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 think they are.
Winning at all costs is the basic credo.
Broken armies? Are their any? This is what the rules and codices allow to bring.

In 3rd ed, I had a ''broken'' army taken from the 3.5 CSM codex.
It consisted of 2 Lieutenants on bikes, 5x 6 Daemonettes, 6 Daemonettes on Steeds, 1 Defiler, and 3 Obliterators.
The HQs has 2x9 minor powers which were rolled on a table.
The outcome 2 was Siren which was the desired power.
The Lieutenants could not be shot or charged. They summoned the Daemons and the Daemons were able to charge in the same turn.
Actually they wanted to kill me before the tourney. Well, I won all three games (and the whole tourney) two of which against German ETC players.
Death to the false Imperator!

 wuestenfux wrote:
I think they are.
Winning at all costs is the basic credo.

No it isn't.

Most players I know fall into a mix of casual and competitive, though many I know are mostly competitive. We do have four or five genuine WAACs in our community though.

As in show up to an event declared to be a casual campaign and run tournament powered min/max lists anyway because "git gud".

I only play noobs, for I am the god of 40k, and shall not be defeated.
Sometimes it starts to get boring

Yes. Most without realizing it.

Jendi wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Jendi wrote:
Hola.
Just as said I feel like most of players just want to win at all costs, bringing broken armies and sometimes misinterpreting rules.
What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that you're incorrect. Also, I'm assuming by TT, you mean "table top". I think that a lot of players enjoy the journey. They want to win, and they want to learn to do whatever it takes to get there. But there's two complicating factors. First, it's really hard to get to a place where you're constantly winning. Secondly, if you do even ever get there, you end up picking up a new army and trying to go along the path to success all over again. I think a lot of players want that journey and the stress of trying their best, and the thrill of victory. If they don't get either of those things, they tend to lose interest in the game.

Sound like a definition of power player for me. But it's sad that for some people win is the only fun.

Power gaming isn't synonymous with Win At All Costs. What your thread is asking isn't represented in the poll. You should try to have a little bit of empathy for the fact that not everyone has to play the game the exact same way you do, and the only real TFG move is being an ass to people for whatever reason.

Read my signature and take notes.

The core mechanic of the game is that one wins/one loses so most people want to win. By OP's standard that makes everyone who has ever touched a two-player game that pits each player against each other a WAAC player which is at best intellectually dishonest.

There are very few who come into Tabletop and boardgame Gaming that want to and aim to lose. However, there is a difference in energy people commit to those games. I, for example, am a really lazy painter(despite enjoying it), and I can't be bothered to buy all the latest toys, so I play with what I have at the moment and try my best, adjusting my style and purchases slowly according to what is working out for me.

Edit: losing can be fun if you are playing 3+ player games. It is fun to be a chaos factor just to see everyone else's plan come to ruination, their little schemes falling a part. I do this when I play Settlers of Catan and Twilight Imperium.

I dunno about what people are saying, personally. Some of these posts seem like they're inferring that winning is the only reason to play; It's not.

I play to hang out with current (and meet new) friends, I love the stories I can create playing and actively seek to facilitate fluffy battles, and I name and theme my warlords and their important minions. I Love kitbashing, maybe most of all, so to me building fun looking armies is as or more important than building effective armies. Honestly, I lost every 8th ed. 40k game for months playing Orks with flashgits, but didn't change my list until recently because my warlord was a freebooter kaptin.

That said, IMO the OP still shouldn't undermine winning. I don't want to lose every game, so I AM expanding my army choices. It might not be everyones only motive for throwing dice, but it's certainly not a *bad* reason. Though my armies will always have fluff, but to me it's not mutually exclusive.

 Primark G wrote:
I have a feeling we will never hear back from the OP... just a hunch.

heh, same here

 SHUPPET wrote:

Jendi wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Jendi wrote:
Hola.
Just as said I feel like most of players just want to win at all costs, bringing broken armies and sometimes misinterpreting rules.
What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that you're incorrect. Also, I'm assuming by TT, you mean "table top". I think that a lot of players enjoy the journey. They want to win, and they want to learn to do whatever it takes to get there. But there's two complicating factors. First, it's really hard to get to a place where you're constantly winning. Secondly, if you do even ever get there, you end up picking up a new army and trying to go along the path to success all over again. I think a lot of players want that journey and the stress of trying their best, and the thrill of victory. If they don't get either of those things, they tend to lose interest in the game.

Sound like a definition of power player for me. But it's sad that for some people win is the only fun.

Power gaming isn't synonymous with Win At All Costs. What your thread is asking isn't represented in the poll. You should try to have a little bit of empathy for the fact that not everyone has to play the game the exact same way you do, and the only real TFG move is being an ass to people for whatever reason.

Read my signature and take notes.

Alright could you distinguish WAAC and powerplayers so we could be on same page.
At start the thread was black and white but basing on the disscussion I have changes the poll.
According to chess basic rules you become better playing with better player but changing the list after seeing my list is kinda ass move. I'm not saying losing is the worst thing can happen. I have learnt more from my losses than wins.

I do not play tournaments, however I would question the fact that the topic is blaming poeple, in tournaments, for playing the hard way. I would agree with anyone who would state that 40k tends to lie mostly in list building and wallet fight (don't shoot me, personnal feeling!!) than my beloved bolt action for instance. However if you ever go to a tournament, that means you agree with the game as it is and should simply comply.

In my group we actually play mostly within campaigns and little stories, that will often partially dictate our list. We take pleasure in making up a plan with whatever we get on the table. So well....

I don't invest much into the game. However, when I play, I do play to win. I don't bring ridiculously powerful units to the field, but I know what each unit is supposed to do. A lot of the time, my opponent is clueless as to how his and my armies function. They keep forgetting their rules and make questionable decisions.

Back in 7th edition, half the people would ask me what is the Dreadknight's front armour. And almost all of them would put something into the Dreadknight's charge range in turn 1 if they go first.

That's what comes from making vehicles into monsters. At least those arguments can be laid to rest now.

Heavily dependent on the local meta. In Los Angeles I've played against all sorts of people from noobs to really beautifully painted fluffy armies to super competitive optimized lists. In Seattle people seem to take board games way more seriously and all my games were against fairly optimized lists. I actually feel really bad playing an army that's somewhat optimized against someone's beautiful "these are the models I got" army. It doesn't make for a good game when one side has max synergies and the other has a bunch of tac marines or hammerheads or something. It's basically the difference between playing a "meta" deck in MtG or Hearthstone or something against a non-meta deck. It's not even a contest and makes for a really boring experience steamrolling a noob. I think you're pretty goofy if that kind of victory is what gets you off

The best games are when both players recognize whether they're Timmys, Johnnys, or Spikes going into it. Obviously not possible for total strangers but it shouldn't take too many games to get a feel for whatever the local meta is like. A WAAC-dominated local meta certainly makes for a much more consistent experience overall since you don't have Timmys stumbling into battles that are way beyond what their lists can handle. But it does take out a lot of the fun surprises you see in enemy lists and that is definitely one of my greatest joys in tabletop.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2002-03-08

I don't try to WAAC, I think it cuts down the fun in the game. Many of my friends I play with are fairly casual, so I try to cater to that to accommodate.

Mostly I meet my mate Gary...