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

Many sports don't require that physical effort or athletic preparation. Think about any possible kind of shooting sport, and even at the olympic games there are a huge amount of categories. Playing 40k can be more tiring than shooting at a bullseye or playing golf

The difference between a sport and a game is actually a convention.

 Blackie wrote:
Many sports don't require that physical effort or athletic preparation. Think about any possible kind of shooting sport, and even at the olympic games there are a huge amount of categories. Playing 40k can be more tiring than shooting at a bullseye or playing golf

The difference between a sport and a game is actually a convention.

Shooting "sports" are not sports either. They are certainly competitions. There is definitely skill involved. Not a sport. Not really a game either. Watching training videos made from the 70s for a 8 hour day at work is down right exhausting. That gak drones on and on and just sucks the energy right out of you. It's not a sport.

Would 40k be sport if minis were lead? What if your opponent's minis are plastic and yours are lead? You're doing sport and your opponent's playing a game?
Well, that kinda makes sense when you field a greentide vs a couple imperial knights. Your opponent's moving a couple robots, you're working out.

Shooting disciplines are officially sports, it's not a matter of personal opinions.

 Blackie wrote:
Shooting disciplines are officially sports, it's not a matter of personal opinions.

Those officials seem to have forgotten what the word sport means. Same way different organizations "officially" recognize Chess as a "sport". You are correct. Personal opinions don't matter. Grab a dictionary.

 Lance845 wrote:
Personal opinions don't matter. Grab an outdated dictionary.

Definition of sport taken from oxforddfictionaries: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

But bodybuilding for example is not a sport, even if it fits the definition. Same as softair, which is 100% a game and not even remotely a sport even if your run into the woods for hours.

The difference between sports and games can be very thin and many times is defined by a pure convention.

I would argue competitive body building IS a sport. And if by softair you mean running around in the woods with toy guns that shoot lightweight plastic or aluminum BBs then I would say since there are no actual rules including people just sitting in some place like a sniper and camping out to hit the enemy that correct, it is a game and not a sport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Personal opinions don't matter. Grab an outdated dictionary.

Find me a current dictionary that defines sport otherwise.

BTW I really enjoy the fact that the current argument is that the English language is wrong and not people, whom, lets face it, often make incredibly dumb decisions. Especially when those decisions are made by committee.

 Lance845 wrote:

Find me a current dictionary that defines sport otherwise.

BTW I really enjoy the fact that the current argument is that the English language is wrong and not people, whom, lets face it, often make incredibly dumb decisions. Especially when those decisions are made by committee.

If most people currently understand sport as "just something competitive", it will eventually end up in the dictionary replacing "something competitive that makes you sweat". Dictionaries are written by people, you know.

 koooaei wrote:
Even non-competitive players want to win from time to time.

I think I actually prefer losing my games! Maybe it has to do with the fact that I have lost probably 70% of the games I have played across all systems, but I find that I actually kinda feel bad if I win a game. Even if my opponents are laughing about dice rolls and shooting the breeze with me afterwards, it feels weird to me to actually achieve a victory on the tabletop, especially here lately.

I mean, I am 6-1 W-L with a new army that I just started in a system I haven't really played before recently (AoS Ironjawz) so maybe that's it? I don't know. But not everyone WANTS to win, at least based on the objectives of the game. To many of us, just having a good time is winning in itself.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Even non-competitive players want to win from time to time.

I think I actually prefer losing my games! Maybe it has to do with the fact that I have lost probably 70% of the games I have played across all systems, but I find that I actually kinda feel bad if I win a game. Even if my opponents are laughing about dice rolls and shooting the breeze with me afterwards, it feels weird to me to actually achieve a victory on the tabletop, especially here lately.

I mean, I am 6-1 W-L with a new army that I just started in a system I haven't really played before recently (AoS Ironjawz) so maybe that's it? I don't know. But not everyone WANTS to win, at least based on the objectives of the game. To many of us, just having a good time is winning in itself.

Would you still play if you lost every single game by turn 2 and you knew for sure you had no chances at all? You need to have a close game for it to be interesting. Or to have a fighting chance. Or to not seem to have a chance and than squeezing a victory all of a sudden. At least that's my favorite thing. Playing a bit underpowered army and winning. Sure, people are different. Some might not care about winning at all cause it's just a free time game of toy soldiers that you've lovingly painted. But others are naturally more competitive. I think the majority is a mix. Most people like having a more steady and relaxed game with cool models that they aestetically like and still be near their opposing army's power level.

I'm talking, for example, about playing with ork boyz vs marines. Marines usually have an upper hand cause they have a stronger more versatile codex with a lot of free buffs. But ork boyz can still be effective vs them in some cases. Boyz even have an upper hand is some aspects but are generally worse in this matchup. Still you can pull victories with close to 30-40% chance vs a similarly skilled opponent (we're talking about a fight of marine HQ + a couple tactical squads with some vehicles vs an ork HQ with a couple boy squads with some vehicles - basically, blackreach + a bit extra). This games are going to be enjoyable for most people.
Now if you want to field an army of possessed with cultists and an apostle and your opponent is running wraithknights and scatterbikes, you're going to lose approx 99% of your games. Only extreme luck can help you - like maelstorm missions and eldar rolling explictly 1-s and 2-s. Or if your opponent doesn't get involved in the game and, say, forgets to shoot for a couple turns.

One thing I forgot to mention in my original post is probably the most important factor. While I hinted at a joint effort to create an aesthetic - that same team work should exist in having fun. That's a huge difference amongst gamers.

I've no interest in playing a game if my opponent is not having fun. I get no joy out of sweeping someone off the table in a turn, or crushing them so mercilessly that they question why they spent 10 hours painting up that new squad or vehicle. If I were in a tournament, perhaps that's understandable, but I don't do tournaments (often for that reason).

If a game goes tits up real quick, I'll offer a chance to take back a decision, restart the game, adjust the scenario - or simply play again with adjustments made to the formula. I'd say a good 20-30% of gamers I see are not at all concerned with the enjoyment their opponent is getting out of the game and that's a big issue for me. That truly puts you aside from the rest of the gaming population (i.e. you're probably a dick).

PS: I fully support Lance's statements on 'sport'. That word is only used because of convenience (or to slide a non-sport into a sporting organization because...reasons). Think about it, we don't really have another word option for a competitive event (outside of the word "competition"). You can compete in any manner of thing, but calling it a sport - or worse - referring to yourself as an 'athlete' (which I think, by definition should be required if you're in a sport), is laughable when you're playing chess or video games, or eRacing, etc. I don't see why that's offensive or wrong to someone. What butt hurt is generated if Chess is not a sport? None.

 koooaei wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Find me a current dictionary that defines sport otherwise.

BTW I really enjoy the fact that the current argument is that the English language is wrong and not people, whom, lets face it, often make incredibly dumb decisions. Especially when those decisions are made by committee.

If most people currently understand sport as "just something competitive", it will eventually end up in the dictionary replacing "something competitive that makes you sweat". Dictionaries are written by people, you know.

Then we will lose yet another word. We'd then need a new word to fill in for "something competitive that makes you sweat". "Athletics" won't work because it doesn't carry the "competitive" aspect of "sport".

I agree with the posters who have mentioned that just because games like chess, 40K, billiards, bowling, etc, are not sports, it does nothing at all to devalue the games themselves nor the people who play those games. Poker, for example, is not a sport, and I am not an athlete by virtue of playing it. That doesn't reduce my enjoyment of getting together with friends for change games one bit. Same goes for 40K. I don't like it any less even though I know it's not a sport.

 koooaei wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Even non-competitive players want to win from time to time.

I think I actually prefer losing my games! Maybe it has to do with the fact that I have lost probably 70% of the games I have played across all systems, but I find that I actually kinda feel bad if I win a game. Even if my opponents are laughing about dice rolls and shooting the breeze with me afterwards, it feels weird to me to actually achieve a victory on the tabletop, especially here lately.

I mean, I am 6-1 W-L with a new army that I just started in a system I haven't really played before recently (AoS Ironjawz) so maybe that's it? I don't know. But not everyone WANTS to win, at least based on the objectives of the game. To many of us, just having a good time is winning in itself.

Would you still play if you lost every single game by turn 2 and you knew for sure you had no chances at all?

It depends on why I am losing my games. I don't mind losing fun Apocalypse games with fun opponents, and I don't mind losing early in the game due to unlucky dice. When I don't like losing is to WAAC players who then tell me that I played my army wrong (regardless of winning or losing) and I should up my game if I am to keep playing with them. Any game with those kinds of players is an automatic loss to me, regardless of the outcome on the table, because it is not FUN. It might be fun to those players, but not me. I literally cannot afford to play at their level, so I'm not going to waste their or my time.

 koooaei wrote:
You need to have a close game for it to be interesting. Or to have a fighting chance. Or to not seem to have a chance and than squeezing a victory all of a sudden. At least that's my favorite thing. Playing a bit underpowered army and winning. Sure, people are different. Some might not care about winning at all cause it's just a free time game of toy soldiers that you've lovingly painted. But others are naturally more competitive. I think the majority is a mix. Most people like having a more steady and relaxed game with cool models that they aestetically like and still be near their opposing army's power level.

Sure, there is a lot of fun to challenges, and I've had several fun games doing just that. I'm for a fun experience over anything else!

 koooaei wrote:
I'm talking, for example, about playing with ork boyz vs marines. Marines usually have an upper hand cause they have a stronger more versatile codex with a lot of free buffs. But ork boyz can still be effective vs them in some cases. Boyz even have an upper hand is some aspects but are generally worse in this matchup. Still you can pull victories with close to 30-40% chance vs a similarly skilled opponent (we're talking about a fight of marine HQ + a couple tactical squads with some vehicles vs an ork HQ with a couple boy squads with some vehicles - basically, blackreach + a bit extra). This games are going to be enjoyable for most people.
Now if you want to field an army of possessed with cultists and an apostle and your opponent is running wraithknights and scatterbikes, you're going to lose approx 99% of your games. Only extreme luck can help you - like maelstorm missions and eldar rolling explictly 1-s and 2-s. Or if your opponent doesn't get involved in the game and, say, forgets to shoot for a couple turns.

This is a problem with 40K specifically, not necessarily other wargames, but is still a valid point. Too many game outcomes can be predicted by the list used by either opponent. Yes, luck can make a big difference in your games, but that's if you are concerned with the outcome of the game. I am much more interested in "Forging the Narrative" than in seeking victory. When me and my friends talk about games we had, we talk about moments in the game, not about who won. A lucky Scatter roll hitting an unintended target, seeing something big and mean whiff and get defeated in melee against a weaker unit. The dice affects our luck, but it also affects our experiences and is what gives us our memories.

Only in a gaming forum would I expect to see back and forth bickering over what a sport is lol when we all know how it is being contextually applied to the original post.

Two gamers will give you five opinions.

Like all tabletop games, 40K lacks the starcraft balancing factor of TEMPORAL cost. Why doesn't protoss air win every tournament? It's the most powerful build, after all, right? The opponent can scout it and never let it get going. If you go straight to high tier starcraft units, a simple Terran infantry drop kill end your game. Eldar players have no such considerations here.

40K undercosts models like the dreadknight and riptide, allowing for list building victories, because your opponent can't actively influence your army composition. You can bet that in a RTS format, I'd pressure every Eldar player early to keep the OP stuff off the table. Windriders would be perfectly fair if they had a long build time. But they don't, so their point value needs to be much higher.

 koooaei wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Find me a current dictionary that defines sport otherwise.

BTW I really enjoy the fact that the current argument is that the English language is wrong and not people, whom, lets face it, often make incredibly dumb decisions. Especially when those decisions are made by committee.

If most people currently understand sport as "just something competitive", it will eventually end up in the dictionary replacing "something competitive that makes you sweat". Dictionaries are written by people, you know.

I would argue that most people don't currently understand sport as "just something competitive". I would posit that if you polled people in general if they participated in a sport most people that do things like play chess, or video games, or warhammer and don't participate in an athletic activity would say that they do not. In fact "mind sports" have been classified as their own thing (including chess and poker) and have their own association. I will note that the IOC has recognized chess as a sport, but that it is not currently in the Olympics.

So I would argue that in most cases people do not consider "games" to be sports. That said there are plenty of people who approach said games with the same type of rigor that athletes approach sports as noted in the original post.

I would say that the Fun v Powerplay question is a false dichotomy, people that play the game like a sport do so because they enjoy that portion of the game (there is currently no significant money to be made in wargames). I think many also do spend time painting their own models etc. As pointed out toward the end of the OP the question is largely irrelevant as there is no such thing as "bad/wrong" fun, the important thing is making sure that you play with people that share your idea of fun. I know people from the most serious gamers, to guys that don't play the game at all and just build cool models. No one is missing out on something they are happy with their involvement in the hobby. I think the people who have the hardest time are people whose idea of fun falls somewhere on the boundaries between the different types of players. Someone who is competitive, but not to the highest level, or someone who mostly likes to build and paint, but wants to play and still have a chance to win. For the most part these players don't have a problem as most communities have a variety of levels of player, but that is where I think the problems are most likely to pop up.

 auticus wrote:
Only in a gaming forum would I expect to see back and forth bickering over what a sport is lol when we all know how it is being contextually applied to the original post.

It's just the WAAC approach to discussion, which changes things to an argument.

 Lance845 wrote:
I would argue competitive body building IS a sport.

An activity that relies on the assumption of steroids cannot be a sport, regardless of any definition involved


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


BTW I really enjoy the fact that the current argument is that the English language is wrong and not people, whom, lets face it, often make incredibly dumb decisions. Especially when those decisions are made by committee.

it's not a matter of the english language as the definition is the the same in every language. But there is a committee (or maybe more) that decides what's a sport and what is not. Like a judge/jury that can define a specific case as a rape and another judge/jury can consider the same case as consensual sex. There is a rule that defines the matter but it's always someone that decides, as everything that doesn't rely on numbers or scientific data has a level of subjectivity and we have to accept that.

I feel like the only time I've had a disconnect between what I want to do and what my opponent wants to do is random pickup games at a store. When in a tournament you're both in the competitive mindset and when you're with friends you usually discuss games long before they happen.

But for the most part I play the same whether or not its a WAAC game. The only difference being list building and special rules/scenarios. I like to think that's how most people are, because playing dumber than you normally would isn't fun either. As long as a game isn't over turn 2 I can have fun with it. Most people just want enjoyable battles, not 1 sided board wipes.

 Teena Hancock wrote:
The main point is to assume that the other group of players has the same rights to exist as you do. There will be always sportsmen and funplayers. However, there are still a lot of people, who hate the others think that their approach is the only one which needs to exists. If you think about the others, you can decide what you expect of the game before you come there. So, there will be different events for different approach. This opens a completely new dimension in any wargame – the balance problem is solved, since on fun level there’s a nice balance everywhere, and on sports level weak armies don’t play at all. There’s no hatred – you just don’t play with those whose approach differs from yours. And then nothing will spoil your gaming experience. Such kind of tolerance.

I think that's the main thing. There is more than one way to have fun and many unpleasant experiences are likely the result of mismatched goals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
I do a ton of mathhammer as described but i wouldn't consider myself a power gamer.

How cool a unit is and how well it fits my theme are primary considerations, but doing a little quick calculation of probabilities is still fun IMO. Like you said, it can also be fun to maximize the effectiveness of your favorite army and units while still staying fluff-friendly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Glacial Geek had a video on this that I thought was good.



It's kind of long, so my TL;DR version would be: There are competitive aspects and story aspects of 40k and if you totally ignore one or the other you're probably missing out. If you only care about the gameplay and see the miniatures as meeples then why not just play chess? On the flip side it is a game and if you don't care at all about trying to win why not just read and write stories?

It's almost like some people expect you to play to lose, and playing to win, even if you're not using broken stuff, makes you a power gamer.

The second I put Grey Knights on the table, and I don't use my Librarians to roll for invisibility, veil of time, or other such nonsense, you should know you're not facing a power gamer.

But, I'm going to play to win.

 Blackie wrote:
Many sports don't require that physical effort or athletic preparation. Think about any possible kind of shooting sport, and even at the olympic games there are a huge amount of categories. Playing 40k can be more tiring than shooting at a bullseye or playing golf

The difference between a sport and a game is actually a convention.

Historically Archery does require athletic preperation, it used to dislocate shoulders and give people lopsided shoulder muscles. It's only recently that bows became so mechanical that even a toddler could pull the equivalent of a longbow.

Personally I think they should dump stationary Shooting and Archery and replace them with mounted and a summer version of a biathlon.
Cross Country Archery and Skeet shooting for the win!!!!

Yeah also beauty contests should be considered sports by the same logic that accepts that bodybuilding is actually a sport. Models are on a diet, go to the gym almost everyday and their competition is essentially walking in front of a jury making several poses. Exactly what bodybuilders do. But nobody would consider Miss Usa a sport, luckily

Going back to the OP, my approach with 40k consists in making all the efforts to win, but only during the game. I won't write lists that win by themselves, playing supercheesy lists is zero fun for me.

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah also beauty contests should be considered sports by the same logic that accepts that bodybuilding is actually a sport. Models are on a diet, go to the gym almost everyday and their competition is essentially walking in front of a jury making several poses. Exactly what bodybuilders do. But nobody would consider Miss Usa a sport, luckily

Who are you talking to?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah also beauty contests should be considered sports by the same logic that accepts that bodybuilding is actually a sport. Models are on a diet, go to the gym almost everyday and their competition is essentially walking in front of a jury making several poses. Exactly what bodybuilders do. But nobody would consider Miss Usa a sport, luckily

Who are you talking to?

Actually I was referring to the guy that considers sports only activities that require a strong physical effort and actually argued that bodybuilding was a sport

Gotcha, what I was going to say would have had zero relevance on that subject.

Body building often includes lifting weights on the stage do they not? Maybe I am wrong on that point. But I thought BB competitions was not simply about what muscles you have developed but also showing off your capabilities with said muscles. If not then no. BB would not be a sport. If yes, then yes, the displays of physical prowess would be physical exertion.

Gotta be honest, my interest in body building competitions is negligible.

Choose the right game for what you want out of wargaming.

I am yet to see more shear, decadeS spanning love for armies and reading up than some historical players. If you just love the hobby/fluff then any game really.

This apparently comes as a shock to people who have never played non-GW games; but there are games with workable balance (not perfect) where as long as your list isn't stupid you stand a reasonable chance to win any game against any other army (games are all decided during the game). If you want to test your mind against your opponent, but not play chess, then play one of these games. Neither Warhammer fits this, no game with that number of OP combo's can. Winning at warhammer is not a test of skill most of the time.

GW makes games for more casual players, who don't care as much about sport and don't mind just playing RAI. Warhammer (esp. with AoS and the 40k has been going) is big, flashy, epic and written to be fun and exciting. Trying to force either Warhammer to be a competitive tournament centred game is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Edit: Not saying there is NO skill in Warhammer, just that skill is less of a priority for the rules writers.

But it's epic and fun for the Eldar to shoot me off the table in three turns?