Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I mainly play a Mech DE list with 20+ lances and FNP everywhere.
Which is fine, if I was playing in a tournament. It really takes the fun out of the 'pro' army when I'm fighting a Space Marine army which has AV consisting of a Lascannon Predator and 2 Meltaguns.
The thing is, I don't play this list because I know it will win. There's plenty of IG and SW players that would stomp me. Hell, I lost to Necrons a couple weeks ago. I play it because I find it cool. Everything in my list is cool to me. Only things that I wish I could use is some Incubi and a third Blasterborn unit.
I have no problem with running what you think is cool, but I'm not gonna take 30 Mandrakes just because you would feel better if my list was gak.

Don't have time to read all those mighty walls of text. My two cents:
I think you have confused, "playing to win," where you can simultaneously be, "playing for enjoyment," with, "WAAC."

This may have been covered already but a quick skim of the OP suggests you had mixed up the two concepts. WAAC is bad. Playing to win is natural. It's a game ergo it's competitively natured. Playing to lose or not trying is bad sportsmanship.

I'll get of my soapbox now.

Actually i'd enjoy playing against that list

I'd not insist that my opponent fills his list with anything he didn't like, but i reserve the right to run gak units myself without being lectured on how mathematically gakky they are

As long as i know what kind of game i'm getting into i'm fine with any power level of list. I tend to keep a few dozen lists on hand for various levels of competitiveness.

ArbitorIan wrote:Running a 'just for fun' list
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "just for fun" lists are not "just for fun". Just for fun implies that they repsresent no thought or consideration. Many of these aren't collections made around a "list" rather, they collected around asthetic or fluff prefferences. It would be more accurate to call them Modelers or Fluff "Armies", since "list building" might not have anything to do with their creation.

It's nearly impossible to overstate how far apart the reasoning can be between someone who buys a model because they like it (whether because of asthetics of fluff) and someone who buys a model because it fits a niche in their game list.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

I would answer those questions with several questions from a modeler or fluff enthusiast's perspective.
-Why would I want to buy multiples of the same unit when I already have 1 or 2?
-Why would I want to tie myself to a list that doesn't include some of the coolest looking units in the codex?
-Why would I want to buy/model a unit that didn't "accurately" reflect the unit that I am basing my army on?
-Why would I want to buy that butt ugly piece of...?

These aren't game consderations, but to model or fluff enthusiasts they are no less important factors than list-worthyness is to a competative player.

I think most people's view of WAAC is a misconception of the people they think are WAAC.

90%+ of tourney players are not WAAC. And my tourney players I mean those who travel to GTs not you RTT players.

The players that are WAAC are usually local players that seek for exploits and do in fact cheat are their venues. They do well in small local tourneys, but thats the limit of their ability. They also like to try and curb stomp the "friendly" gamers on open nights.

The top tourney players that are assigned the WAAC label generally do not deserve it. People blur the local TFG with all competitive players.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

I would answer those questions with several questions from a modeler or fluff enthusiast's perspective.
-Why would I want to buy multiples of the same unit when I already have 1 or 2?
-Why would I want to tie myself to a list that doesn't include some of the coolest looking units in the codex?
-Why would I want to buy/model a unit that didn't "accurately" reflect the unit that I am basing my army on?
-Why would I want to buy that butt ugly piece of...?

These aren't game consderations, but to model or fluff enthusiasts they are no less important factors than list-worthyness is to a competative player.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I mainly play a Mech DE list with 20+ lances and FNP everywhere.
Which is fine, if I was playing in a tournament. It really takes the fun out of the 'pro' army when I'm fighting a Space Marine army which has AV consisting of a Lascannon Predator and 2 Meltaguns.
The thing is, I don't play this list because I know it will win. There's plenty of IG and SW players that would stomp me. Hell, I lost to Necrons a couple weeks ago. I play it because I find it cool. Everything in my list is cool to me. Only things that I wish I could use is some Incubi and a third Blasterborn unit.
I have no problem with running what you think is cool, but I'm not gonna take 30 Mandrakes just because you would feel better if my list was gak.

It isn't the list it is the atttude.

I have been stomped by guys that had me laughing the whole game and we had a blast even thought I got tabled, etc.

It is the chect bumping, and smack talk, and general TFG attitude that kills the mood...

zeekill wrote:

njpc wrote:Few points, Zeekill, I'm pretty certain we play at the same shop and know who each other are there's a few things i'll point out:
...
...
...

Ok... alot to take in.

Before anything else: HAI (you know who you are)! Long time no see.

I get everything you're trying to say, I 100% understand it. The thing is, when it comes to writing a balanced list. Its almost like I can't do it. The first thing I see when I look at a balanced list is 101 ways to make it SO MUCH better, and from that moment on its like a leech on the back of my neck constantly nagging me to make the list competitive. Not playing to the best of my ability in every aspect of the game (List, Target Priority, Objective grabbing, etc) just seems like its pointless when I could be doing all of that. Yes I CAN take that Land Raider. But for 30 more points I can get 2 Long Fang Squads kitted with ML. Why bother with the LR? Yes I COULD run a Black Orc Warboss with my Black Orcs. But then why not run Grimgor?

I suppose plenty of this also stems from the fact that GW raises their price so fast that there is no possible thing to compare it to, and paying $35 for half of a less-than-optimal squad or $20 for a less-than-optimal HQ might as well be the equivalent of slowly selling shards of my soul to GW.

Then again, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here, I can keep playing optimal lists only in tournies, or I can write balanced lists and play both in tournies and pickup games.If I MUST pick one, then even though it will slowly kill off my ego I guess I'll pick the one that lets me keep my friends

See what I would do if I were you is similar to what he said. Bring your competitive list along with some more balanced variations of it. When you meet an opponent look at their list and choose accordingly. Yeh you COULD wipe the floor with them with your competitive list but thats NOT playing to the best of your ability. At that point its just an excercise in repitition and moving your units from point A to point B and it isnt fun for anyone (unless you get a kick out of beating up 10year olds). To really test your ability you have to choose a list that matches theirs so ONLY your playing and tactical skills come into play when determining the winner.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

I have a habit of building sub-optimal or obscure lists just to frustrate min/maxers, rule mongers and power gamers. My lists don't include "must have" choices and usually appear overly squishy. I'm one of those cynical folks that actually doesn't play to win; I play to not lose. If I do lose, I have an excuse. If I win though think of how bad you get to feel. All those hours spent number crunching and tweaking were all for nothing. Your ultimate steamroller of destruction halted by a lowly speed bump.

WAAC and min/maxers pretty much drove me to this style of play. I refuse to give those folks any satisfaction in their army selection or their rule mongering skills anymore. For example, I played in a War Machine tourney where I did not even get a turn. The scenario (which was known by my opponent prior to the event as he was a regular to the WM tourney scene) was to occupy a hill. The poor rules for the scenario had you score points at the end of each player turn instead of each full turn. The majority of my opponent's army infiltrated and his feat allowed him an extra move. He had the full point allotment before I even got to move. Can you really say I was outplayed when I didn't even GET to play? That took no skill, gives ZERO bragging rights and pretty much ruined the rest of the day for me. A clear case of abuse of a poor rule set. It might not have been so bad if the scenario hadn't been known ahead of time by my opponent. At least I did walked away with best army since I was the ONLY one who brought jacks to a War Machine tourney (all jacks, by the way. It's not infantry machine....)

My lists are formed by the "rule of cool" and I'll be honest, I walk away with more prizes for sportsmanship or best army then I ever have for best general (don't be fooled, I win my fair share of games with my crappy lists) and if you're one of those folks that has to go to tourneys isn't the point to leave with some swag? I'm also one of those guys who won't make a fuss during a game. If you're a jerk, if your list is clearly exploiting some loophole in a rules set or you try to rules monger throughout the game I'll finish the game and just ding your score on comp or sportsmanship. WAAC should not be rewarded in my opinion. The example of the monster lost during a game because of the 1" rule comes to mind here of an example where a sportsmanship score would get dinged. Just a smidge of sportsmanship would have pointed out the infraction and allowed the player to fix it rather than use it to get rid of a potential threat. I understand it's not your job to make sure your opponent is moving according to the rules but since you obviously were watching the friendly thing to do is point out the infraction, not play "gotcha"! Save that for your Blood Bowl games where it's actually written into the rules that it's okay to pull that stuff.

People are just ridiculous sometimes, trying to tell us what we should think, or that my fun is somehow inferior to their fun.

I just use a rule of thumb..

Don't bring ball-buster lists to normal club/meetings unless you can get someone to practice with you for the tournament.

In a tournament, you bring your best. Comp, or no comp, you bring the best list you like. Even if it means razorspam or 6 psyflemen dreads, you bring what you think is the best you can.

Fun: Playing to win

Not Fun: Playing against a guy who complains about his codex everytime something happens(even in his favour), who is constantly online trying to determine the best possible (down to the point) list, hasnt even based (as in attatched them to a base) his miniatures, let alone painted or assembled them yet still buys things from forgeworld because he thinks they would be slightly more optimal and then complains when people dont want to play his Imperial Armour stuff. Losing to this guy isnt fun, winning against this guy isnt fun. Anyone who thinks this kind of behaviour should be encouraged is in a word: wrong.

Fun units/ lists = fun. Optimised list = boring = not fun.

Generally, the only way to counter optimised lists is with
your own optimised list. Which is a bummer for, say, 'Crons.

I dunno. Three Monoliths normally means a bad day for someone.

I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.

40k, on the other hand, has situations where you can get tabled turn 1, or where if you play an army, the only way to win is to use a prescribed list and set of tactics. Look at Necrons, for example. Most of the time, Necrons are considered weak, easily tabled. Does that seem fair, seem balanced? It means that the person playing the 'Crons is going into the game with an inherent handicap, which means that the opponent "should" play less competitively, in order to make the game 'even', give both players an equal chance to win. Or you get that one build, like Wraithwing or Destroyerwing, that's absolutely brutal, and there's no way for the opponent to deal with it- and so the Necron player then 'should' not play that style, because it then becomes an uphill battle for the opponent.

Fairness is when, if you take any two lists of equal points values, from any two factions, and have two players who are equally experienced/inexperienced with both play them, you'll get a 50/50 win/loss ratio (with a couple ties) in there, depending on the dice. You can't get that in 40k, since there's some lists that are, well, literally unable to do a thing to other lists. Like what if you were an Ork player who absolutely hated Powerklaws for some reason? And you fought that previously mentioned Wraithwing. You'd almost certainly get slaughtered, especially if you were running Green Tide. Or a Guard player, against deep-striking, outflanking Nidzilla. (whether or not that's possible, you get the idea).

When Dash quits the game because he can't find an underdog anymore, that's when 40k will be balanced. Until then, when there even exist hard counters to entire army lists, the game cannot be truly balanced, and so Playing to Win will be inherently unfair, unfun, and uncool, because while one player, playing to win, concentrates on winning, it's a good bet that the other player will be forced to concentrate on avoiding being tabled, struggling for just a tie.

Anvildude wrote:I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.

Can't speak for FoW but this description of Warmachine has no basis in reality.

plastictrees wrote:

Anvildude wrote:I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.

Can't speak for FoW but this description of Warmachine has no basis in reality.

Actually, it has merit.

In Warmachine, most of the time - most - you can come back. Are there hard counters? Most definately, and there will be times that you will be stomped. But Warmachine and Hordes offer the unique fact that no matter how beaten you feel, it's just like in chess: you only need a single pawn, in the right place, for a checkmate.

As for Flames of War, he's also right. Thanks to the fact that instead of a turn limit, you have a time limit, and that a company can break and retreat if you can wear t down enough, even if you're outclassed you can always fight defensively. With Dug In and Concealed infantry holding an objective, hopefully with some machine guns and a AT gun or two, you have an extremely difficult amount of defense that you'll have to move in order to win.

I think I have a slightly different take on WM/H v 40k.

Imagine a sliding scale with ROFLpwn(me) and ROFLpwn(you) on both ends.

For the scale to be at either extreme, typically it's a combination of one player doing all the right things and the other player doing many wrong ones. Frankly you don't often get ROFLpwnd unless you make a monstrous mistake an opponent can capitalize on. This can develop in either game system (2 models die in an entire match of WM/H, but one of those models was your warcaster / you deploy your 3 LR Vulkan list against Manticore-spam mech IG T1 and watch your vehicles disappear from the table).

It's toward the middle of the scale where I see the most difference between the two game systems. In 40k, a newbie can lose half of his army by T3 but still throw dice at Daemon Princes and feel like he's doing something for the next 3 turns. Is he losing badly? Probably. Does he have any real hope of winning? Probably not. Can "fun" still be had if Lysander can punch that Defiler to death and make 3++ saves til the end of the game? Absolutely.

For a newbie in WM/H, there really isn't that opportunity to keep on truckin' after a bad turn. Warcaster dies, game over. Bad taste in your mouth, and all that.

Similarly there's never really an opportunity to feel totally secure in your impending victory as long as there's a chance that the one important model dies and the game ends. I've won several games with the majority of my army dead and horribly outnumbered.

Good 40k players can look at a table and conceptualize where units/models will be in a couple turns with pretty high reliability because 40k is fairly predictable; models move X, do Y, and dice, on average, should predict Z.

Good Warmachine players can do the same, but to a lesser extent because the combo-building nature can result in weird U-turns, and throwing your opponent off by pulling a Crazy Ivan-type maneuver is actually a key component of the game.

In summary, although I think balance is better in WM/H you can definitely get stomped--and often do-- at any point in the game regardless how good a player you are.

In 40k, getting stomped usually requires you to make key mistakes, or truly aberrant dice rolling on one side of the table or other.

Anvildude wrote: Like what if you were an Ork player who absolutely hated Powerklaws for some reason?

Anvildude wrote:which means that the opponent "should" play less competitively

So, if I decide to take an extremely weak list then my opponents should either take an equally weak list or play worse so that I can have fun?

This is the whole problem with the take-fun-lists argument. As soon as one person's fun list is stronger than another it falls down. Should the player with the stronger list then play worse? According to you they should.
Do you really feel that deliberately playing badly is fun? For either player?

And how do you ensure that everyone is bringing equally weak lists?

sarcastro01 wrote:WAAC and min/maxers pretty much drove me to this style of play. I refuse to give those folks any satisfaction in their army selection or their rule mongering skills anymore. For example, I played in a War Machine tourney where I did not even get a turn. The scenario (which was known by my opponent prior to the event as he was a regular to the WM tourney scene) was to occupy a hill. The poor rules for the scenario had you score points at the end of each player turn instead of each full turn. The majority of my opponent's army infiltrated and his feat allowed him an extra move. He had the full point allotment before I even got to move. Can you really say I was outplayed when I didn't even GET to play? That took no skill, gives ZERO bragging rights and pretty much ruined the rest of the day for me. A clear case of abuse of a poor rule set. It might not have been so bad if the scenario hadn't been known ahead of time by my opponent. At least I did walked away with best army since I was the ONLY one who brought jacks to a War Machine tourney (all jacks, by the way. It's not infantry machine....)

I realise it's not much consolation at this point, but your opponent likely cheated. Points have started being accumulated at the bottom of 2 since the earliest Steamroller ruleset I can remember...

Scott-S6 wrote:

Anvildude wrote: Like what if you were an Ork player who absolutely hated Powerklaws for some reason?

Anvildude wrote:which means that the opponent "should" play less competitively

So, if I decide to take an extremely weak list then my opponents should either take an equally weak list or play worse so that I can have fun?

This is the whole problem with the take-fun-lists argument. As soon as one person's fun list is stronger than another it falls down. Should the player with the stronger list then play worse? According to you they should.
Do you really feel that deliberately playing badly is fun? For either player?

And how do you ensure that everyone is bringing equally weak lists?

Note the quotation marks. It's a question of fairness to the loser, fairness to the winner, and fairness to the rules of the game. If you want a balanced game, that is, one where both players have an equal chance of winning or losing, despite what armies they brought? Then yeah, handicaps should be given and taken. If you want to follow the rules directly, then, well, better hope the one with the 'worse' army is either very lucky, or the better player of the pair. If you want to be fair to the winner, (that is, the person with the 'better' army), well, usually playing by the rules is all you need- but at the same time, as before, that can result in a very one-sided match, unless the 'Loser' is incredibly lucky and the 'Winner' rolls all 1s to hit and boxcars for leadership.

About the only way to ensure that everyone is bringing 'equally weak' lists (or equally strong) is to have a system that doesn't have weak/strong lists; one that allows any list to be used either well or poorly, depending on the player. Something about the Warmahordes game is Focus/Fury demarcation- something up to the player completely, that can be used to turn a losing situation into a winning one- make the weakest warjack in the game able to take on the strongest, if the player so desires. It's like Faith Points in Sisters games. Sisters would be a terrible army without them, and even with them, they're still incredibly hard to play if you don't have experience- but with them, they're still competitive, if used properly.

No, deliberately playing badly isn't fun for either, but it occasionally can be fun if the 'Winner' sometimes gives the 'Loser' a free save, or decides to send his Deffdredd against that squad of Termies instead of the Tac marines that can't do anything to it- or letting a mistake with Wound allocation slide instead of making the opponent re-do it (of course, explaining how it's properly done).


It's just, 40K, though being fun to play, isn't by any stretch of the imagination balanced. The sheer fact that you can start a thread about Flash Gitz, asking how they could, potentially be used, and have it turn into "Don't use them. They're completley useless. Use X instead" every time means that it can't be balanced- if it were balanced, that wouldn't happen- you wouldn't have units that were 'useless', or armies that were 'not crunchy enough'.

infinite_array wrote:

plastictrees wrote:

Anvildude wrote:I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.

Can't speak for FoW but this description of Warmachine has no basis in reality.

Actually, it has merit.

In Warmachine, most of the time - most - you can come back. Are there hard counters? Most definately, and there will be times that you will be stomped. But Warmachine and Hordes offer the unique fact that no matter how beaten you feel, it's just like in chess: you only need a single pawn, in the right place, for a checkmate.

As for Flames of War, he's also right. Thanks to the fact that instead of a turn limit, you have a time limit, and that a company can break and retreat if you can wear t down enough, even if you're outclassed you can always fight defensively. With Dug In and Concealed infantry holding an objective, hopefully with some machine guns and a AT gun or two, you have an extremely difficult amount of defense that you'll have to move in order to win.

And just like in chess, if you're not completely familiar with your opponents every model it only takes a single mistake to have your Warcaster torn apart by a furious warmachine powered by a hundred angry ghosts. Wait, that's nothing like chess (because Warmachine is nothing like chess).

The caster kill mechanic does allow the dramatic come back to occur, but it also makes Warmachine far more brutal and demoralizing than 40k (as that's the game we seem to be referring to, I'm not trying to make any sort of 40k Vs Warmachine argument here). You can lose, completely and utterly by your second turn, and with only losing one model.

I don't think that the "your playing to win!" whine has anything to do with the particular game system.

I play to win in the sense I fight uphill battles with little to no hope of victory but if I can drag that moment of triumph from the pedestal of defeat before the boulder comes crashing down you know I'll take that chance.

This

If i wanted to win all the time i'd play a different army.

I play the oldest, supposedly weakerst army out there because i have fun playing them

Win quotient and fun are not always the same thing in regards to armies..

Anvildude wrote:About the only way to ensure that everyone is bringing 'equally weak' lists (or equally strong) is to have a system that doesn't have weak/strong lists; one that allows any list to be used either well or poorly, depending on the player.

Sadly, there is no game with a decent range of list building options where it is impossible to build a bad list. You talk about the focus/fury system in warmahordes - you can still go into a game with a massive disadvantage. In fact, given that warmahordes is so focused on unit combinations, a poor list is possibly an even bigger disadvantage than in 40K.

The only games where it is impossible to start with a huge disadvantage are those with virtually no list building. If that's the kind of game you want, where list building skill is removed from the gaming equation then there are games like Mercs (pick five out of the six available units), sealed deck tournaments and the like.

Games with customizable forces inevitably make the force selection part of the game - skill at list building is as important as skill at playing. That is not a negative unless that isn't the sort of game you want to play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anvildude wrote:It's just, 40K, though being fun to play, isn't by any stretch of the imagination balanced. The sheer fact that you can start a thread about Flash Gitz, asking how they could, potentially be used, and have it turn into "Don't use them. They're completley useless. Use X instead" every time means that it can't be balanced- if it were balanced, that wouldn't happen- you wouldn't have units that were 'useless', or armies that were 'not crunchy enough'.

The fact that some units stink does not mean that the system is unbalanced. Again, all games with force selection have units which are better or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:Win quotient and fun are not always the same thing in regards to armies..

People who play for win quotient are a whole different breed - any really good player knows that a high win quotient just means that you need better opponents. Most quotient focused players make of point of having themselves be a big fish in a little pond and throw an enormous tantrum when someone upsets their comfort zone.

'People who play for win quotient are a whole different breed - any really good player knows that a high win quotient just means that you need better opponents. Most quotient focused players make of point of having themselves be a big fish in a little pond and throw an enormous tantrum when someone upsets their comfort zone. '


QFT!

I've met a few of these, and they are almosy always the most cheating, rules-lawyering TFG's imaginable. Very occasionally i'm proved wrong, and that guy is usually awesome

zeekill wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that people who "Play to Win" do not play for fun.

That depends. There are a lot of kids who play a game because they can win it, not because they think it's fun. Have you played an FPS on XBOX Live? If yes, then you know what I mean. No way those screaming, abusive little whiners have any fun. I don't know if you're one of them, but if "everyone" I played against complained about my play style, then I'd at least have started thinking about it.

zeekill wrote:
I absolutely play for fun. I obtain enjoyment from outplaying (possibly outwitting) my opponent tactically and, in extention, winning.

Nice Charlie Sheen reference.

Anyway, your idea of fun might be different to other's idea of fun.

zeekill wrote:

Those who "Play to Win" ruin the fun with rules calls

So just because we are playing a friendly game you should be immune to the rules? Why should that happen? Now, keep in mind there is a difference between rules CALLS and rules EXPLOITS. For example, the rule that if a skimmer moves flat out into terrain and immobilises itself (therefore wrecking itself) the passengers immediately die is a rules CALL. While something like the guerenteed 3+ Ward save Chosen WoC unit in fantasy would be an EXPLOIT - something never intended to be possible in the rules, but not noticed before the rules were released.

Well. There's a LOT of rules interpretation going on in WH40K for example, and if your interpretation is different to someone else's, what guarantee do you have that your's is the correct one, and not just the one that benefit you the most. Who made you the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules?

I have a mate who refuses to accept anyone else's interpretation of the rules, so since I'm not bothered enough to join an argument, he always gets all the benefits. I can promise that it's no fun playing with such people.

zeekill wrote:

People who powergame have no sportsmanship

Excuse me? Like any other person, I say "Good Game" and shake my opponent's hand at the end of the game. I never gloat, I try to joke or make small talk during slow parts of a game, and I allow my opponents quiet during close parts of the game when they need to think.

How this argument pans out
1) I get called out and the person says everything from "you play to win, not for fun" to "you're a powergamer" to "you have no sportsmanship"
2) I counterargue everything seen above in my counterargument section, starting for the "I do play for fun" and then ending with "Sportsmanship."
3) He says "there is more to sportsmanship then that."
4) I ask "What?" and restate what I do for sportsmanship.
5) At this point (I think because he has run out of ideas) he says that I am too young to understand (I'm 17, so I doubt that I wouldn't know basic sportsmanship) and that I'll probably learn by the time I'm his age (mid 20's).
6) All I have to say to this is WTF are you talking about.

There IS more to sportsmanship than this. It's a lot to do with trying to ensure a fair game, and not one that only benefits you.

I can well understand those who say you're too young to understand. I know I gained a ton of insight into my own behavior in my late teens early twenties. And my 6 year old niece sometimes thinks that the knowledge she has is all there is to have, no doubt you do the same. It does sound like you have a hard time accepting that you could be wrong. It also sounds like you are nearly violently argumentative, which makes it even less fun.

zeekill wrote:
Why I HATE this way of thinking
1) Because there is nothing wrong with Playing to Win. First of all, I am playing for my own enjoyment. It is up to others to play for their own. I could understand that if I had an ability that allowed me to control my opponent's turns then yes, I would take away from my opponet's fun. But I don't. There is not much I can do past just playing the game that I can do for my opponent's enjoyment. Why should I build sub-optimal lists when I don't need to nor want to?
2) Because if my opponents don't know the rules, its their fault when it comes back to bite them in the ass. If I were to know exactly what they would try to do before they try it then I would warn them about a rule preventing them or puting them in danger, but I can't read minds.
3) People that argue against powergaming say "You are not playing to have fun, only to win." Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun? These kinds of games are designed so that you have to screw over your opponets in order to win. So should I purposely ignore weaknesses in my opponent's army? Shooting AP3 weapons at Terminators, throwing my Hammer units into enemy Tarpits, and other STUPID moves so that I force a tie every game that I would otherwise win?

So is there anything else to this? Why the hell to people hate powergaming/playing to win? Do they just not understand that playing to win can be the same as playing for fun? are they just QQing?

Personally, I don't see why making an optimal list should be negative, as long as it's not made by exploiting the BRB or codex. That's just good strategy. Also as long as you don't mod your models to give you an advantage, like crawling marines and stuff.

It's your "rule calling" as you call it, or "rule bending" as others would call it, which would have made me not want to play you twice. Nothing is worse than people who constantly try to bend (read: interpret) the rules in their favor and who won't accept they're wrong.

Anyway, like I said, if it had just been your list people complained about, I'd have understood your argument perfectly. But when you explain all the other things you do which people react negatively to, I gotta say I understand your opponents more and more.

zeekill wrote:
Before starting I would like to say that I am argumentative and that anyone that dislikes argument may not want to post here, just for the sakes of other's sanity and civility.

Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.

What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun
How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp.


Actually now might be a good time to introduce one of my friend's favorite quotes:

If you are not playing a board game with the intent to lose all of your friends, you arn't playing it right.

The one made by the people that are against my way of playing in my LGS. I thought that was obvious.

I obviously don't know you personally, nor do I really want to get into an argument. After all, there is no point to arguing on the internet. However, I will throw this out, just in case you haven't heard it before, and in case you take some parts of it to heart.

Looking at your posts, it seems that your main issue is that those in your local environment don't really like playing you, and you think it's because you play to win, and they don't. You take pride in the competition, and in doing your best, and they don't. And somewhere in that clash of goals is the problem. It may indeed be part of it. However, to be honest, it's far more likely that you might just be a jerk.

I say that based on nothing more than reading the above quotes and many years of gaming and knowing all sorts of gamers, and having seen all kinds. Yes, sometimes there are genuine philosophical differences and/or personality clashes. But generally, if someone is having the sort of issues you describe, it's just because they're a dick.

Believe me, I don't think worse of you. You're 17. That's how 17 year old males are. Rest assured that I was a far bigger arsehole than you at 17, I guarantee it. Furthermore, we're all gamers. The vast majority of gamers are not extremely skilled at social graces - that's why they're gamers. The combination of competitive juices and people with poor social skills produces a very high douchebag quotient - combine that with being a teenage male, add a pinch of testosterone and bake in the internet, and you have a recipe for complete disaster.

This issue of playing 'competitively' vs playing 'for fun' is almost always not really the issue. I've seen gamers in miniature games and other kinds of game, eg. RTS, board games, whatever, who bring nothing but an A game every time and completely destroy everyone, but who are a joy to play with and against, and everybody desperately wants to play them, even if they're going to lose, because they're gracious, fun, and make it a great experience. That's hard to do, but it's something to aspire to. Conversely, if someone is a douchebag, it doesn't really matter if they're playing for fun or to win; however, everyone hates losing a game to a douchebag, even if it's 'just a game'. So it's not about the clash of 'competitive' vs 'playing for fun', it's simply about social graces. If you're genuinely interested in the other guy as a person, rather than a hapless sucker to be dominated to glorify your ego and show off your mad skillz, he will like you whether you play to win or not.

My advice to you is to look carefully at someone who is well liked, and try to emulate them. Tip: it usually starts with a heavy dose of humility. And note that there is a big difference between someone who is well liked, and someone who you personally like. A lot of teenage males make this mistake - they try to emulate the BMOC, because he's the big dog, leader of the pack, and he's the biggest badass around. This is true especially on the internet, where the biggest internet bully who talks himself up the most is worshipped by everyone, not just teenage males. That's not the person to emulate, though. That guy is a dick, guaranteed. The guy who always seems to be getting into a lot of arguments, or who a lot of people don't like 'because they envy him/don't like that he wins all the time/have sour grapes', is not an awesome guy who is just misunderstood. He's just a dick.

I hope that makes sense.

I would say it boils down to bad sportsmanship. Lets look at a football analogy. It is considered bad sportsmanship to run up a score in the fourth quarter simply because you can. Many people hated Steve Spurrier and the Gators for doing this to smaller colleges late in the fourth quarter. The game was decidedly over and then Spurrier would push the victory from a 28/7 score to 49/7 in the last quarter, simply because he could.

Its one thing to play aggressively but its another to beat the little guy into the ground. No one likes a bully.

If you want to play for blood, make sure your opponent is looking to do the same. Don't bring a tournament list to a pickup game, unless there are other like minded individuals there.

So far the primary thing I've been able to take away from this thread is that a large number of posters either do not distinguish between "playing to win" and WAAC'ng or that that they do distingish "playing to win" from "playing for fun".

Scott-S6 wrote:

Anvildude wrote:About the only way to ensure that everyone is bringing 'equally weak' lists (or equally strong) is to have a system that doesn't have weak/strong lists; one that allows any list to be used either well or poorly, depending on the player.

Sadly, there is no game with a decent range of list building options where it is impossible to build a bad list. You talk about the focus/fury system in warmahordes - you can still go into a game with a massive disadvantage. In fact, given that warmahordes is so focused on unit combinations, a poor list is possibly an even bigger disadvantage than in 40K.

Hardly. I've seen people win Warmachine tournaments with horrible lists written by their opponents five minutes before the thing started. Unit combinations and combo stacking really aren't as important in Warmahordes as people seem to think.