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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
See title.

For me personally, it matters increasingly more the closer the game is. If I bring my Skyhammer, Wulfen Murderpack, and Hunter's Eye Librarian, while my opponent brings CSM... I don't really care about winning. I almost certainly will, but that's just it-it's a foregone conclusion. As such, I might make stupid tactical decisions (yes, my Dev Squad will Death or Glory!) if they're fun, will crack some jokes, will celebrate my own crappy dice rolls, will commiserate with my opponent when they roll poorly, all that.

But when it's a close-cut game? When I'm at 10 points and my opponent is at 11, with both of us having half our armies dead? I will be trying my damnedest to win! I'll still be a good sport about it (being nice to my opponent, cracking jokes (it's a casual game), not mocking their bad rolls or anything, and even usually offering tactical advice if they ask) but I am invested in victory! The reason being, it's a hard-fought win. It's tough, it's a challenge-not a curbstomp.

So what about all of you? How much does winning matter?

The ITC has made me care more about winning than I have for a while.

I am a mad scientist type of player. I enjoy the challenge of playing, using creative armies. Strategy in general is my strong suit and I like to pit my actual skill moreso than my list against the other persons skill AND list. So I go in to every contest understanding that i take a risk in doing it. Your example is a funny one because it is that sort of army that I feast on with pride, enjoying the consternation of my opponent as they tell me all the reason why i "shouldn't have " won. Scoreboards, fortunately, are more dispassionate.

So for me it isn't just winning, it's how I win that jazz's me. I can be pretty hard on myself when I make mistakes, even when i win. I can leave a win pretty disappointed if that makes sense. So i think what it is, is that i seek a sort of personal excellence that is independent of the win itself.

The ITC, like I say, only cares about raw results and you are ranked accordingly. I've been as high as 54th on the list this year and I am still in the top 3% overall among the 4,000 ranked players. I decided to actually make a go of it this year just to see how well i could do, but then my nature got the better of me and i played orks and Militarum Tempestus and Sisters of Battle in some of my events which probably cost me a little, though I suppose i still did well. This year in particular I actually care about winning and i am eager to see where I ultimately end up in the standings but any year before this one i would say that it was a matter of seeking personal excellence. I just want to do AS WELL as it was POSSIBLE to do in any given matchup, win or lose.

My own mistakes bother me a lot more than losing.