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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:No. You play to win.

I have played against people who honestly did not play to win. Each action taken was to make something that, by their standards, made something cool likely to happen. At one point the Daemon Prince was poised to start ripping tanks apart which would have resulted in a handy win, but the other guy said it should move towards his Captain because that fight would be awesome. The guy did it.

I didn't play with those guys again because that was really not the kind of gaming I'm interested in, and to be honest I think you could make a claim that what they were doing was not 'wargaming'. But people like that certainly exist.

It mightn't be the only reason you play, but when you set your models down on the table at no point do you try to lose or draw a game intentionally. You will always try to win. Furthermore your post tries to put forward that "Playing to win" and "Playing for fun" are mutually exclusive. This is false.

True. It isn't about being one type of player or the other, it's about all the decisions you make and where you're willing to sacrifice your chance to win in favour of a more enjoyable game.

People in this thread have already said they will take an army that is less likely to win if it fits their theme. I will sacrifice some of my own effectiveness for the sake of an army that's got more options and will require more interesting choices during the game to make it effective.

The debate is really more about how much one person or another might sacrifice some portion of their chance to win for the sake of other things. Unfortunately, as bubblesflood recognised, the debate typically results in people arguing about the two extremes (the WAAC player and the just for fun player) - if those two types were the only gamers it'd be simple to see yourself as one or the other and we wouldn't keep having this debate. Reality is most of us are in between, and are willing to sacrifice some element of our chance to win to include some other thing in the game.

Dexterium wrote:Playing to win isn't fun?

Taken to the extreme, where the number of viable army builds drops considerably, and the playing style of those armies is typically very one-dimensional, then it becomes not fun for a lot of people who have more invested in the idea of an engaging game than they do in the ego boost of the eventuall outcome.

No, winning is fun, who has fun losing?

Many people, myself included. I have enjoyed a lot of games that have swung back and forth, and presented all kinds of difficult choices, even when I've come out on the losing side.

If you are playing to lose, what enjoyment are you getting from the game? You might as well do something else, because this is a game, and games are competitive.

No. Your idea of fun is not the only idea of fun.

You are welcome to approach the hobby however you like. You are not welcome to tell people how the hobby should be approached.

ArbitorIan wrote:The argument about who 'plays to win' and who 'plays for fun' always gets confused here. You're right that EVERYONE plays to win. But for some people, the entirety of the hobby revolves around 'winning'. For the majority, there are more important hobby factors than optimising your army.

Again, though, you're welcome to approach the hobby however you'd like, but you're not welcome to tell people how they should approach the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

brettz123 wrote:I don't really see why there has to be a distinction between the two. Why can I not make a great list and still have a good time? I usually run a marine horde and I almost always win when I play (tournaments and in store). I have always felt that having a good time is more based on how you interact with the other person and not who is winning. Certainly there are people who will never be happy unless they are pounding you but that is a very small percentage of the people who play.

Thing is, there are lists that are very powerful but are boring to play with, and to play against. Most of the best 40K lists revolve around maximising a single type of unit, to effectively remove much of the enemy's firepower from the game (a list of nothing but Chimera chassis, for instance, does very well because the enemy's anti horde firepower has no targets, and it's big AT guns are being used on the sub-optimal medium quality armour).

Thing is, while effective these lists are ofen very limited in their tactical options, and when everyone takes these armies you frequently get match up problems, to the point where games can be all but decided before deployment.

That's not to say that people have to sacrifice their chance of winning to increase the chance of a more engaging game. Lots of people really don't like the idea of gaming in an environment where players are expected to take anything less than the most powerful list they can, and that's fine, as long as everyone involved knows that is what is expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbitorIan wrote:Anyway, although I think it's bad for the hobby 'community', and relatively rare, it's not wrong for someone to play like that. If someone spends their money on toy soliders, they can do whatever they want with them.

I don't think it's bad for the community. More players is more better, always, no matter how they want to play. At the end of the day, if they want a play that I don't think I'll find fun, I'll tell them I'm not interested, and they are welcome to do the same to me.

The only problem is when players of any type try to claim their preferred style of play is the correct style, whatever that might be.

Mr Mystery wrote:Really? Like....really really? As said above, when it comes to gaming, I'm fairly relaxed.

It doesn't sound like it to me; you've said that you find it "Grotesque" that someone would attempt to play a game well in the 'pick an army list' phase. If you have such contempt for fellow game players who don't play exactly like you, then you're clearly not relaxed by my standards, but are extremely uptight and judgemental.

So I ask again, who is most likely to have an impact on the other? I'll play any list, any time

But you'll insult the player if you don't like his list, calling his style of play 'grotesque' if he attempts to select a good army. "Grotesque" is not a friendly word to call someone, it indicates that you are disgusted with them and hold them in contempt. You appear to be like a lot of the supposedly friendly players; you'll talk the talk about respect for your opponent, making sure both people have fun, treating it as just a game, but as soon as someone does things a little different from you, all of that vanishes.

As for proxying, couple of games sure, beyond that, and assuming you'll have played against more than just myself, I'd be asling why you haven't purchase said unit.

How can you seriously call yourself 'relaxed' and easygoing, and say that you want to make sure both people have a good time, but feel it's appropriate to question other people's financial decisions? Your 'live and let live' attitude doesn't seem to stand up to much of someone playing differently than you do.

But trust me, I don't need to number crunch my list, or 'optimise' to slap someone up and down the table. My tactics and strategy (not to mention genuinely outrageous luck when I need it) sees to that.

I still don't understand why you think it's OK (and not taking the game too seriously) to use good tactics and strategy during the game, but "grotesque" to apply thought to picking a list. What is the big difference to warrant calling one 'grotesque' and one not? Specifically, why is optimizing your maneuver and/or firing, and trying to be competitive with them A-OK, but doing so when picking a list such a horrible thing that brings out your ire? Why does selecting units intelligently mean that you "seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win" but deploying and picking targets intelligently doesn't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbitorIan wrote:First, against my point, I'll point out (again) that neither 'hobbyist' or 'competitive' players are wrong or right, but bad things happen whe they end up playing each other. But, to echo Mr Mystery...

Oddly enough, in my experience the problem typically only comes when obnoxious, overbearing players of either type try to impose their personal playstyle on other people, or just generally drop basic politeness and/or sportsmanship. And the worst that I've run into are the ones that utter something about 'I don't play to win' before a game, if someone says that then I fully expect them to fill the game with complaints about how unfair the opposing army is, how cheesy this tactic or ability is, how bad their dice luck is, and so on.

You really think that it's the Hobbyist players who hate varied lists? Bear in mind you're posting on an interweb forum where a small minority declare any list that 'doesn't have X' is uncompetitive, or any Chaos list 'must include X' otherwise it's never going to win. Or that you just shouldn't take certain units in a given codex.

I don't have any idea what relevance people discussing lists in terms of competitiveness has to do with anything here. It's the hardcore 'hobbyist' players that complain if an opponent's list is not to their liking when actually playing the game (not when critiquing on a messageboard), that (like your pal) demand answers about other people's financial decisions, and that offer contempt for anyone who plays the game differently than they do.

All the events I've played in this year are what you'd call 'fun' events - none of them had, needed, or wanted comp scores. I don't advocate comp scoring, but I understand that people who do are trying to DIVERSIFY the sort of lists present my removing the 'most common/popular/obvious' choices. Comp scoring is a reaction against netlists.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions; I've never seen a comp score setup that is not either completely subjective (and so just a way for judges to boost their friends) or serves to penalize the less-played armies severely for taking functional lists. The fact that people put in comp scores to try to diversify lists BUT FAIL is what's significant to me, not the intention. It also gives the lie to the 'not playing to win' mantra, since the purpose behind it is to give 'armies like I like to play' an advantage in, well, winning the event.

I include Mr Mystery's post because I completely agree with him - I choose an army to a theme, then LEARN to win with it. I'll optimise it, but never at the expense of the theme.

Didn't Mr. Mystery just get done calling that playstyle 'grotesque'? If you use 'optimize' or try to be 'competitive', you're disgusting in his eyes, so either you have a lot of self-loathing or you don't really agree with him.

You play to win. Everyone does. Not everyone wins, but everyone does their best to win.

If you don't play to win, whats the point in playing?

Want to "do something cool?" "Make something awesome happen?" make a diorama, or heck, play by "yourself."

Not playing to win is just like entering a race, and then being like "oh nope, I'm running to win, just gonna jog and enjoy myself."

then whats the point in racing? Just jog by yourself.

You may have everything stacked against you. You may have almost no chance in winning. However, when it comes down to the game itself, everyone plays to win.

If anyone actually honestly believes they don't play to win, here is one simple way to never win a game. Tell your opponent. "You win." Save time and effort. Save your opponent's time and effort. You get your goal. You didn't win.

I try to win at the games that I play, but I don't have a problem losing (out of the few games that I've actually managed to play, I've lost the majority, and had a good time each game regardless.) That being said, I usually try to set up little self-imposed goals in every game; e.g., whenever I wind up going up against the Crimson Fists that one of the guys at my FLGS fields, I always try to take out Pedro. Doesn't really make a difference if I win or lose at the overall game, but if my Orks can take out Pedro during the battle, then I consider my goal to have been accomplished.

I feel like such mini-scenarios do a lot to help the game, and make it much more worthwhile for both players - if the other guy wins but I get to take out that character of his that I was aiming for, we both have something to gloat about after the game is done. Adds a lot to the fun factor in my opinion.

When Im teaching someone how to play, or helping them get into the swing of their army, I dont just throw a game, but Ill definitely not make an optimal build. Thats usually when Ill take FlashGits or some silly/weird combo. It gives them confidence when they do win though, or if they have one of those really close ass kicking games even better.

But once they start getting better and learned their army more, Ill pull out better builds and play harder to win. Sure I like winning, who doesnt, but to me the best games are the ones where every turn, its going back and forth and the game ends with only 3 or 4 minis left.

Mr Mystery wrote:There is also seeking a challenge. Those irritating words 'optimal and competitive' seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win. That to me just seems a little pointless.

I guess it comes down to what margin of victory do you find acceptable. If you are obsessed with crunching your opponent into the dirty every time, then that's great, just don't expect me to play you more than once.

If you win your games so easily that the only challenge left for you is to play with handicapped lists, then either you're the best player in the world and you should go win ard boyz (et all) and show us all how it's done. Or... You should be looking for better opponents, and quit pawing out your little sister and the kids at the special needs centre. From my perspective it is the guy who keeps bashing the same hapless noobs over and over again (even with his B list) that is really the one looking for the 'easy win'.

If you are really interested in a challenge, try taking your fluffy list against some real players with tough lists, and watch how it gets crushed every single time under the weight of its own mathematical unviability, regardless of how well you play. Eventually you might learn that high level players don't take competitive lists because they are looking for the 'easy-win'; They take them because they want their skill to decide the game, instead of suffering a predetermined loss before the game has even started because they took a list that can't compete.

Try to think of your skill like a dice roll needed to score AP against a vehicle (which in this case represents your opponent)...

If your list strength is 3 and your skill is D6, and your opponent is AV(8+D6). It doesn't matter if you pull out a genius 6 and they play and uncreative 2 game... Pack up your stuff and go home, you're a loser. Why even waste everyone's time playing this game out when it's predetermined that you can't win.

You might go away saying "meh they won cause of their unfair list, they didn't have as much skill". The truth is you both had the same D6 skill. They just didn't need to use any skill to beat your weak list... But who's fault is that? (clue: it isn't their's).

What if your list strength is 3, your skill is 2D6 with a rend, and your opponent is AV(4+D3)? Yeah their list might be better, but they have almost no chance, Where is the challenge here?

Now imagine you enter a tournament, or just play a friendly against some good players. Everyone else averages around AV14. Your skill is D6. What is the minimum list strength you need, for your skill to make any difference to the outcome of the games? Then go think again about whether competitive list are just for cheaters looking for an easy win.

Good lord! So much confusion in this thread. HBMC is the only one speaking sense.

To repeat an oft used phrase: "The OBJECTIVE of the game is to win. The POINT of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused"

Everyone plays to win. I've never met anyone who goes into a game saying "Well i'm going to try and lose this". Yes, you must try your hardest to win but at the same time not at the expense of your opponent. Wargaming is a strange beast in this sense as it is a combination of competition and cooperation (as are online games) with the former though we have the advantage of being in a comparativley normal social situation so we know how to act and know to not be a jeb-end if we can see our opponent thinks we are being one. I.E. we release the pressure somewhat, as wargaming is a cooperative situation.

I emailed the game publisher for Reiner Knizia and his personal assistant responded to me:

Good afternoon Felix



Many thanks for your e-mail and your interest in Reiner and his numerous games! J



Reiner gets quoted a lot, both correctly and incorrectly! However, we do not keep a track of the sources of his quotes.



If you need a quote from Reiner, then this one is directly from him….



Reiner Knizia: “The object of the game is to win. However, in the end, winning is not important because in a good game the ‘losers’ also win.”



Kind regards from England.



Karen



Karen Easteal

Personal Assistant to Reiner Knizia

Kouzuki wrote:You play to win. Everyone does. Not everyone wins, but everyone does their best to win.

If you don't play to win, whats the point in playing?

Want to "do something cool?" "Make something awesome happen?" make a diorama, or heck, play by "yourself."

Not playing to win is just like entering a race, and then being like "oh nope, I'm running to win, just gonna jog and enjoy myself."

then whats the point in racing? Just jog by yourself.

You may have everything stacked against you. You may have almost no chance in winning. However, when it comes down to the game itself, everyone plays to win.

If anyone actually honestly believes they don't play to win, here is one simple way to never win a game. Tell your opponent. "You win." Save time and effort. Save your opponent's time and effort. You get your goal. You didn't win.

Disagree.

Not everyone approaches this "hobby" as if it is a sport.

For some people the potential RPG/story-telling potential (especially as a byproduct or scenario and campaign play) are prime motivators.

SmackCakes wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:There is also seeking a challenge. Those irritating words 'optimal and competitive' seek to actively remove challenge from someones experience, giving them an easy win. That to me just seems a little pointless.

I guess it comes down to what margin of victory do you find acceptable. If you are obsessed with crunching your opponent into the dirty every time, then that's great, just don't expect me to play you more than once.

If you win your games so easily that the only challenge left for you is to play with handicapped lists, then either you're the best player in the world and you should go win ard boyz (et all) and show us all how it's done. Or... You should be looking for better opponents, and quit pawing out your little sister and the kids at the special needs centre. From my perspective it is the guy who keeps bashing the same hapless noobs over and over again (even with his B list) that is really the one looking for the 'easy win'.

If you are really interested in a challenge, try taking your fluffy list against some real players with tough lists, and watch how it gets crushed every single time under the weight of its own mathematical unviability, regardless of how well you play. Eventually you might learn that high level players don't take competitive lists because they are looking for the 'easy-win'; They take them because they want their skill to decide the game, instead of suffering a predetermined loss before the game has even started because they took a list that can't compete.

Try to think of your skill like a dice roll needed to score AP against a vehicle (which in this case represents your opponent)...

If your list strength is 3 and your skill is D6, and your opponent is AV(8+D6). It doesn't matter if you pull out a genius 6 and they play and uncreative 2 game... Pack up your stuff and go home, you're a loser. Why even waste everyone's time playing this game out when it's predetermined that you can't win.

You might go away saying "meh they won cause of their unfair list, they didn't have as much skill". The truth is you both had the same D6 skill. They just didn't need to use any skill to beat your weak list... But who's fault is that? (clue: it isn't their's).

What if your list strength is 3, your skill is 2D6 with a rend, and your opponent is AV(4+D3)? Yeah their list might be better, but they have almost no chance, Where is the challenge here?

Now imagine you enter a tournament, or just play a friendly against some good players. Everyone else averages around AV14. Your skill is D6. What is the minimum list strength you need, for your skill to make any difference to the outcome of the games? Then go think again about whether competitive list are just for cheaters looking for an easy win.

Such assumptions you make sir! What makes you think I only play younger players? What makes you instantly assume I must chump bash to win with my lists? My gaming circle encompasses all age groups, and there is not a single person I have not ground into the dust with my slightly odd lists. As I said, I am a very competent gamer, and actively enjoy seeking out new tricks to unleash on my opponent. Cookie cutter lists are boring after a couple of games. Take a Gateway list for instance. Depends entirely on getting the same spell off time and time again, and is frankly, a piece of piss to defeat. Simply smoosh the caster, or keep in combat as much as possible. There is no such thing as your purported mathematical impossibility. Seriously, I defy most players to wield one of my armies effectively straight off the bat. As I stated, I don't often manage it. But that is my enjoyment of the hobby. Create list, buy army, field army, see what how it does. Tinker if needs be, or arrange a rematch. I am simply not interested in winning all the bloody time. And guess what, I don't. But I do improve constantly. Right now, my Ogres are knackered every time by the Steam Tank. Do I complain about this? Hell no. Most of the time I ignore it and mess up the rest of his army, yet occasionally it all goes tits up. I know I could take a specific weapon and have it in pieces in time for Cornflakes, but my Tyrant is set up to be a challenge machine, and I really don't want to change this character. So I learn my strengths and weaknesses, and accept them for what they are.

Don't like that? Don't play me, simple as.

SmackCakes wrote:If you win your games so easily that the only challenge left for you is to play with handicapped lists, then either you're the best player in the world and you should go win ard boyz (et all) and show us all how it's done. Or... You should be looking for better opponents, and quit pawing out your little sister and the kids at the special needs centre. From my perspective it is the guy who keeps bashing the same hapless noobs over and over again (even with his B list) that is really the one looking for the 'easy win'.

If you are really interested in a challenge, try taking your fluffy list against some real players with tough lists, and watch how it gets crushed every single time under the weight of its own mathematical unviability, regardless of how well you play. Eventually you might learn that high level players don't take competitive lists because they are looking for the 'easy-win'; They take them because they want their skill to decide the game, instead of suffering a predetermined loss before the game has even started because they took a list that can't compete.

Biased, and I take offence to your description of what I'd call 'overcompetitive' players as 'real players' or 'high level players'. Given that the authors of the game repeatedly state that it's about storytelling and 'coolness' I'd argue that the REAL players of the game are the ones who have a laugh and tell a story with models they like, not the ones obsessively searching out killer combos.

The point is that the 'overcompetitive' players are the only ones who even care about skill levels and their relative standing in a game of toy soldiers. This is why they piss off the majority of players. Because EVERYONE is aware that there are 'top lists', and EVERYONE is aware that these lists make it easier to win (add a +2 bonus to their d6 as you put it), and EVERYONE knows that, if they went out and bought these 'top lists', the gaming world would be an incredibly monotonous and boring place. Because there would only be about ten lists in existence.

The vast majority of players realise that they COULD choose a 'top list' but choose not to, because they like different models, have a cool idea, like this or that piece of fluff etc. Because, although they try to win every game, winning is not SO important to them that they will sacrifice everything else they love about the hobby just to win more games.

This is, of course, going on the evidence of the vast majority of people I've played against, and the vast majority of people posting in this thread.

As for my personal opinion, I'd state that anyone who cares THAT much about their relative skill and 'placing' in a game of toy soldiers is most definitely 'overcompetitive', and needs to grow up.

You know, thinking about it, I guess I enjoy the risk of my armies, knowing there are stronger combinations out there, and going for it anyways.

And you're mathematical nonsense cannot compute my penchant for reckless tactics. In my experience, the dice favour the bold, and being used to my own harebrained schemes, I'm in a better position to exploit my ropey tactics than my opponent who I've just taken by surprise. I mean, last Tournament I played in (which I won btw, just a small affair twixt three shops up at Lenton) my opponent didn't expect my Manticore to jump his Forest Dragon (back in 7th Ed). And he certainly didn't seem to think the Harpies fart arseing around up the back were a threat either....he was wrong on both counts, and guess what....it cost him the game!

ArbitorIan wrote:Biased, and I take offence to your description of what I'd call 'overcompetitive' players as 'real players' or 'high level players'. Given that the authors of the game repeatedly state that it's about storytelling and 'coolness' I'd argue that the REAL players of the game are the ones who have a laugh and tell a story with models they like, not the ones obsessively searching out killer combos.

The point is that the 'overcompetitive' players are the only ones who even care about skill levels and their relative standing in a game of toy soldiers. This is why they piss off the majority of players. Because EVERYONE is aware that there are 'top lists', and EVERYONE is aware that these lists make it easier to win (add a +2 bonus to their d6 as you put it), and EVERYONE knows that, if they went out and bought these 'top lists', the gaming world would be an incredibly monotonous and boring place. Because there would only be about ten lists in existence.

The vast majority of players realise that they COULD choose a 'top list' but choose not to, because they like different models, have a cool idea, like this or that piece of fluff etc. Because, although they try to win every game, winning is not SO important to them that they will sacrifice everything else they love about the hobby just to win more games.

This is, of course, going on the evidence of the vast majority of people I've played against, and the vast majority of people posting in this thread.

As for my personal opinion, I'd state that anyone who cares THAT much about their relative skill and 'placing' in a game of toy soldiers is most definitely 'overcompetitive', and needs to grow up.

That's all very well, everyone has the right to enjoy the hobby in their own way. But lets be clear about some things... real players are the players who play the real game real good, if the real game is (as you say) monotonous and boring at a tournament level and not like the designers intended, then that is the fault of the game designers, not the players. Though I imagine you are wrong there, as most games end up having quite a shallow top tier but still manage to be interesting and varied when played seriously.

I'm not saying that everyone should play super competitively or that it is the only way to approach the hobby. What I do take issue with though is with players who criticise others for just playing a good game within the rules. "This list beats mine so it's OP and boring and anyone who plays it is TFG WAAC and isn't fun". I've heard this same argument probably a thousand times, about a whole bunch of games, and it always comes from the same people.

There is really no point me explaining all this all here again, when other people have already done a much better job of explaining it than I ever could. So I will direct you to the article that no 'play to win' topic shout be without...

David Sirlin's Play to Win 1

Obviously this article only applies to real games. It has no relevance to the craft or storytelling roleplay side of the hobby.

Such assumptions you make sir! What makes you think I only play younger players? What makes you instantly assume I must chump bash to win with my lists?

You claimed that some lists make it easy to win, and that you take other lists in order to challenge yourself. If that is really the case then the only explanation is that your opponents aren't good enough. If you were playing strong opponents then then the games would be challenging no matter what list you took. You also claim that you avoid people who play lists that crush yours... congratulations, you're a scrub.

There is no such thing as your purported mathematical impossibility.

There is, you just never played any games at a high enough standard to realise it. The top players at any game already know all the best strategies, they already know what the other will try to do and how to stop it. Generally that is what happens, they stop each other. If you look at any competitive game where the very best of the best players are matched against each other then you will often start to see a high number of draws and stalemates (chess is actually a good example of this). Inevitably these games end up being decided by increasingly tiny percentages. Percentages that casual players wouldn't even consider significant, top players end up relying on to tip stalemates in their favour. Something as tiny as squeezing one more boltgun into your army can spell the difference between winning and drawing.

Having played other games at quite a high level I have seen this first hand. And the one thing I took away from it is that when both players play a perfect game I.E. no mistakes (which they often do at a high level), the game ends up being decided purely by maths and things like first turn. If your side isn't as mathematically optimised as you can get it, then you will always come in second against someone who makes no mistakes, even if you made none yourself.

Grimtuff wrote:To repeat an oft used phrase: "The OBJECTIVE of the game is to win. The POINT of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused"

I hadn't heard that, it's quite good. I'll use it in future, cheers.

Everyone plays to win. I've never met anyone who goes into a game saying "Well i'm going to try and lose this". Yes, you must try your hardest to win but at the same time not at the expense of your opponent.

No, that's just wrong and multiple examples have been provided demonstrating that it is wrong. Despite the opinion of an internet minority, most of us do not try our hardest to win. We frequently change up our lists for variety, and take sub-optimal builds because they're more fun.

The basic reality is that playing to win has a sliding scale, where different players make different decisions based on how much they want to win compared to other factors. One player might only pick from the strongest troops in his codex, but rotate between different match ups for the sake of variety and not just take the best possible combination in each game. Another player might do the same, but still throw in the odd 'poor' unit from game to game.

wow, lots of good stuff said already.

Personally, the biggest draw to 40k has always been the hobby. If I dont' paint for awhile, eventually I'm like "I should paint something", and that something is invariably 40k miniatures. And, of course, if I have them, why not play with them?

That said, I'm a play-to-win gamer, and I am for a very existential reason. Life is confusing, and my particular lot has had a lot of crummy things happen to me for reasons I can't understand. It often feels like I don't have the opportunity to excel, and I don't often succeed when I do have the opportunity, and don't often understand why.

The game of 40k gives me vindication. Just like in life, there is a serious element of luck, but unlike real life, 40k, though being convolutedly complicated, is actually understandable. I can apply my genius to it, both on and off the field, and in the end I can succeed at something, based largely on my own efforts. This is something which has long been absent from my life, and so it's nice to have it true in at least a part of it.

Now, that's not to say I can't have fun if I don't lose. When I lose, and I lose for reasons I can understand, then it simply provides a new challenge I can conquer. The only time it really pisses me off is when I fail because of really terrible luck, and nothing of my own doing, because this is how much of the rest of my life has felt to me.

So yeah, I'm living vicariously through 40k when I play, but it's better than me taking out my powerlessness issues out by buying a gun and taking a trip to a local book depository...

Saying "I don't play to win" helps those who don't play well with others as it is an easy out when they lose, but can't stomach the loss. After all, it is easier to blame the loss on a WAC opponent or "I wasn't needing to win to have fun." But if the latter is true; does it even need to be voiced?

nikeforever22 wrote:Saying "I don't play to win" helps those who don't play well with others as it is an easy out when they lose, but can't stomach the loss. After all, it is easier to blame the loss on a WAC opponent or "I wasn't needing to win to have fun." But if the latter is true; does it even need to be voiced?

Oh, for feth’s sake.

Is it really that hard to accept that there are players who don’t make every decision in gaming based on increasing their chance of winning and nothing else? Examples have been provided, on a number of occasions now, that explain how a player might choose something more interesting over the best possible option. What have you people got invested, that stops you accepting the idea that other people aren’t as interested in coming out a winner as you might be?

In the post above yours, Ailarose described how he plays and why. Somehow he was able to do this without criticising anybody else’s style of play, or suggest people only adopt that style of play to cover for losing a game.

Sebster has hit it on the nose at least three times without insulting anyone.

Several other people are spouting opinions without doing us all the courtesy of reading the darn thread.

This seems like a good point to re-post a quote I like from the Brikwars rules:

"Things You'll Need:

First and most importantly: fun. It seems obvious, but this item is so often bizarrely forgotten by all types of gamers (especially wargamers) that it bears repeating: don't play a game if you don't mean to have fun. And for the love of God make sure you bring enough to share, because it's not all about you."

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster has hit it on the nose at least three times without insulting anyone.

Really? I find his last post as abrasive and offensive as any. There is a lot of aggression there. Regardless of what might technically be denoted the right hand side of my brain clearly reads that as...

Sebster wrote:Oh, for feth’s sake!

Can't you get it through your thick skull? Not everyone is a WAAC bastard like you!

This is exactly why I am aligning myself on the opposite side of this discussion. Why is it that the people who are the very best at the game. I.E. the people who build sensible lists, play winning strategies, and do well in tournaments. Why is it those people are being criticized for it? They should be respected for being the top of their field.

Choosing a list that wins games does not make you a bad person... It's just the obvious, common sense thing to do. Why would anyone want to build a list that looses games? That just sounds foolish. (I fully expect this paragraph to be taken out of context so read on before quoting it).

Obviously there are reasons... Many of which have been posted here by people who seem to take pride in the fact that their list doesn't work very well.

The first one is that it is more 'fun' and they argue that people with good lists are boring and 'not fun'. Obviously 'fun' is quite subjective but winning and having fun are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would argue that people who take the game seriously, and put a lot of effort into making their army a well oiled machine, and go on to pit their wits and strategies against other good players at a tournament level. Actually get a much more rewarding experience out of the game, and have a great deal more fun than casual players who just turn up with whatever miniatures they happen to think look cool, and hope that their opponent has an even worse list than them.

When these people come against someone with a good list, and get crushed... suddenly they realise that weak lists aren't so fun. But rather than take responsibility they start to make snide remarks about the person who beat them. Look back through the thread you will see a lot of variations on these...

"The guy's list is boring, it's no fun to play"
"That guy just downloaded his list off the Internet, there is no creativity there"
"That list is easy to play with, it doesn't require any skill to win with that list"

But these are all really just defence mechanisms so that people don't have to admit that maybe their list and their strategies just aren't very good.

What these people want is to play a different game where everyone is honour bound not to take good lists (basically list that beat their list). They usually have no problem with people taking lists that their list crushes. But the whole notion is ridiculous. If (for example) tanks were the strategy most likely to help someone win... But people were honour bound to never take more than 4 tanks... Then the best players would be the people who took all 4 tanks (the max number allowed). Soon anyone with 4 tanks would be getting called no fun, WAAC all of the above.

I have units myself that I play just because I think they are cool. But if the unit is just letting my side down and messing up my game, then I don't find it very fun, and the unit will usually get relegated to the display cabinet after not very long. I won't go calling the person who beat me TFG just because he didn't take any ineffective units.

SmackCakes wrote:When these people come against someone with a good list, and get crushed... suddenly they realise that weak lists aren't so fun. But rather than take responsibility they start to make snide remarks about the person who beat them. Look back through the thread you will see a lot of variations on these...

"The guy's list is boring, it's no fun to play"
"That guy just downloaded his list off the Internet, there is no creativity there"
"That list is easy to play with, it doesn't require any skill to win with that list"

But these are all really just defence mechanisms so that people don't have to admit that maybe their list and their strategies just aren't very good.

What these people want is to play a different game where everyone is honour bound not to take good lists (basically list that beat their list).

I have to agree with this.


Also, there are few things less fun than playing someone with a bit-of-everything army who just plonks his models down without a plan.

yeah,
1.Make an Army called the 'Tournament Champion Marines.'
2.Pick the Bestest WAAC List you can <- that's the fluff right there.
3.???
4.Profit.

"Champion Marines - Always the Champions - All the Time"
Everyones happy.

Panic...

Scott-S6 wrote:"First and most importantly: fun. It seems obvious, but this item is so often bizarrely forgotten by all types of gamers (especially wargamers) that it bears repeating: don't play a game if you don't mean to have fun. And for the love of God make sure you bring enough to share, because it's not all about you."

I like that a lot.

SmackCakes wrote:Really? I find his last post as abrasive and offensive as any. There is a lot of aggression there. Regardless of what might technically be denoted the right hand side of my brain clearly reads that as...

Your reading of my post was way off track, and I think it was because by reading it as an attack you were able to avoid having to consider my actual point.

To spell it out to you, there is nothing wrong with being a competitive gamer. It's a perfectly valid approach to the hobby that lots of people enjoy. In my post, I complemented Ailaros for his approach to gaming, and he explicitly said he plays to maximise his chances of winning.

My disagreement was with the frankly absurd idea that other people are simply pretending to be less competitive because they can't handle losing.

This is exactly why I am aligning myself on the opposite side of this discussion. Why is it that the people who are the very best at the game. I.E. the people who build sensible lists, play winning strategies, and do well in tournaments. Why is it those people are being criticized for it?

They're not being criticised for being good at the game, or for winning. To the extent they're being criticised, it's for insisting that their preferred approach to playing is the best or only way to play.

The first one is that it is more 'fun' and they argue that people with good lists are boring and 'not fun'. Obviously 'fun' is quite subjective but winning and having fun are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would argue that people who take the game seriously, and put a lot of effort into making their army a well oiled machine, and go on to pit their wits and strategies against other good players at a tournament level. Actually get a much more rewarding experience out of the game, and have a great deal more fun than casual players who just turn up with whatever miniatures they happen to think look cool, and hope that their opponent has an even worse list than them.

First up, change your phrasing to 'many better lists are less fun to play with or against and many less powerful lists can be really fun to play with or against' and you get something a lot more reasonable.

And yes, 'fun' is very subjective, and many people have lots of fun playing at a highly competitive level, and that's fine. But it is also fine if someone wants to build less competitive lists, in order to showcase models, increase the variety in their army or whatever else.

We don't all fun the same way you do. We don't all have to fun the way that you do. There is no badwrongfun. Let people play how they like to play, and talk to them before the game to make sure you'll both go into the game with similar expectation, and likely both enjoy yourselves.

It isn't a complicated thing. The only way people can fail to understand is if they refuse to understand it, for whatever reason.

When these people come against someone with a good list, and get crushed... suddenly they realise that weak lists aren't so fun. But rather than take responsibility they start to make snide remarks about the person who beat them. Look back through the thread you will see a lot of variations on these...

Problematically, that's a load of bs. I can tell you right now as a younger fella I played to win every game, and spent as much time as possible building lists that were as powerful as possible. I stopped when I played a mate in one game and wiped his Empire army from the field without losing a single High Elf. It was his first use of the army fully painted, which he'd built with an eye to modelling first, and effectiveness second. When it came up against my 3rd ed High Elves with maximum repeater bolt throwers, it didn't stand a chance. The game wasn't fun for either of us, it was just sad. And when I say stopped, I mean I stopped playing WHFB entirely. It was the better part of a decade later that I came back, and I only came back because I wanted to start painting again, I didn't think I'd start playing again.

And now I don't much care if I win or lose, I try to win but I just haven't got any ego invested in the result. I just like to see the armies deployed across the board, and I like to see a game produce at least a couple of interesting tactical questions which I like to discuss with my opponent, even during the game.

Seriously, try actually talking to the gamers in your area you appear to have dismissed. You might find their reasons for playing as they do entirely different to the horrible, manipulative people you've presumed them to be. But please, actually listen to them, instead of inventing some perceived attack, as you did with my post above.

Smackcakes, I'm afraid that you're off base.

There are undoubtedly some unpleasant and unskilled gamers who talk smack about other gamers and their choices of how to play the game.

But you're not going to win any friends or arguments by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being that kind of person, or by trotting out that old Sirlin article and calling people "scrubs".

The "for feth's sake" was, in context, obviously an exclamation of frustration over people reiterating the same tired mischaracterizations and misapprehensions that Seb had already disabused in his last two posts. Posts which folks like nikeforever, kouzoki, and yourself either failed to read or substantially misunderstood.

Why I don't particularly enjoy playing games against overly competitive players.

1. I enjoy banter during a game. Bit of smack talk, general running commentary. In my experience, the more competitive players don't really indulge in this side of things as much.

2. I play primarily for the spectacle of the game. I enjoy a big, middle of the field punch up with the odd cloaked dagger. I also enjoy the drama of a drawn out challenge. The more competitive players thoughts are on a different wave length, especially where challeges are concerned. To be honest, I find the allocation of attacks rule a bit lame.

3. The more competitive players enjoy the game in a different way to me. Whilst it's always good to take on all comers (and I do, despite your uninformed protestations) given the choice, I'll pick a like minded opponent.

Do you get this now? Let me put it another way. Playing as I do for the drama and spectacle, what would be the point in someone honing their list for a tournament playing against me? I'm not interested in that style of play, and he's not likely to gain what he's looking for in terms of added experience.

Yet guess what? I have literally no shortage of opponents. Due to my less than common armies, players of all sorts will ask me for a game at some point. Sometimes for a break from their competitive playing, and at others just for the wildcard experience. You know, just in case. And I am totally happy with this arrangement. I have genuinely tried the more competitive style of gaming, and it just didn't suit me.

So, now do you see?

Final word of advice....never....ever confuse your hobby for my hobby, and never ever confuse your hobby or my hobby for the hobby. We all take what we want and leave what we don't. To suggest any one way is somehow superior is arrogant in the extreme. we do however, share the same pastime.

Mannahnin wrote:Smackcakes, I'm afraid that you're off base.

There are undoubtedly some unpleasant and unskilled gamers who talk smack about other gamers and their choices of how to play the game.

But you're not going to win any friends or arguments by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being that kind of person, or by trotting out that old Sirlin article and calling people "scrubs".

The "for feth's sake" was, in context, obviously an exclamation of frustration over people reiterating the same tired mischaracterizations and misapprehensions that Seb had already disabused in his last two posts. Posts which folks like nikeforever, kouzoki, and yourself either failed to read or substantially misunderstood.

After all, I am TFG...but if it were not for misapprehensions or mischaracterizations then in the grim future there would only be peace on the Internet. The OP was asking for opinions on winning and in the immortal words of mauleed, "next time just play better." emphasis on your definition of "play".

I don't know if you're TFG, but I encourage you to re-read Sebster's posts.

Many of us play to win but deliberately choose not to take that as far as possible. This can enhance our enjoyment of the game by giving a more varied play experience, even if it reduces our win frequency to a greater or lesser degree.

Contrary to the implication of your previous post, not everyone who does this is antisocial, resentful, or what Sirlin so delicately refers to as a "scrub."

I would consider myself above average. Finished top 25% every tournament beside 'Ard Boyz and I just threw a last minute list together for that. I play every game to win. Whether I go ultra-competitive or not is a different matter but my goal from turn 1 is to win, every game, no exceptions.

That's not to say I won't do silly things. I once ran a list consisting of Stormboyz + Zagstruk, 2 big Meks & 5 Deff Dreds. I knew I was going to lose, I still tried my best to win.

Mannahnin wrote:Posts which folks like nikeforever, kouzoki, and yourself either failed to read or substantially misunderstood.

Or possibly just didn't agree with as much as you did.

But you're not going to win any friends or arguments by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being that kind of person, or by trotting out that old Sirlin article and calling people "scrubs".

Hmmm yeah, the play to win article has become quite cliché. I felt a little guilty linking it again. But there are still those who haven't read it, and I think it's a very important article and relevant to this topic. Though I personally much prefer the term 'Losers' to 'scrubs' but some people find that offensive.

The reason the article is important is because it holds a mirror up to those people who spout the same old 'scrub' (for lack of a better word) arguments. I.e. saying people who beat them 'have no skill', 'have no fun', 'have no imagination'. And it shows quite clearly why these notions are absurd.

sebster wrote:My disagreement was with the frankly absurd idea that other people are simply pretending to be less competitive because they can't handle losing.

I really think we are just arguing different sides of the same coin now. We both disagree with people telling other people how to enjoy the game. You disagree with competitive players saying that everyone else is doing it wrong. I disagree with less competitive players (and some competitive players) throwing around statements like WAAC and 'not fun' in order to deride players who have an equally valid approach to the game, and who usually beat them at it.

I think we can both agree that players who mind their own business and let others enjoy the game the way they want to are the real winners here.

I can tell you right now as a younger fella I played to win every game, and spent as much time as possible building lists that were as powerful as possible. I stopped when I played a mate in one game and wiped his Empire army from the field without losing a single High Elf. It was his first use of the army fully painted, which he'd built with an eye to modelling first, and effectiveness second. When it came up against my 3rd ed High Elves with maximum repeater bolt throwers, it didn't stand a chance. The game wasn't fun for either of us, it was just sad. And when I say stopped, I mean I stopped playing WHFB entirely. It was the better part of a decade later that I came back, and I only came back because I wanted to start painting again, I didn't think I'd start playing again.

And now I don't much care if I win or lose, I try to win but I just haven't got any ego invested in the result. I just like to see the armies deployed across the board, and I like to see a game produce at least a couple of interesting tactical questions

That story is oddly heart breaking . But really... what else were you supposed to do? That was your army. Perhaps since it was your friend you could have thrown together a different less powerful army to play the game with, or let him win? But you can't really be expected to do that for every opponent you might come up against. I personally wouldn't feel quite comfortable having to pull punches all the time in order to accommodate someone else's weak army. Not because I MUST WIN! but simply because I just wouldn't know how much to pull in order to make the game balanced. I just want to bring my best army and expect other people to do the same. At least that way everyone knows where they stand.

What happened to your friend is always going to be one of the dangers of running a 'for show' army. If that is something someone wants to do then they need to be comfortable and happy with the idea of it loosing often. Your friend really had no right to be disappointed, his army was built for show, not for winning games. if he wanted to win games too, then maybe he should have thought harder about his list. Either way no one should have to feel bad about it.