Switch Theme:

Why the desperate need to win?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps





United States

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In US culture people will say "I am very competitive" as if it is a positive character trait, or at least not a negative one. There is a lot that goes into the mentality and why it exists that is outside the bounds of this discussion, but at the end of the day it does. And it will infiltrate any game that US gets it's hands on, if allowed to do so.


So much of the television I watched as a child in the 90s was filled to the bring with competition and pitting groups against each other. The one show that I loved that did not always do that was Star Trek. But pretty much everything else did. Hell, I remember my uncle loved to watch the show Coach. Which was literally about a sports ball Coach.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

You're really good at missing the point. Effectively doubling the damage output of a unit, using any source, just shouldn't be a thing. There are way more things you can do with psychic powers or characters than just increase the damage output of a unit, especially if the system had more depth through things like morale or suppression or an expanded utility for actions (a mechanic that is really interesting but massively underused by GW). The problem is most buffs are relatively innocuous on their own. Then you stack them and you go from killing 2-3 guys to nearly wiping a unit. If GW would tone down the offensive buffs available in general it would be a good start to making the game a little more engaging.

The specific complaint here is about how fast units die and I can completely understand that. Previous versions of 40k had units taking 1-2 casualties from another unit's fire. Other wargames tend to operate around needing roughly 3 times the points of units to destroy a given unit and even then it's often more a case of severely damaging rather than destroying. Nothing you've said really addresses the reality the_scotsman put forward - units effectively do a thing then get removed from the board. How is that desirable? Why is it a good thing that unless I hide a unit at deployment there's pretty much a 90% chance it gets removed before it does anything?


I don't think I'm missing the point.

People are putting on rose tinted glasses and pretending that because marines didn't shoot as much that things didn't die fast. gak...this forum wasn't even alive until 2009.
No one here has any real idea how effective armies could be back in earlier editions, because no one was around to discuss it.


Hey, genius, I'm going to let you in on a secret. It'll blow your mind.
And that is.....
Spoiler:
That the internet - complete with gaming/minis-wargaming/40k forums & all the same type of useless gak debates found on modern Dakka - well & truly predates 2009.
We thoroughly discussed, debated, & argued every aspect of 2e, 3e, 4e, & then 5e in those days.
And prior to that? In the prehistoric days of on-line? We covered RT.



 Daedalus81 wrote:
People playing oldhammer are like-minded individuals that don't care to bring the best lists. If we really wanted to go back to that time now people would find the best army and break the game.


LoL.
I've been breaking this game since the days of RT. As have others. And I was late to the party (because I was busy breaking WHFB 3e). My official entry into the 41M? Was to abuse the RT rules to dominate a local tourney & deliver a friend a loss that he remembered for the rest of his life (he died last year ).

As for not bringing "the best lists"? I don't need to. I'm already 100% certain of my ability to win. But I realized a long time ago that winning? That's not actually what brings me enjoyment game-wise. So be it in 40k or otherwise, I bring forces built to my own tastes.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think it'd be quite something to prove other cultures are any less competitive. Makes for good scape goats though...


Well, board games with high levels of direct player interaction don't get refered to as "Ameritrash" because its catchy.


Ameritrash is a term coined by people who like to thumb their noses at stuff they think is beneath them....sounds British.

It was coined in 2006 by an American and has nothing to do with competitiveness of a game.


All games are competitive. Ameritrash refers to a specific kind of competitive. 2006 was 15 years ago and the board game community is much different now from then and the word is now accepted as a definition of a certain type of game (usually one with a combat phase and dice).


 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think it'd be quite something to prove other cultures are any less competitive. Makes for good scape goats though...


Well, board games with high levels of direct player interaction don't get refered to as "Ameritrash" because its catchy.


Ameritrash is a term coined by people who like to thumb their noses at stuff they think is beneath them....sounds British.

It was coined in 2006 by an American and has nothing to do with competitiveness of a game.


All games are competitive. Ameritrash refers to a specific kind of competitive. 2006 was 15 years ago and the board game community is much different now from then and the word is now accepted as a definition of a certain type of game (usually one with a combat phase and dice).


Ameritrash is usually where a game is theme over mechanics, where as a Euro game is usually mechanic over theme. Ameritrash games also tend to have player conflict, or ways that players can disrupt a rival. Euro games tend to be less about player rivalry and more to do with your actions alone determine your success, hence why in Euro games the tendency is for all players to have the same start, or as close as possible where the game permits.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 stonehorse wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think it'd be quite something to prove other cultures are any less competitive. Makes for good scape goats though...


Well, board games with high levels of direct player interaction don't get refered to as "Ameritrash" because its catchy.


Ameritrash is a term coined by people who like to thumb their noses at stuff they think is beneath them....sounds British.

It was coined in 2006 by an American and has nothing to do with competitiveness of a game.


All games are competitive. Ameritrash refers to a specific kind of competitive. 2006 was 15 years ago and the board game community is much different now from then and the word is now accepted as a definition of a certain type of game (usually one with a combat phase and dice).


Ameritrash is usually where a game is theme over mechanics, where as a Euro game is usually mechanic over theme. Ameritrash games also tend to have player conflict, or ways that players can disrupt a rival. Euro games tend to be less about player rivalry and more to do with your actions alone determine your success, hence why in Euro games the tendency is for all players to have the same start, or as close as possible where the game permits.


What are some games in the two seperate genre, we play a lot of euro games here. And only a few more American ones. I just Curious about it now, since really I don’t think I have really hear the term itself defined well.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 stonehorse wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think it'd be quite something to prove other cultures are any less competitive. Makes for good scape goats though...


Well, board games with high levels of direct player interaction don't get refered to as "Ameritrash" because its catchy.


Ameritrash is a term coined by people who like to thumb their noses at stuff they think is beneath them....sounds British.

It was coined in 2006 by an American and has nothing to do with competitiveness of a game.


All games are competitive. Ameritrash refers to a specific kind of competitive. 2006 was 15 years ago and the board game community is much different now from then and the word is now accepted as a definition of a certain type of game (usually one with a combat phase and dice).

Ameritrash games also tend to have player conflict, or ways that players can disrupt a rival.


Which was my point.


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight






If we are calling games Ameritrash we get to call European games Eurotrash, only fitting.

Also, if it is further East I can assume we can call it Slavtrash.

"Don't Feed the Troll"

ETC is the forum equivalent of a short bus. 
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 BlackoCatto wrote:
If we are calling games Ameritrash we get to call European games Eurotrash, only fitting.

Also, if it is further East I can assume we can call it Slavtrash.


Eurotrash is already a thing, as people in the uk of a certain age will know.

“Bonjour my Breeteesh chums!”



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 Grimtuff wrote:
 BlackoCatto wrote:
If we are calling games Ameritrash we get to call European games Eurotrash, only fitting.

Also, if it is further East I can assume we can call it Slavtrash.


Eurotrash is already a thing, as people in the uk of a certain age will know.

“Bonjour my Breeteesh chums!”


God I miss that show, how channel 4 got away with some of the stuff on it I'll never know.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 stonehorse wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 BlackoCatto wrote:
If we are calling games Ameritrash we get to call European games Eurotrash, only fitting.

Also, if it is further East I can assume we can call it Slavtrash.


Eurotrash is already a thing, as people in the uk of a certain age will know.

“Bonjour my Breeteesh chums!”


God I miss that show, how channel 4 got away with some of the stuff on it I'll never know.


It was a different time. I really wish they'd re-air it just to see the complaints it would get.


 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 Sim-Life wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 BlackoCatto wrote:
If we are calling games Ameritrash we get to call European games Eurotrash, only fitting.

Also, if it is further East I can assume we can call it Slavtrash.


Eurotrash is already a thing, as people in the uk of a certain age will know.

“Bonjour my Breeteesh chums!”


God I miss that show, how channel 4 got away with some of the stuff on it I'll never know.


It was a different time. I really wish they'd re-air it just to see the complaints it would get.


Even for the time it was very risky, think any repeats would cause so many complaints that it'd more than likely summon Mary Whitehouse to rise from her grave... Best keep that one in the ground.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User





To the original question: since my last win in matched play must have been 2 to 3 years ago. In 40k, switched to AoS this february and won a game in April or so. I'm not that great player and I accept that when playing once or twice a month I don't have much routine but still. It gets depressing to show up against people who really seem to appreciate someone playing fun lists. Then they proceed to smash the fun list hundred to nil. Seem to be the name of the game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





To me Ameritrash is the game where you say, "hey remember when...?".

I have tons of fun in power grid and wingspan, but absolutely none of those games produce the same memories.

Using the term negatively seems misguided.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:


LoL.
I've been breaking this game since the days of RT.


Good. Then we can stop pretending there's some holy grail of 40k and maybe recognize somewhere along the way that the game is currently far less breakable than it has ever been.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/16 22:55:00


   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Well, 'breakable.' The experience has changed, even if the mode of optimizing to win an ostensibly fair game has remained a perennial favorite.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Good. Then we can stop pretending there's some holy grail of 40k and maybe recognize somewhere along the way that the game is currently far less breakable than it has ever been.



I don't get the jump from "40k has never been perfect" to "it's currently better than it's ever been before." I'm not going to argue that there was ever a golden time when the game worked perfectly at all times, but it's at least as breakable as it's ever been right now.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Daedalus81 wrote:


Using the term negatively seems misguided.



No one did.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 09:37:05



 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Good. Then we can stop pretending there's some holy grail of 40k and maybe recognize somewhere along the way that the game is currently far less breakable than it has ever been.



I don't get the jump from "40k has never been perfect" to "it's currently better than it's ever been before." I'm not going to argue that there was ever a golden time when the game worked perfectly at all times, but it's at least as breakable as it's ever been right now.


I suspect it's some kind of Temporal Distortion...

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:

I don't get the jump from "40k has never been perfect" to "it's currently better than it's ever been before." I'm not going to argue that there was ever a golden time when the game worked perfectly at all times, but it's at least as breakable as it's ever been right now.


Not even close.

While the game is, as said, not perfect, the worst "breaks" of the current game don't come to be within 0.1% of past atrocities like Chaos 3.5, Screamer-Stars with re-rollable 2++ invuls, etc.., etc.. Or even the age of Iron Hands. The game is in a much, much, much, much better state then just 18-24 months ago.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 14:38:13


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I don't think anyone ever forfeit top of turn 1 after losing a third of their army in one shooting phase against Chaos 3.5.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 15:49:46


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

I would like to ask a question:

If you don't care about winning, why play a competitive game? In 40k, without houseruling it to be some kind of co-op, vs. AI experience; there's a winner and a loser. Winning isn't everything, of course, but you should be trying your best to succeed. (Excepting stuff like tutorial games or similar.)

There's plenty of co-op board games and such, or you could work on some sort of AI system for 40k to play together, but I don't see why you'd WANT to lose a game of 40k.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone ever forfeit top of turn 1 after losing a third of their army in one shooting phase against Chaos 3.5.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of Chaos 3.5 and don't get the nostalgia for it, but the game is currently far, far more broken than it ever was.

There simply is no way around the statistical tyranny of some armies being built to roll hundreds of dice per turn. Its a bugbear that's been growing for several editions, but they're not doing much (if anything) to dial it back.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 16:02:42


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Voss wrote:
...Yeah, I'm not a fan of Chaos 3.5 and don't get the nostalgia for it...


It may not have been particularly well-balanced, but it had thoroughly done rules for all nine Legions that managed to make them play very differently from each other with far fewer models and rules than the current run of CSM books, and it was the last time that CSM weren't "loyalists, but worse".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 16:04:24


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
I would like to ask a question:

If you don't care about winning, why play a competitive game? In 40k, without houseruling it to be some kind of co-op, vs. AI experience; there's a winner and a loser. Winning isn't everything, of course, but you should be trying your best to succeed. (Excepting stuff like tutorial games or similar.)

There's plenty of co-op board games and such, or you could work on some sort of AI system for 40k to play together, but I don't see why you'd WANT to lose a game of 40k.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding this?

Define 'trying your best to succeed'. What does that look like in the real world? There's a lot of things that can be sacrificed on that altar to help you 'succeed' that for a lot of people, frankly, the cost is not worth it.some people make the mistake of thinking that unless you're bleeding edge competitive-at-all-cost, you're 'not trying to win' or don't care about winning at all.

There's a difference between a co-op game and a collaborative approach to a competitive game.

Remember, warhammers dna comes from a primarily roleplaying/storytelling background rather than cutthroat competitive-at-all-costs play. RT had an umpire and the historical gaming scene a lot of the writers come from, and which a lot of people still play - the pre game negotiation, the collaboration, the accommodation and 'negotiation phase' - this approach is simply 'given'.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/17 16:53:52


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





OKC, OK USA

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would like to ask a question:

If you don't care about winning, why play a competitive game? In 40k, without houseruling it to be some kind of co-op, vs. AI experience; there's a winner and a loser. Winning isn't everything, of course, but you should be trying your best to succeed. (Excepting stuff like tutorial games or similar.)

There's plenty of co-op board games and such, or you could work on some sort of AI system for 40k to play together, but I don't see why you'd WANT to lose a game of 40k.


I think the issue you're having is a misconception as to the contextual meaning of the word "competitive". "Competitive" does not always mean "player vs player" or "win/lose". You can still play "competitive" games like 40K in a collaborative manner, that's literally what the Crusade system and Narrative Play is for. Think asymmetrical games and last stands where you know the inevitable results. In other words, sometimes 40K means playing the game itself is more important than the results.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/10/17 16:55:54


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






...because the fun is in the attempt, regardless of the result? I'm not sure I understand what he's asking. If a person doesn't care about winning they can't enjoy a game involving a play losing? Not being sarcastic or passive-aggressive here, I would be very interested to hear further elaboration on the perspective.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...because the fun is in the attempt, regardless of the result? I'm not sure I understand what he's asking. If a person doesn't care about winning they can't enjoy a game involving a play losing? Not being sarcastic or passive-aggressive here, I would be very interested to hear further elaboration on the perspective.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly-I've seen an attitude here from some that I'll try my best to explain, and that might help.

I've seen posts where people are derided for even so much as trying to win-labeled WAAC or TFG for wanting victory. Heck, the first post of this thread is like that. But, when you get right down to it, 40k is a game (by default, at least) with a winner and a loser. There's no shame in wanting to be the winner, and I'd be actually a bit upset if someone was sandbagging against me in a game, outside of a tutorial or something.

I'm not saying WAAC. I'm definitely not saying to cheat. I'm not saying you should ever be upset at a loss either-losing happens, and it's fine. But I don't see "I don't want to want to win" as a mark of honor. It's just kinda... Zuh? Why play a game with a winner and a loser then?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Just because a game tends to have a winner and a loser, doesn't mean that is the sole motivation in playing the game. A team will usually win Team Slayer in Halo 3 but I don't really care if I win, I just want to play Halo with my friends. Losing all the time does get annoying but it is a very broad spectrum to define what some people see as a loss. Is your opponent winning by a single point a loss? Technically yes but you played a very close game that you likely both enjoyed. Are you getting stomped flat every single game and have never won a single game? If so then that is both a technical loss and what I would call a morale/emotional loss.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




To be fair JNA, there is usually negative associations with the contrasting phrase 'I play to win'. I mean there's a lot of things often regarded as underhanded, or that can be termed 'negative play experiences' that fall under that umbrella. There is also the association that 'playing to win' has an associated costs to it (I don't mean £££) that some see as detrimental to the greater hobby experience and community health.

To be fair, i've seen only a handful of posters in my years here who I can truly say seemed to champion the notion that one should never ever do anything to their own advantage in a game.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

 JNAProductions wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...because the fun is in the attempt, regardless of the result? I'm not sure I understand what he's asking. If a person doesn't care about winning they can't enjoy a game involving a play losing? Not being sarcastic or passive-aggressive here, I would be very interested to hear further elaboration on the perspective.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly-I've seen an attitude here from some that I'll try my best to explain, and that might help.

I've seen posts where people are derided for even so much as trying to win-labeled WAAC or TFG for wanting victory. Heck, the first post of this thread is like that. But, when you get right down to it, 40k is a game (by default, at least) with a winner and a loser. There's no shame in wanting to be the winner, and I'd be actually a bit upset if someone was sandbagging against me in a game, outside of a tutorial or something.

I'm not saying WAAC. I'm definitely not saying to cheat. I'm not saying you should ever be upset at a loss either-losing happens, and it's fine. But I don't see "I don't want to want to win" as a mark of honor. It's just kinda... Zuh? Why play a game with a winner and a loser then?


It's actually pretty easy to understand;
I WANT to win and do my best, but I don't NEED to win the game to get something out of it.
I play for cinematic and cool gak happening with my fully painted models reasons. that's it, No other reason.

   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 JNAProductions wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...because the fun is in the attempt, regardless of the result? I'm not sure I understand what he's asking. If a person doesn't care about winning they can't enjoy a game involving a play losing? Not being sarcastic or passive-aggressive here, I would be very interested to hear further elaboration on the perspective.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly-I've seen an attitude here from some that I'll try my best to explain, and that might help.

I've seen posts where people are derided for even so much as trying to win-labeled WAAC or TFG for wanting victory. Heck, the first post of this thread is like that. But, when you get right down to it, 40k is a game (by default, at least) with a winner and a loser. There's no shame in wanting to be the winner, and I'd be actually a bit upset if someone was sandbagging against me in a game, outside of a tutorial or something.

I'm not saying WAAC. I'm definitely not saying to cheat. I'm not saying you should ever be upset at a loss either-losing happens, and it's fine. But I don't see "I don't want to want to win" as a mark of honor. It's just kinda... Zuh? Why play a game with a winner and a loser then?


The objective is to win, the aim is to have fun.


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: