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 wouldnt mind playing games with 'fluffy' armies, or anything thats fun... even if i know im not going to win.
I dont particularly like people who play ONLY to win, and gear lists soley to win. Its a game, have fun.

I'd have loads of fun playing guard troop spam lists with like, 150 minis on the table, against say, some chaos marines on a last stand, or something like that. Even if my flamer-spam guard gets stomped, it's still going to be hilarity when a 30 man group of conscripts break the line...

Of course, throwing games isnt fun, i would like SOME competition, but throwing ultimate-win models/moves in a friendly game isnt much fun when there's another option that might keep the game 'closer' in the end.

As a former high level street fighter player, sirlin's article is old and fairly well known.
However, the main criticism that my gaming group gave him is that he defines fun his way and the only way.
In street fighter it makes sense. It's pay to play, winner stays, loser pays.

However, his assertion is only true if you get the MOST fun out of winning.

The magic the gathering designers actually had a better grasp of fun reality, by marking players as one of 3 types:

1. Little Timmy: Likes the cool cards and tries to pull out the big creature.

2. The "style" guy, that trys to win using unusual strategies or combos.

3. The "Spike" guy, that tries to win using any means or methods necessary.

Sirlin asserts that the "Spike" mentality is the ONLY way to fully play a game and have fun...and that's just blatantly not true.

I'll use basketball as an example. Yes, in the NBA you want to play against the tallest guy because you want to test yourself and face the best competition. But you know what? Most of us are out of shape, don't like running that much, and it's absolutely no fun to be dominated that much all the time.

Does the majority of people find spending 3 hours a day doing mandatory practice fun? How about studying the game like you do a class?

That's where sirlin's argument fails horribly.

I really liked the article.

I will say for those of you that despise those types of players, there are a lot of people who get excited by his mountain peak analogy, and have fun by practicing, tweaking their list and trying to make it as good as possible. And then when it is reveling in the brutality Mwahaha.

I think 40k can be a great "chill with your buddies" game, with apoc and just making random lists, but it can also be great when treated the above way. The two polar opposites will always clash but do not assume that one is right and one is wrong. I will also say you see a lot more "the other guy is wrong" from the fluff at all costs rather than the win at all costs, from my experience. I also think a lot of people think TFG=WAAC but some of my best 40k buddies are WAAC mentality but great people to be around, and I have met some serious TFG from the fluffy moral high ground sort of stance.

But to each their own, live and let play warhammer, or something corny like that.

Lots of interesting points, but I don't think giving up reflects on your personality.
I've seen people leave games with the intonation of "You know what, I'm fethed. You win."

That's a fair comment. It's not a reflection on you as a person because it's a game, and the outcome doesn't matter. Real life is rather different to tiny plastic men shooting plastic guns at each other.

I'm a massive Street Fighter fan, as well as an avid wargamer.
When I play people at SF, I make sure they're ok and that I'm not pounding the gak out of them, which I can do really easily.
I'm currently teaching my girlfriend how to play. Understandably I'm not kicking the feth out of her, but I'm attacking steadily, and allowing her room to breathe and time to learn.
If I just owned her, round after round, she'd get fethed off and probably never play again.

And also, if I'm way out in front of an opponent, I'll give them an occasional re-roll, knowing that a good, friendly attitude to gaming will be reciprocated.

Like when my mono-green MTG deck kicks the feth out of my mates blue and white control deck. The first few games I was holding off putting the big boys into play. I lost a few games to him becuase of that, but it was still fun.

How does that reflect on me I wonder?

I love to play 40k because its there. Playing against an opponent who challenges me to think about what I do with my units, whether his/her list is broken or not, is a joy in itself.

That said, I dont mind winning. I just know it doesnt happen too often.

Tek wrote:
How does that reflect on me I wonder?

In my mind, it makes you a poor opponent. There is nothing more insulting than an opponent who either lets you win, or who holds back, in essence, toying with you. If you're actually teaching someone fundamentals, that is one thing (as it sounds like you're doing in your SF games against your girlfriend), but what you described in your magic games against your friend is just poor sportsmanship. Holding back cards that you know will let you win in order to give your opponent a few wins? Do you think so little of them that you don't think they can take a loss? Do hold their abilities in so much contempt that you believe that the only way they can win is if you let them?

I'd rather lose 100 games to someone than have them let me win one. I can learn from my mistakes, and their actions, if they're really playing. If they're letting me win, I'm taking false feedback (wins I don't deserve) into my learning, as well as not seeing real play demonstrated.

LunaHound wrote:

Swordguy wrote:"you must win to have fun/not have wasted your time/etc". This boils down to "you must win" for most people. However, what it also produces is hostility between players within a group - if any members of a group are either unable or unwilling to adjust to the local metagame (such as with the MtG example described above) they're essentially going to be doomed to losing every game.

Blame that on the people that gloat , trash talk, or make a big deal out of winning.

I don't think that quite nails it though. We have games where we talk a LOT of trash, mostly in my basement after a few Hard Cranberry's. But at the same time, we talk about the games we plan to have. If my buddy is comming over and says he has a new wierd list to try, I say ok and bust out something kind of fluffy and silly. If he says "Let's practice for the tournament" it is stinky cheese time. We are playing to win both times, by in the former we will be totally chill about forgetting to shoot, changing our minds mid turn, etc., while the latter it is "So solly... too slow la!" Both of us have a great time.

On the other hand, I have played with new people and been normal, friendly Wehrkind ("are you certain you want to DS there? Don't forget I have a DH Inq with mystics in that rhino for the free shots") and they take losing like their mom just died while sleeping with their brother, and win as though they just won the most grueling ultimate fighting championship EVAR. No trash talking involved.

I think your last bit is what makes all the difference: making a big deal about winning. It is just a game; play with the objective of winning when it is appropriate, play with the objective of teaching when appropriate but always play to have fun. Don't go to a tourney and expect softies, and don't assume that 12 year old at the store is Lord Macharius reincarnated (though you should ask.) Recognize though that the people who play hard and come up with the great combos and tactics make the game richer for everyone, even if watching them alpha strike your favorite unit turn one is disappointing. They may win the game, but you benefit from the learning experience.

@wehrkind:

Yes i understand the type of trash talk between friends and generally know each other long enough to play again in the future.

The type i cant tolerate are the type where they are strangers, and are generally obnoxious , bragging how good they are mid game etc etc.

Luna, I agree; they are little, feeble men, and need someone to promptly knock them down, steal their lunch money, and then take you to the prom.

Redbeard wrote:In my mind, it makes you a poor opponent. There is nothing more insulting than an opponent who either lets you win, or who holds back, in essence, toying with you. If you're actually teaching someone fundamentals, that is one thing (as it sounds like you're doing in your SF games against your girlfriend), but what you described in your magic games against your friend is just poor sportsmanship. Holding back cards that you know will let you win in order to give your opponent a few wins? Do you think so little of them that you don't think they can take a loss? Do hold their abilities in so much contempt that you believe that the only way they can win is if you let them?

The abilities of said opponents might in fact be contemptible enough to bar them from winning in the normal fashion, at which point letting them win simply becomes another kind of victory for you.

Against less able players, contempt is a perfectly justified emotion. I know most of my opponents at 40k and especially MTG laugh at me behind my back, and I hold no particular animosity towards them for doing so, because I suck at both games. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near good enough to hold anyone else in contempt myself.

I play to win, because winning is the point of a game.

But I don't let it get in the way of the enjoyment of me or my opponent, because I play with a small group of friends it's not really a problem. If we run into a rules issue we normally just roll for it then work it out after the game, although sometimes if it's a really critical call we will sort it then and there.

But when I'm playing with my 4yr old or my neighbours kids I don't play to win at all, I play to lose because nothing sucks the fun out of learning a game than being thrashed every time you play.

Well unless they start bragging and then I'll give them a little fright to keep them honest.

With Street Fighter, there is only the game. There is not a 'hobby' associated with it. There is social interaction, but not a hobby.

GW supports a hobby. Playing the game is part of the hobby, but not the whole hobby. Different people enjoy different parts of the hobby.

Personally, I don't mind losing to a hard list and a good player. Hopefully, I learn from it. Sometimes, there's a RPS situation that occurs, or horribly good/bad luck, and you just have to accept it.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Against less able players, contempt is a perfectly justified emotion. I know most of my opponents at 40k and especially MTG laugh at me behind my back, and I hold no particular animosity towards them for doing so, because I suck at both games. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near good enough to hold anyone else in contempt myself.

There's a difference between sniggering at someone as they roll 15 ones, and holding them in contempt. Holding someone in contempt means that you consider yourself superior on a personal level, and scorn that person on a regular basis. If someone is prepared to hold someone else in contempt over what is essentially plastic figurines and dice rolling, then I think you're well within your rights to hold them in contempt back.

As General Melchett said:- 'You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!'

A lot of truth in that statement I feel.

Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
- General George Patton Jr

May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.
- General George Patton Jr


"You must do your damdest and win."
-General George S. Patton

"We've got no place in this outfit for good losers. We want tough hombres who will go in there and win!" - Admiral Jonas Ingram, 1926

I feel this sums it up better.

Ratbarf wrote:Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
- General George Patton Jr

May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.
- General George Patton Jr


"You must do your damdest and win."
-General George S. Patton

"We've got no place in this outfit for good losers. We want tough hombres who will go in there and win!" - Admiral Jonas Ingram, 1926

I feel this sums it up better.

There's a difference between war and a game. I've been in both, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to deal with someone who thinks that they're in any way comparable.

^Very true...

Wars , where people's future , their very lives and humanity and their spark of their existence are about to be extinguished . Which they'll try ANYTHING to preserve their existence and others , THATS JUSTIFIED.

But to relate that to a game where oh you just feel better if you win or so you wont lose face and you'll do everything you can to win a game?

No offence, but thats beyond pathetic.

I play to win. My strategy is in the list. If I am playing a fluff bunny, I bring a gimp list that fits. If I am playing a power gamer, I bring as much pain in hte list as I can dredge out of my head (usu. not much!). But once I put it on the table I call it as I see it and I don't bar many holds from myself.

People enjoy playing against me, and I NEVER want for a game unless no one brought the same system. And even then, I can still usually work something out. It's been ages since I could not get a game going. Several years.

Me? Happy. Opponents? Happy. Everyone had fun. Where's the issue again?

I'll put it this way, I play to win...but if the win, draw, or loss isn't against a well-matched opponent, or an unmatched opponent with handicap, etc etc., than I will leave the table unhappy no matter what. I like playing hard games, whether I win, draw, or lose them.

Example: Playing a game two days ago, Dawn of War deployment, my Tau v.s. Tyranids, they placed their objective only inches away from my centre line of Fire Warriors (subsequently backed up by Kroot and my Crisis Command squad). The final turn came around, his Tyranids were in close combat with the Kroot and had wiped out one of the two centre Fire Warrior squads.

I held 2/5 objectives that turn, so I fired with the un-assaulted group of Fire Warriors into the Tyranid mob, and jumped my Crisis Command team onto the objective (in centre of the Tyranid swarm), and had enough room to contest the objective. I then ran one of my other squads to claim the last objective.

YAY! I just won...oh wait...I used a players mistake (removing the units near enough to the objective for me to contest it), to claim victory from what clearly would've been his had one more turn gone on. The player was 13, or maybe 14...and I felt absolutely terrible afterwards. Sure, it's the only way he'll learn...and I hope that he will.

It is games like that were I could've cared less about winning, and felt like trash even though I did.

I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

Che-Vito wrote:I'll put it this way, I play to win...but if the win, draw, or loss isn't against a well-matched opponent, or an unmatched opponent with handicap, etc etc., than I will leave the table unhappy no matter what. I like playing hard games, whether I win, draw, or lose them.

Example: Playing a game two days ago, Dawn of War deployment, my Tau v.s. Tyranids, they placed their objective only inches away from my centre line of Fire Warriors (subsequently backed up by Kroot and my Crisis Command squad). The final turn came around, his Tyranids were in close combat with the Kroot and had wiped out one of the two centre Fire Warrior squads.

I held 2/5 objectives that turn, so I fired with the un-assaulted group of Fire Warriors into the Tyranid mob, and jumped my Crisis Command team onto the objective (in centre of the Tyranid swarm), and had enough room to contest the objective. I then ran one of my other squads to claim the last objective.

YAY! I just won...oh wait...I used a players mistake (removing the units near enough to the objective for me to contest it), to claim victory from what clearly would've been his had one more turn gone on. The player was 13, or maybe 14...and I felt absolutely terrible afterwards. Sure, it's the only way he'll learn...and I hope that he will.

It is games like that were I could've cared less about winning, and felt like trash even though I did.

That's why I always, every time, no matter whether I'm playing in a tournament or casual game remind my opponent if he's going to be doing something that will prevent him from winning.

I don't say things like "oh if you move them that far I'll be able to move and fire with this unit here, etc. etc. etc." unless I'm actually trying to teach someone a bit of strategy, but if they're going to do things like remove casualties off an objective, I don't want to win through capitalizing on a stupid mistake that IMO has little to do with strategy.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:In my mind, it makes you a poor opponent. There is nothing more insulting than an opponent who either lets you win, or who holds back, in essence, toying with you. If you're actually teaching someone fundamentals, that is one thing (as it sounds like you're doing in your SF games against your girlfriend), but what you described in your magic games against your friend is just poor sportsmanship. Holding back cards that you know will let you win in order to give your opponent a few wins? Do you think so little of them that you don't think they can take a loss? Do hold their abilities in so much contempt that you believe that the only way they can win is if you let them?

The abilities of said opponents might in fact be contemptible enough to bar them from winning in the normal fashion, at which point letting them win simply becomes another kind of victory for you.

Against less able players, contempt is a perfectly justified emotion. I know most of my opponents at 40k and especially MTG laugh at me behind my back, and I hold no particular animosity towards them for doing so, because I suck at both games. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near good enough to hold anyone else in contempt myself.

It's been said before, there's nothing fun about being pounded game after game when you're learning. Very few people will want to continue if every time they play, I beat the feth out of them.
My MTG mate had started playing the day before, I'm a bad opponent for not kicking the gak out of him? I want him to like the game as much as I do, I don't want him to not bother because I own him every time.
While he's learning, I'm taking it easy.

"merr meer, there's nothing more insulting.." Well good job I wasn't insulting you then isn't it? Good sportsmanship is giving your opponent a fighting chance. I'm not talking about toying with an opponent, that's a cruel tactic. I'm talking about levelling theplaying field; it makes the game more challenging for me, and genuinely makes the game more fun.

If I completely batter an opponent, I don't ever see that as fun. The closer to the nail it gets, the more fun we both have.

It depends really. I enjoy challenging games for sure. Its not fun completely creaming someone (tho once or twice depending on who needs the "ADJUSTMENT") I do however think that if your playing against someone who JUST got into the hobby, you need to seriously adjust the way you play. There is no better way to get a new player OUT of this hobby then writing the biggest scariest army possible and then ripping them to shreds in 3 turns. To me that is total BS (not ballistic skill lol) I think in that situation even letting them win slightly is a better idea then winning. It gives them confidence, and better ideas of how the game works.

Deadshane1 wrote:I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

Best way to play IMO.

Deadshane1 wrote:I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

Nice progression there.

Tek wrote:
It's been said before, there's nothing fun about being pounded game after game when you're learning. Very few people will want to continue if every time they play, I beat the feth out of them.

Maybe I'm just stubborn then. When I started my job (12 years ago now) my co-workers were all playing some networked computer shooter game. I joined in - died, literally, over 100 times an hour for a month straight before I was able to start holding my own. Didn't matter, I was learning with each loss.

My MTG mate had started playing the day before, I'm a bad opponent for not kicking the gak out of him? I want him to like the game as much as I do, I don't want him to not bother because I own him every time.
While he's learning, I'm taking it easy.

There's a difference between taking it easy, and letting someone win. Taking it easy means you make a deck of sub-par cards. You run gray ogres instead of grizzly bears. Letting someone win means that you don't hit them with the lightning bolt that's in your hand when they have two life. You design your deck (or army list) so that it's not killer - that's taking it easy. That's perfectly acceptable, and a sportsmanlike thing to do. But once the game starts, you don't toy with your opponent. You don't let them win, keeping the fact that you could have stopped them hidden in your hand. That's disrespectful.

"merr meer, there's nothing more insulting.." Well good job I wasn't insulting you then isn't it? Good sportsmanship is giving your opponent a fighting chance. I'm not talking about toying with an opponent, that's a cruel tactic. I'm talking about levelling theplaying field; it makes the game more challenging for me, and genuinely makes the game more fun.

If I completely batter an opponent, I don't ever see that as fun. The closer to the nail it gets, the more fun we both have.

I agree with your points here. But you had said that you had the card to win in your hand, and didn't play it. That IS letting your opponent win. That IS toying with them. You take it easy when deciding what to field - what to put in your deck. But once the game is on, if you don't play as well as you can with the tools that you did choose to bring, that's not cool, IMO. And, I don't believe it helps your opponent learn what good decisions are, and what smart tactical play is.

I know some people that are so good at playing this game that they know how to "go easy" on their opponent if they forsee a slaughter in the making. Unfortunately I'm just not that good(I don't really play enough), and by the time I recognize that I will probably be slaughtering my opponent it's too late to put on the brakes to make any real difference.

It reminds me of this one warhammer game once where I was playing my Ogres vs a storm of chaos slayer dwarf list. I had never played them before so my strategy was to try and not engage them in close combat for as long as possible. This stratgey went really well for me as the dwarfs are really slow and I was able to kill off most of his stuff before he reached me. Anyway, at one point I had the opportuntiy to charge my slave Giant into one of the dwarf characters that would have easily flayed my giant. I chose to back away with my giant instead of charging into a most likely instant death situation. One of the bystanders made the comment that I wasn't playing within the spirit of the game because a giant shoudn't run away from a dwarf, etc.etc, and basically accused me of being cheesy. I was fairly insulted by the comment because I thought I was just using good tactics.

He may be correct in theory(the kibutzer in question is a well respected player and is really good at warhammer and 40k), but like I said not being a top tier player, I'm not good enough to recognize a "give the guy a break" situation in all cases.

I think my competitive nature contributes to my inability to see these occasions sometimes as well.

GG

There's a difference between taking it easy, and letting someone win. Taking it easy means you make a deck of sub-par cards. You run gray ogres instead of grizzly bears. Letting someone win means that you don't hit them with the lightning bolt that's in your hand when they have two life. You design your deck (or army list) so that it's not killer - that's taking it easy. That's perfectly acceptable, and a sportsmanlike thing to do. But once the game starts, you don't toy with your opponent. You don't let them win, keeping the fact that you could have stopped them hidden in your hand. That's disrespectful.

I completely agree with this statement.

Deadshane1 wrote:I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

For an alternate perspective:

I play to win.

My favorite games are when I lose.

If I don't win, I am fully responsible and will try to learn from it.

If I do win, I will measure the value of the win on what I can learn from it. An easy win teaches me little and therefore has little value.

If I'm in a tournament, I will look forward to the later games where I can be facing like minded players. If I lose early, I will be disheartened that my next opponent will probably only have a vague idea of where we are and what day it is.

My goal is to be the best player at whatever game I am applying myself to; not to boast, but as an incentive to grow personally. This then links my goals to the goals of my fellow players. If no one else shares this goal, I will quickly move on.

Wanna play?

stonefox wrote:Best way to play IMO.

You DO know that was satire...don't you?