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 have been involved from Rogue Trader days and have been befuddled by the folks that play to just win. This is not a rant because I do not really care how others achieve satisfaction from our game. I have always played to win but not at the expense of a good time. My friends and I always tweak and twist the rules to make a fun experience and a new rule set offers a grand opportunity for more of our antics. We work in a experience and advancement scheme modified from RT and later versions advancing out units to elites from troops and assault by virtue of surviving the battles. Losses allow us to demote these units back to the original foc as required. It adds an element of randomness and the ability to personalize our favorite units beyond the basic. I have yet to figure out a way to build my own special character to keep it within the reasonable level of game play. I do not play tourney or competive games except for bragging rights, which my friend owns all of them right now. So this was just a prattle about having fun win or loose and using what ever you want within a point limit to keep it somewhat fair and even. I do enjoy WH 40K and the story is so pliable and mold able that the possibilities are endless.

Da Corporal

I've played both, and I can say 40k was definitely more fun to play non-competitively with friends with a narrative than it was in tournaments.

That being said, I don't think most people "play just to win," including those in tournaments. Hell, I used to play MtG all the time in tournaments and just with friends in all kinds of different formats. I would have decks that I played with them just for fun, and I would have decks that were brutally efficient and competitive. There's plenty of gray area that I think most people in most hobbies fall into.

I play with the expectation that I have a chance to win and if I play well, I will win. The game ceases to be fun when the game is won in the list building phase.
I've also played since RT and its a load of fun when you have close friends that share your ideas of what makes a fun game.
When you don't have that, you're better served by games with tighter rules.
I think the OP is painting the world in an inaccurate black and white picture that shows people that play to win as not playing for fun. For them, winning is a part of the fun but I don't know anyone that thinks winning IS the fun.

For me winning is the most enjoyable part of any game, especially for a game like 40k where you are competing against other players. I always play to win, but that doesn't mean I'm a bad sport or a cheesy TFG, when I lose I take it as a personal challenge to improve whether it be my list or my tactics.

I've never understood the stigma attached to playing to win. For all it's talk of "Forging a Narrative" The Rulebook only details how the game works and how to determine a winner.

I wish it had rules for narrative gaming and campaign systems. If that is how they view the game it would be nice to have it supported.

 Eldarain wrote:
I've never understood the stigma attached to playing to win. For all it's talk of "Forging a Narrative" The Rulebook only details how the game works and how to determine a winner.

i wish it had rules for narrative gaming and campaign systems. If that is how they view the game it would be nice to have it supported.

It's not so much a stigma of playing to win, I think, it's a stigma of playing to win with the cheesiest bull-gak army you can pull out of your hat. Going minimum troops/HQs to spam Riptides, running nothing but Heralds and Pink Horrors to run a daemon factory list, stuff like that. Wanting to win is fine, but doing so at the cost of everyone else's fun isn't. I'm not saying that everyone who plays to win plays lists like that, but the trouble is, someone who just sort of plays what they want in order to have fun with the game is going to get their posterior handed to them if they go up against someone who plays to win, spam or no spam. There are two guys up at my FLGS, for instance, that I just don't enjoy playing against, not because they're mean-spirited or rude or anything, but because they're a couple of tournament players that can't seem to get out of the mindset of playing the strongest, most efficient list they can in order to beat whoever they play against.

I had the exact same problem with Magic: the Gathering, years ago, and I remember exactly what made me decide to stop playing it altogether. I was talking with a friend (who, back then, would always do whatever he could to make sure that his deck/army was as annoying as possible to play against, even if it couldn't win) about deckbuilding, and I mentioned that I actually build decks that are balanced and fun to play against, and he replied (and I quote), "No, you play decks that are bad."

 Eldarain wrote:
I've never understood the stigma attached to playing to win. For all it's talk of "Forging a Narrative" The Rulebook only details how the game works and how to determine a winner.

I wish it had rules for narrative gaming and campaign systems. If that is how they view the game it would be nice to have it supported.

There's a huge difference between "playing to win" where you simply try to out think & out smart your opponent through superior play and perhaps a bit of added luck from the dice gods, vs. "WaaC's playing to win" where you don't give a flying rat's fart about your opponent's enjoyment (because only your own 'fun' matters and your opponent is just some dumb noob who needs to L2P.)
For example, against a "competitive" player, I can always ask them to perhaps dial back their list a wee bit because I haven't brought a super optimised list myself and/or I'm just looking for a 'for fun fluffy' game.
A WaaC's "Tournament" player however will NEVER change their list, except to switch things up to the newest meta-dominating list. Even against the poor "new guy", the "Tournament" player will still happily steamroll their poor opponent into the ground because only their own enjoyment matters, and everyone else has to learn to 'put-up or shut-up'.

The first is the way I think most people attempt to approach the game.
The latter is unfortunately just as prevalent nowadays it seems, and sadly serves to give all 'competitive' players a bad rap.

i dont believe anyone that claims they dont play to win. If that were true you'd bring the most ridiculous list that makes no sense because its "cool looking" - and lose turn3.

I strive to win, but i dont do it by being a cheesehead. I never riptide spammed and i own 0 eldar for allies. I dont like removing my opponent's fun in order to win, because i have no fun if i steamroll my opponent. Even when its just bad dice i start to feel bad because everything is just crumbling down for him/her and almost my whole army is still alive.
I want close games, not sure-fire victories. I get more close games by avoiding the cheese, but still trying to win with real tactics and such.

I think both extremes are great. I love building armies with character and fielding fluffy lists made form them. It's at its best when I get to play a narrative campaign or one that lets my units evolve.

I also love the challenge of optimising a list, thinking of nasty combinations of wargear and ruthless tactics.

The problem is when people expect different kinds of game. When I go to play someone new or at a new club I go prepared. I don't know what the meta game is so I bring a bunch of fluffy lists and a bunch of optimised lists, all at different points values. I won't be able to win a new group around to my way of thinking but I can try and embrace their style of gaming so that my opponents and I get the most from the game.

I don't think there's anyone I've seen on these boards who is playing to win at the expense of fun.

I just think the whole premise of the OP is a little flawed.

Is this a result of the threads that are critical of the current edition?

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't think there's anyone I've seen on these boards who is playing to win at the expense of fun.

And sadly, I've seen far too many instances in reality where this is entirely true...

Worst case I've ever seen was some donkeycave GK player in 5th who Quake-spamed the entire board vs. a poor 12 year old kid playing Daemons... and an un-optimised Daemon list at that!
The GK player then proceeds to gloat about his half-turn victory.

I personally put a lot of the blame on:
1. The 'instant gratification' generation.
2. Events like the old 'Ard Boyz that only placed emphasis on being a big of a tool as possible & mercilessly crushing your opponent. (at least in my local area, 'Ard Boyz was complete posion)

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
I have been involved from Rogue Trader days and have been befuddled by the folks that play to just win. This is not a rant because I do not really care how others achieve satisfaction from our game. I have always played to win but not at the expense of a good time. My friends and I always tweak and twist the rules to make a fun experience and a new rule set offers a grand opportunity for more of our antics. We work in a experience and advancement scheme modified from RT and later versions advancing out units to elites from troops and assault by virtue of surviving the battles. Losses allow us to demote these units back to the original foc as required. It adds an element of randomness and the ability to personalize our favorite units beyond the basic. I have yet to figure out a way to build my own special character to keep it within the reasonable level of game play. I do not play tourney or competive games except for bragging rights, which my friend owns all of them right now. So this was just a prattle about having fun win or loose and using what ever you want within a point limit to keep it somewhat fair and even. I do enjoy WH 40K and the story is so pliable and mold able that the possibilities are endless.

Da Corporal

So if someone had a falcon or a seer start that almost never dies , with each battle it would become even more and more elite making it harder and harder to kill or making it better at killing stuff. How is that fair ?

Experiment 626 wrote:


And sadly, I've seen far too many instances in reality where this is entirely true...

And I've seen plenty where the opposite happens.

Anecdotes are fine, but making a generalization about the state of the game/community from a limited sampling isn't a great way to have a discussion.

Some people are donkey-caves. Some are the Emperor's gift to gaming in general. Most fall somewhere in a sensible between. Its like for virtually everything in life.

 Blacksails wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:


And sadly, I've seen far too many instances in reality where this is entirely true...

And I've seen plenty where the opposite happens.

Anecdotes are fine, but making a generalization about the state of the game/community from a limited sampling isn't a great way to have a discussion.

Some people are donkey-caves. Some are the Emperor's gift to gaming in general. Most fall somewhere in a sensible between. Its like for virtually everything in life.

Agreed. Sweeping generalizations aren't useful. I'm far more concerned with the gray areas in between, the unbound army list that technically isn't OP, but has a strong advantage over your army. You could refuse the game and end up looking like a jerk for refusing a fully legal and TFG-free army, or play him and fight a battle you're going to lose unless the dice gods come down themselves with all their avatars, bless your dice, curse his and then hit him on the head with a mallet so he'll make all the biggest mistakes he could. That doesn't sound like much fun. I'd rather the game be decided by who the better player is.

Ironically, the only person I've seen who would build a steamroller list and use it even against newbies is a guy who wasn't particularly effective in tournaments. Probably because he didn't get much practice as people didn't care to play that style of game.

I like playing fun stupid random armies, I like challenging armies, I like fluffy armies, and I like to win. Kind of depends on my mood. I do try not to crush an opponent because then I feel like I ruined their fun. Unless they've been a jerk, then I have no problem curb stomping them.

Locclo wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I've never understood the stigma attached to playing to win. For all it's talk of "Forging a Narrative" The Rulebook only details how the game works and how to determine a winner.

i wish it had rules for narrative gaming and campaign systems. If that is how they view the game it would be nice to have it supported.

It's not so much a stigma of playing to win, I think, it's a stigma of playing to win with the cheesiest bull-gak army you can pull out of your hat. Going minimum troops/HQs to spam Riptides, running nothing but Heralds and Pink Horrors to run a daemon factory list, stuff like that. Wanting to win is fine, but doing so at the cost of everyone else's fun isn't. I'm not saying that everyone who plays to win plays lists like that, but the trouble is, someone who just sort of plays what they want in order to have fun with the game is going to get their posterior handed to them if they go up against someone who plays to win, spam or no spam. There are two guys up at my FLGS, for instance, that I just don't enjoy playing against, not because they're mean-spirited or rude or anything, but because they're a couple of tournament players that can't seem to get out of the mindset of playing the strongest, most efficient list they can in order to beat whoever they play against.

I had the exact same problem with Magic: the Gathering, years ago, and I remember exactly what made me decide to stop playing it altogether. I was talking with a friend (who, back then, would always do whatever he could to make sure that his deck/army was as annoying as possible to play against, even if it couldn't win) about deckbuilding, and I mentioned that I actually build decks that are balanced and fun to play against, and he replied (and I quote), "No, you play decks that are bad."

I've been lurking in this place for quite a long time now, but I felt the need to make a profile just to point something out that I don't think I've ever actually seen pointed out. There is an issue in my mind with your "cheesiest bull-gak army". The mindset that is it perfectly okay, even promoted, to build a fluffy army, so long as it is not a powerful fluffy army. Let's assume for a moment that a player looked at Tau and went, "Wow, Riptides are awesome looking, I wonder if I could base an army around them." And then went on to build an army that had two Cadre Fireblades for HQs, four minimum Fire Warrior Teams to fill out troop choices, and then had six Riptides. If you look at the entry for the Riptide in the Tau book, that is a perfectly fluffy list.

Is he a WAAC individual, or someone who liked one aspect of a faction that happened to be really powerful? Is he to be punished because GW can't appropriately balance things?