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 think, or at least I read it as, the point of this thread to be along the lines of: Whats Effective vs. What you like and find fun?

Like screamers in a Deamon list may be very effective. But I wont ever field them because I hates them forever precious... Or goblin wolf riders... they are okay I guess, but I dont care for them, not my style, so I dont field them too often no matter how good fast cav may be against some armies.

I personally want to field an All Tree Army. I have yet to do so, but I frakkin love when the Ents in LOTR trash Isengard and whoop up. I used to make Tree based green decks in magic as well. People say 2 treemen is cheese, but Im not fielding it because of its power, but rather for fluff purposes. That and your selections are rather limited with all trees.

Fanatics, not always the most effective choices, but good lordy are they fun to field. And one thing about ALWAYS taking fanatics is that I was able to bluff my friend to be terrified of the oncoming unit of Night Gobbos even though I had none that game.

So basically, would you field something you dont care for even if its more effective?

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

But when you made your list, set down your models and started playing did you ever, at any point, say to yourself:

"Oh yeah! Gonna get my draw on! Cannot wait to draw! YEAH!"

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

But when you made your list, set down your models and started playing did you ever, at any point, say to yourself:

"Oh yeah! Gonna get my draw on! Cannot wait to draw! YEAH!"

BYE

Well now you're just being silly.

Hehehehe.

Its funny, cause I haven't lost a game for about 4 or 5 years now, so it is a bit wierd asking about what I like. I guess if I didn't like winning, I wouldn''t enjoy playing, but then again, I wouldn't stop if I did go on a losing streak.

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).

But people don't play with the objective to achieve a draw.Both players strive to win, neither prevails but the challenge and drama is fun.
I think Ozymandius said it best, something to the effect of:

The objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

But when you made your list, set down your models and started playing did you ever, at any point, say to yourself:

"Oh yeah! Gonna get my draw on! Cannot wait to draw! YEAH!"

BYE

Rocky lost.

Yep, neither answer really fits me. I play to win, and yes, I will tweak a list if it performs poorly. But I also play to have fun, and can do so even when I lose the game. The two are not incompatible...............

Since everyone is talking about how they play to win, but have fun too, I have a question.

What goes through the mind of the guy who fields the Brit RAF, seeing as its the cheese McPlease on the boards here. What goes through THAT guys head?

"Im gonna win no matter what!!" ?

I voted the former. To be honest I game in the evenings and get tired. And so if they go on for more than a couple of hours I get bored. I'd rather lose in by 10pm than win by midnight!

On the other hand while I am not in the least bit competitive and enjoy games that allow collaborative play over ones that are purely competitive in nature (I'm an old RPG hack at heart), I can get a certain PERVERSE satisfaction from winning if I am playing someone else who "really wants to win". But to be honest, when dice (and therefore blind chance) play such a large part of the game I get minimal satisfaction in knowing that the difference between me winning or my opponent was simply my ability to roll more 6's. Getting some satisfaction out of winning 40k - which is so dice-based and random - feels only a little more appropriate than doing a lap of honour would after beating my 5-year-old son at Snakes and Ladders!

mercutio531 wrote:Since everyone is talking about how they play to win, but have fun too, I have a question.

What goes through the mind of the guy who fields the Brit RAF, seeing as its the cheese McPlease on the boards here. What goes through THAT guys head?

"Im gonna win no matter what!!" ?

I think what we are getting at is the difference between winning with a fluffy, "fair" army, and winning by spending a lot of effort in squeezing out the utmost cheese from your army list.

Winning "fairly" in this contest means giving your opponent a chance to win, or at least the opportunity for playing an enjoyable game. Winning by employing a dull list and frustrating and irritating tactics (such as sitting at the far end of the board and shooting, while not even attempting to seize objectives, for instance) is not considered "fair" by many players. Or at least by those that don;t enjoy such match-ups.

It's like organising a pub-team five-a-side game against another pub, only to find they've stuffed their team with professionals... sure its a game, but you aren't going to have much fun playing it under those circumstances, and recording the outcome as anything other than a hollow win is pretty childish.

I don't know about Bret RAF, since I don't play WH, but as far as 40k equivalents like tri-Falcon and Nidzilla are concerned, I don't have a problem with them. Who am I to dictate how my opponent chooses to build their list? I don't see what grounds one has to complain regardless of where one falls on the spectrum. If I claim not to care about winning, then I should be able to have fun while getting stomped, right? If, on the other hand, I want to win at all costs, then it's my own fault for not bringing an equally competitive list, isn't it? Too often, "play fair" just means "play it my way."

Bear in mind, though, that I speak as someone who only plays 40k, in which there has yet to be a truly unbeatable list. If the RAF is truly a win button, then I guess that's a little different.