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

I'm curious as to how many on here play for fun and how many play to win?


I played a 2,000 Ork/Tau meatgrinder game last night with my buddy and it was one of the funnest games I've ever played.
A fully tricked out squad of Nobz as a troop choice in a trukk that mulched fire warriors and his Farsight Commander who
hated orks and was mowing through boyz like they were grots was a blast.

Our lists never would made any tourny but it was a hoot to watch the other guys eyes bugg out when he would try over
and over to kill the Nobz (with borks and painboy), even with twin linked rail guns and fail while I crashed 20 boy squads
into his commander and crisis suit squads over and over and only managed to get a couple of drones removed.

Everybody is different and I probably wouldn't do all that well in a tourny except to annoy another player with
hoots and hollers when my SAG blows up my own stuff.

Do you play for the fun factor or is the competition that drives you?

I like how your poll allows me to check both options. I did so.

doh!

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I like how your poll allows me to check both options. I did so.

Ditto

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I like how your poll allows me to check both options. I did so.

Yessir.

I think what this should tell you, thedarksaint, is that you're perpetuating a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between liking fun or liking victory. You can like both. Many do.

Hey, winning is fun, altough this is not why I play for. I actually prefer playing with good company and having fun. Of course the point of the game is win the other guy with the little toy soldires, but I'm just not so "win for all costs"-type of player(Okay, I'm non a tournament player, busted)

My probelm is I am very competitive and hate to lose. I enjoy games when I take them as they come.

If I lose I definately analyze what mistakes I made. If there is a weakness in my list, I correct it. If there was an error in tactics, I change it up and try a new direction. Any game with so many factors should be based on adjusting for the metagame, or things become stale. Think of it like M:TG; you adjust your deck with each new release, with the prevailance of a new tactic etc. There is no cheese (Jedi mind trick).

Now, I can't say I won't be able to have fun if I am not winning. If I am constantly losing, odds are I won't be having fun, but those are two seperate things. I think it raelly depends who you are playing too. I can win a game and have no fun because my opponent: played like a slow, was insulting, complained the entire game, argued to death a rule they could not read correctly. I've had some great and fun games against opponents who cheerily beat my ass into the ground. What I find odd is if I beat the everliving out of someone who 'plays for fun, not to win' then they complain about my drive to win (which I thought they didn't care about in the first place).

It's nice to win, but if you can't enjoy doing it then it's pointless.

It's spelled 'lose' not 'loose'.

Both are important. Nobody wants to play someone who's
not trying to win. That's just bad.

Don't forget the addendum to option #2: In addition to checking my army, I have to recheck my abilities. Next time play better.

I also voted for both, since the poll is too poorly designed to actually give a usable result. When I play, I want to have fun. I also want to do my best to win. Neither one is mutually exclusive of the other.

malfred wrote:Both are important. Nobody wants to play someone who's
not trying to win. That's just bad.

Id say there is a difference between "not trying to win" and "I may win, or I may lose, but these Fanatics are funny as heck either way!" When I play, I play to have fun, with winning a nice side dish, or dessert perhaps, after the main meal.

besides, if you play with Orcs you HAVE to want a fun game, cause if you dont have a sense of humor then you are with the wrong army!

Play for playing's sake. I find games few and far between so when I get to break out the toys and throw down for a night, might as well have fun.

I voted for not liking to lose. As has been said, it's somewhat of a false choice. Ultimately I want to have fun. If I can have fun losing, then that's fine. I just find that I often don't have fun when I lose.

I build my lists to win. I then take a lot of time and effort to paint them up as well as I can. I never field an unpainted model. So if I'm playing with hundreds of hours of my time, and it's not playing like I hoped, it's frustrating.

That's not to say I've never had a fun game that ended in a loss. Just that most of the time if I'm losing, it's going to be more frustrating than fun.

Now that I think about it, I think I'm probably more likely to have fun losing with one of my old armys that I finished painting long ago, than I am with a brand new one. The time and effort of painting them isn't so fresh in my mind, I guess.

I can remember how pissed I was when my Eldar, who I REALLY worked on painting up, got wiped off the table by Orcs. Made me stop painting for a good 2-3 months.

I play for fun winning is just the added bonus

thedarksaint wrote:I'm curious as to how many on here play for fun and how many play to win?

Everyone plays to win.

No one plays to lose and no one plays to draw.

BYE

I think there’s a lot wrong with the question. I don’t care for winning to the point where I steamroll my opponent, but I won’t find much fun in getting slaughtered.

I’ve been around gaming clubs where the culture was to win at all costs and while I was successful I find games became very tactically limited, everyone mimicked one of a handful of dominant builds (this was in Bloodbowl). I’ve also been around groups that were almost random in their designs, everything for fun and silliness, and I probably liked that even less (that was in 40k and Necromunda).

But there is a sensible middle ground. Where people will try interesting new strategies for variety, and not worry about winning every single game, but the strategies will still challenge you and force you to think of something clever to counter them.

And beyond all that, the most important thing is a pretty looking battleboard, with two good looking armies and excellent terrain. That’s enough fun already.

So really everyone would admit they don't mind loosing, as long as the game its self was a good one-where, unless agreed on at the start, your opponent wasn't trying to slaughter you in a none fun, power house way. And vice versa

Put it this way: I think very few people actually can't enjoy a game they lost, but for me, at least, both players must play for the win in order for this enjoyable experience to come about. I don't like stomping someone who isn't trying and I hate getting stomped because I wasn't trying hard enough. A fair win or, failing that, a good loss is what I'm looking for. If I lose, does it mean I need to rethink my list and my own ability? Sure it does (barring ridiculous "DWing player rolls nothing but 6s for saves throughout the entire game" flukes). Does it mean I didn't have fun? Of course not.

Usually lucky winners learn to be gracious or else the dice
gods will come and have their revenge...

If your not playing ftw, then I think it's almost disrespectful to your opponent, there's no point playing a disinterested party. There is a balance though, I don't min/max but I do try to field a competetive list, even if it is dictated by the models I like, and I will atempt to beat any given opponent. If I don't and the game was fun, I couldn't care less. It's when I lose to a prick that it's gak. If you beat a prick at least you get a little bit of a guilty pride boost.

I agree that it's no fun to play with someone who isn't interested in winning. I tend to not care if I lose as long as it isn't because of some really bad dice rolling (perceived or otherwise) or something like that.

Losing is one thing. No one likes to lose, but if its a decent fight, and you did your best, its a lot easier to swallow. However, losing to a cheese list, or someone who rules lawyers you into submission a fun game doesnt make.

You can have a fun game and still lose, but you can have the fun sucked out of a game quicker than snotlings turn into breakfast, and at that point I dont care if I win or lose, I dont wanna be there anymore.

Example- (Forward, I was still very very new in WHFB at this time and very naive in my tactics and approach, such and thinking Shamans werent worth it and too expensive... Ive gotten better..) Anyways.. I played a standard orc army, I had Azhag as my general. My opponent turned out an all Tzneetch demon army, this is back in Storm of Chaos had just come out, and of course tore me up. A spell turned a handful of Night Gobbos into horrors (glad they changed it to a 3/1 rule now) and of course the fanatics fly every which-a-way and in doing so take out my war machines. I didnt field any Arrer Boyz so the screamers every turn cause several hits and just bounced around the board with me helpless. Orcs being know for their maneuverability and all.... Poor old Azhag succumbed to a leadership roll and abandoned the army to join the Chaos Gods in the north, THAT part I knew was bad luck, but it just added the incredible frustration which I still feel to this day. Im starting my Angel Army based on the Deamon book and I refuse to field screamers based on this experience.

Though Justice was had against the same player a few months ago when I had Gork's Warpath stomp his army into oblivion on 4/6 turns!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Everyone plays to win.

No one plays to lose and no one plays to draw.

BYE

But draws are 90% of the time the best games ever (in my case).

Symbio Joe wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Everyone plays to win.

No one plays to lose and no one plays to draw.

BYE

But draws are 90% of the time the best games ever (in my case).

Agreed. Close games are lot more fun I think. There is more tension and while some people have no problem slaughtering an opponent through any means necessary, If I beat someone too easily I feel cheated as well...

I voted both. I don't understand the need for this dichotomy.

I want everyone I play to play to win. I certainly am. Some of you might not agree with me, but I consider a player who is not trying to win the game to have bad sportsmanship. The implication is that you're throwing a game, and it suggests to your opponent an attitude of casual contempt, as if you didn't respect him enough to try ( though I'm aware that is probably not the case). Miniatures, at least 40k, are competitive. If I want to play a non-zero sum game I can always go to RPGs.

On the other hand, I'll play the army that appeals to me visually and from a fluff perspective. I won't play a du jour army for the purpose of making it easier to win games. If the rules make a army build that I don't particularly care for the most powerful build, then I view that as a quirk in the rules that is unfortunate, but not a reason to change my army build.

My Eldar army has zero falcons, two wraithlords with wraithswords, and a twenty man guardian squad. I like the models, the army, and the theme, and I do manage to win with it. My answer to those who would say the wraithlord CC build is gimped is that the experience of your opponent slipping up and allowing them to slam into his army is not to be missed.

Nice one Grignard. I would enjoy seeing it too!!!

I voted 'Fun'. For me, winning is part of the fun.....