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 play for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with winning or losing. The people that explicitly play to win or find the best 'combo' or the best 'army list' are the same type of people that tackle during a flag football game...they are overly competative and let whatever remanence of an ego get in the way of them and everyone else having fun! (this is a blanket generalization)

I play because I love to paint, I think its important in everyone's life to have a creative outlet...and 40k is mine!

I play because the look of a battlefield and a well painted army on the table is aesthetically charming and really captivates my interest in the game!

I play because I love the storylines, its like bringing your favorite book to life when you play a game!

I play because I love to micro manage, and no games other than RTS for computers do it with such eloquence!

I play because I like the gothic feel to the game and the dark and haunting war torn world of 40k!

and finally, yes, I play because I like to win but this is not a primary driver to my fascination with 40k.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Every game I play, I play to win. I never attempt to lose, and I never try my hardest to draw. I play to win. Every time.

Does that mean that's my drive? Does that mean that I can only have 'fun' whilst winning? Of course not.

But I don't kid myself into believing that I 'only' play for 'fun' because that very notion is such an insidiously stupid thing to say that I find it offensive.

My biggest drive is campaigns and storytelling. I left my tournament mindset in the dust many many years ago, and only want to tell stories, fight big campaigns and have great storied Apoc battles. I'll do everything in my power to win with the army I bring, but that doesn't influence what else I do, nor does it drive my reason to play.

+1 Im with you the whole way H.B.M.C

I do enjoy gaming with anyone and everyone but i always want to win and also i never throw a game for a new person. Now before you all decide to throw me under the bus listen.

Letting someone win is only teaching them that bad choices will still let them win games. Yes of course i dont try and take advantage of their lack how the game is played and bend the rules to my favor but you need to understand what you did wrong in a game to fix it so you can win in the future.

Also i am not just talking out of my ass all my first games were against my friends and we were all learning how to play so i very rarely lost or got punished for my mistakes. Then comes my first game with a brand new person that knows how to play the game and absolutly crushes me. I almost stoped playing my army cause i felt as if everything i had done in the past was wrong and my army list's and tactics sucked more than anything so i should just start new.

Then i had a game where again i was tabled but it was by someone who after each phase expalined what he was doing and why and also after i did my turn he would explain the things i should have done(fixing my mistakes) but he still played to win and now thats how i teach new players as well.

Bottom line is...If they never learn from their mistakes when they are learning how to play then the never really learn the game.

[quote=H.B.M.C

Agamemnon2 wrote:Playing with that mind reading helmet again, are we?

Cry me a river sad-sack. I've got little time for your typical morose melancholy nonsense today.

This totally reminds me of the Gieco commerical with the drill sarge from full metal jackect. why dont we take a trip to namby pamby land

H.B.M.C i still picture you as clint eastwood from gran torino.

*edit damn not typing full words
* I hate typing honestly.....

I would rather play than not play.

I would also rather have a fairly even match rather than a one sided battle.

So long as both are met, winning or losing doesn't matter.

I play to win, I mean who doesn't, we all have the little tiny voice in the back of our head saying "do it..... crush his/her hobby....Muhahahhahha". I am not a WAAC player, but winning is pretty cool. I also play to see the plastic toys I put effort into looking good and seeing them on the table where they truly belong.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

bubblesflood wrote:I feel the reason I play is to have fun and get absorbed in the particular universe, therefore the more absorbing the game is the better. I have always built my armies around what miniature I liked and not what was best and arse kicking on the table top. I was talking to a regular tournie player recently and he seemed so absorbed in what would fight best and creating killer combos, he even said no one would use something in a tournie game so he wouldnt get it.

No. You play to win. It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

Playing to win and playing for fun aren't always the same thing to some people. I enjoy the game, win or lose, depending on my opponent (the wrong opponent can ruin enjoyment regardless of outcome).

And you know full well what is meant by the phrase 'play to win'.

I 'play the game' of which winning is the aim. 'playing to win' is a totally different attitude.

I think that trying to pigeon hole this scale int he two boxes is impossible as it is a scale and we are not just looking at the extremities.

If you go into a game with the intention of losing you have already lost. This will also mean that any "story" will not run fluidly on the table as you will be trying t force an outcome. You may as well jst sit down and write a story.

I think the main issue is we like to play with other players who are at a similar point in the scale to ourselves.

I have played enough competatie sports to understand the mentality behind having a positive attitude and to "visualise the win" but this should not come at the expense of good sportsmanship. Which is why I am glad to see tournies having a greater emphasis on fair and balanced play.

I spoke to a tournament player who came up with a tactic that if he got the first turn he could set in motion a combination that would wipe out half the opponents army before they even got to move. We have all seen rare occasions when this happens on the table but in my experience it required a fair amount of luck.

I just feel the WAAC playing style is not for me, but this is a big enough hobby for us all to have fun in whatever group we want to put ourselves in.

I play in character. By this I mean, I play as if I was a Chaos Lord in the fields of the 41st Millennium. So I go WAAC mode if I'm playing against Imperials, and totally apathetic if against 'Nids, 'Crons, Orks, Eldar and Dark Eldar. Why, you ask? To keep the game fun. Also, you have to define "winning". I'd think I "won" a game, even if it was a draw, as long as I maximized my time and efforts to enjoy it.

Excuse me, if my idea seems a bit childish.

Having fun, mainly getting along with my opponent and having a good game, is my main goal. Only if I am consistently defeated by the same character do I start to see it as a challenge that needs to be overcome.

H.B.M.C. wrote:No. You play to win. It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

Yes, but this is, as you say, from the point you put your models on the table.

When I'm playing a game, I'm actively trying to win (unless I'm teaching someone, or something similar). If the game goes badly for me, and it looks like I might lose, I'll figure out what I could do to get a draw, but if theres a possibilty of me winning I play to win.

However, before the game, I might choose a less competitive or suboptimal army because I like the fluff or the models. Hell, ALL my armies are less competitive or suboptimal. This is referred to in the first post, when the OP complains about people purchasing units only based on their effectiveness.

The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

Instead of 'play to win' and 'play for fun', we really mean 'is involved in Warhammer purely to WIN games' or 'is involved in Warhammer for because it's fun, regardless if you win or not'

Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

If you've seriouly number crunched your list unti it is 'competitivael y optimal' I reckon you're taking things just a little too seriously.

juraigamer wrote:I would also rather have a fairly even match rather than a one sided battle.

I like the way you think.

I enjoy a tough game with rock-hard armies. But I'd rather tone a list down than have a totally one-sided game.

And while I do try to build the best list possible I do compromise my lists based on models I like, things that I don't really want to paint, etc.

Mr Mystery wrote:Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

If you've seriouly number crunched your list unti it is 'competitivael y optimal' I reckon you're taking things just a little too seriously.

On the other hand I could say people who write pages and pages of fluff and spend hours making sure every detail of their army's paintjob is accurate as per the fluff are taking things too seriously, too. Don't even get me started on people who give their troops names...

ArbitorIan wrote:The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

What I want to know is why is it a bad thing to be in one camp or the other? I get why playing with people in tournament mode 24/7 might get tiresome, but really there isn't anything wrong with any kind of player*, they just have fun with one aspect more than another. Some people have more fun painting and writing stories for their dudes and other people, believe it or not, actually have fun competing and testing their skill both in list building (yes it is a skill) and tactics.

*Except the guys who give all their troops names and backstories, you're just messed up**. I'm sorry.

Scott-S6 wrote:I enjoy a tough game with rock-hard armies. But I'd rather tone a list down than have a totally one-sided game

The game isn't "one-sided" when both players are playing good armies, though.


As for me personally, I play to win, but if I weren't having fun then I wouldn't be playing at all. In my opinion 40k is a lot like Team Fortress 2, when I'm playing I'm doing my best to get that fething cart across the map, possibly getting frustrated when I keep getting killed by the same guy over and over, but in the end I really don't give a gak who won or lost, who got the most points, what my K ratio was, etc. When playing 40k I want to be the one with the most objectives or the only one with models left on the table, but when the game's over I really don't care anymore. I don't rub it in, I don't keep score and track all my wins/losses, I barely even say anything more than "I guess I won."

And yeah, nowadays I strive to build "competitive" armies, ones that people who take things too seriously will accuse of being "non-fluffy", "spammy", etc., but that isn't because I'm a "WAAC" player, it's because I'm broke and the idea of wasting money (a lot of money, this hobby isn't cheap) on units that suck isn't appealing. I like cool models, but in most cases I'm just not willing to shell out the money for something that's just going to handicap my list.


**This is a joke, don't take it seriously.

bubblesflood wrote:I have seen a few thread recently with discussions about which is the best race or what is the best killer combo and this got me thinking. Why do we play.

Some people will say they play because they want to win. I have only ever at best been an average player so I have taken my own fair share of whoopings and when I look back some of the more memerable games Ive had it didnt matter if I won or lost.

I feel the reason I play is to have fun and get absorbed in the particular universe, therefore the more absorbing the game is the better. I have always built my armies around what miniature I liked and not what was best and arse kicking on the table top. I was talking to a regular tournie player recently and he seemed so absorbed in what would fight best and creating killer combos, he even said no one would use something in a tournie game so he wouldnt get it.

I just wanted to share my thoughts and see what everyone else thought.
Whos camp are you in Win at all costs, or Have fun while doing it?

I don't really see why there has to be a distinction between the two. Why can I not make a great list and still have a good time? I usually run a marine horde and I almost always win when I play (tournaments and in store). I have always felt that having a good time is more based on how you interact with the other person and not who is winning. Certainly there are people who will never be happy unless they are pounding you but that is a very small percentage of the people who play.

Sidstyler wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

What I want to know is why is it a bad thing to be in one camp or the other? I get why playing with people in tournament mode 24/7 might get tiresome, but really there isn't anything wrong with any kind of player*, they just have fun with one aspect more than another. Some people have more fun painting and writing stories for their dudes and other people, believe it or not, actually have fun competing and testing their skill both in list building (yes it is a skill) and tactics.

I think you answer this question later in your own post, but...

No, it's not wrong at all. People can play the game however they like - if someone is only playing to beat other people, fine. If someone is building an army made of only nurglings cause he loves them, then fine. It's not wrong.

The arguments come when people with very different ideas of what they want play each other. Hobbyist players complain that people are taking obvious, identikit cheese lists, and that you should be aware that there are two people playing the game, and the game should be fun for both of them. Competitive players retort that the apparent 'lack of challenge' that a suboptimised list provides ruins their fun.

Neither are wrong. But i DO believe that the Hobbyist mindset encourages diversity in armies, creativity in the way a list can be used, and therefore is of benefit to the hobby, the community and the game. The comptitive mindset only encourages indentikit armies with the commonly-agreed 'best' units in them. I don't want to play the SAME Space Wolves army ten times in an event. I believe this mindset both misses the point and intention of the game's design AND makes the hobby less interesting for other people.

Thankfully for me, as others have pointed out, i think it's a very small and vocal minority. I've played in four tournaments so far this year, and every one featured lovely people with characterful, converted armies, and every single person I talked to was very dismissive of the 'competitive' mindset, to the level of it being a running joke. Three of the tournaments were big enough to be entered on the UK Rankings page, but nobody bothered entering the details, as nobody cares about the rankings. I could only think of one or two people out of the eighty or so attendees of these events who play like that.

Anyway, although I think it's bad for the hobby 'community', and relatively rare, it's not wrong for someone to play like that. If someone spends their money on toy soliders, they can do whatever they want with them.

EDITED for clarity and grammar.

Hear, hear.

I will say the bad thing about disliking to lose is that inevitably you will lose some games and not enjoy them.

I used to be a lot more competitive than I am now, and it got to the point where it spoilt my enjoyment of just playing the game.

I play for fun, and to relax and hang out.
Winning is a bonus.

Losing-losing is still fun, because to me, Warhammer is enjoyable just to play.

Hey.... what's wrong with naming your troops?

Capt_Bowman wrote:Hey.... what's wrong with naming your troops?

Coming up with new ones after every massacre.

I play to win, My friend and I are ridiculous ... we play 9-10 games a week in anticipation of next months tournament. So we can test and define and redefine our lists against all comers. We enjoy the competitive aspect of the game, I enjoy building the lists more, where he enjoys converting. However we both dislike painting ... and have several well painted armies between us ...

We're nice people to talk to and even play the game nicely albeit ruthlessly

I think there is a difference between wanting to win and actually playing to win.

Everyone 'wants' to win, but if you know your list isn't competitive, and you refuse to use certain strategies on the grounds of being cheesy... Then you are not playing to win.

It's like a man hammering on a castle wall with just his fists saying "I'm trying to knock down this wall"... No you're not.

Fortunately miniatures can be quite rewarding even if you never play, let alone win, and Role Playing games (which games like 40K would still come under) are often just as much a journey of imagination as they are competitive games.

Lately I have been trying to play to win a bit more. My main list is more competitive and such. But I still enjoy seeing my models on the table and allow myself a few units that I know I shouldn't take, just as guilty pleasures.

There is also seeking a challenge. Those irritating words 'optimal and competitive' seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win. That to me just seems a little pointless.

I guess it comes down to what margin of victory do you find acceptable. If you are obsessed with crunching your opponent into the dirty every time, then that's great, just don't expect me to play you more than once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

If you've seriouly number crunched your list unti it is 'competitivael y optimal' I reckon you're taking things just a little too seriously.

On the other hand I could say people who write pages and pages of fluff and spend hours making sure every detail of their army's paintjob is accurate as per the fluff are taking things too seriously, too. Don't even get me started on people who give their troops names...
.

Aye true enough there are extremes in all aspects of the Hobby, but the sad truth is those who take competitve gaming to the extreme are most likely to impact on their opponents enjoyment of the game. This is why I avoid tournaments. It's not that the majority of people attending are power gaming knob jockeys, it's because it's an environment I'm most likely to encounter said power gaming knob jockeys. Thus, I don't partake. They get to enjoy the game their way, I get to enjoy it mine, everyone is ultimately happier for it.

malfred wrote:

Capt_Bowman wrote:Hey.... what's wrong with naming your troops?

Coming up with new ones after every massacre.

Mine always seem to have just been knocked out or manage to survive some how.
Can never be bothered to name them all even if they do get eaten by a Hive Tyrant

Mr Mystery wrote:And you know full well what is meant by the phrase 'play to win'.

Yes, it means that you play the game not in an incompetent fashion, that is you play and attempt to win. Playing to win does not mean you cheat or abuse rules or otherwise be unpleasant. People who pretend that playing to win is a bad thing generally just are not very good at playing the game, so rather than learn how to play better attempt to insult anyone who beats them.

Mr Mystery wrote:Urrgh. 'Competitive' and 'Optimal'. Such grotesque words when used in a Hobby context.

I think it's pretty grotesque to spend hours and days of your life playing a game but choose not to understand how to actually play it.

And here we have the false dichotomy. I am a very competent gamer thank you very much, and the source of my enjoyment comes from taking armies which appeal thematically, and learning how to win with them. Sometimes I get it straight off the bat, sometimes it might take a few games, and perhaps a couple of tinkers to get my strategy down. Ultimately, I'm just not interested in using an 'optimised' list, or making sure my selections are 'competitive'. I'll let my skill at the actual game determine the outcome thank you very much.

But thanks for the attempt, it is noted.

ArbitorIan wrote:Hobbyist players complain that people are taking obvious, identikit cheese lists, and that you should be aware that there are two people playing the game, and the game should be fun for both of them... Neither are wrong. But i DO believe that the Hobbyist mindset encourages diversity in armies, creativity in the way a list can be used, and therefore is of benefit to the hobby, the community and the game.

It's the hardcore hobbyists that seem unaware that there are two people playing the game, and that the game should be fun for both of them. They're the ones who try to dictate what army the other player is allowed to bring instead of allowing the other person their choice of list. They're the ones who try to enforce sameness of armies by adding rules like 'comp scores' that force narrow styles of list and often make it impossible for less-popular armies to win a tournament. The 'fluff nazis' who will call any list unfluffy unless it sticks to some incredibly narrow idea in the person's head (a salamander's list with a speeder? UNFLUFFY even though every official source says they have speeders) are certainly not competitive players. Ohh, and watch out if you're a new player trying out some guys that aren't painted yet, or proxying because you don't want to spend money on something before you try it out - it's the hardcore hobbyist types that generally get angry about unpainted and proxied guys, not the competitive ones.

People who take some aspect of the hobby to seriously and try to force other people to do exactly what they enjoy are the problem, trying to say that 'hobbyists' cause no issues while 'competitivists' do just doesn't match reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:And here we have the false dichotomy. I am a very competent gamer thank you very much, and the source of my enjoyment comes from taking armies which appeal thematically, and learning how to win with them. Sometimes I get it straight off the bat, sometimes it might take a few games, and perhaps a couple of tinkers to get my strategy down. Ultimately, I'm just not interested in using an 'optimised' list, or making sure my selections are 'competitive'.

It sounds to me like you optimize a list for your playstyle, and attempt to learn how to use your list to win games, which constitutes building a competitive list. For some reason you've decided that 'optimized' and 'competetive' are bad words, so you pretend that any optimizations to your list or attempts to make it competitive aren't really that. And you feel the need to insult people who enjoy that part of list building by calling their daring to play the game well 'grotesque'.

Really? Like....really really?

As said above, when it comes to gaming, I'm fairly relaxed. And if for whatever reason I don't enjoy my game, I'll simply decline to play you again. Trouble is, in my own personal experience, those with the identicheese lists tend also to be bollocks rules lawyers, who reduce the flow of the game to a mind numbing grind.

So I ask again, who is most likely to have an impact on the other? I'll play any list, any time (provided I have equal points of course. I'm not stupid). How many fluff nazis have you genuinely met? As for proxying, couple of games sure, beyond that, and assuming you'll have played against more than just myself, I'd be asling why you haven't purchase said unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooop! Hold on. Missed your addendum.....reply to you starts here...

No, I don't optimise. I just take the units I like, and get good with them. Take my Savage Orcs. Entire army stemmed from the thought of a Frenzied Wyvern with an underslung Warboss, and boom, 2,000 points of frenzied nutters right there. I win about 50% of my games with this, often down to luck (yet to actually get the Big'un Boarboyz into combat. They always mince themselves when I call the Waaagh).

And yes, that's right..sometimes I will include a unit just because it looks or sounds cool. Helll, my Nids include several beasties called useless, and contains no Tervigons. Yet I win most of my games with them, and my Pyrovore is the bane of my opponents best HTH stuff. Why? Well, that would be telling of course.

But trust me, I don't need to number crunch my list, or 'optimise' to slap someone up and down the table. My tactics and strategy (not to mention genuinely outrageous luck when I need it) sees to that.

That really depends on the matter, if you are playing for fun, then play for fun. If you are a tounery players like myself, I'm going to bring my A list and show no mercy on the field.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:That really depends on the matter, if you are playing for fun, then play for fun. If you are a tounery players like myself, I'm going to bring my A list and show no mercy on the field.

So do you take your list to local stores etc, or do you have a group of like minded people to practice against? This is one of the things that stopped me going to my local club. Everything was tournament oriented, practice game after practice game, being told they wouldn't play my army because it wasn't 'comped' etc. That, and you see the same lists coming up time and time again (if I hear Gateway FTW one more time, I might just stab someone).

Now it's cool that they have their way of enjoying it, but when I've paid to attend somewhere, and am being forced to play another persons way, I just won't bother.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:It's the hardcore hobbyists that seem unaware that there are two people playing the game, and that the game should be fun for both of them. They're the ones who try to dictate what army the other player is allowed to bring instead of allowing the other person their choice of list.

Mr Mystery wrote:And here we have the false dichotomy. I am a very competent gamer thank you very much, and the source of my enjoyment comes from taking armies which appeal thematically, and learning how to win with them. Sometimes I get it straight off the bat, sometimes it might take a few games, and perhaps a couple of tinkers to get my strategy down. Ultimately, I'm just not interested in using an 'optimised' list, or making sure my selections are 'competitive'.

It sounds to me like you optimize a list for your playstyle, and attempt to learn how to use your list to win games, which constitutes building a competitive list. For some reason you've decided that 'optimized' and 'competetive' are bad words, so you pretend that any optimizations to your list or attempts to make it competitive aren't really that. And you feel the need to insult people who enjoy that part of list building by calling their daring to play the game well 'grotesque'.

First, against my point, I'll point out (again) that neither 'hobbyist' or 'competitive' players are wrong or right, but bad things happen whe they end up playing each other. But, to echo Mr Mystery...

Seriously? REALLY?

You really think that it's the Hobbyist players who hate varied lists? Bear in mind you're posting on an interweb forum where a small minority declare any list that 'doesn't have X' is uncompetitive, or any Chaos list 'must include X' otherwise it's never going to win. Or that you just shouldn't take certain units in a given codex. All the events I've played in this year are what you'd call 'fun' events - none of them had, needed, or wanted comp scores. I don't advocate comp scoring, but I understand that people who do are trying to DIVERSIFY the sort of lists present my removing the 'most common/popular/obvious' choices. Comp scoring is a reaction against netlists.

I include Mr Mystery's post because I completely agree with him - I choose an army to a theme, then LEARN to win with it. I'll optimise it, but never at the expense of the theme. For example, I play an all-Slaanesh Daemons list. I've been playing Slaanesh Daemons for a long time, and I win quite often now, as I've learned how to use them. I will post on forums to see how I can optimise them, but I would NEVER take the step of including Bloodcrushers or Fateweaver, however much it would benefit the list. Because it doesn't fit the theme for my army. While I want them to do well, and maximise my chances of winning, theme and concept come first.

H.M.B.C., I just have a quick question out of my own curiosity, and please don't be quick to cut me with your obviously scathing rhetoric ( ), but, when you play, do you care if your opponents have fun?

Just curious...