most games go smoothly without needing any.

**UNCLEBADTOUCH**

Well for starters all terrain should be discussed before the game between opponents to determine what each piece represents, the rule book does not have an illustration for every piece of terrain ever built and a ruling as to what it should count as. There's a direct example linked to a situation you yourself brought up. That is an interpretation that cannot be wholly resolved based upon what is written int he rulebook.

You are the one who introduced the notion of you being 99.9% correct on rules, no one else. Do not try to infer anyone else is using this to attack you, we are merely refuting a point you made to try and attack the points of others.

At the end of the day you can take on board the constructive advice offered by those on the boards here at dakka and improve your hobby experience. Or you can do as you are now, bury your head in the sand ignore us and continue on your path to being a social pariah.

No skin of our noses.

It's been fun but TTFN I have other business to attend to.

**zeekill**

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Well for starters all terrain should be discussed before the game between opponents to determine what each piece represents, the rule book does not have an illustration for every piece of terrain ever built and a ruling as to what it should count as. There's a direct example linked to a situation you yourself brought up. That is an interpretation that cannot be wholly resolved based upon what is written int he rulebook.

In our club everyone always makes sure terrain is decided before a game. (For the most part everything is either a hill, ruin, or area terrain)

Poor example of me "rules bullying."

How about naming how a rule that seems easy to understand can be misinterpreted or "rules bullied" with?

**FearPeteySodes**

Honestly Zeekill, what i'm reading that you may or may not be getting is that it doesn't matter if you're in the right or not.

Say if I'm at my job and i notice that one of my direct reports did something incorrectly, what they think of me isn't necessarily whether or not I'm right or not, it's how i handle the situation. If everyone hated working for me and i found out about it, wouldn't it seem ridicules if i said there was something wrong with ALL my workers?

Without being there I can't say for sure without a video feed but my suspicions like some others are that you may be a bit heavy handed or less than friendly in your dealings.

**Joetaco**

@Zeekill Yesh, all of posts read like your a very angry arguementive person. I actually had to work up a bit of nerve to bother posting; weighing whether or not advice was worth giving to someone who could likely berate me and dismiss my advice.

I'd have to say that first off you need to take a big step back and look and what your doing/ saying.

zeekil wrote:
I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.

zeekill wrote:
The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents.

zeekill wrote:
What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun
How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp.

These are all pretty antisocial/ hardcore view points. An extreme viewpoint is hard to ally with (lets compare it to hardcore lakers fans), so sure your friends really like these things about you; determination, steelyness...
people who don't like you really don't like you; power gamer, WAAC...
BUT and heres the things people who've just met you, are likely to not like these things either, even if you really are a great person to play with. You come off as being too extreme, taking a game too seriously. (like a hardcore fan at lakers game, shouting and whooping it up; they're annoying and ruin the game if your near them BUT their just hardcore fans...)

now i'm sorry that this post has been rude. I re-read it before posting it and its a bit offensive, but honestly i can't find a way to express this without being a little harsh, sorry. I hope this gives you a little perspective or rather i hope that doesn't push you away from introspection.

**Brian P**

I don't frown on it but I'm entitled to hold the opinion that certain lists are just stupid and no fun to play with or against.

**ArbeitsSchu**

"If I call that I am in area terrain and that I should obtain a 4+ cover save, a clearly stated rule, there can't be any other interpretation."

Should that not be "If I AM in..."? The way you phrase it suggests that it is in fact open to interpretation..that interpretation being whether you are in fact IN terrain or not. This may actually be what you mean, IDK..but your phrasing suggests otherwise.

**Scott-S6**

Brian P wrote:I don't frown on it but I'm entitled to hold the opinion that certain lists are just stupid and no fun to play with or against.

Can you give an example of such a list?

**Sam__theRelentless**

Haters gonna hate, but they have a point, zeekill.

However, I think the two separate issues on this thread have actually just resolved into one, basically discussing the hypocrisy of the OP.

Wow, wasn't this about why everyone hates "playing to win"?

I think, zeekill, that you've expressed some opinions that show us that you are one of the more extreme types of gamers. And while you probably have good intentions, by standards you would be, at the very least, a hard-line competitive gamer. Whereas you are insisting you aren't.

As said, you can't just ignore what everyone else is saying...

**zeekill**

Sam__theRelentless wrote:Haters gonna hate, but they have a point, zeekill.

However, I think the two separate issues on this thread have actually just resolved into one, basically discussing the hypocrisy of the OP.

Wow, wasn't this about why everyone hates "playing to win"?

I think, zeekill, that you've expressed some opinions that show us that you are one of the more extreme types of gamers. And while you probably have good intentions, by standards you would be, at the very least, a hard-line competitive gamer. Whereas you are insisting you aren't.

As said, you can't just ignore what everyone else is saying...

I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, I win about 80% of my games and tie 15%, I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that.

At the same time I am NOT a WAAC gamer. I have tried Razorwolves, Razorangels, Leafblower guard (all just proxying) and standing there rolling lascannon shots for 15 minutes, while effective, is not fun. I enjoy TACTICAL PLAY, not steamrolling. My wolves list, while competitive, features 4 razorbacks, not 11, and 1 Rune priest, not 2 or 3. I also dont minmax 6 troops of 5 man squads with a melta. I have 2 units of 9 Hunters with an attatched Fist.

I also don't rules bend. I only follow the rules strictly unless it doesn't matter to the game whatsoever, like I said when I mentioned the 1" rule.

**Relic_OMO**

zeekill wrote:

I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, I win about 80% of my games and tie 15%, I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that.

At the same time I am NOT a WAAC gamer. I have tried Razorwolves, Razorangels, Leafblower guard (all just proxying) and standing there rolling lascannon shots for 15 minutes, while effective, is not fun. I enjoy TACTICAL PLAY, not steamrolling. My wolves list, while competitive, features 4 razorbacks, not 11, and 1 Rune priest, not 2 or 3. I also dont minmax 6 troops of 5 man squads with a melta. I have 2 units of 9 Hunters with an attatched Fist.

I also don't rules bend. I only follow the rules strictly unless it doesn't matter to the game whatsoever, like I said when I mentioned the 1" rule.

So why don't people like playing with you?

**KingmanHighborn**

I think my problem with powergamers is they are often those that have been in the hobby for 10 or so years, and/or have such deep pockets they can build whatever multitude of lists suit them.

I mean little 15-16 year old Timmy (example name here, for example purposes.) gets into 40K he likes oh lets just say Space Marines for cliche sake. Now because Timmy's funds come from a 10-15 dollar a week..and that's if he is lucky allowance, there is no way in hell unless it's his birthday or christmas that he is going to Land Raiders, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, Venerable Dred kits, etc. He will however, save up, by some basic tact squads here and there, a land speeder off ebay, and build a list. So while he has over the course of time amassed a 1500 point army of infantry, with a smattering of MLs and Flamers, maybe one Captian/Chapter Master model, and maybe a tank or two at the most, he goes and plays Mr. Powergamer.

Mr. Powergamer probably in the span of 2-4 months has bought and painted 4000 points of his army, read online articles like here on dakka, and so when he builds a 1500 point list to take on Timmy he can throw down as much cheese as it takes, and optimise against his opponent. And so Mr. Powergamer will dominate the game, maybe lost a tank, and 4-5 models but Timmy's army is wiped off the table by turn 3.

Timmy didn't have fun because his years of hard work to build his list just got thrashed, so he comes away with no feelings of accomplishment, and resentment he even tried to compete. Also, he finds out his Whirlwind is really useless dispite the fact he thought it was cool, and nobody really uses one Land Speeder he has to have them grouped up to be effective otherwise thier not worth it. And his scouts aren't special, they are speed bumps.

See how a powergamer destroys the hobby and average player now?

In Tournaments and when money is involved I can understand these cheese lists, to a point, but everyday games, play to your opponent if you can. And play for fun.

**zeekill**

KingmanHighborn wrote:I think my problem with powergamers is they are often those that have been in the hobby for 10 or so years, and/or have such deep pockets they can build whatever multitude of lists suit them.

I mean little 15-16 year old Timmy (example name here, for example purposes.) gets into 40K he likes oh lets just say Space Marines for cliche sake. Now because Timmy's funds come from a 10-15 dollar a week..and that's if he is lucky allowance, there is no way in hell unless it's his birthday or christmas that he is going to Land Raiders, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, Venerable Dred kits, etc. He will however, save up, by some basic tact squads here and there, a land speeder off ebay, and build a list. So while he has over the course of time amassed a 1500 point army of infantry, with a smattering of MLs and Flamers, maybe one Captian/Chapter Master model, and maybe a tank or two at the most, he goes and plays Mr. Powergamer.

Mr. Powergamer probably in the span of 2-4 months has bought and painted 4000 points of his army, read online articles like here on dakka, and so when he builds a 1500 point list to take on Timmy he can throw down as much cheese as it takes, and optimise against his opponent. And so Mr. Powergamer will dominate the game, maybe lost a tank, and 4-5 models but Timmy's army is wiped off the table by turn 3.

Timmy didn't have fun because his years of hard work to build his list just got thrashed, so he comes away with no feelings of accomplishment, and resentment he even tried to compete. Also, he finds out his Whirlwind is really useless dispite the fact he thought it was cool, and nobody really uses one Land Speeder he has to have them grouped up to be effective otherwise thier not worth it. And his scouts aren't special, they are speed bumps.

See how a powergamer destroys the hobby and average player now?

In Tournaments and when money is involved I can understand these cheese lists, to a point, but everyday games, play to your opponent if you can. And play for fun.

This isn't powergaming, this is just picking on the noob kid. If someone does this, have people that are more experienced play him and thrash him, put him in his place.

Furthermore, what you described is called list tailoring. List tailoring is not powergaming, it is (IMO) the greatest expression of the weakness of one's gaming skill that can ever be done. List tailoring shows that in order for someone to win they need every aspect of their army pointed at specifically killing his opponent's army, and he can't learn to multitask with his units. By far the most pathetic thing one can do (unless of course its a theme of an event).

For all others I'd like to say now that I'd rather the topic not drift to list tailoring, I just wanted to say that list tailoring and powergaming is not the same.

**SgtSixkilla**

zeekill wrote:
I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, I win about 80% of my games and tie 15%, I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that.

That statement is actually two different issues.
"I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, "
This is why people don't like playing with you.

" I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that."
This is probably not.

zeekill wrote:
At the same time I am NOT a WAAC gamer. I have tried Razorwolves, Razorangels, Leafblower guard (all just proxying) and standing there rolling lascannon shots for 15 minutes, while effective, is not fun. I enjoy TACTICAL PLAY, not steamrolling. My wolves list, while competitive, features 4 razorbacks, not 11, and 1 Rune priest, not 2 or 3. I also dont minmax 6 troops of 5 man squads with a melta. I have 2 units of 9 Hunters with an attatched Fist.

Again probably not why people don't like to play against you.

zeekill wrote:
I also don't rules bend. I only follow the rules strictly unless it doesn't matter to the game whatsoever, like I said when I mentioned the 1" rule.

You keep saying you know you have the rules down correct all the time. Reality is that you think you have the rules down correct all the time, compared to how you interpret the rules. Of course you do, when that's your standard. While there are some rules (most) which are clearly defined and easy to understand, there are rules which calls for interpretation on the spot where you can't sit there reading the BRB and get the rule down correctly. It's not that kind of rule. And then there are the rules which are just poorly defined, which also calls for interpretation, because it's so hard to understand what they mean. And in these cases, you might not have interpreted it correctly. You only think you have. Others might have, you just don't think they have.

Like someone said before me, once you learn some humility, people will enjoy playing against you more. Which was not intended to insult, just some friendly advice. Which I'm sure is more than you are willing to provide the people you play against. Like I said in my first post; you sound violently argumentative.

**KingmanHighborn**

zeekill wrote:This isn't powergaming, this is just picking on the noob kid. If someone does this, have people that are more experienced play him and thrash him, put him in his place.

Furthermore, what you described is called list tailoring. List tailoring is not powergaming, it is (IMO) the greatest expression of the weakness of one's gaming skill that can ever be done. List tailoring shows that in order for someone to win they need every aspect of their army pointed at specifically killing his opponent's army, and he can't learn to multitask with his units. By far the most pathetic thing one can do (unless of course its a theme of an event).

For all others I'd like to say now that I'd rather the topic not drift to list tailoring, I just wanted to say that list tailoring and powergaming is not the same.

It's not 'just' picking on the noob kid. It's the fact that if you look at every powergaming list, even here on dakka it shows, it takes thousands of dollars to build a competitive list, especially mech/air cav, tanks heavy armies. You can't powergame on the cheap. List tailoring is just part of the arguement as they can afford to buy things and find out they don't work, other people buy units that don't hold up, are stuck with them, in thier lists. Also if a powergamer is beat by another gamer, he just goes and gets something else, to out game the other guy.

**Anvildude**

Look at me for example. I play Orks. I play them for the fluff, for the aesthetic, and because I'm cheap. I have enough models and units for up to a 2000-2250 regular game, or a small-ish Apocalypse game. But because I didn't want to spend $5,000 dollars on hordes of Ork boyz (and I don't much like Horde lists in general- I'm okay with a model getting removed, less so with fifteen at a time) my list relies heavily on Walkers, Battlewagons, and special units like Meganobz and Tankbustas- high cost units that may or may not be useful.

Would I love to win more games? Hell yeah! Would I love to win more games because I switched to a Kan Wall or Green Tide? Hell No! I want to play my orks, my way, on my budget. And I'd like to know that, if I spent the next few years doing nothing but finishing up my models, customizing them all, painting them to higher and higher standards and playing them against all comers, that I'd eventually be able to reach a consistent 50/50 win/loss ratio with them (what I consider good for a balanced list against a balanced list, depending on vagaries of chance).

I think most here would agree that the purpose of playing a game is generally to have fun. Most here would also agree that you have more fun when winning than you do when losing, most of the time. But most here should also agree that it's more fun to be winning when your opponent is also having fun than it is to be winning when your opponent is not having fun. What needs to be determined is this: is the difference in the Loser having fun/not having fun greater than the difference in Winning/Not Winning? And then you must take a look through the Veil of Ignorance, and put yourself in the Loser's shoes, and ask the same questions. Losing is not Fun. Losing while the Winner is having fun is even less fun. Losing while the Winner is not having fun is more fun than just Losing (yay schadenfreude!). However, there's a bit of a Gray area there, where both are Winning and Losing, back and forth. So for the most fun on each person's part comes when both people are winning, or at least when one is winning, then the other is winning while the new Loser's winning situation Fun hasn't worn off, then it goes back, and forth.

Thus, it is most fun, and best serves the purpose of the Game, (which I just Lost, by the way) if both sides have an equal chance of winning and losing, ergo a balanced game, which by definition precludes Powergaming, which is itself by definition playing in such a way as to minimize the chances of the opponent winning, while Maximizing the chances of yourself winning.