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.

What formation was that? I can't think of any that allow rerolling SAVES. (Was it a psychic power, perhaps? Veil of Time?)

I only really care about winning in tourneys. In friendly plays, we spend so much time talking about other stuff that I frequently forget some rules or make bad moves, but the fun of meeting friends is much more important.

Also, I enjoy close-call battles much more than bloodbaths (having my most frequent opponent a Dark Eldar guy doesn't help )

If I don't win. I flip the table so that no one wins. >:]

Depends on the case really. Narrative games, I usually am a lot more passive since I take a more "DM" approach to how I play and actually make it so that my opponent has an advantage but still feel challenged.

Winning is nice... however, if the game was close, cinematic, fun, and had memorable moments, then I'm more than satisfied.

I prefer fluffy and fun games over competative cutthroat games anyday. The kinds were you can take fluffy yet not competative units and still have a close game because your opponent did the same.

Plating against tau giant suit spam, eldar d weapon spam, and space wolf thunder wolf and wulfen spam? No thanks.

I won't play if I don't stand a chance (in my mind) of winning, but more than anything, I just want to have fun.

I definitely get more upset if I don't have fun than I lose; I've had plenty of games where I lost but didn't care because overall I had a lot of fun just playing.

I find rather than wins I remember interesting events. 10 days after game? Who won? Don't recall.

But let's see. Howabout blowing out your own baneblade with your own leman russ executioner? That sticks.

Belial vs squad of nobz and warboss. One after another hacks every nob dead but this gives enough gang-up help that by the time warboss comes in Belial is facing odds he cannot win and gets slaughtered. Still with heart of warboss bodyguard wiped out that along with other damage stopped ork assault for a while giving Imperials chance to halt retreat and build some fortifications to fight from.

Or pair of dreadnoughts making short work of over dozen ork walkers that came over wrecks of previous ones.

Or splatta kannon that managed to stop frigging imperial assault by splatting almost entire platoon of imperial guard along with entire death company squad. Ugh.

That's the stuff I remember. That's the stuff I play for.

I've started collecting DE as an alternative to my CSMs...

Crispy78 wrote:
I've started collecting DE as an alternative to my CSMs...

Ever since I played Guard, when I do play a game I would make a list of mini objectives for different units to achieve. Which goes back to the when my FLGS started allowing miniature 'kill teams' (200 point detachment max) to infiltrate larger games. Winning s nice and all, but if you wanted to piss me off, making it impossible to do so is an excellent way to do so.

If anyone is interested, the kill teams had random objectives rolled before each unit was built and deployed (not really. It was rolled after but in hindsight it would have been better to do so rather than rolling an objective that would have been impossible) . The objectives varied from demo charging a piece of terrain, assassinating 1 random or winning HQ, to supporting one side or the other, killing other kill teams, or racking up kill points. It was supposed to be secret objectives, where you were supposed to write down the number(s) of the objectives that you rolled, and here is the.kicker: if.anyone asked you what mission you rolled, you were allowed to lie. Doing so all the time was discouraged though, but it was.amusing when one of the main players thought you were reinforcing them only to have you kill one of their HQs.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What formation was that? I can't think of any that allow rerolling SAVES. (Was it a psychic power, perhaps? Veil of Time?)

I think it was Deathwing? (Re-rolleable jink for his bikes)

The other thing which I now remember now was the fact that he kept making his Knights invisible, that was infuriating lol

I change my opinion there are 3 layers to this as far as I see it.

1. Army choice. Some armies are better than others, so if you really care about winning you choose the best army and are switching it out once the power balance changes .

2. Army list. Same story here.

3. How you play the game, what tactics you use etc.

There are enough players who build casual armies but try to win with them and use anything they can in a game to win. I like this attitude a lot and its kinda strange that it isn't likely to be mentioned in these sort of discussions.

I definitely like to win, but as long as the game is a close one, I'm usually happy. I'm rarely happy when it's a total slaughter (either side)

If I don't win, I start screaming at children, flipping tables, pour drinks onto people's models and start bragging about the size of my member.

Winning is nice, but I care more about having a good time with my opponent. If I lose a closely fought, bloody battle, where the unexpected happens (such as a S6 MC failing a Strength check and getting sucked into a Monolith (man that was entertaining)), I'm still happy. If I curbstomp my opponent Turn 1, I'm not happy for the win.

That's probably why I don't use a Wraithknight, Wraithguard, massed Scatbikes...

How much it means to win for me, is wholy dependat on my opponet really. If I find myself stuck with a salty and general unpleaset foe winning is all the more imortnat.
If however my foe is of a civilized and nice manner I will not care much for winning as the game is enjoybal for both parties

For me, I always want to impress my opponent.

I want them to look at my army and say 'wow, he painted *that*!'

or I want to finish the game and I want them to think that I was an awesome opponent.

I always will enjoy playing 40k, especially with my wolves, so I want my opponent to feel the same way.

~Mikey

I actually don't care all that much about winning.

If you bring 4 daemon princes and I spend the game scoring objectives and avoiding your princes, yes, I won, but no, I don't want to play against you again.

What matters to me is the "interactivity" of our armies and at least the appearance of fairness.

And really, I don't care if you win every game. If I spend the game blowing your stuff up, I'm having fun.

You start bringing in psychic shenanigans, invisibility, rerollable saves, etc? That's when you'll need to find someone else to play against. I'll play against that once. Only once.

Man, it's been forever since I fielded all four of my princes. I've just not had a 4,000+ point game to justify bringing them all.

But I'm glad to see that everyone is pretty reasonable about their wins and losses. Fun should always matter more-it's a toy soldiers game, after all.

JNAProductions wrote:But I'm glad to see that everyone is pretty reasonable about their wins and losses. Fun should always matter more-it's a toy soldiers game, after all.

That's one of the reasons I'm just not into the whole "tournaments" thing. 40k is already an imbalanced game. Putting a prize incentive for winning only encourages people to make lists that aren't fun to play against.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
For me, I always want to impress my opponent.

I want them to look at my army and say 'wow, he painted *that*!'

or I want to finish the game and I want them to think that I was an awesome opponent.

I always will enjoy playing 40k, especially with my wolves, so I want my opponent to feel the same way.

~Mikey

I'm just getting back into 40k, and I haven't played yet because I'm currently painting up my army. But this is exactly how I feel when I take my Warmachine army to the store.

I love seeing two fully painted armies go head to head more than anything else in the hobby. Sure, I want to have a good fight, but I play these games to be teleported somewhere else.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Man, it's been forever since I fielded all four of my princes. I've just not had a 4,000+ point game to justify bringing them all.

But I'm glad to see that everyone is pretty reasonable about their wins and losses. Fun should always matter more-it's a toy soldiers game, after all.

Moreover, they're toys. The rules are really there just so we "play nice" when we get friends together.

I say this honestly, as several times I've watched my younger (autistic) son playing with my 40K minis on the tables and having way more fun with the stories he's making up than I do when I labour through an "honest" game of 40K rolling dice and watching my head get handed to me.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Man, it's been forever since I fielded all four of my princes. I've just not had a 4,000+ point game to justify bringing them all.

But I'm glad to see that everyone is pretty reasonable about their wins and losses. Fun should always matter more-it's a toy soldiers game, after all.

I agree with this attitude. I mostly play with friends, so for me every game is an excuse for us to get together, have some food and beers and play a game of 40k. As long as everyone is in a good mood, the night is a success.

To me; a close game is a good one and winning is a bonus, not the reason to play.

A whitewash is no fun for either side.

I think that winning HAS to matter in some regards, because in my experience it's very easy to get totally burned out on a game when you lose all the time; it's hard to buy new things or paint things or even play when you never come out on top.

That said though, winning has to be tempered. A close-fought game where it's anyone's game is great; a one-sided affair where you might as well not have even unpacked your army is just as devastating to someone's desire to play as losing every game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Man, it's been forever since I fielded all four of my princes. I've just not had a 4,000+ point game to justify bringing them all.

In my experience, honestly, fielding the Infernal Tetrad formation makes the most fun games for me. At 1250, 1500 points, they're the whole army (plus a couple squads at 1500 points). I lose games with it, I win games with it. They're tough to kill, but generally I'm looking at doing 3-4 things in the psychic phase, typically a shriek, a flickering fire, and then trying to buff, and maybe one or two shooting attacks if I get any from Rewards.

I don't care if I win with them, and I'll play them against anything, I just love having a bound way to run 4 princes as basically my whole army.

I've also noticed it seems like it's an uphill battle, playing this formation always feels like my opponent has the advantage early game, while it levels out more toward the end. I like that too.

I don't take the Tetrad. I take them as four independent Nurgle Princes.

Wayniac wrote:
I think that winning HAS to matter in some regards, because in my experience it's very easy to get totally burned out on a game when you lose all the time; it's hard to buy new things or paint things or even play when you never come out on top.

That said though, winning has to be tempered. A close-fought game where it's anyone's game is great; a one-sided affair where you might as well not have even unpacked your army is just as devastating to someone's desire to play as losing every game.

Agree. This also applies to winning for me. If I unpack an army and completely wreck someone, I feel like that game was better not played by either of us. It was hours of me rolling dice and watching him take models off the field, that's no fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't take the Tetrad. I take them as four independent Nurgle Princes.

That's cool too, I wasn't assuming that, was just bringing up how I like doing 4 princes and that it's fun to me at lower points

Yeah. That's legit. For me, though, since my local GW isn't the most competitive, I usually ask people how many princes they're willing to face, and rarely receive an answer above 2.

my local GW isn't uber competitive so I'd rather have a close tight game where we have to both be playing very strategically rather than someone getting blown off the table. I am relatively new and play eldar, and people did tell me how powerful they were after I started playing, but I have been able to usually find army mixes that give really close games. This has also given many people requesting games with me and also compliments for not taking all wraithknights and scatbikes. For me, I'd rather have people wanting to play against me and close games where I need to think rather that easy games where someone is getting tabled

Generally speaking, I play to win and expect my opponent to do the same. Not at the expense of fun or comraderie of course, but my most enjoyable games are from hard fought wons and losses.

To that end, winning only matters in that its what I work for, but I'm not bothered by it either way if the game was enjoyable and ideally close.

Exceptions to the rule are for teaching and when I'm heavily enebriated.

I honestly just care about having fun for the most part, however I can't stand getting my ass kicked. I have no issues losing a close hard-fought game but if I just get wrecked and wiped off the table I will admit it can get frustrating.