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.

Satire from deadshane sure, but we all know people like that. They're also what most people think of when they hear 'play to win'.

I play to win

I don't *need* to win, but I *want* to win

I don't need to win by massacre, by any means necessary

I just a well-fought game with a chance to win within the rules

I used to play Tournaments and focus only on Battle score, even won Best General

I now play Apocalypse and enjoy the banter when there aren't any prizes or trophies on the line

Wanna play, regardless of who ultimately "wins"?

Moz wrote:Satire from deadshane sure, but we all know people like that. They're also what most people think of when they hear 'play to win'.

Actually, it's *exactly* what most people think of when they see the WC post...

Argh! Sirlin is always so frustrating. It's just slightly incomplete...

Scrub is a useful term, but it gets conflated with insecurity, which isn't necessarily the case, but is often what we are referring to.

A scrub is someone with secret rules in his mind. He may or may not care about losing/winning. He may or may not be decent at hobbying. He may or may not give you a tough game. It just denotes someone with secret rules that aren't in the rules. The connotations, unfortunately, are much broader.

The guys we all hate playing are the insecure ones. Guys who can't admit that they are trying to win, but are, so if they beat you its apparently some sort of bizarre coincidence, and if you win its luck or your list is cheasy. They can be scrubs or not, doesn't matter.

There needs to be a one word descriptor for insecure guys that isn't just a flat out insult. I've never been able to coin one, but it would be really useful.

Help me out here? You guys must have players who blame everything on their terrible luck or some other outside force, yet insist that they aren't trying to win. If not, I envy you.

Sirlin's article conflates them with scrubs, who are often the same but not necessarily. I've had fun games with scrubs, heck, I'm a scrub myself in several ways. (Walter's rules: No playing Orks. No using anything another local player uses first.) I've never had fun playing guys who won't admit that they are trying to beat you at the game, and hope you are doing likewise.

This all reminds me of an article I wrote on this topic some time ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Phases_of_a_Gamer

Gwar! wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

LunaHound wrote:HBMC i dont play to win

So at no point do you try to win any game you play? If your answer to this is yes, you are a unique human being... or a communist.

Alternativley, see the quote from Gwar below. He got the point across quite well (better than I did):

Gwar! wrote:The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

That's probably a better way of putting it than I did.

Damnit HBMC You're meant to say "Gwar! is 100% Right" ;(

But yes, I agree. It's impossible not to play "to win" because the whole objective of the game is to win. If you don't play to win (i.e Playing to lose)you are effectively denying your opponent the right to a fun game.

I concur

JohnHwangDD wrote:I play to win

Oh my god what is going on people! Is it 2012???

I play to win, after all, it is the idea of the game

however, i dont mind playing a few games for the simple laugh (pure gretchin against death wing)

I think playing to win but still being polite and friendly to your opponent is what I aim for. This can mean allowing take backs, or it can mean following the rules rigidly depending on your tastes- I often allow people to do things they blatantly forgot, but am not forgiving with rules "mistakes" which confer a large advantage. I try to always remain polite, however. As a horde player, an element of playing to win that can make me agitated and I suspect less fun to play against is when an opponent is a very slow player. It drives me mental if a space marine player with 50 models is taking as long with his turns as I do with my 160+ orks. So I become pretty sharp about it.

I can certainly have fun while losing, but only if I felt I had a chance to win. If I screwed up, or the dice screwed me, I can enjoy it as a learning experience. If I get steamrolled and I feel like it wasn't possible to stop it, then I won't enjoy it. I also think I am a scrub, but I'm an uncomplaining one. (Da Boss's rules: Never play with ugly miniatures, never play a list you wouldn't enjoy facing yourself. That actually allows me a lot of leeway- the only list I wouldn't play from the current edition is Nob Bikers.)

RussWakelin wrote:This all reminds me of an article I wrote on this topic some time ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Phases_of_a_Gamer

That is a pretty good generalization of wargamers in wargaming Russ. Thanks.

I notice that you don't allow for people to "re-evaluate their game (they choose to play)" along the way or more importantly once they reach their Gamer Utopia.

Whether this means to recognize the game for what it is:

Generally a fun 1-3 hours or so with luck deciding the outcome in the majority of cases where your basic army's are on a "level playing field" of sorts.

Or whether you realise that the game is too far from balanced to allow you to bring variety to your games (which you want to drive your interest in the hobby as well) while still giving you a chance to compete and therefore need to move on to something else to keep your common interest with your gaming group.

As with anything in life gaming is dynamic and the subtle differences in personality and experiences between gamers, even when close friends, can lead to members of the group expanding their horizons in terms of what they are looking for in games.

As a direct couple of questions to Russ and the rest of the D6G if they are interested in the topic:

What would you define as "Playing to Win" in terms of tabletop gaming?

How has this effected your gaming experiences and the games that you each choose to play with each other?

Swordguy wrote:

stonefox wrote:Best way to play IMO.

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

hehehehehe comming from the guy who wrote it originally?


no doubt it.

The concept of a "game" does not have to do anything with "winning" or "losing." The emphasis on "winning" and "losing" with corresponding "positive" and "negative" connotations is, in my opinion, a failure of society in general. A "game" can be purely for fun. A "game" can have objectives far beyond any stated within the rules. For example,

1) You and three of your buddies go on a nice Sunday for 18 holes of golf. You and your buddies jest about the shots that go into the sand traps and cheer about the triumphs of well played shots. But in the end you and your buddies don't mark down the number of shots, thus no one really "wins" or "loses." Everybody gains the enjoyment of socializing, sport, and beer.

2) You might have "won" the "game", in the technical sense, based on gaining the objectives set forth by the rules. But, your opponent may, in his or her mind, have "won" by achieving a personal objective, i.e. , making the "game" not enjoyable for you through obnoxious, unsporting play, etc. Some people may call this person "TFG" or a "sore loser," but in the end; the personal objective was gained, whether ethical or not.

Well, my point is to stress that sometimes competitiveness ruins the "fun" of the "game." I know people and have played people who take competitiveness and the "win at all costs" attitude a bit too far and the "game" becomes not "fun." Unfortunately, these people do not have a good reputation in local gaming communities.

So, do I play to win? Yes - but not at all costs (being a jerk or losing a friend over a war game is not worth a "win")

Do I play for fun? Yes - see example #1 and also in my war games, too.

Do I play for personal objectives? Yes and No-In general, in the end, I do not really care if I win, lose, or draw. I have no tally from the ten or so years of playing. But, I'm human and sometimes it's hard not to take a situation personal.

In my opinion, the best opponent is the one who is balanced between examples #1 and #2. The person who is competitive, but doesn't take it to the personal level, and yet is still willing to jest and cheer for in the end it's only a game.

I agree with EyeofTzeentch. It is after all just a game, win or lose it's done for the purpose of everyone having fun. However, I don't think we should shrink at the sight or provide outright hostility to someone who does decide to bring an extremely competitive list/plays the game "to win".

I think it challenges others into building/ creating tougher lists and better tactics. While the majority of people like to use and collect "soft" armies (often with fluffy units or relatively bad ones), I do think we should all strive to get better at the game through building better lists and harder armies.

I honestly think that if GW saw that there gamers were getting more competitive and building certain types of troops, IF they wanted to stay a profitable business they would create BETTER models with BETTER rules to sell more of. For example, if GW realizes that the only model from their Chaos Space Marine line that sold reasonably well was the oblitz (while the others sat rusting on shelves), then they probably would update the rules so that the other models get better rules (and get taken more often).

Maybe Stelek got it right!

Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

Interesting derailment from the original story. My understanding of the original story was that if you are the underdog/outmatched/less skill, then you should find an unconventional way of approaching the "battle."

Much more interesting topic then jawing about "I play to win/fun/whatever."

I think the idea has rapidly matured in 40K tournament play - it's why you see the overloading of lists in particular areas. Biker nobs, lots of BW's, eldar air force, nidzilla (refs to 4th edition) - load your list in one particular way and you're probably going to have a competitive edge in one form or fashion.

Do you think that 40k tournament play has really matured in the use of unconventional or out-of-box approaches to battle or has 40k tournament play turned into the guys that the computer beat in the original post, i.e. is 40k tournament play just itching for someone to think outside-of-the-box of chaos lash, nob bikers, landraider spam, etc? Or is the game of 40k just too limiting and in the end there are just a certain set of lists that will always out shine all others, i.e. has the optimum been reached for 5th edition?

Gwar! wrote:I see it like this:

The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

This is one of the best ways I have ever heard anyone state my view on games. I don't intend to always build the greatest, most efficient army list. Sometimes I take a unit because I like the concept, I made a sweet conversion or I want to try some bizarre longshot strategy. Even if those guys get steamrolled, I can have a good time. Once everyone is on the board, I am going to play to win as best I can, but when it comes to army composition or my plan, I might try something just because I think it's cool or interesting. I'm still intending to win, but I'm trying to do it in a way that I find interesting. I'm not necessarily trying to provide you with world class competition when I play you.

Sort of like in Magic, I might build a deck on a interesting card, concept or combo, even if it isn't a top tier deck. Part of the fun is trying to innovate, test and play around with my ideas. Obviously the deck is still designed to win, but I can definitely have a blast even if it fails hard.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "matured."

What I meant was that the idea of using unconventional forces has progressed to the point in 40K that it seems most players who rank highly in large tournaments are using the "find the computer generated" force. How many posts do you see on dakka that go something along the lines of "don't use a battleforce army, you need to overload in one area" ie all mech, nob bikers, LR spam, and whatever comes out of the new IG dex?

I think what we're going to continue to see with 5th edition is that the most recent dex is going to have a new set of rule breaking combos/special rules that are exploitable in a unique fashion. Foe example, talking with Mondo last week, he told me that he's itching to try out some stuff on my nob bikers. I'm sure that with him being a good player and the new dex, he should be able to run them into the ground with ease.

So no, I don't think the optimum has been reached. One of the things when the ork dex came out (along with 5th) was that all of a sudden you could no longer run lists optimized to kill MEQ and still expect to walk over horde lists. With new dexes coming out I think we're reaching more towards the idea that no matter what you run, if it's skewed to far to one side, there's going to be another list that is skewed to the other side that is your counter. If you're lucky you don't run into during a tourney. but if you do, you face an uphill battle.

I generally agree with you, budro.

Maybe I was a bit hasty with my second question, because I am well aware that there are 'dexes that have not been updated to the new edition, however; 'dexes are always being updated /or not updated at all, so an equilibrium is never really acheived.

Generally speaking, I think the concept of bringing a competitive list to a tournament and hoping that the stars are correctly aligned so one doesn't face the one list that has the competitive edge doesn't really show one's ability at tactics or generalship. One with a rudimentary understanding of the game with a competitive list can win without any ability or skill. This concept probably erked the war gamers in the original post, because a computer doesn't have ability or skill, unless it's programmed with such an A.I., it just follows a set of directions and iterates on those directions.

I have played competitive lists in the past (mech eldar, chaos lash, etc.) and have have won a good amount with those lists, I just don't find them challenging enough to keep me interested in the game. That's why I rarely play with "competitive" lists. If I know my friend is bringing a "competitive" list, I will bring alike. But most people I play don't bring such lists, so I bring alike. The games are less skewed and more fun for both players.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh? Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh? Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Please do, your multisyllabic words confuse me

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh? Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Please do, your multisyllabic words confuse me

No problem.

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh?

No, I'm not too good with name-calling and ITG / TFG behavior in general.

Deadshane1 wrote:Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Next time, why don't you actually *be* humorous, rather than merely "slow".

Well i always play to win ofcourse its what you would liek to do, but if i loose i dont really mind, you win some you loose some and i like that makes me learn better, and develop new tactics to generate mroe of a problem next time.

However my opponent this evening (my usual) tends to play to win to annoying levels and ruins the game, for example a few lucky earth shaker shots takes most of his force on the first turns which i was really happy about but he was morew annoyed which is understandable, but later in the game he began to question my force, complain about rules, and generally ruin the game because of all the annoying things, he ended up starting an arguemnt about pointless things.

and this was because, in all honesty, he was playing to win, and i think playing to win and not being able to accept losing is bad sportsman ship in any game and can effect the enjoyment of the game, although i must say slaughtering high costing space amrines in a kill points match was very fun to see

I always play to win, that is the objective of the game.
But I don't actually mind much when I don't, because I have fun, which is the point of the game.
I always try and play into the spirit of the army.

I think the army that bext oppitimises this mindset to me, has always been skaven. I always lose with them. But the fun you have when you play to the spirit of the army. The fujn you have when your opponent (usually my bro) is goading you into rolling one more dice for you ratling gun, only to then see it explode. To charge a unit of slaves into a a unit of greatswords, then fire jezzails into combat, only to see them kill none of the enemy, and just kill your slaves. it's so much fun. Skaven to me are the ultimate "play to have fun" army. The fact that whe you fire weapons they're probably going to explode. It's genius.

In 40k I'm currently building a Scythes of the Emperor army. I've limited my armuy selection to be fluffy. So ionly 1 unit of Termies, only 1 dread, no thunderfire, nothing bigger than Rhino chassis etc. It limits me to the point where if I went to a tourney I'd get slaughtered, but my main opponent is my brother, and we just play for the fun of it. If we want a more tactical game we play warmachine/hordes with all it's combos of spells and abilities. I still try to come up wioth lists that I think are cool rather than kickarse slaughterhouse lists.

I personally greatly dislike people who play simply to win. When you ask them after what the theme/story is behind their list, what there characters are called, and they just say "um......I dunno" It kinda kills it for me. There is so much story, why not use it?

Fun + story > winning

meta.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nowadays, I more often play to win, rather than always playing to win. I think I have more fun this way, and think others, do too.

Sig.

Personally, I design army lists primarily to have fun, set up the table solely to have fun, select opponents solely to have fun. Once I start putting models on the table, I am primarily trying to win, whilst allowing my opponent to still enjoy losing. Once the game is over, it goes back to being about fun, so I'll talk about how I won/lost and try to learn a little bit.

The idea of making sure your opponent has a good time is entirely (or at least mostly) seperate from what kind of list one plays. I always try to make sure my opponent is having a good time and I also almost always play a pretty competitive to very competitive list. Up to a point what list I play is context driven. At a weekly game night down at the local store I won't play my tier 1 tourny lists for the most part. One reason not to is because a lot of the guys who play occasionally won't have the first clue how to manage against a tier one list and stand no real chance of winning at all, which leads into reason two, which is that I'm not advancing my game at all playing such a lopsided match. I don't feel bad bringing a tier one list to games night, and I don't really care about opponents complaints, but there just isn't much point.

Mostly I have no truck with people telling other people how to play the game. Whether it's fluff nazi's or power gamers, I just let other people play the game the way they want to. It's up to me to decide who to play and how much to accomodate their gaming style. Based on those choices I'll either expand or contract the number of players who'll actually play me next time. This line of reasoning applies to any non-tournament kind of play - casual games, campaigns, whatever. People need to realize that there's a social group involved though, and that their gaming choices can have an impact on their acceptance by that group.

In a tourney, I'm 100% a supporter of a 'no whining' policy. Tournies are specifically competitive and people should bring their A game and best lists. Fluff players shouldn't play in tournaments if they're going to complain that their sub-par, non-optimised, fluff-bunny list gets crumped by a well though out and well played army. I have zero sympathy for that nonsense.

The game to me starts at the table when rolling scenario and putting the minis down. From that point I will be trying my best to win.

As far as i'm concerned list building is not part of the game, but part of the overall hobby, it ranks alongside modelling and painting - trying to put to gether a nice and interesting army.

I can't work out how serious people are if they play to win with optimised tourney style lists and then say they like the challenge. If you want a proper challenge then bring an interesting 'sub-optimal' army and try and win with that. If he brings an uber tourney list then the challenge for you is even better, and he presumably has the 'fun' he really wanted which was purely about winning rather than challenge (unless of courese you win, but then it didn't matter what list you had if winning was all that mattered to him).

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 couldn't agree with you more. Nothing pisses me off more* than people who try to judge me as a person based on whether or not I concede a game of 40k. Knowing when to fold doesn't make me less of a person than you, and I don't see how "fighting to the last" in a stupid dice game makes you any better.

And why does everyone keep asking me if I want to play? What if I say no?




*I seem to say this about everything. Huh...

puree wrote:
I can't work out how serious people are if they play to win with optimised tourney style lists and then say they like the challenge. If you want a proper challenge then bring an interesting 'sub-optimal' army and try and win with that. If he brings an uber tourney list then the challenge for you is even better, and he presumably has the 'fun' he really wanted which was purely about winning rather than challenge (unless of courese you win, but then it didn't matter what list you had if winning was all that mattered to him).

Once again a quote from blackmoor before this trend of thinking strays where it seems to be headed....

Next is the tough section that's hard for people to swallow. The #1 thing holding back most players is purely mental. You must shed all the rules and limitations that exist in your head about how to play, and instead start using all legal moves available to you to win. You must also give up the ridiculous notion that other players should abide by the made-up rules in your head.

Why are we both bringing "sub optimal" lists to a game then? Wouldnt the game be more interesting if we both brought 'optimal' lists?