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.

Polonius- Amusingly enough, playing to win (by whatever the win conditions of the scenario/historical battle are) is very much in keeping with the traditions of wargaming. But building power-armies/tight lists is not.

MuffinButt358 wrote:Unfortunately I find that so many people have warped and twisted this original desire for game play to be the ultimate jerk (not swearing, not sure what I can get away with on this board yet)

Thanks for the circumspection, MB. To confirm your suspicion, profanity is not allowed on the board.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

I’m sorry to not participate more in this thread, but it’s a merry-go-round I’ve ridden a few times already.

Great posts by Insaniak and 40kEnthusiast, though. Thanks in particular to 40KE for expressing his perspective in a somewhat new, very cool way.

Mannahnin wrote:Polonius- Amusingly enough, playing to win (by whatever the win conditions of the scenario/historical battle are) is very much in keeping with the traditions of wargaming. But building power-armies/tight lists is not.

Building lists in general isn't a big part of traditional wargaming. Most wargames, even miniatures wargames were scenario based, not open ended. The armies also tended to represent historical forces.

40k isn't like that. It's about building the force you want. In modern 40k, the idea gets stretched further as the game being played is usually seen as a slice of a larger conflict, where the forces on the table are hand picked detachments to deal with priority targets. Having the best of everything is a lot more common in that scenario.

Even historically, if you look at Napoleon's Old Guard, the Waffen SS, and any other elite organization, they were far more likely to have the doctrines and equipment that were most useful for a battle. If you look at British and American forces in Afghanistan, we're powergaming like mad over there.

Certainly for 40k races like Eldar, Chaos, and Space Marines they would be properly girded for whatever battle came their way. To take anything but the best stuff for your local meta game is actually unfluffy, IMO.

Ancients has a strong tradition of list building, however the lists you can make are quite strongly limited historical make-up of the army involved.

40K's FOC and codex system is like WRG Ancients' army lists, but it's different in the sense that every army has a (theoretically) equal availability of Elite, Troop and Support units, but must obey the same Org Chart.

If you look at Ancients lists, you find that some armies are mostly cheapo dross, while others (Early Imperial Roman) are mostly comprised of elite units.

Same old tired 'if you don't play the way I want to, you're a bad person' post. I was tempted to just report it for trolling as soon as I saw it.

I know how you feel....... I to am posessed of a keyboard and beer late at night.. "AND ANOTHER THING.............."

Expressing opinion contrary to your own = trolling?

That statement is indicative of the problem; a "my fun is not your fun" kind of mentality.

I play for the competition. I make usually make lists that revolve around a certain theme that I'm interested in exploring (fluff or mechanic, it could go either way) and have at it. I'm a casual player, but I don't play to lose. If both players have played to the utmost of their ability with what they brought to the table then I don't care much about the outcome, it's the competition I want.

It's like getting a guard damage finish in Street Fighter 3, it's very satisfying, becuase it feels like both players have fought to the edge of their ability.

Holy geez , I guess i have to be careful + specific when i dish out harsh comments .

But no , im not saying ALL gamers that play to win are like what i said.
It was meant for those TFG that want to win no matter what via cheating and such .
Because you have to wonder , what exactly did the TFG "win" if he already threw away his class and integrity out of the window when he chose to cheat.

So, you're taking the bold stance that jerks are jerks?

I think we can agree that people who engage in jerky* or jerk-like behavior are, in point of fact, jerks.

*Excepting beef and motor skills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh, and carribean jerk, jerk chicken, etc.

insaniak wrote:For others, it's a wargame. A game of strategy, and pitting your wits against someone else. The whole point of that sort of game, for that person, is winning. Not because it necessarily makes them feel big about themselves, but for the challenge of overcoming whatever this other person can throw at you.

I am of this crowd. I don't want to steamroll opponents, I want each game to be a battle of wits and exploiting the strengths of my army and the weaknesses of my opponents'. I'd expect no less from my opponent and don't particularly enjoy playing people who aren't there to play with intent. If I showed up to the soccer field ready to give it my all and I meet a group that just wants to stand in a circle kicking the ball around, I wouldn't find any enjoyment from this.

For those that say they only play to the fluff...

When was the last time a Space Marine said "Go easy on the enemy gents... they are new to this "war" thing"

Yeah, i thought so....

So if the fluff says Dark Eldar should kill/capture all enemies... If Daemons should Destroy all beofre them... If Necrons are there just to wipe out all signs of life... to play any other way is to be UN-Fluffy!

skyth wrote:Same old tired 'if you don't play the way I want to, you're a bad person' post. I was tempted to just report it for trolling as soon as I saw it.

not trolling... just inspired late at night after the military had me working a very late shift to get jets flying, etc. Honestly, I didn't realize this was a post that had reared its ugly head again and I actually thought I was being original. Dumb me.

What brought it on was remembering a guy I used to play at the last base I was posted to... just one of those players, WAAC or otherwise, that totally made the game not fun. As I said, I'm not opposed to losing, as long as I can enjoy myself while doing it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

1317 wrote:I know how you feel....... I to am posessed of a keyboard and beer late at night.. "AND ANOTHER THING.............."

The beauty of burning off a week's worth of leave starting today is that my beer inspired commentary has already started...dammit, gotta stay relatively sane due to hockey practice later.

The biggest problem with that is there can sometimes be a huge disconnect between with game effect v. fluff effect.

Honestly, most of us marine players should just be fielding a single squad.

MuffinButt358 wrote:just one of those players, WAAC or otherwise, that totally made the game not fun.

On the flipside, your own attitude (not WAAC) quite possibly made the game less fun for him as well. The fault for an un-fun game doesn't lie solely on his shoulders.


The key isn't to try to get everyone to play the game the same way. It's simply to play wherever possible against those with a similar approach to the game as your own.

1) I put an army together that I think will win.
2) I chose Black Templar because they look cool.
3) I continue to play Black Templar because close combat is fun. And they look cool.
4) When I'm playing my friends, even though I play to win, I still am having fun if I lose. Each loss, I learn something. I try not to lose to the same thing twice.

Don't be too hard on people for playing to win.

Be hard on people that cheat, brag endlessly, or play Tau.

40kenthusiast wrote:@Camerus: You don't find 40k/WHFB competitive? I think the scene nowadays is pretty fierce. Certainly, its less degenerate than modern Yu-Gi-Oh. What's your issue?

Yu-Gi-Oh is an awful game. It is a stupid merchandising ploy that stuck thanks to the power of 12 year olds. I would never play it let alone consider it competitive.

40kenthusiast wrote:@Camerus: You don't find 40k/WHFB competitive? I think the scene nowadays is pretty fierce. Certainly, its less degenerate than modern Yu-Gi-Oh. What's your issue?

I don't because the rules are written worse than a crappy romance novel. With Yu-Gi-Oh! I may have pages of errata and rulings, but at least it exists. GW gives us inconsistent wording and no clear timing on anything; the majority of it has to be debated then deduced. They've said very clearly that the rules aren't written for highly competitive play, yet they also claim that their models are priced higher partly because of the rules they attach. I can play someone from the other side of the country who plays 40k and we won't be playing the same game. The majority of other game systems are much better at this.

im pretty sure somewhere in the rulebook it says the first rule is to have fun. so if winning makes you sastisfied and jumping for joy well then i cant blame you. personally i like the the fluff, how everything is put together... i havent played a game in a long time... but win or lose i think the main point of playing is just to relax and beat the sh!t out of each others models. i guess it doesnt really matter who wins. depends what you want out of the game aswell, fun or victory... maybe both?

menziez wrote:depends what you want out of the game aswell, fun or victory... maybe both?

They're not necessarily exclusive.

Players who just want to win are playing for fun as well. If they didn't find it fun, they wouldn't play.

I think there is a distinction between trying to win...

And trying to win at all costs.

Everyone should come to the table with the intent of winning the game.

I dont think anyone is arguing that point, I think the main problem arises when people believe the uber beardy list the best way to accomplish said win.

What is beardy? How beardy is too beardy? Given as much time and words as you like, can you construct any mechanism for detecting a list that's too beardy?

R3con wrote:I think there is a distinction between trying to win...

And trying to win at all costs.

Sure there is. But neither is a more 'correct' way to play.

I think the main problem arises when people believe the uber beardy list the best way to accomplish said win.

If they're playing in the sort of environment that encourages or prefers that style of play, then it is the best way to accomplish that win.

I just don't understand why taking a good list and playing your best is considered unsportsmanlike. I'm not talking rules lawyering or any other douche thing, I'm perplexed that taking a good list and playing your best is a bad thing.

Hobby issues aside, i personally have made many units that i plan to never use simply because i wanted to build paint them (For war machine MoWST, Kodiak, Assault Kommandos, etc, for 40k Vanguard Deathkore Grenadiers, rattlings with gas masks) The issue arises when people knowingly take "sub-par" units because they "like them" then get stomped on.

Now if it was set-up ahead of time, "lets play a game with the worst lists you can think of" that's another story.

I'm fine if you bring your Lash Prince/Oblits against my poor fluff-based list, I think the problem isn't winning, but people just don't want to lose by A lot.

Still though, it happens.

BigJon wrote:I could not agree with you more MuffinButt. I got into this as a hobby before it grew into a game. I've always been one to want to play in campaigns and narrative games; never one for tourny play or "gota kill'em all" pickup's.

I used to play with a decent bunch of like minded gentlemen and mature players who followed the same path but I moved to power-gaming central and have pretty much hung up my dice and just stuck with my brush. Ard Boyz did NOT help.

PS. I love create(DIY) chapters, I love to see what people can come up with and the different colors. I can't speak on the rules.

I dont think we are all power gamers around our parts Jon. Yes there are some, myself being one of them in the tornament scene. Although if Im just playing for fun with 40k and WFB my lists are almost always something I would enjoy playing and hopefully be fun playing against. This is why after this ard boyz is finished Im going to concentrate on playing Empire instead of cheese eating DE. As for my IG I love armour and need some more tanks. As for campaigns id love to get into one with WFB, problem is only being to make it to Augusta once every two weeks.

Also on the topic: I got into minature wargames when I was 8 years and haveing been playing ever since. Everything from 40k to Mechwarrior and more tactical games like federation commander. What I really enjoy are the kool minis, even though I have not been blessed with great skills in the painting department I still try to do my best. The fluff is kool in most areas of 40k and WFB not to include you cant beat LOTR. Dont get me worng I like wining but doing it too much just gets old, one of the main reasons im going to retire one of my WFB armies. Retire as in gaining dust on a shelve not being sold. I may want to come back to playing them in the future.

R3con wrote:I think there is a distinction between trying to win...

And trying to win at all costs.

...

What?

What exactly does 'winning at all costs' mean anyway? Are you watching people get capped in the knee for making good choices during games? Are you finding Greater Daemon heads at the foot of your bed when you wake up in the morning? Do your opponents pick your kids up from school and bring them home so you know they have access to them?

Is your opponent playing within the rules? Is their list legal? If the answer to these questions is yes then saying that they are trying to 'win at all costs' just proves that your trying to sound morally superior to them. And lets face it, the GW community encourages preaching from a soapbox like no other.

[rant]
The community is a joke at this point anyway. Bad rules writing has led to every single person having a different opinion on what is fair and what isn't. Its to the point we now have comical distinctions like 'winning vs winning at all costs'.
[/rant]

Actually Snoopy , there is a big difference.

Trying to win = playing your hardest being legit , often following RAI

Trying to win at all cost = Purposely ignoring RAI , and going with RAW + sprinkle of cheating ( eg: move extra inch or 3 etc etc )

I've found that it is the online community that is a joke. I have never really played with any player that espouses the sort of ridiculousness of game-ing and grammar gymnastics that the average dakka-ite holds as dogmatic truth (see YMDC for lots of laughs there).

Sure, there's a TFG IRL here and there, but they're far and away the minority of players in my experience, and I have had a lot of experience, and they tend to bend towards the will of the local community because no one wants to play TFG (see also Rx's "Don't be a dick." axiom).

But your definitions of winning and winning at all costs are misnomers then.

winning at all costs = cheating.
winning = what tournament gamers already do.

And see if you can name one game that tells you to go by RAI. RAI is just an all around bad idea because it is open to interpretation while RAW is concrete, and its why every game uses it even in situations where it doesn't make entirely perfect sense.

You think RaW is concrete? You need to spend more time on the rules forums where those sad head cases will debate the context and meaning of a the word 'the' and the ramifications on the game.

And no, winning at all costs that includes cheating is not a misnomer; you can do whatever it takes to win, including cheating...after all, it's only cheating if you get caught, right?