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.

Many people have different opinions on what they call a fun game, is it winning, having few laughs, what are makes a game fun for you.?

Having a relaxing game with my opponent. Win or lose, don't be a dick.

Star Wars: X-Wing.

One in which I can compete against a skilled opponent and the outcome isn't certain until the very end.

A fun game for me is one where I can use my wits and knowledge of the resources at my disposal to feel like I'm making meaningful decisions that will determine the outcome of the game.

I prefer a game that also has a large diversity and variety of initial and potential board states.

Dman137 wrote:
Many people have different opinions on what they call a fun game, is it winning, having few laughs, what are makes a game fun for you.?

Start us off with your opinion, please. If this is a discussion thread, then give us something to discuss.

A balanced matchup on a board with good terrain, objectives to capture, and not vanguard strike. Also in general not playing against Eldar or any "invincible" deathstars.

One where the forces are evenly matched, where tactics and a bit of luck swing momentum turn by turn, and ultimately better tactics win the day despite significant casualties on both sides. I don't like the game more or less decided (regardless of which side of this I may be on) before the first model hits the table, or where the armies are so poorly matched up that tabling in a turn or two is likely. The real fun is the ebb and flow over multiple turns, not creating an "unbeatable" list.

Fun can be had whether in a highly competitive environment if the lists are even and in a highly casual one as well. I like variety, so being forced into one effective build to be able to have a list that can have a chance from one game to the next is largely the opposite of fun after s few games. Better to be able to play with little used units here and there if both sides can resist the urge to only play the units that are must effective.

A game where my opponent and I are neck and neck through the game, with the eventual resolution coming down to some innocuous co-decision we make (my move, her counter-move, or vice-versa) earlier on in the game that only becomes apparently during the turn 5-7 scramble.

Incidentally this is why I love Maelstrom of War missions. Because I get that experience in those games.

Nomeny wrote:A game where my opponent and I are neck and neck through the game, with the eventual resolution coming down to some innocuous co-decision we make (my move, her counter-move, or vice-versa) earlier on in the game that only becomes apparently during the turn 5-7 scramble.

Incidentally this is why I love Maelstrom of War missions. Because I get that experience in those games.

Agreed

Yarium wrote:A fun game for me is one where I can use my wits and knowledge of the resources at my disposal to feel like I'm making meaningful decisions that will determine the outcome of the game.

I prefer a game that also has a large diversity and variety of initial and potential board states.

This

Only thing I'd add, is that it ruins a game for me if its soured by a bitter rules dispute or the like... I don't mind debating and discussing rules interactions (often this even adds to the enjoyment), its just frustrating when someone won't stay clam and let the pages do the talking or they can't let it go that they've been playing the rules wrong or is mad that "well the last 3 players didn't have a problem with it". This is why I hate playing anyone who is at their first "out of their FLGS" event... they just don't understand some of the rules norms.

So, having an opponent that knows the rules, or is willing to civilly look them up and figure them out as a caveat to the two above excellent posts

Being able to drink a beer, play a relaxed game where its not WAC. Maybe make some less then tactically sound moves for the lulz.

Well, it is a social hobby so being a decent person with your opponent is key.
Even better when you can find common things to laugh about.
I find playing a competitive game I like a close nail biter match: either side being tabled is a waste of time for both parties.
The Conan quote: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." is for that special player that needs to find an appropriate outlet for their martial leanings not in the realm of a hobby.

A Dman137 thread that isn't a blatant troll? It's a sign of the apocalypse! To the bunkers!

On topic, a fun game for me is one where the armies are equally matched, the game is close and bloody on both sides, and both players are good sports. Winning is nice, but if the game is close and comes down to the the dice and cards I don't mind.

I know this seems tautological, but... it's a game I enjoy. Lots of things influence this, but there is no single deciding factor. Sometimes I want a well-played game with subtle decisions factoring into a narrow victory, other times I just want to blow stuff up and have an epic showdown in the middle of the board.

I guess the single biggest factor us that my opponent is looking for the same thing from the game as I am.

The less space elves there are on the board, the better!

Nomeny wrote:
A game where my opponent and I are neck and neck through the game, with the eventual resolution coming down to some innocuous co-decision we make (my move, her counter-move, or vice-versa) earlier on in the game that only becomes apparently during the turn 5-7 scramble.

Incidentally this is why I love Maelstrom of War missions. Because I get that experience in those games.

Pretty much sums up most of my opinion of what makes a fun game, but I want to add "A game where both opponents are on the same page about what KIND of game (ie, fluffy, competitive, mix of both) is being played". If both players aren't on the same page, fun will likely not be had.

One where it is not a stomp in either direction, where it can be competitive or relaxed doesn't matter it's the attitudes and one where I can show my opponent the effort I have put into making a nice looking army and see the same from them as well.

basic conditions for a fun game

- Relaxed opponent that is fun to play with
- Relaxed environment -> I don't like paint fumes, noisy rooms or "display tables" in a crowded store where everybody walks in the way or has an opinion about the game.
- (Mostly) painted armies and decent terrain.

If these are met even the silliest game can be a lot of fun. I had the best of time losing to a transcendant ctan with my terminator army. Playing this game a second time might not be that fun at all.

Additional conditions for a really good game or to keep the second game against the same army fun.

-I like it if the game if I or the other player came up with some clever tactics
-Armies have to be somewhat matched in power.
-I like variation of opponents, missions and armies to play against
- I don't like to play against armies I can't hurt even if I won the game, this =most often happens against death star lists or (fast moving ) efficient shooting armies.
-I don't like the poorly designed scenarios that cripple the game or one player more then the other. Such as enviromental dmg that hits all models with a S4 ap - hit when one side is in power armour and the other not or rules that halve all movement, and shooting ranges.
-I don't like poorly designed mission rules such as kill points if one of the player has 3x as many units or mealstorm cards that with huge differences in difficulty (for example cast a power or turbo boost a vehicle vs issue a challenge when the oppoment only has 1 character and he is on a jetbike or controll all objectives)

Having a good sport for my opponent. If you both can decide on what kind of game you want, you will both have more fun.

I also enjoy stomping TFG sometimes, but that's another thing all together.

Ultra Cheeze vs Ultra Cheeze

I would like to play my 5 IK more often but people refuse to fight me at 2000pts.

They act like my IK are invincible when in reality, they just have to shoot the weak side armor of 12av from both sides forcing me to choose the other.

Playing IK has made me realize how vulnerable they really are.

But what I like is to move only 5 massive models and ending my turns in less than 1-2 minutes.

Win or lose, I can play another game quickly.

I dub this game mode, Titan Hammer like Hero Hammer of past editions.

 Filch wrote:
Ultra Cheeze vs Ultra Cheeze

I would like to play my 5 IK more often but people refuse to fight me at 2000pts.

They act like my IK are invincible when in reality, they just have to shoot the weak side armor of 12av from both sides forcing me to choose the other.

Playing IK has made me realize how vulnerable they really are.

But what I like is to move only 5 massive models and ending my turns in less than 1-2 minutes.

Win or lose, I can play another game quickly.

I dub this game mode, Titan Hammer like Hero Hammer of past editions.

Sorry, but my non-Flyrant spamming Nids wouldn't like to play against that. At all. Ever. Nor would my Dark Eldar friend.

Dictionary.com wrote:Fun

noun
1.
something that provides mirth or amusement:
A picnic would be fun.
2.
enjoyment or playfulness:
She's full of fun.

Dictionary.com wrote:Game

noun
1.
an amusement or pastime:
children's games.
2.
the material or equipment used in playing certain games:
a store selling toys and games.
3.
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
4.
a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one:
the final game of the season; a rubber of three games at bridge.

That covers about what i consider to be fun games.

For me there are a lot of things that go into being a fun game.

Simple enough that we don't spend 5 minutes arguing rules or having to go over house rules.

Something that is balanced enough that player skill is a bigger factor than army choice.

Something where I can buy an army that I like and not get called out as TFG if it's flavor of the month or get told to L2P if it's a lower tier army.

And mostly something where it feels like what I do matters in the game. Maelstrom is the opposite of that where it matters more about luck of the draw and your plans change every turn.

A game where something unexpected occurs. I had as much fun seeing my Solitaire eviscerate a commissar with a precision strike to sweep 42 guardsmen as I did when he was pummeled into the ground by a unit of 10 fire warriors.

A game where unexpected things happen, we both have a good shot at winning but it ends up being close, and it's spent with someone I genuinely like hanging out with.

Hell, I've even played some shutout games that were a blast because we made a cool story out of it and had a few laughs over the course of the game.

Well, this is what usually makes a game fun for me:

- Neither army is outclassed by or a perfect counter to the other.
- The mission doesn't heavily favour one army (and isn't just a load of random nonsense, either)
- My units get to shine, even if they die in the end.
- I can have a meaningful impact on the board, even if I lose in the end.
- No one gets annoyed and we can enjoy some jokes.

 Yarium wrote:
A fun game for me is one where I can use my wits and knowledge of the resources at my disposal to feel like I'm making meaningful decisions that will determine the outcome of the game.

That's a pretty good definition, I think.

Nomeny wrote:
A game where my opponent and I are neck and neck through the game, with the eventual resolution coming down to some innocuous co-decision we make (my move, her counter-move, or vice-versa) earlier on in the game that only becomes apparently during the turn 5-7 scramble.

Incidentally this is why I love Maelstrom of War missions. Because I get that experience in those games.

I have the exact opposite experience. Every time my group has played maelstrom, it's come down to who drew the easiest objectives at the beginning of the game.

 Filch wrote:
Ultra Cheeze vs Ultra Cheeze

I would like to play my 5 IK more often but people refuse to fight me at 2000pts.

They act like my IK are invincible when in reality, they just have to shoot the weak side armor of 12av from both sides forcing me to choose the other.

Playing IK has made me realize how vulnerable they really are.

But what I like is to move only 5 massive models and ending my turns in less than 1-2 minutes.

Win or lose, I can play another game quickly.

I dub this game mode, Titan Hammer like Hero Hammer of past editions.

I can see why a lot of people would not want to play against 5 IK's, myself included. Like Krodarklorr pointed out, there are armies that simply cannot play against them. Those armies might even win in a Maelstrom game but it would be super lame to just walk around, get stomped/shot and take objectives. People know Knights are not invincible, it's just that an army of only Knights can be pretty bleh to play against.

To the topic, I gotta agree with the general sentiment of a well balanced game with a good opponent makes for fun. I don't think its fun to table or be tabled on turn 2, and since I'm not playing in tournaments this has no appeal to me. Having a neck-and-neck Maelstrom game gives me way more fun.

As long as you can shake your opponents hand at the end and genuinely say 'good game' I figure things must have gone well.

Maybe add lots of cool models and terrain to that.

The tourney scene gets a lot of atteniom but I'd rather play games like this. The tables are just fantastic.

http://snbattlereports.com

 Filch wrote:

I would like to play my 5 IK more often but people refuse to fight me at 2000pts.

They act like my IK are invincible when in reality, they just have to shoot the weak side armor of 12av from both sides forcing me to choose the other.

Playing IK has made me realize how vulnerable they really are.

But what I like is to move only 5 massive models and ending my turns in less than 1-2 minutes.

Well, you can count me among those who wouldn't want to play that army.

I'm one of these weird people who doesn't believe the game gets more epic when one player has 5 models in his army.

Nor, for that matter, do I see the fun in a game where 2/3 of my weapons are utterly worthless.

 vipoid wrote:
Nor, for that matter, do I see the fun in a game where 2/3 of my weapons are utterly worthless.

That would be the more detailed version of a fun game: "when I get to use my stuff".
I remember reading a "goatboy" article a long time ago (here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/11/goatboy-40k-mondays-questions-on-making-things-fun.html).
I think it is not quite enough for each side to be scraping off models but the joy of seeing things happening effectively.
Meaningful movement, shooting, assault and psychic phase.
Something needs to be happening at every turn or the game sucks.
Being able to run five models can be fun but the opponent only gets to kill five models...