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.

See title.

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

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

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

I enjoy winning, and it's great when you pull something off that suckers your opponent into a tactical mistake or your well laid plan goes wonderfully. But winning isn't the be all and end all for me. It's much more important that I have a fun time and get to see my cool models on the table doing something awesome. If they all die and I lose the game, it's not the end of the world.

Not that much to be honest.

I personally like competitive games where it gets clutch, im not a fan of total shut outs either receiving or giving. Simply because its no fun either way.

More or less, i use this mentality, i want to play a game that would make a bad ass movie.

THAT SAID! if the other player is being a salty butt about getting trounced, like unreasonably bitching, im talking things like OH Space marines armor is too good, why is a flamer that strong, or of cours its AP5. gak like that? Oh im gonna open a can of woope ass on them on the board, things like exiting outta doors on buildings, which is totally fine in the rules, but the fail to notice the door and i refuse to point it out. Locking up combat drones in CC so they cant marker lights, charge with a jinking bike so they soak up all of the over watch then charge with everything else to just annihilate them.

But normally if the player is cool, i couldn't care less.

I enjoy playing a game with painted armies and good terrain more than that I enjoy winning. But nobody loves to lose.

I enjoy winning, too.
But its not the end of the world if you loose. Especially in a close game. Then I don't care.

Winning is nice but irrelevant both players having fun is more important, which is why I play non GW games.

hobojebus wrote:
Winning is nice but irrelevant both players having fun is more important, which is why I play non GW games.

GW games don't make player attitudes bad. But agreed-fun is most important.

To me, winning is a secondary objective to having fun. Make no mistake, I want to win, but at the same time I would far rather lose a close fought and fun game where all the players had good time as opposed to a roflstomp that I won, ut my opponent did not enjoy.
Of course, there are certain exceptions to this (like Timmy's/WAAC's)

It matters a lot to me. Once I have gotten everything painted and make sure I'm good enough I plan to attend those grand events.

Winning is completely secondary to a good story (developed by the game) and hopefully a close-fought game. I find it the same as any sport...it's dreadfully boring when one team/driver trounces the opposition without any competition.

I'd actually play 40K if they released large scenario/campaign books with pre-determined army lists etc. (much in the way historical games provide re-fight scenarios etc.).

I don't care too much about winning but its that I struggle with the losing part. Its the whole mental association with failing at a game somehow being a reflection of on myself or my self worth. Winning can be fun but easy wins or wins that are unfun don't feel rewarding.

I feel like the question has to be split up in two parts.

When I build my army ( list) I do not want to win I do just want to make nice list of toys to play with in the game.

When my army hits the board I want to play the game and win. I will enjoy every bit out of luring you in a trap, camping behind cover and sniping your warlord to death with barrage.

My enjoyment of winning/losing seems to be based on the player/army I'm facing. I've had wins that left me feeling bad because I rolled an inferior army/scenario, and felt good about losses to a superior army. Usually, it comes down to if the person I was playing against was TFG or a regular guy - whether they a fun person to play against.

Means the square root of Jack to me. My most memorable games are mostly my defeats.

Victory is sweet, but I'd trade it any day over a game [ending in my loss] that has more great moments throughout, rather than one where victory was the greatest moment.

A few of my victories have been terrible games overall for a variety of reasons. To me, a good game consists of far more than the outcome.

G.A

If I don't win, how will all the scrubs and pubbies know who the ubermensch in the equation is?

I'm not really too overly concerned with the win. Obviously it's nice to and recently I'm averaging about 2 wins to every loss... It was much better until I hit a 4 game losing streak. I generally don't mind the loss though as I tend to try and play as appropriate for the army being fielded.

I'll normally try and contextualise every game I play. For example recently we've started a new campaign of Imperial versus the ruinous powers based on a narrative of a world having fallen to chaos and the imperial forces now arriving to take the planer back. Having played a couple 500 point games against guard I based this on the idea that the Marines deployed to the planet at an undefended location ahead of the main imperial invasion and began setting up a fob and the two games I played amounted to a small mobile force being sent out to destroy the nearest forces being the now corrupted PDF to prevent them attacking the fob before its construction is complete. Next week I am already aware of my opponent so this will be the assault on the central hub of the planets air defence network to pave the way for the main invasion.

I generally feel like this way of playing forging a narrative as I go allows me to make the best of the game so even if I lose 80% of my force and lose on maelstrom which most people in my meta enjoy (the whole thing doesn't make sense to me) I can play to my own objectives and do what my narrative requires of me, not what a bunch of randomly draw cards that no way link to the campaign narrative require me to do.

This removes the desire for me to win outright based on gw's scoring systems as they don't actually make any sense when linked to a story.

I think everyone likes winning, but it doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is that it's a stimulating game. It doesn't need to be close, but it does need to make both players feel like they're making meaningful decisions.

If it doesn't seem like both players are making meaningful decisions, then it's not a fun game. If I'm steam-rolling someone, and it feels like nothing they do matters, well that game isn't fun for either of us. But if I'm steam-rolling someone, and it feels like they're just about to turn the tide around, well that's still fun.

Often a close game is more fun for me, but I think that's because in a close game it feels like every decision both of us are making matters.

Like anything, it's alway nice to win. Thing is this is 40K we are talking about. The rules are crap. The rules are not clear or concise. The rules favour shooty armies. The codices are not BALANCED at all. So how can anyone be proud they won at 40K?

I just play for fun now. I have lost many times, for one, I suck at 40K. Second I always seem to play the under powered codices. Third when I finally did win, people say it's basically "you got a lucky roll that made you win the game". So getting a lucky roll to win the game, yeah makes your victory seem very shallow and what is the point of playing then? So I don't care to win and just try and make the game as much fun as possible.

I don't care much about winning or losing, what fun things happen during the game is what's fun.

It's pretty crappy when you're just waiting for the game to be done. When it's clear you who is winning and the remaining time is just.. waiting for the win to happen. You know, like when they get their models out.

A lot.

I enjoy winning. I can play a friendly game, especially if I go into it without trying to win, but if I'm in a game under normal circumstances, losing is going to put a damper on my fun.

I love to play and win, but I have no problem with losing. I play to win in game, but I do my best to never let that get in the way of fun or sour my mood if things dont go my way. Honestly sometimes I have more fun when im losing because I just roll with it and make it all a joke about how all my little dudes are getting mulched.

That and deep down I want to be believe that taking a loss in stride with a good attitude sets a good example for those around me.

Honestly, it depends of the match. If it was an enjoyable one, it's very secondary. If it was a miserable experience (read: TFG or an unenjoyable list) then it's primary mainly to wipe out the sour taste of the mess I had been stuck up with. But honestly the best experience I've had in wargaming was a tie I had in AoS where an opponent of mine used a skill that could benefit both players if I got ahead of him and I did systemathically. Cue both of us laughing like madman as my commander survived to rounds more than what he should have had and how tight the match had been due to it.

Don't care at all...that said, I always play as hard as I can...if I dog it, I cheat my foe...how can they enjoy the victory if I wasn't really trying? Sadly I win way more often than I lose....even though I play Nids.

Now that they've gotten much harder to get, it's more important.

Winning is great. Especialy if i wasforceed to use all my skills in a close game.

In a game thas almost over after turn 2 a win is worthless. there is no fun in it.

Same with loosing. In a tight game a loss is not that bad.


UNfortunatly in 40k close games are not that common , dependin on the lists

Matters very little to me

The company I keep and whether the game was fun matter more.

I prefer uphill fights in any case, so a win will always feel good, but I don't get butt hurt if I lose.

If I find myself playing someone I don't like at a tournament I will do my damnest to pummel them though...

I like to win, but i'd rather have a solid close game than anything else. I've rarely found stomping someone fun unless it's a tournament when I might win something. Prize support beats fairness every time.

I only really care if its a close game, not a stomp for either side.
If it looks like I'm going to roll over them, I tend to 'forget' to shoot a couple units or charge things I shouldn't, or if I'm getting stomped I go a bit tryhard mode. Just so that at the end it is as close to neck and neck as possible, which means more fun!

Colehkxix wrote:
I don't care much about winning or losing, what fun things happen during the game is what's fun.

It's pretty crappy when you're just waiting for the game to be done. When it's clear you who is winning and the remaining time is just.. waiting for the win to happen. You know, like when they get their models out.

Yeah just standing there removing minis is the worst situation to be in, even worse when the other party insists on finishing the game when it's clearly over.

I don't have to win, but it has to be a tense, could go either way fight with interesting twists and turns to make it fun.

For example, the first game at a public place I played was vs Dark Eldar with my Imperial Guard, talk about complete opposites fighting each other. One incredibly fast moving (albeit brittle) force vs a massive lumbering one that was hard to damage. It was a difficult fight for both sides, and it was truly fascinating watching how everything interacted.

On the other end of the spectrum, I just played a battle where my opponent brought two knights and some sort of SM formation that allowed him to re-roll his saves over and over again... It really felt like just waiting for my units to get mopped up. Even with my rather excessive anti-armor capabilities (literally everything is equipped so that it can damage armor one way or another) I was only able to take down one knight, and that was the only unit I actually managed to fully kill (I injured/damaged just about everything else, but no thorough kills.) Overall my opponent was fine to play against and everything, just not being able to do anything about a hostile unit charging across the board was rather annoying.