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.

MarsNZ wrote:Because winning is better than losing, no matter what context it's in. Even a silly game of monopoly with friends when the power cuts out is still nice to win.

Winning has no objective value in this context. You don't gain anything from winning a friendly. It is not 'better' than losing. But it IS the point of the game, and both players attempting to win is what makes the game work.

Analogies are always dangerous, but I'd liken a friendly game of 40k to a 'for exercise' game of squash or tennis played with your friends. You're there to get some exercise, see your friend, play a game. Winning means nothing, but both of you are trying to win anyway because it's what makes the game work.

Peregrine wrote:Because "casual", as it is commonly used in this context, is just an excuse to take the moral high ground when someone cares about winning more than you do.

Yup, casual in this context means 'I don't mind if I win or lose, it's just toy soldiers'. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to try to win, just that I realise that there is no objective value in it outside this game of toy soliders.

It's fair to then take the moral high ground against someone who obviously 'cares' about winning a game of toy soliders, or gets angry when losing.

Peregrine wrote:

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. First up i dont believe my mate took a 'weak' list (although you'd have to ask him to be sure) i believe that what he took was a BALANCED list you know the kind of list that has a variety of units and unit styles so that you can experiment a little with the rules.

Then he took a weak list. A list with a variety of units and unit styles is a weak list because it has no focus, it tries to do a little of everything and succeeds at nothing. Taking a list like that in a random pickup game is a TFG move because you pretty much guarantee that unless your opponent deliberately takes a similarly bad list they're going to have a bad game as they beat you effortlessly.

If your friend wanted to play a game like that he should have made it clear that he wanted a game with a variety of units on both sides with the intent to experience as many possible rule interactions as possible. It sounds like he failed to do that and just assumed that he'd get what he wanted even without asking for it.

And, by extension, the player who brought the optimised list is ALSO TFG, since he turned up with a 'competitive' list without making it clear that this is the sort of army he wanted to face.

Since people own armies for many many years, or can't afford to constantly repaint/convert/add to them whenever new rules are released (or because a lot of the appeal of 40k is in the models rather than their effectiveness) it is most likely that the vast majority of 40k players own what we could call 'mid-strength' lists. Thus, mid-strength lists are what you should aim for if you want a balanced, fair pickup game at an unknown FLGS

By your standards, turning up with an incredibly weak list would be a TFG move as it ruins the game for both people. Also, turning up with a very competitive list would be a TFG move for the same reasons.

Of course, YMMV for local metas.

EDITS for quote craziness!

I would really like to make fluffy/Cool but effective lists, but in my local gaming group, I can never know who is brining what. But even making a fun list, I will want to win with it. I have in the past made weak lists and been stomped (while I was learning the game) and I did not have fun. When it comes to the point when I am losing a game though, I switch from winning mode to saving face mode. I think being a good loser is the first step to being a good winner. Nothing is worse than losing to an ungracious opponent. In my experience, it seems the game scenario 'The Relic' seems to bring out the worst/best in people (including myself lol) as far as winning is concerned as there is only 1 objective.

Well apart from the fact that orks never loose, I personaly dont mind loosing. Especialy against a player who is just a collector first then gamer second, because then you get see 2 awesomely painted armies on a cool board bashing each others brains out.

I think people enjoy different parts of the game, for example I cant remember the last time I perposefuly went for an objective just because I prefere to roll lots of dice with my boys in combat. I can understand why people like winning but I could never play an army that I dont think looks cool or realistic.

When I was on a terrible loosing streak, I bought 1500 points of mechanised space wolves on a whim (back when they where the most potent of cheese) I played 3ish games with them and realised that im not in it to win it. They are now gathering dust waiting for eBay.

But thats just me.

I started playing a Harlequin themed list in 6th edition with the Dark Eldar codex, so I've gotten used to losing almost every game. I'm still working out how to use my army properly and try to learn from my mistakes each game. As such I don't mind losing.

However, what I do mind is just getting totally annhialated without any chance of even doing any damage. If there's a moment in the game where I have a chance, then I'm happy. If I then lose due to bad dice, or my opponents good dice, or a tactical error on my part, then that's fine. But just getting shot off the board before even getting a chance to retaliate is really dull.

For example, I played a game where I managed to get my Archon and Incubi into combat with my opponent's Chaos Terminators and Termie Lord. They completely bounced off and got wiped out, but they were in the right place at the right time, it just didn't go my way on that occasion. That's fine for me.

However, I have played games (mostly against Tau) where people have known that I'm a new player, and still continued to pound me into the dust from long range. Now, I'll take it in good grace because I know that there are probably ways to change my list to counter that, but it was still pretty boring for me.

I my opinion, caring about winning is a completely separate issue from whether or not a game is "Casual".

As others have said, the object of the game is to win or in some scenarios to hold of defeat as long as possible. This is the case whether a game is "Casual" or "Competitive".

In truth the term "Casual" is pretty vague and not at all helpful unless one is specific about what one means.

Casual can mean:
-Simply wanting to play with someone who is as interested in small talk and friendly banter as they are in winning. Someone who wants a social interaction as much as a gaming on. This could be done with fluffy lists or tooled up lists.

-Wanting to play a scenario and setup the terrain accordingly rather than "roll for it".

-Someone whose collection is not 6th-edition-optimized and they know it who wants to play against a similarly non-optimized list so that the game outcome is not decided on turn 1.

-And I'm sure it can mean other things too...

These are all valid requests, but unless a person is explicit about what they mean by "Casual" then it's not going to feel "Casual" to them. As was mentioned, 40k is not a balanced game and has never been so. That's why it is essential that players come to the game knowing what the other person's expectations are.

I heartily agree that when a person is explicit that they don't have a tooled up force and they request a game against a similar force if their opponent shows up with a Tournament crafted list, the opponent has just put on a bright shiny pair of TFG shoes. However, if you weren't clear about what kind of game you were looking for and just said something like I want a "Casual" or "Fluffy" game, then you probably weren't specific enough in your request.

This has been a fantastic discussion! I want to let this all play out naturally, but I wanted to chime in and let you know that you don't need to strictly adhere to my question. Many of you have taken my question and translated to how you view gaming - that's fantastic and exactly what I was hoping for. I'm seeing this topic spawning several more topics. And considering I have 360 articles left to write, that's not a bad thing!

I do have a mildly divergent question that I'd never considered until now - if you have two people who want to win (in a good way), is both bringing their "A game" the best way for them to have equal amounts of fun? It's becoming obvious that you can't blindly build a list for a casual/friendly game, because there's no hard number as far as power levels go. So to ensure the most balanced game possible, is it the best policy to build the best lists possible?

Continuing that question with an example from this thread - what would have been the best way to build a list against the "fluffy" Eldar player? It's obvious that the Razorback list was just too much for Eldar to handle, but was it wrong to bring it? How do you set rules without purposely swaying things in one player's favor?

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
This has been a fantastic discussion! I want to let this all play out naturally, but I wanted to chime in and let you know that you don't need to strictly adhere to my question. Many of you have taken my question and translated to how you view gaming - that's fantastic and exactly what I was hoping for. I'm seeing this topic spawning several more topics. And considering I have 360 articles left to write, that's not a bad thing!

I do have a mildly divergent question that I'd never considered until now - if you have two people who want to win (in a good way), is both bringing their "A game" the best way for them to have equal amounts of fun? It's becoming obvious that you can't blindly build a list for a casual/friendly game, because there's no hard number as far as power levels go. So to ensure the most balanced game possible, is it the best policy to build the best lists possible?

This is an argument that comes up a lot.

YES. The most reliable way to make sure everyone is equally balanced is for everyone only to bring top-tier optimised, competitive lists. Any quick google can tell you what they are.

But not only does this restrict what models people can use and narrow down the amount of lists that are playable, it also excludes anyone who doesn't have the money or collection to keep up with the changing meta. Also, it doesn't take into account theme, which is very important for a lot of people.

So, while choosing to play friendlies at 'mid tier' or 'casual level' has more room for error in terms of balance, it means that everyone can play, which is usually the point of a FLGS-style community.

EDIT - it's also why comp scores still exist in a lot of local tournaments - they don't want their player base to auto-lose and give up the hobby just because one guy can afford to buy, say, ten new flyers and other players can't.

People play games because they are competitive, and want to win. You can have a fun game and lose, and have no hard feelings about it, but when you win, it's so much better. It's great to come out of a hard game on top, than pit all of your wits against an opponent and find that it just wasn't enough. It's the same in anything. The object of the game is to win. If you're not trying to win, why bother playing?

A followup question posed by a Magic the Gathering player that may open up some more opinions:
At the end of a game, what do you consider "winning"? Focus on wargames for now, but if you play other games/sports I'd be interested to hear how you approach winning and/or success (if they're different for you).

Guiding questions:
-Is winning just succeeding at the games victory conditions?
-Are landslide wins more/less satisfying? Is the skill of your opponent a factor?
-How does making mistakes or being outplayed/outmaneuvered affect the feeling of winning/losing?

You don't need to answer these, but those are some thoughts the poster got me thinking about.

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
For me, sometimes winning is an easier way to justify the amount of time and $$$ I put into the hobby. Modeling alone is very satisfying, but when the awesome paint jobs hit the table, I like to win. It makes me feel like I am winning at both sides of the hobby. It sucks to bring nicely painted miniatures to the table and get blown away by unpainted gray models... It seems I have less sore feelings when I get stomped by someone with nicely painted models as it makes me feel that they put in the same effort to beat me. Odd I guess...

That actually sums up my own feelings on the matter rather nicely. My best wins and losses come when I am facing another army that is fully painted.

Back in with my tuppence worth:

It boils down to mentality. If you are lucky enough to end up with an opponent that views the game the same way as you and has bought a competitive and balanced list (NOT WEAK there is a difference) that requires actual skill and tactical acumen to use then odds are you are gonna have a great time. Both of you will have chances to counter other units in each others army and the flow of battle will be exciting and it will truly be a sweet victory when a winner is finally arrived at.

If both people turn up with a spam list then i guess you're still going to have fun. You both know what you are going to get from the game and can play your ultracompetitive heart out relishing in your hard won sucess.

My own personal view is that i could go out and buy myself an all conquering mech armyand- just refuse to play necrons because they would be my only weakness, but im pretty sure id get very bored of playing the same game ad infinatum, The joy of balanced and varied lists is that different stuff can happen. The narrative that GW pushes for so hard artificially can become a natural thing. BOTH players will enjoy the game and although we all naturally play to win i've had games i've won that i haven't enjoyed and games i've lost that i have.

Oh and on the point of SW RB spam being fluffy... Im not so sure that the drinking halls of Fenris are filled with the singing of the Saga of the Long Fang Squads that sat in their transports heroically firing out of the hatches.....

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:

-Is winning just succeeding at the games victory conditions?

Essentially, yes. There are moral victories, but that's not winning.

-Are landslide wins more/less satisfying? Is the skill of your opponent a factor?

No, close wins against skilled opponents are always going to be more engaging, since it requires more work from myself.

-How does making mistakes or being outplayed/outmaneuvered affect the feeling of winning/losing?

If I lose, I'd like this to be the reason why, and if I win, I'd like it to be because I outplayed/outmaneuvered my opponent. Because in both cases, there's something to actually be learned from the loss, and it's not an empty win/loss achieved through random factors.

I think, as many posters have noted, that the desire to succeed is pretty hardwired into all people. Nobody wants to fail. Even if they have different ideas of how they win, they still want to win.

Warhammer is kind of different from most competitive amateur pursuits in that it doesn't really have brackets or other ways to sort people into the appropriate level of competition. When people play competitive chess, even amateurs, they tend to seek out players of roughly similar skill.

The other big difference between warhammer and most competitive events is the role of, for lack of a better word, equipment. I'm not a big believer in "push button win armies," at least not in actual tournament play, but it's hard to deny the vast difference between an optimized, tweaked build and a haphazard, taking what you like build.

So, you have the incendiary combination of a homogenous player pool, with no real good way to differentiate skill/player style, and an enormous advantage to be gained through external factors, such as army list.

Now, just because a gamer doesn't have an optimized list doesn't mean he doesn't want to win. It just means he's not willing to dedicate the time and effort to build a better list and learn to play at a higher level. Not unlike nearly every other hobby competition available. I used to play ping pong with a co-worker on our lunch break. And by ping pong I mean the kind played on two lunch tables pushed together with a portable net. We had a ton of fun, but played to win. I was lucky to win half my games, and usually won one out of three. There is nothing lower stakes than that, but we played to win. We didn't care enough to actually practice or learn new techniques, but for 25 minutes a day we were hard core. Then one day a security guard that was moonlighting from his normal job at a juvenile detention center played, and whupped our asses solid. He had a serve we couldn't touch. It wasn't fun. Sure, if we put time and effort, we might get good enough to compete, but we're both lawyers with lives, and ping pong just ain't that big a deal.

The same thing applies to 40k. If I tried really, really hard, I could get maybe two games of 40k in a week. Most of the time, since I've been working full time, I got maybe 3-4 games in a month. I can see why a lot of guys just want to pull out a comfortable army, roll some dice, and have fun. For them, it's like ping pong was for me: a diversion.

Both sides in this tempest in a teacup tend to get a little histrionic. the way I look at it, if you can't understand why some people want to play 40k "seriously" and competitively, or if you can't understand why other people want to play "casual," "themed," or "fluffy" games, then the problem is with you as a gamer.

 Polonius wrote:

Now, just because a gamer doesn't have an optimized list doesn't mean he doesn't want to win. It just means he's not willing to dedicate the time and effort to build a better list and learn to play at a higher level.

I'm certainly capable of time/effort/'higher level of play', but I prefer to put in the time/effort to something that is different to all the other optimised lists that turn up. I don't feel an urge to spend valuable money on what everyone else says I should have. If anything I tend to go out of my way to avoid what others suggest unless I really happen to like that model.

There are some games I'm more competitive at (board wargames mainly), and will rank well in tourneys if I enter such things. Warhammer ain't one. For me, mini wargames are about playing with nice models and terrain, not building some optimised list. It may be down to the constant expenditure of money for minis, compared to board wargames where once bought you don't pay anymore, which makes me see the different types of game differently?

Well for my part I prefer o win a casual game with a friend, than to win against someone I dont know or dont want to know. Casual games is what for me defines the hobby when it comes to the gaming part, playing with a friend and bringing a list that is far from optimized and just see what happens. Much more enjoyably to pull a win from that than with a list made to beat army X or Y

When I go to play 40k, I consider 'winning' the following:

*Showing up with the best painted models I can and giving my models 'a chance to shine'.
*Doing the best I can with the units/army I have chosen to play (which is orks as I collect orks). I know I can play other armies but a minor loss with my orks is worth more than a major win with a push-button netlist.
*Meeting new people and having a great game.

I do believe it is possible for 'everyone' to win when playing a game. Even learning new tactics by losing a game is a 'win'.

If you ever feel like losing the game has defeated you and you 'lost', then you may need to re-evaluate why you play these games and participate in the hobby. Losing the game can still be a 'win' when you look at things objectivley.

Also, people who only care about winning the game and don't realize how much of the game is impacted by imbalance and random chance, it does make it hard to actually embrace a win as a real victory as compared to other types of competition.

In every Win and Loss, good players can identify when a victory was due to tactical mistakes, random chance or statistical imbalance. And while we all strive to play better, there really is no 'win' when a game is decided by chance or imbalance.

Casual games, for me :

'Am i having fun? Is the other guy having fun? If both are true it's an awesome game. If i win it's the icing on the cake, but the gameplay is the thing.

Competition games - usually tournaments, or pre-arranged matches with competitive players.

Did i win? If yes, it was a good game. If i did it with style - extra points. If the guy was a good sport, and the game was tight-fought - still better.

Roflstomp (win or lose), and/or the other guy is a jerk is several wasted hours, competitive or casual.

Winning is a lot less important to me than enjoying the game. Some of my fondest gaming memories were game-losses for me that were really tight-fought, against someone who was a real challenge to play (but not a jerk).

I play for recreational fun. As long as a game boils down to a few dice rolls I'm happy win or lose. I hate one sided games, win or lose.

When appropriate, I politely concede games that are out of hand and humbly accept when my opponents concede.

Do we play chess to lose? Racquetball?

When winning helps pay my mortgage are losing prevents me from feeding my cat, I'll worry/be concerned about winning and losing. Playing a stranger that becomes an asshat or TFG during the game sucks. That I hate.

 Polonius wrote:


The other big difference between warhammer and most competitive events is the role of, for lack of a better word, equipment. I'm not a big believer in "push button win armies," at least not in actual tournament play, but it's hard to deny the vast difference between an optimized, tweaked build and a haphazard, taking what you like build...

...Now, just because a gamer doesn't have an optimized list doesn't mean he doesn't want to win. It just means he's not willing to dedicate the time and effort to build a better list and learn to play at a higher level.

I agree with most of what you said, but this last bit rubs me the wrong way. That "building a better list" is such a focus of the hobby is one of the things that I think is at best a reflection of imbalanced rules and at worst, a cynical grab on GW's part to tailor codicies into requiring the purchase of newer and more expensive models. That "playing at a high level" seems to be as closely associated with listbuilding as generalship is a black mark against GW's handling of the game.

That someone would choose a fluffy list, or not buy ______ new shiny unit, doesn't mean they lack dedication, it simply means they have a different perspective on the hobby.

Perhaps I'm just reacting to the use of the word "dedicate", but that was my reaction.

 Polonius wrote:

Now, just because a gamer doesn't have an optimized list doesn't mean he doesn't want to win. It just means he's not willing to dedicate the time and effort to build a better list and learn to play at a higher level.

i agree with your points - it's just this sentence that seems to rub people up the wrong way, though I know it isn't intended.

A lot of casual players could be very skilled players, and quite capable of building a competitive list, but other things in the hobby take priority for them. For example, they may really like Necrons because of their zombie-like inevitability, and so, for them, fast Flyers don't really 'fit'. Or they might really like the idea of a 40k cavalry charge, and build an amazing army of Rough Riders. Both armies would require lots of time and effort, and probably more 'skill' to play with any level of success, it's just that their time and effort is spent in a different area.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
It's fair to then take the moral high ground against someone who obviously 'cares' about winning a game of toy soliders, or gets angry when losing.

Those two things aren't at all the same. Yes, you should shun people who get angry about losing. But that's entirely different from caring about winning, which, in the context of self-titled "casual" gamers often includes things like making an effort to improve your list and take good units. Entitled "casual gamers" come up with a whole list of arbitrary and ridiculous things that are "caring too much" and accuse everyone of being WAAC TFG if they do any of them.

And, by extension, the player who brought the optimised list is ALSO TFG, since he turned up with a 'competitive' list without making it clear that this is the sort of army he wanted to face.

If that's how you want to judge it. My point is that you have to judge both of them equally: either both of them are acceptable, or both of them are TFG behavior. I personally choose "both are acceptable", but my main point there was about entitled "casual gamers" who whine about "WAAC TFG" if you don't bring a weaker list to make the game more enjoyable for them, but feel no obligation at all to improve their own lists to make the game more enjoyable for you.

master of asgard wrote:
However, I have played games (mostly against Tau) where people have known that I'm a new player, and still continued to pound me into the dust from long range. Now, I'll take it in good grace because I know that there are probably ways to change my list to counter that, but it was still pretty boring for me.

But what exactly do you expect in that situation? The entire Tau army is based around shooting you from long range, so the only thing your opponent could do is literally pull their own models off the table and say "I'm killing these Broadsides to make the game more balanced and give you a chance". Or maybe do something suicidally stupid to get them killed and accomplish the same end result.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
-Is winning just succeeding at the games victory conditions?

Yes. Why else would there be victory conditions in the game?

-Are landslide wins more/less satisfying?

Less, since it pretty quickly gets boring and I just want to finish them off as fast as possible and get it over with. This probably isn't helped by the number of times I've had to deal with immature s whining and crying about how unfair everything is while they're losing a one-sided game like that.

(Of course I'm not going to start playing stupidly just to give my opponent a better chance, but a completely one-sided game isn't going in my collection of "why I love the hobby" memories.)

-How does making mistakes or being outplayed/outmaneuvered affect the feeling of winning/losing?

Obviously losing because of making mistakes is more frustrating since the situation was entirely under my control and I just threw away my chances of winning. Winning because of my opponent's mistakes doesn't really make a difference, I haven't had many games (if any at all) where I've won because of a massive game-destroying mistake by my opponent, usually it's just minor things that give me an opening to exploit.

For me, there would be no victory in defeating an eight year old playing Tau while using Space Wolves myself. But in reverse, that eight year old could make a real mug out of me if he wins, so I'll make sure to win anyway.

Winning from an underdog position = best of things.

I don't play 40k, I play another game system. Perhaps that has tinted my lenses. But I'll make my point anyway.

I find that even when 'playing for a story' or bringing 'fluffy' lists, people aim to win. Their specific army doesn't lose constantly in the fluff, not do they want to tell the story of how they regularly get blown to pieces.

Perhaps it's because I've never seen an entirely 'hopeless' match up. I think the WAAC TFG/Fluffy Casual TFG binary is a symptom of the game structure, and as such has translated to its players.

 Peregrine wrote:
Entitled "casual gamers" come up with a whole list of arbitrary and ridiculous things that are "caring too much" and accuse everyone of being WAAC TFG if they do any of them.

I'm not sure that's completely true. Generally, we only see the same two or three complaints on these forums...

1. Someone brought a very high-tier list featuring famously overpowered units, a list much more powerful than the group usually plays, which unbalanced the game. The poster therefore (justifiably) feels that he lost because of unbalanced forces rather than less skill/luck.
2. Someone being a rules lawyer and exploiting loopholes/contentious rules in the game to win.

It's really only ever those two. We never see any complaints about losing to a skilful player who had a reasonable list. It's only when people feel they've been 'tricked' into an auto-lose that they whine on the boards.

Of course, everyone is 'entitled' to play the game however they want. But since 90% of players are 'casual' players, it's justified for them to say 'we want to play at mid-tier, and if you want to play you have to play at mid-tier too'. Of course, in a 'competitive' gaming group, or a tournament, it's perfectly fair to say 'this is a high-tier event, so bring a high-tier army or stop complaining'. It all depends on the group/club/FLGS/situation.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, by extension, the player who brought the optimised list is ALSO TFG, since he turned up with a 'competitive' list without making it clear that this is the sort of army he wanted to face.

If that's how you want to judge it. My point is that you have to judge both of them equally: either both of them are acceptable, or both of them are TFG behavior. I personally choose "both are acceptable", but my main point there was about entitled "casual gamers" who whine about "WAAC TFG" if you don't bring a weaker list to make the game more enjoyable for them, but feel no obligation at all to improve their own lists to make the game more enjoyable for you.

A completely agree that it has to be equal. But this quote assumes that there are only two sorts of list - 'ultra-competitive' and 'weaker', and that any attempt to make you choose a list other than 'ultra-competitive' is unfair and just down to 'entitled' casual player bias.

In reality, most armies (and most groups of players) fall somewhere in the middle - not very weak but not extremely strong, either. If a group of players all choose to play using mid-strength armies, then they are perfectly entitled to ask you to play a mid-strength army too if you want to join their group.

I think the real problem is when a game is developed for co-operative narrative play, and (mis)marketed as suitable for balanced competative play.
As this throws a wide spectrum of players together with wildly different ideas on the suitability of the game for their own play style.

ALL play styles are perfectly valid.And IF the players are of the same mindset, they will have fun.
Most games companies seem to have better defined game play and play styles, and are clearly marketed true to their development.(So like minded players are drawn to the games.)

Games developed for balanced competative play can easily be converted and used by more narrative driven play styles.But this sort of writing is very difficult.

So developers not able for what ever reason to write this type of game.SHOULD call it 'narrative driven 'if it is.(And use senarios NOT Points Values to make it obvious.)
Even some games written for competative play tend to use more narrative balance costings.'Gold pieces', 'Tonnage',' Weapon hard points','requisition chits' etc.

However, truly awful rules writing is often justified by meaningless buss words like''relaxed' 'casual' 'cinematic'..instead of the more honest 'poorly defined', 'diffuse', and' counter intuitive'.

Eilif wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


The other big difference between warhammer and most competitive events is the role of, for lack of a better word, equipment. I'm not a big believer in "push button win armies," at least not in actual tournament play, but it's hard to deny the vast difference between an optimized, tweaked build and a haphazard, taking what you like build...

...Now, just because a gamer doesn't have an optimized list doesn't mean he doesn't want to win. It just means he's not willing to dedicate the time and effort to build a better list and learn to play at a higher level.

I agree with most of what you said, but this last bit rubs me the wrong way. That "building a better list" is such a focus of the hobby is one of the things that I think is at best a reflection of imbalanced rules and at worst, a cynical grab on GW's part to tailor codicies into requiring the purchase of newer and more expensive models. That "playing at a high level" seems to be as closely associated with listbuilding as generalship is a black mark against GW's handling of the game.

That someone would choose a fluffy list, or not buy ______ new shiny unit, doesn't mean they lack dedication, it simply means they have a different perspective on the hobby.

Perhaps I'm just reacting to the use of the word "dedicate", but that was my reaction.

I used dedicate in the sense of allocate. Most casual gamers dont' want to spend the time to be competitive players. They simply don't. That's not a moral judgement, and isn't even a bad thing. But we all make decisions on what to dedicate ourselves toward, and for a lot of wargamers, games isn't one of them. At least not the extent of a competitive player.

ArbitorIan wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Now, just because a gamer doesn't have an optimized list doesn't mean he doesn't want to win. It just means he's not willing to dedicate the time and effort to build a better list and learn to play at a higher level.

i agree with your points - it's just this sentence that seems to rub people up the wrong way, though I know it isn't intended.

A lot of casual players could be very skilled players, and quite capable of building a competitive list, but other things in the hobby take priority for them. For example, they may really like Necrons because of their zombie-like inevitability, and so, for them, fast Flyers don't really 'fit'. Or they might really like the idea of a 40k cavalry charge, and build an amazing army of Rough Riders. Both armies would require lots of time and effort, and probably more 'skill' to play with any level of success, it's just that their time and effort is spent in a different area.

I agree, although I'm not one to dwell on potential. Aside from minor league ball players and Mensa members, potentional doesn't mean much after the age of 18.

I think all gamers have at least one thing in common. It doesn't matter if you are a WAAC, a TFG a casual gamer, a netlist spammer or anything else, we all want to win. we want to see our model soldiers beat up the other guys model soldiers, and we all go into a game with the objective of winning in mind. otherwise, what exactly is the point of playing a game? you may as well set your guys up in cinematic positions, roll a few dice, make a few pew pew sound effects, and pack up and go home.

What sets the different sub groups of players apart, is how they approach the before, during and after phases of the game. a casual gamer might bring along an army of models he likes, rather than an army that has synergy, whereas the tournament gamer will have a carefully selected list for maximum killiness. Both players will start the game wanting to win, both have setup their armies beforehand (with different criteria) but the 2 key phases in a casual game are the during and after. i have been soundly thrashed many times by hardcore tournament players and thoroughly enjoyed it, and beaten TFGs and hated every minute of the games.

Ultimately though, i like to win games, because, thats the point, isn't it?

I actually play casual games to relax from the tournament t setting and have fun. Those games are not about winning for me, but to throw some dice and engage in social interactions with my friends. if I win great if I lose then I take the game and figure out why or what I did if anything. I also look at how units preform.

Sure I like to examine and tweak lists also... That is part of the game for me too since I play in tournaments as well and want a. Nice list (nonspam). Wining there matters why else would I be there lol.

During a friendly causal game My friends and I will decide on ahead of time to bring a competitive list, a fun list, or a test list. Then we do the best we can with the list and they do the same.

I don't play random people that make their list at the store. I have this rule because they end up tailoring their list to counter mine, and that's not cool. If I do decide to play them I try not divulge any information as to what I have and I'm prepared to play a non fun army. If they are starting out and have low points I would match their points and units based off what they had... This is pretty rare though since I schedule ALL my games.

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Oh and on the point of SW RB spam being fluffy... Im not so sure that the drinking halls of Fenris are filled with the singing of the Saga of the Long Fang Squads that sat in their transports heroically firing out of the hatches.....

Wait, you have people firing out of razorback hatches at you? Your opponents are cheating.

What is winning? Great question. Obviously, this will vary alot between people.

The important thing is that the right people, who have a similar view of the question get together and play games. That is why "random" or "pick-up"games at the FLGS must start with a discussion and getting a feel for who you are about to play.

Now, what is winning to ME. I face enough out-and-out winner-take-all competition in my everyday life. In my made-up fantasy 40K life, I really don't need more of that. Therefore, I consider "winning" to be walking away from the gaming table and feeling like it was a good use of my time. If I feel like the last two hours was a good use of my time, then I will see it as winning.

I think it would be pretty easy to group players into general gaming philosophies around winning/losing, and that could be a interesting discussion topic for a Blog.




Oh, just to be controversial , in the US there is a huge stigma about being a "loser". Therefore, many Americans strive to be Big Fish; and it doesn't really matter how small the pond really is. It helps them feel validation in American Competitive Culture. Therefore, being able to stomp people you don't really know at a game of toy soldiers becomes really important emotionally and spiritualy.