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.

Lots of shades of gray here that poll choices can't cover adequately. It's perfectly possible to play to win without being a WAAC power-gamer. It's also perfectly reasonable to build a fluffy, "underpowered" list and then try your damnedest to table your opponent.

Some people say they don't play for a win, they play for a challenge. That still implies an attempt to win, otherwise they wouldn't be playing. If you bother with the rules, you're aiming to win, even if you have a very healthy attitude towards losing and/or like to handicap yourself, whether for reasons of fluff or for the sake of upping the difficulty. Find me a player who truly plays to lose and I'll show you someone who would be better served setting up dioramas of little plastic men laying on their sides. The rules are there for competition, no matter how seriously players take it.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't disregard the effectiveness of units as I expand my armies, nor do I let that alone guide me. If I put my models on the table, I'm obviously going to attempt to win - that's the point - but that doesn't mean I'm going to bend rules, ignore cool-looking models, and limit myself to internet-confirmed power-lists in the pursuit of a perfect record. I like the narrative and fluffy aspects and I like a challenge. The pursuit of victory is part of that, as is the possibility of defeat. I can have fun with either result.

This thread makes a core assumption based on a false dichotomy, that being that playing to win and playing to the fluff are mutually exclusive. They are not nor have they ever been mutually exclusive.

Asherian Command wrote:I play for fun. Not to win.

So in all the games you play you never attempt to win?

This poll is loltastic. You win or lose because of fluff?

Were this to somehow become universally true, then EVERYONE would play space marines (because everybody loses to space marines in the fluff), and then no one would ever play any games (because space marines don't fight each other in the fluff).

This question makes about as much sense as an army winning or losing based on what color their armor is...

I build my army to win. I could care less about the fluff, as in my fluff my army is made up of intelligent soldiers that utilize tactics and equipment appropriate for the battles they expect to fight.

H.B.M.C. wrote:This thread makes a core assumption based on a false dichotomy, that being that playing to win and playing to the fluff are mutually exclusive. They are not nor have they ever been mutually exclusive.

Asherian Command wrote:I play for fun. Not to win.

So in all the games you play you never attempt to win?

As I said before, there is a difference between playing the game, and playing to win. I guess it's down to your personal approach. I see the boardside aspect of my hobby purely as a game. Win or lose, it's about the playing rather than result. For others, the boardside aspect of their hobby is a competition.

Hope that illustrates my view a bit better.

But the playing is still towards the goal of winning, right? that's the HBMC's point. You might not work very hard at winning, but you still try to win. Otherwise it's not even a game, it's dinner theater.

I'm going to let you in a little secret: this isn't the first time this topic has been discussed.

I am more into the tactical aspect then the fluff but I do write my own fluff and follow it when ever I can.

I play BA
BA uses alot of Assault Squads

coincidentally they are GOOD at it
Fluffy yes?

oadie wrote:If you bother with the rules, you're aiming to win. The rules are there for competition, no matter how seriously players take it.

See, this generalization makes my eyes rain...

If I only bother with the rules when I am aiming to win, how do you explain me pointing out specific rules (like the "intiative step immobilization letting his powerfists auto hit my vehicles) that would dramatically sway the favor to my opponents side..

Some people, both playing for 'sport' and playing merely for their W/L/D record, use the rules as a means of consistancy, not as a tool for victory!

~DAR

The concept of one play to win by bothering with rule

Rules are there to play the game, To play you have to understand the rule, I mean really? if you don't care about the rule at all , why don't you ignore whatever it is written in the Rulebook?