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.

Ahh I have lived a long life to see one of my nemesis (we were friends once now he is someone whom I believe is a cancer to society) in real life, get everything that he deserved in game play.

This man fully believes in WAAC. In real life as well. He's one of the elite what lives in a gated community. Trophy wife, 2.3 kids (the .3 is his bull dog). Well he lost a game to one with the simliar beliefs. Oh the rage on his face was priceless as he complained about the situation to me.

"Was it not who said that the Ends justify the means. That first place is only what matters? Ya got what you deserve Dave. Next time you better re-evaluate what is important to you. To win at all costs is not what life and what this game is all about. Once you understand that, you will be a better player".

There is nothing wrong being competitive. You can be a nice guy and still be competitive. But to "play to win" with the attitude will only harm the hobby in the end.


Anvildude Wrote:

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.

QFT
I'd just wished there are more people in my region that have this ideal that you have posted.

I think one legitimate reason people might get annoyed by the 'playing to win' attitude, is because tabletop war-games tend to be pretty crappy 'competitive games' in the David Sirlin sense (writer of 'Playing to Wiin, becoming the champion').

Games like Street Fighter (the game Sirlin was champion of) can be truly competitive, because the rules are presided over by an impartial computer program. The computer program makes the rules completely non-negotiable. Your opponent doesn't have to agree with you on them. You don't even need to talk to your opponent. So long as the screen says 'you win', then you do indeed win.


Table top games are different, because they have their roots in roll-play rather than gaming. Many of the rules hinge on quite arbitrary calls of judgement. The original 40k required a GM to make these calls (He wasn't always impartial or right, and could still sometimes be negotiated with). Newer versions loose the GM and assume an element of cooperation and good will between you and your opponent instead. This is okay, because creativity and imagination are part of the attraction of these types of games.

However if winning is your only objective, then the best way to do that is to show no good will and be uncooperative. Argue with your opponent on every judgement call. Argue that they don't have LOS when they do. Argue that you do have LOS when you don't. Argue that you are in cover when you are not. Argue that you are more than than 50% covered when it is more like 35%. Argue your his models are under a template when they are not, and yours are not when they are. Argue that his cover is actually dangerous terrain whenever the situation is unclear. If he ever refuse to concede the point, force a roll-off (as the rules suggest) half the time you'll win the roll (even when you're wrong).

If you do this for the whole game, then you will probably save quite a sizeable portion of your army that deserved to die, and kill a sizeable portion of your opponents force that deserved to live. But your opponent will hate you, and you will be TFG.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with Playing to Win, if you are playing a competitive game. But trying to win against your opponent at war gaming is a bit like trying to win against your dance partner at dancing. The harder you try the more you end up just looking like a jerk.

zeekill wrote:

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.... .

That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.

Lots of people don't see the game that way.

It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.

That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"

...because they insist the game should only ever be played with two dice and are unwilling to change.

That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.

Lots of people don't see the game that way.

It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.

That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"

But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?



On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.

Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."

Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).

If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.

Because they don't want to take three dice.

They find the game as much fun with two dice.

Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.

They find the game as much fun with two dice.

But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.

Actually the summing up can be thuswise

Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.

Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually the summing up can be thuswise

Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.

Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.

I agree with what you just said.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually the summing up can be thuswise

Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.

Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.

I can understand what you are saying. And I think some context could make things clearer.

In my community most people DO CARE ABOUT WINNING. They want to win, they play semi-competitive lists, they are "equally obsessed."

But when I play my competitive list (again, not Razorwolves, just competitve) they hate it because I beat them, and QQ about how "overpowered" my lists are while they have the possibility of building equally competitive lists.

Take as an example this one guy who does nothing but QQ about how bad TK archers are (in his opinion) (and TK core in general in his opinion) but refuses to take chariots - the most competitive way to fill the, as he calls it, "waste of 625 points of my army" (the required 25% core). Then complains about how he can't do anything with his archers and cant win with that list without rediculous luck

Yes, people care about winning, because that's the object of the game. You aren't going to play to lose are you? hardly.

I see it this way, friendly competition is a good thing. But, there is too much of a good thing sometimes, overdoing competitive lists will lead to people getting upset by it.

Essentially, financially sometimes people may be unable to purchase units, or they might hate the looks. Heck, I've a friend who refuses to take Grand Marshall Helbrech, because he looks *crap*.

What it comes down to, is how people value their games, and how people value their models, rather than rules etc.

I've a friend who refuses to take Grand Marshall Helbrech, because he looks *crap*.

That is more my style! Can relate

Zeekill
In which case does it not get a tad boring winning easily all the time?
Could you have a handicapped game, whereby, for example, the TK player has x amount of points more than you?
It might give your mate a chance and you the possibility of being stretched while allowing you to maximise the lists as you like

Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.
They find the game as much fun with two dice.

And the problem is with both players.

To play a game with someone who has different expectations to you and neither of you is willing to compromise is a recipe in failure.

To handicap yourself and complain that your opponent hasn't done the same is just going to create conflict. Equally, to play without handicapping yourself if your opponent has made it clear that's what he's expecting is also not going to win you any friends.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

zeekill wrote:Take as an example this one guy who does nothing but QQ about how bad TK archers are (in his opinion) (and TK core in general in his opinion) but refuses to take chariots - the most competitive way to fill the, as he calls it, "waste of 625 points of my army" (the required 25% core). Then complains about how he can't do anything with his archers and cant win with that list without rediculous luck

This is a different type of problem gamer. Complains about his army book / codex so that he has something to blame besides himself when he loses. Easier to blame the book than to try and improve.

If your so set on your convicions and how you play then your only options is to keep doing what your doing. Whether or not people will still want to play with you in the future is their problem.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually the summing up can be thuswise

Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.

Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.

You just received my first Exalt!

Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.

They find the game as much fun with two dice.

Zeekil, if you plan on arguing with KK, you might wanna go back and edit your Winraw:Loss stats now...

zeekill wrote:

That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.

Lots of people don't see the game that way.

It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.

That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"

But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?

LOL! Even here you "play to win". There are so many excellent posts and arguments being made since your last post, and you choose that one which is easiest to argue against. Incredible.

zeekill wrote:
On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.

Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."

Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).

If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.

The fact that you consistently cherry-pick rule calls where you've been right makes me certain that you're not correct by far as often as you want to believe. Also, all the rules you've used as examples are easy to understand. They are clearly defined, and only a moron wouldn't get it. Those aren't the rules in question. Those aren't rules you have to interpret or make judgment calls for. Which also leads me to believe that you understand far less of the BRB than you think you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Lots of people aren't the smartest people in the world, even though they think they are. I have a mate (the same guy I mentioned earlier, the rules bully) who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room when it comes to tabletop games and tactics/strategy. He's not. What's fun is that when he's "at it" everyone else in the room just thinks "Oh man, what a douche". What's even funnier is that everyone but him knows everyone else thinks this. I believe you're that guy in your group of friends. You only believe you are correct all the time, when in reality, you're not. Nobody can be correct all (or probably even 75%) the time about tabletop wargames. Trust me. Nobody.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zeekill wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.

They find the game as much fun with two dice.

But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.

Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.

zeekill wrote:


But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.

Well, that's probably not true. Every single game ever played has losers, yet the vast majority aren't crying or whining about it. Maybe they're just not having fun playing with you, win or lose.

"Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use? "

They "hinder" themselves because they play for fun, not winning. Fun isn't only winning, it's the way you play the game. If you play an ultra-competitive style of army all the time, you'll end up not being played at all. One of the guys at my local GW just left after joining because he's a WAAC.

Peoepl just have different ways at looking at the game.

Sure, it's great to win a game. But personally I see the game as a way of playing a game with my minis, competetive or not. I play Wierdboyz & Flash Gitz and I still play Necrons, the game is about having fun.

Now I don't have a problem with anyone playing to win, but I do have a problem with someone who plays to win at the expense of their opponents enjoyment of the game.

If it's not fun for both players then what's the point of playing?!

SgtSixkilla wrote:Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.

I think it's more fun to bring one. Guess that makes you a bully and someone's who's afraid to lose?

You handicap yourself for your own reasons. That does not reflect negatively on those that do not choose to do so.

Scott-S6 wrote:

SgtSixkilla wrote:Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.

I think it's more fun to bring one. Guess that makes you a bully and someone's who's afraid to lose?

You handicap yourself for your own reasons. That does not reflect negatively on those that do not choose to do so.

If you want a real challenge, don't bring any dice. Then try to steal a couple of your opponent's, or Jedi-mind-trick them into giving you their dice.

That is true winning.

zeekill wrote:In my community most people DO CARE ABOUT WINNING. They want to win, they play semi-competitive lists, they are "equally obsessed."

But when I play my competitive list (again, not Razorwolves, just competitve) they hate it because I beat them, and QQ about how "overpowered" my lists are while they have the possibility of building equally competitive lists.

If you're consistently fetching lists you define as "competitive", and they're consistently fetching lists you only define as "semi-competitive", then I question your judgement about them being "equally obsessed."

People don't' have a problem with "Playing to Win."

They have a problem with the personality that brings the WAAC player to the table. For the OP, because your young, and are so clearly a champion in your own little pond, YOU need to go out and find a few more different tables to ...um.... WAAC at.

Just because you have an impression that your some sort of uberplayer in your own mind doesn't nessesarily make it so.

As to the Hows and Whys?

People do not frown on playing to win. They play to have a good time and in some peoples gameing realm, "Winning" isn't that important. Opponents mutually respect each other and inas much as thier shops, the pecking order is already established and strengths and weaknesses are already known. The group usually is accepting of individuals behaviors and they know each other enough that "Winning" is coinciding with having fun.
The OP's realm sounds like a realm of dicks. I wouldn't go into his LGS and even want to play them if he is supposedly the cream de la crap.

As for your "opinion"...

It's wrong. You are not looking to justify "Playing to win". You are looking at justifying dickbird playstyle, WAAC mentality where is acceptable, and instead of playing a game at your FLGS, your just being a dick and running all comers out of playing the game, and getting enjoyment out of exploiting rules that are gaked, and players that are inexperienced with the game.

Even some of your responses to some of the other people here, your sophising being a dick and equating it with "Winning".
Because your already having an established "Standard" that you think you can table everyone out there, think your the uberkind, or whatever- You've already lost and shown the reason WHY people frown upon "WAAC" players.
WHY? because they play like dicks, crook dice, fudge rolls and rerolls, argue over every little smattering till the point where an opponent either up and says f!@# it, you win, or they drive the opponent from the game in the wrong impression that they are good.
Your not good. People are just not wanting to put up with you and your sense of "Fair" play that they probibly have an opinion of you behind your back, and more then likely think your just a douche that they just want to get the game overwith so they can go on to the real game( I/E challenge.)


When you play, what exactly do you bring to the table? Do people activly seek you out so you can teach them some of your "Winning" ways?

Do people send new players to you to show them how to play, set up some faily good lists and relate how they will be included into the general game store population?

Or do they sit back and look over thier shoulder at you point at you like "That F@#$ing Guy"?

There are many levels of TFG. Of all of them, people don't want to play ANY of the ones that think that thier stuff don't stink.

Winning at plastic space mans is very serious business, guys. In fact, every time I lose (which is only twice, ever), I commit seppuku.

I like this site and the people on it, but, and it's a big BUT... GET A GRIP PEOPLE!

17 - 25 year olds should not be worrying about being competitive at plastic soldiers. You should be chasing women your age and their mothers, drinking cheap cider, and smashing up bus stops. Stop wasting all your money on warhammer. Earn yourself some respect and buy a decent guitar. The hobby is fun, but often I despair at threads like these. Get your priorities sorted. Rant over!

Now we know who is smashing up bus stops along the Eccleshal Road!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I like this site and the people on it, but, and it's a big BUT... GET A GRIP PEOPLE!

17 - 25 year olds should not be worrying about being competitive at plastic soldiers. You should be chasing women your age and their mothers, drinking cheap cider, and smashing up bus stops. Stop wasting all your money on warhammer. Earn yourself some respect and buy a decent guitar. The hobby is fun, but often I despair at threads like these. Get your priorities sorted. Rant over!

This is the sort of post that makes me long for an applauding orkmoticon..

...Yes, 40k is fun and can be a nice distraction, and sure no one sits down to play thinking "Gosh...I hope I get my backside handed to me"...
But..FFS, if the high point of your life is winning a game of toy soldiers...then .. ...I question your priorities.

SgtSixkilla wrote:

zeekill wrote:

That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.

Lots of people don't see the game that way.

It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.

That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"

But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?

LOL! Even here you "play to win". There are so many excellent posts and arguments being made since your last post, and you choose that one which is easiest to argue against. Incredible.

Because most of the others continue to bash me for "being a rules bully" when I have already said that rules arguments usually dont come up in my games too often.

zeekill wrote:
On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.

Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."

Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).

If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.

The fact that you consistently cherry-pick rule calls where you've been right makes me certain that you're not correct by far as often as you want to believe. Also, all the rules you've used as examples are easy to understand. They are clearly defined, and only a moron wouldn't get it. Those aren't the rules in question. Those aren't rules you have to interpret or make judgment calls for. Which also leads me to believe that you understand far less of the BRB than you think you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Lots of people aren't the smartest people in the world, even though they think they are. I have a mate (the same guy I mentioned earlier, the rules bully) who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room when it comes to tabletop games and tactics/strategy. He's not. What's fun is that when he's "at it" everyone else in the room just thinks "Oh man, what a douche". What's even funnier is that everyone but him knows everyone else thinks this. I believe you're that guy in your group of friends. You only believe you are correct all the time, when in reality, you're not. Nobody can be correct all (or probably even 75%) the time about tabletop wargames. Trust me. Nobody.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

Yet again, can someone please give an example of a controversial rule? You are only proving my point (that most of the rules have a clear cut answer) more and more by not supporting your claim about these "OMGWTF controversey" rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

zeekill wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.

They find the game as much fun with two dice.

But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.

Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.

Or maybe its because I WANT to win, not because I'm AFRAID of losing. If someone brings 4 Dice and beats me I don't care. If someone brings 3 dice and beats me, I don't care. If someone brings 2 dice and beats me, I DON'T CARE. It happens. This is partially a luck based game in addition to a tactical game.
But when someone brings 2 dice and then complains about me bringing 3 dice, thats when I care. Because they QQ for losing to 3 dice and all I can wonder is why they don't just take 3 dice to gain a better advantage.
I have lost to 4 dice before, and I don't b*tch about it. I have lost to 20 dice before (I.E. playing towards rules loopholes or just using BROKEN lists) and I do care, I dissaprove, I talk with people about if there is any way to beat the guy with 20 dice. But I dont b*tch about it to the player, that would just make me a sore loser.

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.

In my experience, people that accuse guys of winning at all costs couldn't win at any cost.

I'm pretty aesop wrote a parable about this.