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 just recently went through several pages of the thread "Why do people frown upon 'Playing to Win'?" only to realize the conversation was long over, and the thread locked. I, however, wanted to give my opinion on the matter because unlike many miniature gamers, I don't ever want to go to my FLGS, nor have I ever played at one despite being a bigger nerd (arguably) than most who go there. I also figure this is a great way to introduce myself.

I've always been a fan of every type of game. Primarily a PC gamer of ALL genres (RTS, FPS, MMO, stick figure browser games or those fun indie developed southpark games you could download on dial up, anything really). Also a huge anti-nerd nerd who rarely cared for the popular games. My first miniature game was Clan Wars. I collected MTG before it was a fad, and abandoned it when it become one (for the Middle Earth CCG). Think D&D is unrealistic and boring, but am in complete love with Shadowrun PnP RPG ever since the Sega game stole my mind, and although my first PnP games were Middle Earth RPG and L5R, Shadowrun was my first real one. I am also big on board games just recently (ex., Mansions of Madness) and own almost every HorrorClix miniature.
I am a very social person (used to be a youth pastor) and love people, but don't care for FLGS. Typically low income most of my life in relation to the hardcore type of games (Miniatures are expensive!) so the majority of my games have been short lived (a handful of RPG books) or from liquidation sales (Rackham miniatures). However, now I'm getting into it seriously, having bought 2 large armies of Kings of War and a plethora of paints! Being low income is tough for me, because among everyone I know, I am the ONLY one who is willing to spend any money on this 'nerd' stuff (excluding video games) and the only one who really has the money to do so. So I have to buy 2 armies of any miniature game I play, build 2 decks of cards, collect 2 sets of blank, etc.etc.
I have always done this, because I need someone to play with. While it's logical to goto FLGS's to spend half the money, my family and close friends (er, I mean friend, as everyone else IS family, lol) are extremely important to me and time is limited.


So those I play miniature games with (primarily my adult nephew) are easy going. Of course, we both ALWAYS play to win and kick the other's @#&. We also play to have fun, which is what side we'd be on, as we don't min/max unless it comes naturally and we begin to favor a specific unit bc of how fun (powerful) they are.

Most important, I read constantly in that thread "If someone has a better army, you just play worse? Let them win? LOL, yea right!" type of attitudes.

I just wanted to say my opinion, my view as a non-FLGS gamer who hates losing but loves having fun and most importantly (in ALL genres) will never play overpowered instant-win exploits. If it's a FPS game, I won't use the overpowered weapon. If it's a RTS game, I refuse to use bug exploits or OP unit spam. If it's a PnP RPG, I am not a Munchkin, and I actually play both GM and player, and play alongside the others as I GM, seeing the GM spot as a cooperative demon one must allow so everyone can play their characters. In a miniature game, if I play 5 games in a row and win 4/5 of them (or lose 4/5) then we do not play WORSE, we still play to WIN, but we do what is IMO obvious. Handicap a player or army/unit.

So if a warhammer player fields all Dreadnaughts Heroes with quad melta-guns and a passive ability that doesn't allow the enemy to ever make a single action, we replace the ability with a different powerful ability, handicap point values, or alter the game rules as we see fit.


Like a PnP RPG where all players combine to work as the GM, the players agree on change for the better of challenging gameplay. An adaptable or flexible rule system is, IMO, a requirement. Hearing of people who play miniature games or PnP RPG's with other humans who are regid, stubborn, min/maxers, or WAACers, is the sole reason I never go to FLGS.

I'd rather never play a game, than to have someone be resistant to adjustments to make for a fair, fun game. If an army if gimped or a unit useless, then alter the rules to something agreeable. If it's too powerful (even in the middle of gameplay) reduce the change or rewind a turn.

I'd love to see a tournament where the hosts have "House Rules" which differ across the nation. Perhaps a 40K tournament which decides the armies for you, based on registration. IMO, it's much more realistic to be given an army, than to create one yourself. It's also more challenging, more fun, and better balanced.
Flexibility in rules on a one by one basis, and Structure that provides balance (other's forming two balanced armies based on your preference) would make miniature gaming much more fun.

The primary reason I listed all the types of games I play, is to introduce myself, but also to emphasize heavily that in ALL of these games (especially video games) when people exploit the meta-game, min/max, and WAAC and call it skill, it's just laughable. This is coming from someone who, no matter the game, is usually on top and can min/max with the best of them, but chooses not to.


Thanks for skimming over my TLDR introduction, useless blabbering information, and aged opinion which came here 4 months too late, lol.
I look forward to assembling, painting, and playing my two new Kings of War army, as this is the first time I've ever played a customizable miniature game as an adult. (I've assembled and painted FoW, and played pre-painted mini's, but never played my FoW game, lol.)

OH! And thank you VERY much for the Paint Comparison Chart Dakka Dakka! This is a GREAT website! It was VERY helpful for me to stick with Vallejo paints, instead of switching to Formula P3 (especially the metallics). Thanks to these forums, I also was able to get some Vallejo Liquid Gold for my High Elves!
I will be sharing pics (as long as they dont turn out horrid, rofl).

Long story short, there is a big difference between wanting to win and "playing to win". Everyone wants to win at a game, or else, why even play in the first place? However, the difference lies in the degree of importance that winning has for some players. I have had players throw dice at me because I beat them. I go to have fun. If you find yourself pouring over the books looking for that one great combo that will stop every game in its tracks and guarantee you the win, and spending so much time on the uber-uber-uber list that you forget to play the @#^%#@ing game, or you simply refuse to play certain people/armies because you or they are too good, you may qualify as that person who plays for the sole purpose of winning at all costs.

Just play, have fun with your friends, and enjoy yourselves; it is just a damn game!

RonnyRulz wrote:
The primary reason I listed all the types of games I play, is to introduce myself, but also to emphasize heavily that in ALL of these games (especially video games) when people exploit the meta-game, min/max, and WAAC and call it skill, it's just laughable. This is coming from someone who, no matter the game, is usually on top and can min/max with the best of them, but chooses not to.

I'm going to pull this little gem out of all that.

Its laughable that people use good weapons/abilities/stuff in good combinations that fit their play style in order to win?

And you, who apparently always wins, but never min/maxes, but has a distinctly tiny play group, have a general opinion that blankets people who like to win or write good, strong, cohesive lists. I'm sorry, but this, what you wrote is laughable.

This article sums up my thoughts: http://www.3plusplus.net/2010/10/forumitis-i-only-play-for-fun.html

You're entitled to your opinion, and much of what you wrote was largely irrelevant for the point you're making, but its just more of the classic whine about people saying they're superior gamers because they don't bring good lists.

Fantastic little read there bud.

I completely sympathise with your FLGS reasoning. It's unfortunate that you don't have gamers there who are willing to play in a different style to what they're accustomed to.

To be fair, and to provide a counterargument for no reason other than to develop conversation, perhaps a compromise should be made?
I understand that you are not keen on the rules being hard-set in iron, using meta lists against stubborn players - but I guess this is what the meme pool has, dare I say, regressed to. I would suggest that the reason for this, and the lack of open editing and construment of rules, is that the system 'works'. Sure, it has its flaws, but nobody is perfect. But I feel that there are very few people capable of making rule changes that are effective without either cocking the game up entirely OR making it rather unbalanced to one side. Even then, many people just 'forget' and what not.
Having a single yard-stick or set of rules is beneficial in that everyone is on the same playing field. Although I'm sure it would be fun to branch out and play a tournament using other people's house rules, I feel that this turbulent dealing with the rules would be rather confusing when the yard stick changes at every event.

I feel like I can appreciate your idea of using the system a different way and trying to add to it, but I feel as though this is best implemented on a occasional basis rather than the social norm.

Just my opinion

~Ghost

Every army has exploitable assets, if a player chooses not to exploit these, it's his/her fault. In an average game of 40k, the players choose their armies constrained by the FoC and an agreed maximum points value. using these both armies can match the other, army selections are just part of the strategy of the game.

It is my opinion in the strongest possible terms that you are not a better person, or a better opponent, for gimping yourself. Nor am I a worse player or a worse person for using the resources available to me within the constraints of the rules to achieve a goal.

People have really mixed up playing to win with "playing to win".
Much like the term "born-again Christian", playing to win seems to have gotten a whole lot of odd little meanings attached to it.
Instead of picturing a player who makes the best army he can within the rules, and plays the best he can within the rules, it seems to bring to some people's minds a screaming man-child throwing a temper tantrum because his mandollies didn't roll well enough.

I can't speak for others who play to win, but I am glad when I lose.
It means that there's room for me to grow, improve, learn and adapt and win more and better in the future.
To be compared to manchildren who throw dice and smash models, just because I happen to NOT intentionally gimp myself against other players, is actually rather insulting.

The idea that I shouldn't "have to" play properly against other players is of course silly. You don't tell the guy taking your order that he shouldn't HAVE to write it down to remember it if he were a good waiter. Being good at something means you use all the tools at your disposal. While it might be impressive to swim for ten miles using no hands, it'd also be blindingly stupid to do so for no good reason if you DO have hands.

If you don't want to use the best resources available to you, that's your choice, and I won't look down on you for it.
I don't think it's too much to ask for you to not look down upon me, and make ludicrous assumptions about my personality, based solely on the fact that my goal with any given match is to do my best to achieve victory within the constraints of the rules of the game.

Playing to win doesn't mean being a dick.
"Playing for fun is always inherently superior to those WAAC manchildren who want to win", however, does mean being a dick.
Don't be a dick. Play, have fun, don't talk down to others based on some silly preconceived notions.

Welcome to Dakka.

Hey welcome to Dakka, and first of all that's a great first post! You've written more in your first than a lot of people do in your first 500, and while I'm sure some people may resent what you have written (those who express their 'thymos' -the beating of fists on chests, a fundamental condition of men , or perhaps self-worth, through the use of miniatures on a wargaming table) no one could argue that at least you have constructed a well thought out post!

I agree with what GhostxHeart has said, and also would say that really the most important thing here is finding a gaming group that you are comfortable with and speak the same language as you. I always find it amazing how different gaming clubs, even though only separated by a short distance, can have such radically different outlooks on how games should be played. I will say that if you do find people who enjoy to play as the same way as you, then it can take wargaming to the next level in terms of enjoyment, and having a co-operation of attitude (rather than being at loggerheads) makes the whole thing a completely different and worthwhile experience.

I do think however that through the actions of certain quite famous blogs, with an absence of any decent journalism or articles on their site, have acted to make a kind of false dichotomy, or polarization, of the gaming world. They have actually forced people to group into 'I play for the enjoyment of the game' or 'I am a competitive player, I play to win' camps and perpetuated a form of social-programming where previously people might have quite comfortably straddled both camps. Previously, I used to attend a club where most of the players had fully painted armies with campaigns and the like, while at the same time being fiercely competitive. But, in the last 2 or 3 years I have noticed much more of a polarization, especially amongst younger players, and I think most of that is coming from across the pond where the idea of either 'way of playing' is being perpetuated by certain blogs and the common forum discussions that go on here.

Hi folks.
There is a wide and varied range of gamers who prefer all sorts of different playstyles and genres.
THIS IS A GREAT THING!

Diversity in the customer base is what make table top minature gaming such a rewarding hobby IMO.
As there are inspirational examples in EVERY part of the hobby to inspire others to experiment and grow thier hobby at a pace they are happy with.

However, when ONE COMPANY produces a game dependant on narrative co-operation, and then pretents its 'suitable for competive play' to boost sales.

This is what causes all the problems.
Not the customers not the gamers, but the company mis selling thier product.

Unless a game can provide proof of (im)ballance, then its suitability for competative play should be questioned.
(Most games written for competative play have consistant an provable methods of PV alloccation, and restriction on playing area and terrain saturation for competitions.)

All games should be fun to play.
There are games that have stong narrative that means playing IS the main element of having fun.
There are games that have well balanced game play where winning IS the main element of having fun.

The truly great games like Blood Bowl manage both!

Unfortunatley 40k and WHFB are not written with competative play in mind.And so playing them as if they are 'suitable for balanced competative play', tends to highlight the games shortcomings and highlight the imballance in the games.

if WHFB and 40k dropped the PV and used a 'less precise' army composition method.Perhaps people wouldnt see it as 'proof of suitablity for compatative play'?

This false dichotomy is one of the bigger problems this hobby is facing right now.

Ultimately I've never subscribed to any camp saying that you shouldn't have fun. Only a true lunatic would say such a thing.
But one of the ways I gain fun from the game is through challenge, and through pushing myself to become better.
This is less about chest-thumping (AGAIN with the assumptions and, dare I say it, projections?) manly proving myself through mandollies and more with enjoying improvement. I feel a surge of pride in myself when I've realized that I have become better at anything, be that a particularly cool bit of modeling or painting, or a master-stroke combat maneuver, or a tight list that squeezes the most value it can out of the given points. Hell, I felt the same way when I learned how to peel eggs without a mess. I rather doubt that means there's some chest-thumping machismo about my awesome egg-peeling abilities as compared to others.

If others don't wish for this focus on challenge and self-improvement, well, that's their choice. When playing someone else it's a good idea to talk to them in private before the game about what sort of lists you intend to bring. If I play someone who is running a thoroughly uncompetitive list, I will try to tell them that my standard list is probably going to result in a hard time for them, and see about running a more unorthodox list. (Still won't take outright poor choices, just taking it as an opportunity to learn about choices that might be underappreciated in my chosen codex)

All I ask is that my fun isn't stated as objectively bad, and that my personality and the reasons for my choices are not assumed based solely on the fact that I try to field an effective army list. Surely this isn't unreasonable to ask?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I want casual hardcore-competitive gaming with a narrative between two generals that focus on beating the ever-loving snot out of each other, then shake hands and laugh and talk about the game and tell the story with joy and smiles afterwards.
There's no reason that powergaming or playing to win or TAC lists or being competitive has to negatively impact my ability to tell an in-universe story, or hang out and have fun with my friends.

Naturally these statements are rather defensive, but wouldn't you be if you were called a chest-thumping WAAC immature manchild by people who don't know you, based on nothing but their preconceived notions and projections?

I hope the OP enjoys Dakka, and finds a good game group that fits with his style.


(And of course there's the mandatory people who tell everyone to not play 40k or WHFB competitively and that every problem in the hobby is GW's fault, these people I tend to lovingly refer to as the snide Mac-and-Linux users of dakka. You can tell them by the way they deride one single company and blame EVERY PROBLEM on that company and the fact that everyone doesn't switch to their favorite product instead.
This tends to be about as productive as you'd imagine such extremely oversimplifying statements to be, but you learn to filter it out after a while.

And before you ask, no, the fact that you play Flames of War and not Warhammer will not make these people stop taking any and every opportunity, no matter how outlandish and slim, to turn your topic into a part of their anti-GW agenda.)

Anyone who tells you that you're having fun the wrong way can and should be fought, or ignored, as the situation merits.
It's your game, do what you want when you play, for whatever reasons you want.
Just don't act like it's the only way, and don't assume things about others based on that simple choice of theirs. Please?