PDA

View Full Version : Why do players purposely hinder themselves in army compostion?



shveen
20-04-2009, 21:12
The human nature is to win when they compete, yet we see on Warseer, people deliberately give themselves underpowered and almost pointlessly futile lists. By this I mean deliberate weak army composition for the sake of fluff.
I can see how a person may want a weak list for the sake of a tactical challenge, but it goes against the grain for a person not to do everything can to win. People are going to call me a power gamer for saying this, but it baffles me as to why a person would purposely give him/herself a disadvantage. Do people make these weak lists for something to fall back on when their tactics do not pull through? Or is it something subconsciously built in to prevent doing everything you can for a victory?

This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

I know this view will be disliked by some people, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

Shveen


EDIT: Would new posters please take a quick look at some of the replies made as they may change your perspective on the argument and make you think instead of jumping in with "OMG PWrgAmer K11lzz him". Not that people have done that ;)

Lewis
20-04-2009, 21:14
Because they enjoy the story telling experience.

Because they enjoy the challenge.

Silentbob10
20-04-2009, 21:14
One word FUN!!!

Mannimarco
20-04-2009, 21:15
personally i like to play fluffy, it may be weaker but i for one find it more fun playing they way my army is shown in the background

it wouldnt be hard for me to make a death guard army loaded up in rhinos led by two daemon princes but its more fun for me to play the infantry type army

some people think its fun to always win, some think its fun to play the background route, both points are valid

Eldarion
20-04-2009, 21:16
Because they enjoy the challenge.

As above.

I have more satisfaction beating a force which out numbers and is stronger than me.

shveen
20-04-2009, 21:17
My point though, is why a person doesn't want to win. I just believe that you should do whatever you can to win, if the opportunity presents itself. I see what you mean and thank you for your opinion.

SPYDER68
20-04-2009, 21:17
Some use units for fun, they like the models etc.

other times, its fun to play a themed list, and makes some games a challenge.

Like.. All infantry Cadian guard.. or armor heavy.. or Eldar Craftworlds or chaos legions.

The main goal of the game is Not to win, it is to have fun.

If you have fun playing with units you like due to models, lose,, and still have fun.. You win.

Nazdrugh
20-04-2009, 21:19
I don't do whatever it takes to win (see: Nob Bikers) because I want my opponents to have fun as well. Having fun is more important than winning. It's just toy soldiers.

Arcadian
20-04-2009, 21:19
My point though, is why a person doesn't want to win. I just believe that you should do whatever you can to win, if the opportunity presents itself. I see what you mean and thank you for your opinion.

With respect.. it could just be a persons priorities.. For example, you seem to me to place Winning as the Top Priority.. For myself, who isnt really competition driven, The chance to get out of the house and play a game with friends is the top priority.. who wins isn't really ever a concern.

Sure its fun when I win... but not more fun than when I lose.. Its fun because I got to play...

Arhalien
20-04-2009, 21:23
Because there is more to this hobby than just playing the game. You also have to buy, assemble and paint the models in your list, and I will not buy a model that is awful, or a model that I don't think I'd enjoy painting, or a model that would look out of place in the army's visual theme, no matter how powerful it is.

I also like armies to have background and storyline behind them: even if I never write them down, or if nobody else ever gets to know the fluff of the army, I still like to know it's there, because it just feels better to know that this band of fighters exists for a reason, and has a purpose (because, without the background of the world, Warhammer ends up being a rather average ruleset compared to many others from what I've heard)

In short, it comes down to different priorities. I have a friend who thinks exactly the same way you do on this matter, and yet I think almost the complete opposite: ie, that having a cool army, and an army that I've enjoyed making, is far more important than creating something purely to win. Does this mean I am somehow wrong and missing the point of this hobby completely?

I'll leave that last question rhetorical

Vepr
20-04-2009, 21:24
I play nids and run a more swarm oriented list. I have played nidzilla before and there is no doubt that the army is tougher and better over all at nearly everything short of claiming objectives. I find I just don't have as much fun with it. I enjoy changing around my list and there is not as much of that with nidzilla.

I know it is handicapping myself most times to use elite slots on warriors but I still try my hardest to win with what I have. I just like to vary what I have at hand. I also think it makes you better at the game because it makes you think outside of one build or tactic.

SPYDER68
20-04-2009, 21:24
The only time there is really competition is when in a tourney there is a prize for first..

But to me.. i honestly dont need to win to get that free item, i basically buy what i want regardless.

Im not saying its not nice to win and get free stuff, but i dont make it #1 priority.

shveen
20-04-2009, 21:24
Arcadian, you make a good point. Yes it is a person's priorities, it seems I must have a need to win :). I do enjoy a fun game, but I still strive to win. As said before, it is your mindset that decides whether you play to win or to have fun. I believe there are more people who play to have fun but I would like to hear those who play to win's opinion.

Arbedark
20-04-2009, 21:24
Shveen, are you the kind of person who, when playing sport with a young relative etc, always plays to win? Or do you play to have a bit of fun, and let them score points etc?

Chaos and Evil
20-04-2009, 21:27
...I can see how a person may want a weak list for the sake of a tactical challenge, but it goes against the grain for a person not to do everything can to win. People are going to call me a power gamer for saying this...

You are a power gamer.

Nephilim of Sin
20-04-2009, 21:28
The human nature is to win when they compete, yet we see on Warseer, people deliberately give themselves underpowered and almost pointlessly futile lists. By this I mean deliberate weak army composition for the sake of fluff.
.........

This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

If it is not about the background or fluff behind why we choose an army, and only were concerning about winning, then we would all be playing Daemons.

Personally, theming a list is not handicapping, because when you theme your list, you still try to max out on the potential of the list you are working with. If something does not fit fluff-wise, some make conversions and call it something else, or just don't use it.

No one is going into the game to lose, they are just going in trying to win while having the most fun that they can, which is why they pick the list they did.

shveen
20-04-2009, 21:28
I play to have fun with said person. The young shouldn't be deprived of fun because of my mindset. Although that is off the point.

Mojaco
20-04-2009, 21:28
If by optimal lists to win with you mean cookie-cutter, full of loopholes and stolen from internet, then I'll pass.

I like
1 - armies that look like actual armies that fit the fluff fighting it out.
2 - variety. Not every turn and every battle should be the same.
3 - being able to win.
180 orks meets criteria 1 and 3, but not 2.
Nob biker spam meet criteria 3, but not 1 and 2.
An army with 2 chaos dreadnoughts and possessed can fit 1 and 2, but not 3. Etcetera.

Lewis
20-04-2009, 21:29
I play for the story telling experience, and a fluffy army makes a better story. A ragtag team of vets and ratlings make for a more engaging charactrs than a row basilisks thumping away.

If I wanted to win I wouldn't play GW games which is far too subject to chance to provide me with pleasure from a purely technical sense of achievement.

PondaNagura
20-04-2009, 21:29
different personalities have different preferences, play styles. 40k is probably one of the most flexible gaming universe catering not only to the competitive element but the creative. you are a competitive person, some of us like to show off our modeling/painting abilities, other people like to write characterful backgrounds, and since there is a model basis and ruleset that can reflect this, people will want to flaunt their abilities as best they can. they may not win in game terms, but they can win by being better at the other elements of the hobby. it's why there is a painting competition as well as gaming at most tournies.

i may suck at gaming but i'm probably more imaginative than other people. actually its why my friends pay me for conversions and painting, and occasionally for story development. do your friends pay you to win?

Francois
20-04-2009, 21:31
Hi Shveen, I play for fluff, and I don't think I hinder or handicap myself. Warhammer is all about choices, and for most people those choices aren't always about winning. How do people choose their armies? A lot of them buy the ones that look cool, that sound killer, and then, when we have our armies, then we do our best with them. This same principle comes down to army lists. Sometime you just want to play certain models, you know? To participate in a story about them. Everyone tells me Repentia Sisters are terrible, but there is something moving and poignant about their desperate quest for absolution, and I would like to experience that through the game.

But it doesn't always have to be one way or another:) Sometimes I will build the most efficient Sisters list I can with my models and try to win too!

May you have many victories Shveen!
Frankie

Mojaco
20-04-2009, 21:31
If I wanted to win I wouldn't play GW games which is far too subject to chance to provide me with pleasure from a purely technical sense of achievement.
Good argument. Even power gamers have to have a heart somewhere if they've chosen this odd toy soldiers over chess and other 100% tactical games. Or are those too difficult and does 40k provide more soft targets?

shveen
20-04-2009, 21:32
Thank you for all your input. I have been blinkered in my argument. I have only looked at the playing side of the hobby and not the hobby as a whole, when you account painting and building etc. , you get a much wider view on whether to play to win, or for the sake of a nice looking army. Maybe I should just play chess :)

DV8
20-04-2009, 21:33
I play to have fun with said person. The young shouldn't be deprived of fun because of my mindset. Although that is off the point.

It was a question to an analogy aimed at a specific situation/scenario. And it's entirely the point because your mindset affects the way you play the game, which in turn will skew the perspective/experience of the person you're playing against.

You say that your priority is winning. Sure. In the sports analogy, would you (assuming you're amazing at sports) do everything in your power and to the best of your abilities to win, even against say, a kid who's just learning the fundamentals of the sport?

Same principle, would you do everything in your power and abilities to beat into the ground a kid who's just starting the hobby?

Just one situation where some people might handicap their lists.

The rest, I think, has already been covered above.


DV8

MrMojoZ
20-04-2009, 21:34
There will always be some self-rightous players too. The get a charge out of being able to complain about your army being cheesy where as they play a more "correct" fluffy army.

Vepr
20-04-2009, 21:35
Also if you want to see a power gamer turn into a fluff loving teddy bear put a single female on the other side of the table. :D

Khornies & milk
20-04-2009, 21:35
I have 3 main Armies, 1 of which is DH, and even though I win with it the main reason I collect it is because I love the minis, the Fluff and whole backstory of the Inquisition.

So like others have said, people have different reasons for being a part of this hobby....none are more or less valid than any other.

burni
20-04-2009, 21:35
Because there is more to this hobby than just playing the game. You also have to buy, assemble and paint the models in your list, and I will not buy a model that is awful, or a model that I don't think I'd enjoy painting, or a model that would look out of place in the army's visual theme, no matter how powerful it is.

I think this is a great point and certainly fits with my own point of view. Another other side of this is choosing armies/models for your own satisfaction and not caring what others think of those choices - playing marines as you enjoy the models despite all the smurf hate is the best example of this :)

The_Outsider
20-04-2009, 21:36
Not taking a list that is as effeceint as possible =/= taking a gimped force.

I play (and win) with a force that I designed, even if it isn't as powerful as it could be - there is more to the hobby than power gaming and I get more satisfaction beating someone with a list that isn't just "lol i taek n0b bikerz and win, i r g0t skillzzz111!!!one".

In fact i've actually gone out and destroyed some power gamers in my group because they decided that taking the most powerful force they could meant they were a pro gamer.

There is a world of difference between a powerfull list and power gaming.

shveen
20-04-2009, 21:38
DV8, I'll admit I like to win, but beating a child at a sport is just poor form. I'm all for introducing new people tot he hobby, but while victory is important, it is not worth depriving a young person of the happiness from an activity.

teanabowlie
20-04-2009, 21:38
I can't remember who it was but someone on this forum said that winning is merely the object of the game, meaning it is the goal you aim for once you are playing. However the POINT of the game, your reason for playing it at all, is to have fun.

I actually find it strange that you cannot grasp why some players aren't doing everything they can to win. If its not all about imagining a battle on some futuristic planet filled with aliens, monsters and heretics, then what is 40K about? If you simply want to win games your better off playing chess (no offence). Of course every player makes some effort to win, but when it comes to list building, maybe they really are more interested in that chance of 'seeing' their Techmarine wrestle a DP to the ground with his servos, or that over-priced Lictor pop up Alien-style and slaughter a squad of guardsmen, even if he does get shot to pieces afterwards. For players like this its all about putting a narrative into the game.

Strikerkc
20-04-2009, 21:39
For many people, the point of the game is to play, not to win.

For example. I field a marine army with two rhinos two razorbacks, 3 10 man marine squads, a sternguard squad, a landraider, and some thunderhammer terminators.

I've sat down and looked at the army and there are definatly things I could do to make the list better. For example, gearing up one squad to be drop podded in on the first turn, I've seen it done, and it's almost always very effective. I don't do that becuase the army just feels strange to me. It seems odd to have some armored task force drive up on something, and then have a strike cruiser fire a single drop pod on them. I do it for apearance.

I also skip putting my entire army in drop pods (also something that would make the army much more effective in most cases) becuase I don't like the idea of my army arival being up to fate. When I loose, I don't want it to be becuase I had a few bad reserve rolls that kept most of my army off the table. I want it to be becuase I put my transports in a bad spot, because I failed to play the game well. Like wise, when I win I want it to be becuase I played well, not becuase I got extreemly lucky and dropped an entire space marine army in the oponent's face.

SonofUltramar
20-04-2009, 21:40
I remember having a similar conversation several years ago about people who strive to win and my point of view still hasn't changed.

When you look back on a game do you remember the cool little things that happened like the Guardsmen who took the last wound off a Carnifex in a suicidal charge which is a fun thing or do you look back and think I beat him which is a competitive thing?

I would say some people are more competitive than others, there are several people at my local GW and club who put winning before all else but to them that is fun, so be it. Just because I like the fluff and think my army should be themed which may make it weaker in game, again so be it as that is my decision and if I complain about losing them I have no one to blame but myself (which I often do, lol):)

The_Outsider
20-04-2009, 21:40
I can't remember who it was but someone on this forum said that winning is merely the object of the game, meaning it is the goal you aim for once you are playing. However the POINT of the game, your reason for playing it at all, is to have fun.


I think it is in someone's sig (to the effect of) - "The objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun".

Asi the Red
20-04-2009, 21:41
Arbedark makes a good point. I'm 6'7'', if I'm playing basketball with my 5' cousin (this situation has come up btw) I know I can block every shot he takes... the whole game... But I don't, because it's not fun for me (cause there's no challenge) and it's not fun for him (cause he has no chance), so I play softer so we can each have a good time. If I were playing with my 6'3'' cousin (who's much better at basketball than I am) I would play much harder, because he doesn't need me to back off to enjoy himself - we could both go all out.

I don't build lists that have only the best units in them (cause there's no way to take only Hammerheads in a non-Apoc Tau list), but it's mostly because the rest of my group builds the same kind of lists. Our Tyranid player runs stealers, gaunts, homies, warriors, a broodlord, a lictor, some ravenors and only one fex. Our Eldar player runs a list with pretty much one of every aspect. Our SM player has a 6 Speeder list, expensive footslogging termies and GK allies (and is slightly incompetent..). So there's no reason for me to build a Tau list with three Hammerheads.

Ertle
20-04-2009, 21:43
For myself I just enjoy playing. In the crazy technology driven world of today I just like sitting down with friends writing up a list and playing some warhammer. If everyone has fun then nobody lost in my opinion.

samiens
20-04-2009, 21:44
Ok, now first off let me say I'm a competitive player and I never let anyone win (as for the younger family etc thing, I'd let tghem score a point but that's probably it) However, I think there's a few counter arguments to the OP:

1) Not everyone realises they are hindering themselves! If you don't know what's good then you might use less effective units and frankly a lotof the collective internet wisdom is a load of rubbish...

2) Some people don't care, they want to make their army based on fluff. What I find less than ok is when said dfluff player berates the player who took a more effective list. Its agame and there is an element of competition, plus everyone should do what they want. No one has a divine right to win!

3) Some of us have more complex reasoning than the singular desire to win. I could smash everyone up with some kind of Nob biker doohicky etc but I don't like Orks and some units are considered so powerful taht i don't like player's reactions to them or (cough... harlequins...cough) I just hate them because I find theri rules distatsteful in some way. now, factor in that I love Dark Angels and all taht jazz and you find me making a Guardians of the Covenant first company army (which I'm naming the Ark lol). Now within that I'll do my best to win but as I'm not taking the army that is probably statistically most effective you could say i'm hindering myself.

I guess what i find hard is the use of the word hindering- I've made choices based on my preferences and beliefs about 40k (which don't mirror the warseer community ion many things). I'm still utterly committed to winning and don't see myself as hindered at all. That said, you won't find me moaning about a nob biker army if it smashes me!

The other thing is that army composition is just one element of strategy, not the whole of ity. Now some armies (nob bikers again lol) utterly inform strategy as they diminish the available tactics, while others make strategic planning without a situation utterly pointless (Deathwing and Grey Knights for example). Part of the problem with the net community is often that they disregard strategy and tactics for force composition, which I have never found true in the real world.

shveen
20-04-2009, 21:45
I again, thank people for their input. It seems that the majority of players here play for fun. I value that opinion and would like to see many more player such as yourselves in the gaming world. It seems I also need to brush up on my chess playing skills.

5Pointer
20-04-2009, 21:46
When I was first in the hobby it was the fluff and narrative campaigns (both Warhammer Quest and Necromunda) that kept me in it for so long.

I then went away and played (and wrote!) various RPGs for a time.

When I came back to the hobby therefore, my need and desire to tell stories through army lists, conversion, painting and yes, even playing outweighed the need to experience such fleeting feelings as superiority brought on because I beat someone else at playing a game.

Arbedark
20-04-2009, 21:49
Arbedark makes a good point. I'm 6'7'', if I'm playing basketball with my 5' cousin (this situation has come up btw) I know I can block every shot he takes... the whole game... But I don't, because it's not fun for me (cause there's no challenge) and it's not fun for him (cause he has no chance), so I play softer so we can each have a good time. If I were playing with my 6'3'' cousin (who's much better at basketball than I am) I would play much harder, because he doesn't need me to back off to enjoy himself - we could both go all out.

I don't build lists that have only the best units in them (cause there's no way to take only Hammerheads in a non-Apoc Tau list), but it's mostly because the rest of my group builds the same kind of lists. Our Tyranid player runs stealers, gaunts, homies, warriors, a broodlord, a lictor, some ravenors and only one fex. Our Eldar player runs a list with pretty much one of every aspect. Our SM player has a 6 Speeder list, expensive footslogging termies and GK allies (and is slightly incompetent..). So there's no reason for me to build a Tau list with three Hammerheads.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sanctjud
20-04-2009, 21:51
Just to say...some times making a dead 'ard list and making it fluffy are not mutually exclusive.

Esp. if GW wants people to make their own chapters, warbands, craftworlds, etc..and make their own fluff and use the rules as a skeleton.

In which case, the soft scores are really just house rules so that carebears have a chance?

/shrug, "fun" is a different value for each person.

That's why my gaming group has a variety of awards each for the general aspects of the whole hobby... .because: It's true, not everyone approaches this hobby holistically.

You can't blame someone for having fun winning by taking the most dead 'ard list... their expectations are that you do the same....etc. It's a point of view situations....which IMO, it's alwasy appropriate to ask before hand:
"Friendly game or competitive" as I have 2 different lists for thsoe occations.

My 7 Cents.

Darnok
20-04-2009, 21:51
it goes against the grain for a person not to do everything can to win

No it doesn't. Just because you can't or won't accept it, there is still more to live than being better than others. And if you don't find out yourself, I can't explain it to you in a thousand years, so I'll remain silent instead.

Robineng
20-04-2009, 21:54
Fun. Challenge. Fluff is more important than game mechanics.

shveen
20-04-2009, 21:55
I disagree with you there Darnok, we always want to do better then others, but yes, there is more to life then it, but winning gives us the most satisfaction. Each day is made up of tiny victories, why can't Warhammer be another one?

Chaos and Evil
20-04-2009, 22:00
...winning gives us the most satisfaction.

Does it?

I find a game where a cool story happens much more fun than a game where I smash my opponent to tiny pieces whilst he does nothing at all in return.

If winning were the only thing I cared about, I'd take a tooled-up list and go play noobs at the local club... I'd win every game, but would I have fun?

Darnok
20-04-2009, 22:00
I disagree with you there Darnok, we always want to do better then others, but yes, there is more to life then it, but winning gives us the most satisfaction.

I think we better agree to disagree on that one here, shall we? I could start a discussion which without a doubt would end in bitter accusations of incompetence and whatnot, but I think it is better to not to. Have fun living your live the way you think is best.

For mankind
20-04-2009, 22:00
we are just playing with toy soilders, this isn't a really war, nobody dies nobody needs to win, I only want to win if it is improtant to win.
Why waste time and energy to win in a game with toy soilders, when i can just have some fun with playing a funny and fluffy list, thats also more fun to build and paint.

shveen
20-04-2009, 22:02
I seem to have riled some people here. What I should have said was winning gives ME the most satisfaction, I'll agree that a fun game is brilliant, but the icing on the cake is always a win, especially if it has been a fun and challenging game

Brotheroracle
20-04-2009, 22:03
I play a "weaker" list because I don't need to exploit the strongest combo to achieve victory I find allot of the lists to be boring sure I could take two lash princes and it could make it easier for me to win but that would not be the army I play. And if I win without using the most powerful combo it will be more enjoyable and a greater show of skill on my part.

bocaj
20-04-2009, 22:05
I find playing with a fluffy list fun but I do find the face of my opponent when he lost a baneblade to the nightbringer in one assault very fun aswell. BTW it wasn't an apoc game we just let him use the baneblade to liven the game up a bit and we got an extra 100 pts.

Chaos and Evil
20-04-2009, 22:07
I play a weaker list for a few different reasons

Sure I could tool up with whatever the current power build is, but:

- It'd no doubt be aesthetically boring (As power builds tend to be min-max lists focused on one or two key unit types to the exclusion of all else).

- Warhammer 40,000 isn't particularly well balanced anyway, so what's the point in treating it as if it is?

- Taking a more rounded list injects a modicum of tactical challenge into an otherwise tactically simple game.

- I like to paint a bunch of different stuff, as Warhammer 40,000 is a hobby game, not just a game.

Lewis
20-04-2009, 22:07
If I was the OP i'd look into Eurogames like Puerto Rico. They are highly skilled games with few random elements and a bit more character and sociability than chess.

I also remind you all that Wh40K makes this question particularly accute because so much of the success criteria are within army selection compared to WFB.

lanrak
20-04-2009, 22:09
Hi all.
The OP is correct in reguard to when competing all participants try to win.
However, NOT ALL GAMES ARE COMPETITIONS!:eek:

GW games are better when played as a co-operative narrative.IMO.;)

There are games developed to be suitable for balanced competative play.
40K is not this sort of game, it says so in the rule book.;)

If winning a game of 40k makes you feel good , then good for you.
But thats only one very imidiate aspect of table top gaming.

Others may prefer telling the story ,rather than focusing on the outcome.

As GW have removed alot of the narrative element from the 40k game play , its no suprise to me so many newer players play mainly to win.

Competative minded players are better off playing games developed for competative play as they tend to offer far more challenges than 40k.

Narrative driven players are better off playing games with more definition in characterising units than 40k.

Happy gaming.
Lanrak.

Nephilim of Sin
20-04-2009, 22:12
Really? We all want to do better than others? I would settle for just doing better for me, not basing it on the achievements that some other person did.

Personally, I cannot stand WAAC lists. I don't think you are playing the game, all you are doing is rolling the dice to see what turn the game ends for your victory. If you really are building the 'uber-unbeatable list of pwnage', that is basically what you are doing. Why not play a cheaper game, where you get a fake-two headed quarter, and I get a regular quarter, and we see who gets heads the most times out of fifty flips? Finding broken combos and such to min/max a list is usually all the tactical know-how that is needed to win the game, and I just can't see how that is fun.

To put it better, I play Starcraft. Now, I could go online and do a zergling rush and end the game in five minutes, amping up my victory, or I can actually play the game and make it challenging and worth the win. I paid $50 for that game when it came out, so you can guess which option is actually more worth my time. And yes, even against someone doing the same tactic, I can usually find a way to win. Honestly, that is what making a WAAC list is like to me, which is why I prefer the 'fluffy-yet-deadly' approach.

EDIT: Wow, there were about 10 replies in the time it took me to type that.

Irisado
20-04-2009, 22:12
I play a themed army, since I enjoy the narrative and background side of the game, and I like my armies to be representative of the background behind them.

Although victories are satisfying, I find that narrow victories are often more rewarding and more enjoyable for both players.

I also feel that there is so much more to the game than winning, and that this is something which many players like to take into account when designing their armies.

Imperius
20-04-2009, 22:22
A person might not want to wi-

Just because people have weaker army lists DOES NOT mean that they actually WANT to lose.

Treadhead_1st
20-04-2009, 22:24
I take "gimped" lists because I prefer the look of certain combinations. I don't like using models I hate the look of (Genestealers) or that don't fit the feel of the army (Thunderfire in mech-Salamanders). I love the modelling side of the hobby, and seeing a newly-converted model with a sniper rifle take the last wound off a Carnifex, moments before it would have stampeeded into my lines, to be the best thing. I've even converted ~50% of the basic Infantry in my 120+ Guard force - it makes no difference game-play wise but it looks better on the table.

I enjoy close-fought, highliy cinematic games regardless of if I win or loose. However, you can bet I'll be playing to the best of my ability to *try* to win, even with the supposedly "sub-par" unit choices I may make. So long as it results in a fun game, I don't overly mind.

That said, I fondly remember my 120+ Guardsmen [3 tanks] army fighting a 130+ Guant [4 Monsters] army where we annihilated the other to the point of a draw (5 guardsmen and 3 gaunts left, iirc) to any other game I've ever played. It looked absolutely awesome on the table-top, and it was a sheer slaughter all-round - and, naturally, an incredibly exciting way to spend 3 hours as the game swang from one person's favour to the other's.

Kahadras
20-04-2009, 22:31
Because people like variety? Seriously how boring would things be if everybody just maxed out. Entire races would be dropped on the charge of 'not being competitive enough'. From the races left many units would never see the light of day again being rated as 'uncompetitive'. Suddenly 40K becomes a very boring game of limited power builds playing off against each other.

Kahadras

Threeshades
20-04-2009, 22:31
The opening post left me paralyzed with surprise. You way of thinking, Shveen, is extremely logical. And thus nothing else. Actually that post felt exactly like "machine logic", just like you see it in movies, it reads as if you cannot take subjectivity into consideration.
I don't mean to criticize you but it was a strong impression of a rather "cold" way of thinking I got there.

Many players like to simulate a battle in their games much more than just to beat their opponent. I know it feels better to win a game than to lose it generally, but for some players it feels better to lose a game with an army that conveys the feeling created in the fluff, than to win with an army that is purely based on winning, while ignoring how it would "really" be set up.
One could say, some people play Warhammer 40k, other's play the Tabletop Strategy Game.

eek107
20-04-2009, 22:36
I don't really see it as purposefully "handicapping" myself. When I write a list I write it with the units I want to use, so I can play in a style that suits me. Yes, there are perhaps many more effective playing styles, but I don't find the idea of using them appealing. When I hit the table I still aim for victory, but not at the expense of my own preferences for how I play.

Warboss Antoni
20-04-2009, 22:45
It almost smells like a troll.

You realize, that in a game that has skewered balance ( don't try and deny that ), heavily focused on the sell, hobby oriented, and with a backstory, you being able to win doesn't mean much to anyone but yourself. Congradulation, you just murdered the game and abused the system. Want to flex your gaming muscles?

Bunnahabhain
20-04-2009, 22:49
The aim of the game is to be enjoyable.

If you find enjoyment in winning, all well and good. Others find more fun in the background, so build very themed lists, ie craftworlds, klans, legions, IG reginments of renown etc, etc. These can be very competitive, or very weak.
Some like the building and painting of units, so might spend days on thier swooping hawks, and then use these beautiful models every game, regardless of how good they are.
Some just like the playing of the game, and it's not the winning, but the stories told. Will Yarrick actually manage to kill that warboss this time, or does he have to rely on his plot armour, to ensure that his wounds weren't fatal? Can Calgar take down an Avatar?

I like close fought battles, with objectives, plans, painted models and decent terrain. I like seeing the wrecked vehicles wreathed in smoke, and I like telling a story with the game.
Yes, winning is fun- I recently had a wonderful time when my tank riders jumped off their T34s and mobbed the German Tank ace in his Mighty King Tiger. A few satchel charges later, and the peasants were awarding themselves looted Iron Crosses... I might have been winning then, but I'm still telling a story.

Even so, most of the best games I have had, in 40k, Fantasy, and Non GW stuff have been very close- either in victory points or whatever, or coming down to the final actions of the game to determine who holds the objective...

carldooley
20-04-2009, 23:33
generally speaking, a more diffuse army is going to be able to handle more situations. If you load up your guard army with as many lascannons as you can take, you are going to have a load of trouble against horde orcs and horde 'nids. By the same manner, if you max out on conscript squads, you aren't going to be able to do anything against the occasional monolith or land raider.

there ARE exceptions - the fluffy SM infantry army is going to be good against many forces on account that you can take special weapons to supplement the numbers of troops. then there are Lash lists that can be shut down by a player who spams psychic hoods(inquisition armies can field 5 psychic hoods which would probably shut down most psyker heavy lists). then there...

for the most part a strong list is built to go against other tuned lists, but it may end up shattering against the odd fluff list that a casual player brings. As the example above, don't expect to face 5 psychic hoods a game, but it will happen sooner or later, and when it happens, beware!!!

chromedog
21-04-2009, 01:29
Because a victory that is not hard-fought and won is not a win worth celebrating.
A walkover victory is not as satisfying. I think that the better you are as a 'general', the better your tactics and strategic grasp, and therefore you should be able to do as well with a lesser force.

The Laughing God
21-04-2009, 01:36
As everyone before me said. I like playing for fun. Besides it is a Game so you should have fun with it, if you win it's just a plus. I find that playing a cool opponent with two fun themed lists instead of all this power gaming ultimate death lists is really rewarding.

Krimzenkov
21-04-2009, 01:55
The human nature is to win when they compete

I think the challenge that you're having is that that is your assumption about human nature. To me we're way more diverse than that generalization but I'd be interested to see evidence to the contrary if you have any?

Lord_Magellan
21-04-2009, 02:06
My turn.

First of all, let's examine the concept of WIN and LOSE. What are you actually trying to *achieve*? If your goal is simply to destroy the enemy army, then going by points and power builds is how to do it. But there are tons of other people who are stuck into the storyline of the game and want to have actual units, actual histories, actual heroes. Hell, there's a bajillion books by the Black Library that keep enthusiastic readers on the edge of their seats to prove the point.

I hate the word "fluff," I think it's disrespectful to the hard work people put into defining a game universe for those of us who relish the idea of having games that go beyond the simple application of a calculator. I've always been about story and backstory and all that. It's the flavor of the world; mythology and many old religions boil down to the quality of the storytelling.

I've found that a common (not universal, mind you, but common) thread among power gaming win-no-matter-what types is that there's a subtext to their crusade. Many of them need a form of self-affirmation they can't get in the real world through other means (whatever the case - family life, romantic life, social life, academic life, who knows, anywhere they feel a significant deficit of personal empowerment). That usually translates into being the indestructible juggernaut in games like this. They can smile to themselves during the week and pat themselves on the back for having the ultimate army killing list, kill you in two moves dead, and isn't that ten flavors of awesome?

In which case, the subject in question needs to "win" by annihilating the opponent at all costs, and often at a GREAT cost in sportsmanship and good will. After all, when a game starts to go against our would-be Alexander the Great, his self-affirmation strategy fails, his insecurities bubble up, and you start seeing grown men throw tantrums.

Well, I'm not in a position to translate my insecurities into an in-game megalomaniac complex. So what does that leave me and the rest of the world that wants a bit of story, background, tension, narrative to our cleverly built armies and the great backstory supplied for our game?

I'll tell you my plan, at least. I *WANT* to be beaten. I *WANT* to be The Bad Guy. I was almost the Darth Vader of Medusa V and I loved every minute of being the black clad mad Inquisitor because it gave everyone something to rally *against* - not toward. Right now I'm building a few thousand points worth of Tyranids because they are fantastic villains for any campaign. I started a Necron army not so long ago based on what great evil doers they could be, and how I could really rally other players to great acts of heroism and defiance in the face of evil, like the traditional Hero's Journey and similar quality stories where there is a grand battle of Good versus Evil for the very essence of the future.

To me, "winning" the game is being such a villain, such a bad guy, such an anti-hero, the the players find within themselves the heroism needed to conquer me. For me, the reward is seeing the shock on their faces when I do things in the campaign like eating every civilian in sight as a Tyranid, or putting a bunch of Xeno prisoners under the meteor that hit Ice Station Alpha in FoM5. Whenever they say "God, I gotta STOP this evil bastard!" then I've "won" before a single die is thrown. And I'll probably accomplish that more with the tyranids than any other force I've built to date.

I WANT to be the villain. I WANT to be opposed. I WANT to be the struggle, to see the other player fighting valiantly and at cost to stop my evil machinations. Take a bite of Shakespeare; everyone quotes the first line, but seldom the relevant follow up verses:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

...are you going to let me eat your whole damned planet? Or are you going to get up and STOP ME?

If you answered the latter, guess what?

I've won.

Zedsdead
21-04-2009, 02:09
shveen...once every ounce of enjoyment has been wrung from your hollow victories, you will have 2 choices.. play for fluff/fun or sell your stuff on ebay.



ill be watching ebay for some deals.......

Occulto
21-04-2009, 02:12
I seem to have riled some people here. What I should have said was winning gives ME the most satisfaction, I'll agree that a fun game is brilliant, but the icing on the cake is always a win, especially if it has been a fun and challenging game

The key word here is "challenging."

Challenges come in many forms, and one of the biggest in 40K is to succeed with an army that puts fluff before raw efficiency.

Shangrila
21-04-2009, 02:20
I think it is in someone's sig (to the effect of) - "The objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun".

Tis' mine!


I Do try to win everytime i play, but i wont field models i dont like to do it.(like my tau...i hate aliens but i like battlesuits so i play a farsight enclave).

I have actually had games where winning(wiped out space pups by turn 2) was much less fun then when i was wiped out.(blasted speedfreaks!).

I understand your desire for victory, i have it a well. However, i wont bomb a hospital to do it... ya know?

Dexter099
21-04-2009, 02:24
I'll agree with you, Shivan, winning is what gives me satisfaction, but also having a good time. Otherwise, why am I there?

The thing is that Warhammer is a hobby, with many different actiivities that can be done, which allows it to attract different kinds of people who might just be in it for the painting and modelling, or just the fluff and painting, or the gaming, etc...

However, at its core, Warhammer is a competitive game where two guys sit down to a table, and one guy walks away smiling. thsi isn't D&D, where everyone gangs up against the bad guys.

King Thurgun
21-04-2009, 02:32
Going along with what the thread has been saying about the definition of victory in 40k, I only find myself enjoying my victory if I feel like it's my army that has won. My army being a list of units I really like/think are cool, rather than a list that just fields the most cost effective units. Obviously you have to strike a compromise somewhere, but generally, my lists have a nice balance of stuff I like and stuff that goes for the throat.

Another note on victory: If my fluffy, personalized army can beat a list made solely to go for the throat without any fun bits in there, because I'm just better than the other guy (which happens a fair amount), its way more satisfying :-D.

Krimzenkov
21-04-2009, 02:37
My army being a list of units I really like/think are cool, rather than a list that just fields the most cost effective units.

This resonates with me too.

carldooley
21-04-2009, 02:43
this isn't D&D, where everyone gangs up against the bad guys.

then you've never played Advanced D&D, where you have an Lawful Evil Goblinoid Assassin in your warband that gets her rocks off poisoning the other members in the band. Nor have you ever played a game where the DM doesn't want you there and puts you against a god at Lvl. 1

In one on one games, it is just that. the 'good*' guys are teaming up against the 'bad**' guys.

* your team

** your opponent's team

CrownAxe
21-04-2009, 02:46
My point though, is why a person doesn't want to win. I just believe that you should do whatever you can to win, if the opportunity presents itself. I see what you mean and thank you for your opinion.

Its not that they DON'T want to win, its just that they would rather have fun

Lars Porsenna
21-04-2009, 02:47
I think one of the most memorable wargames I played was a biffo involving Pakistani (me) vs Indians circa the '71 Indo-Pakistani war. Me playing the Pakistanis was decisively not optimized in any way, shape or form. But the memorable moments of the game (there were in fact 2 main ones), was when my cav forces (IIRC armed with pt-76s -- or maybe the chicom knock-off with the 85mm cannon) met his cav forces and fought an epic slugging match at a road junction along the main east-west road. Dozens of AFVs -- both PT-76s as well as (IIRC) AMX-13s -- were smoking in the scrubland and indian/pakistani infantry were having knife-fights in road gullies. Meanwhile a few of my guys in jeeps found his Centurions attempting a flanking maneuver, and the 2nd epic struggle occured when I raced my M-47s south to try to blunt his flank attack. I can't tell you who won this game, but those 2 incidents will probably resonate within me to the end of my wargaming days...

Damon.

Sister_Sin
21-04-2009, 03:00
The ultimate point of the game for *some* people is to win. For some of us it's playing in the rich background, creating a storyline, that sort of thing.

The point of the game for me is to have fun, and I have fun by playing in the background. If I have fun, I win automatically...since that is the point of the game *to me*.

It's how I define winning that is different. I win if I have fun, so actual victory or defeat doesn't matter, only that I have fun with friends and fellow gamers in the playing.

Some of my best games, and fondest memories, revolve around me getting my tail end kicked thoroughly...but it was FUN!

Mileage varies, like opinions.

Sister Sin

thechosenone
21-04-2009, 03:04
This is a good thread, all be it with some of the usual barbs that get thrown around in a narrative vs Waac player topic but i like this one a lot more then some others.

I can identify and agree with a lot of what Lord magellan said in post 67. I'm with you there.

To me, when i discuss this subject with people at my game shop it comes down to how you view the game itself and what you are after in it. There are a lot of ways to play it, more so then you'd guess at first glance.

As a paper and dice gamer i see a lot of RPG potential for the game. Each codex lays out for you how these models represent living breathing actions taken by characters in the narrative. You get to be the hand that builds an army that embarks on any number of great battles. If you seek story then perhaps you're trying to get epic things to happen in game. Rather then gunning down a hive tyrant with your devastators maybe your the kind of guy that's trying to get his screaming chaplin or heroic commander in there to rip it apart with his bare hands. In a way everyone is a game master/story teller/dungeon master when playing 40K

I think players need to take a second to understand their opponents before jumping into a game. One of my armies is pure Emperor's children and all sonic weapons... its not made to win tournaments and i'd never look for a game with a WAAC list or tournament player unless i had no one else to play. There is nothing inherently wrong with a WAAC player but he needs to stick to his own crowd just as the Narrative player needs to stick with his crowd. Neither side gets what they need from the other guy.

THe WAAC player doesn't get a fair challange for his list, he doesn't learn insight into army building, goofy tricks and combos and how to master the game from a "professional" standpoint.

The Narrative player get's his army creamed, get's no real contribution to his own internal story from the opponent and has not interest in competitive army builds.

So in all rather then Narrative players looking at the Waac players with noses turned up and barbs of barbarism being throw and rather then the Waac player looking at the narrative player and seeing people wasting their time with weak builds and cluttering up tables with non-competitive play we should all just stick to like minded gamers. We can all get along if we're not mixing mind sets i'd say. But that's my experience

Chem-Dog
21-04-2009, 03:10
The human nature is to win when they compete

This is where we differ, I consider the game to be entertainment, not competition.

It's like Sex, best enjoyed when you're considerate of the other party's enjoyment ;)

Lord_Magellan
21-04-2009, 03:11
Totally. It's like, did Greedo shoot first? :P

Loki73
21-04-2009, 03:38
don't do whatever it takes to win (see: Nob Bikers) because I want my opponents to have fun as well. Having fun is more important than winning. It's just toy soldiers.

Yay someone that thinks like I do!


Seriously? A power player asking why people dont want to win? Nobody says I want to lose otherwise the game would be pointless.

I always ask in a pick up game if they (the opponent) wants to play a fun list or a tourney list. I like playing fun lists guess I dont like to win :rolleyes:

Shangrila
21-04-2009, 04:51
Totally. It's like, did Greedo shoot first? :P


That sounds like heresy to me, since we all know Han shot first.

Theola
21-04-2009, 05:02
I don't like to bring min/maxed lists because I don't want to be a jerk. Especially in pick up games where I want to leave a good impression and possibly play that person again in the future.

If both players are on the same page and bring the nastiest lists they can think of to the table, then it's fun, but if only one person does it, it becomes not so fun. I prefer to get a feel for the way a new gamer plays by bringing a moderate army to the table and seeing how badly I win/lose with that. I'd rather lose and get a feel for how they play than crush them utterly and have someone who won't play me again.

If it's a regular opponent, then I'll try lots of things just to spice it up. Mean lists, silly lists, whatever. As long as both sides are aware of the type of game it is, it doesn't really matter.

Lord Humongous
21-04-2009, 05:12
I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

That's one point. But another is to build a collection of minis you like the look of / backstory to, and then play with them. I like how Khorne units (berserkers especially) look, so I built those. I didn't like painting transports, so I didn't build any. I certainly didn't think a MoS lash sorcerer / DP fit my backstory, so there's no model for that in my collection.
I could take a list to win, but then I'd be playing with empty bases / crappy proxies. I'd rather just play games for with the good looking minis I have than slap down a base-hammer army and focus purely on competation.

Calibrate
21-04-2009, 05:36
I don't really see it as purposefully "handicapping" myself. When I write a list I write it with the units I want to use, so I can play in a style that suits me. Yes, there are perhaps many more effective playing styles, but I don't find the idea of using them appealing. When I hit the table I still aim for victory, but not at the expense of my own preferences for how I play.

I'm with this guy... I play to win, but I don't try to win at all costs. I take the army that I think fits my play style, and I take units that I think fit the type of army I want to run.... I don't try to create a powerhouse army, I do try to create a competitive list that fits the fluff of my army....

chromedog
21-04-2009, 05:41
If I wanted to always win, I wouldn't be married.

Do I like to win? Yes. Is it the be-all and end-all? Nope, it's a bonus.

Oxford
21-04-2009, 09:56
Peoples definition of fun can vary quite a bit. The first time my gaming buddies and I ever played the old EPIC system we were being taught by a far more experienced player. That he was going to beat us was a forgone conclusion, but he looked at our choice of units before the game to give us a few pointers and then designed his own army to absolutely massacre us. All we really learned that day was how to remove casualties from the table but he seemed to have a good time. Years later he did a similar thing teaching someone else 40k.:rolleyes:
I have found in tournaments that playing someone who is clearly not enjoying a game because my army is wiping the floor with theirs detracts from my own enjoyment of a game. Some of the best games I have had in tournaments has been when I find myself in a situation where I have very little hope of victory but determine to make my opponent work for every inch of ground. Of course, my definition of fun may be somewhat skewed by 15 yrs playing Imperial Fists. :p

Maarten K
21-04-2009, 10:22
The object of the game is not to win, but to have a good time with a friend. Yes, if you play a game someone will be the the victor, but being the victor is not the main goal. It's just like historical wargaming. When recreating scenario's, forces are almost never equal and the 'victor' is thus always known beforehand (your english infantry isn't going to stop the german panzers, it's a matter of how well they do compared to the original scenario).

Using a guard infantry company against a decked out spavemarine terminator strikeforce leaves you with little chance of winning, unless you use various armybuilds with plasmaspam etc. but that isnt the point of the game. The point is to have fun and see how well the infantry compay is going to defend itself, knowing beforehand that the terminators are going to be the 'victors'.

Adra
21-04-2009, 11:02
I disagree with you there Darnok, we always want to do better then others, but yes, there is more to life then it, but winning gives us the most satisfaction. Each day is made up of tiny victories, why can't Warhammer be another one?

What makes you think that just because a person isnt striving to win games of 40k that they are not trying to be the best they can be? Isnt it possible that we pick our battles instead of trying to be the best at everything?

When I 'do' 40 ('do' as in all aspects of the hobby) I game and paint and convert and all the rest. But I'm not great at the game. My tactics are sound and I see the whole board but I dont have much experiance and I tend to make reckless errors. But I dont mind loosing because i know I'm not that great. Victory on the table, for me, isnt about winning the match. For me its about having a beautiful army all converted and well painted. An amy that is a joy to play with and against and everyone will want to have a nose at. If I can do that and put a better looking (or at least more interesting) army on the table then the as far as I'm concerned I've won a victory. it maybe I'm the only one playing that game but its a victory for me anyway and thats that. If my enemy puts a better looking army down well then I lose and i have to go away, lick my wounded pride, and come back with a better army.

We all strive to be better at things, just not at everything.

Marshal Sinclair
21-04-2009, 12:12
I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

The point of the game is to have fun. The objective of the game is to win. The two should never be confused.

Epicenter
21-04-2009, 12:28
Players do it for any number of reasons. Some players like to do it to make their armies more like the art or description of their armies ("the fluff"). Some players do it because units might be underpowered, but they're modellers and like the way the units look and are more concerned with that.

Even amongst more competitive players, sometimes players will handicap themselves for the challenge. For instance, if you spend a lot more money on 40k than your opponents or you're more skilled (many of the former assume themselves to be the latter), many get just as tired as their opponents of winning all the time. If their opponents pool is limited for some reason and they can't find newer more challenging opponents, players will handicap themselves. They'll build a weaker army using units they've never tried just to see what happens. Or they'll try some more gimmicky army that may win spectacularly but also has the opportunity to lose. Or just to see if they can't be the first one to discover some new tactic that will make some previously maligned unit become the next nidzilla.

EDIT:

I always forget one of the biggest ones. The "self-sabotaging" personality. I sometimes call it the "Spanish Football Syndrome" and is a perverse variation of machismo. It goes like this:

You build (or choose) an army that isn't the strongest in the game. You do this because everyone knows this. You're sort of giving yourself ego insurance against defeat. This way, when you lose, you can take the sting out of losing by telling yourself (and often your opponent), "Well, if I had made a real WAAC army, I would have won, but I didn't. I lost because I was handicapping myself. If I had REALLY tried..."

You tell yourself you weren't trying your 100% because the thought of trying your 100% and still losing is intolerable. So you try like your 70% and when you fail, well, that's because you weren't really trying...

Born Again
21-04-2009, 12:29
The human nature is to win when they compete, yet we see on Warseer, people deliberately give themselves underpowered and almost pointlessly futile lists. By this I mean deliberate weak army composition for the sake of fluff.
I can see how a person may want a weak list for the sake of a tactical challenge, but it goes against the grain for a person not to do everything can to win. People are going to call me a power gamer for saying this, but it baffles me as to why a person would purposely give him/herself a disadvantage. Do people make these weak lists for something to fall back on when their tactics do not pull through? Or is it something subconsciously built in to prevent doing everything you can for a victory?

This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

I know this view will be disliked by some people, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

Shveen

My question to you is, why do you seem to think the two are mutually exclusive? I do everything I can to win, with my fluffy list.

Ianos
21-04-2009, 13:48
My question to you is, why do you seem to think the two are mutually exclusive? I do everything I can to win, with my fluffy list.

Exactly! I am reading this whole thread and i REALLY don't understand why one cannot be fluffy AND competitive, especially in 5th edition. See horde orks, Mech Eldar+Tau+DE, Tactical+balanced marines etc.

Also, yes the game is to have fun for both guys, but what if i am NOT having fun vs. a handicapped opponent?

Finally, being a jerk has nothing to do with comp, i 've seen all types in all settings (pick up, tournament, home, fluffy, competitive etc.) but the worst kind by far is the WAAC "fluffer" cheesecrier, if you know what i mean...

Col.Gravis
21-04-2009, 13:52
The point of the game is to have fun. The objective of the game is to win. The two should never be confused.

Quoted for truth.

Excluding all other aspects of the hobby except the actual playing of the game, you dont have to win to have fun, unless you have a very particular personality (in which case I feel sorry for you).

I think it's rather tricky to explain it clearly, but for at least the majority of people in this thread we're playing in colour with all the variety of the game taking in the full breadth of army list's (and background etc), those who play purly to win with just optimised cookie cutter list's are playing in the black and white world where all that matters is winning, in many ways such players would be better off taking up chess.

ehlijen
21-04-2009, 13:59
It could also be that it just seems that way to the OP because not everyone agrees on what is effective and what isn't.

Abandon the one trick pony approach and a whole lot more units may actually start looking useful.

Victory is not meant to come from your list buidling; it's meant to come from on-table decisions. Otherwise why put the models down?

Jagged
21-04-2009, 14:05
A bit late to this discussion but the first and foremost reason I add a model to my armies is because "I like the model".

And second while I don't want to perform badly, winning is not my number one consideration. For example I quite often do something I consider "orky" rather than something I consider "sensible".

Surprising how often "orky" beats "sensible" :D

rossatdi
21-04-2009, 14:18
There's a difference between purposefully hindering oneself and wanting to play an unusual/characterful army.

I'm sure I could happily on quite a regular basis with my standard Guard army full of ordnance and mass footsloggers. It's just not that fun.

I'm about to start work on an airborne Guard army. Its naturally not overly powerful BUT I'm certainly going to try and make it usable. I wouldn't put it in a tournament and expect to win but I'm going to work at it till it works well.

sycopat
21-04-2009, 15:03
Everyone plays for fun, even those who only play to win.

Playing to win isn't a problem, it's natural to try and win when competing. I personally feel playng to win only becomes a problem when you put winning before actually enjoying the game, when winning becomes the only part of the game you enjoy.

It's easy to say there are other aspects of the hobby to enjoy, modelling, painting, the fluff, etc. and that's true, they are great and fun too but when I'm playing the game I enjoy playing the game. I enjoy how the game flows, if I'm against a better opponent(Army list is irrelevant), I enjoy trying to out maneouvre and outfight them, even if I lose. If I'm against a worse player I enjoy giving them a fight of it, I won't let them win, but I won't take the easy option just so I can win. If I'm against an equal, I play to the best of my abilities and let my decisions decide the outcome.

Actually I even enjoy games where my opponent has spent time secretly tailoring his list to mine, or cynically goes for an easy win, because I enjoy giving such players a bloody nose on the battlefield. (I take the view that if I can leave such games knowing that my opponent know's I'd do better with their army against mine, I've won.)

Playing only to win, without being able to enjoy the game itself, is anathema to me, it takes the game beyond enjoyable hobby into the realms of creepy "I have no other successes in my life" obsession.

BUt I don't think the OP meant it that strongly.

d0dgeuk
21-04-2009, 16:28
The human nature is to win when they compete

I guess from my point of view I would have to disagree with the initial statement. My personal opinion is that this is a hobby to me, a game, something I play to enjoy, the painting and modelling side is as much a part of the spirit of it as the playing of the game itself. Yes there is the tournament side of the hobby and as and when I enter one I will probably write up a cheesy list full of rule/codex exploits to try and do as well as I can then but my normal day to day games are against friends at my local game club. Sure in the run up to tournaments people play their best lists to master them and see what tweaking needs to be done but for the most part it is people having fun with the hobby. I have no problem with the serious competitive side of the hobby at all and respect that there are people out there that want the cheesiest list they can write. That's fine. But there are people out there like me that enjoy the hobby for what it is. A hobby and a game that we play with friends where we play themed armies or write lists because they will be fun to play. I would therefore have to categorise my opinion as a respectful disagreement with the thread title "Why do players purposely hinder themselves in army compostion?", players that play a fluff/wacky/non-optimised or however they may described army are doing so because of their enjoyment of the game.

Frontier
21-04-2009, 16:32
People do it so that threads like these can be made. Same with playing Marines or Special Characters apparently...

Spider-pope
21-04-2009, 16:34
"have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.


I "hinder" myself because i disagree entirely with your premise. The ultimate point of the game in my opinion is to have fun. And for my opponent to have fun playing me. Winning is meaningless if the person you beat never wants to play you again. I'd much rather lose and have someone say they had a good time, than wipe the floor with their army and ruin their enjoyment of the game.

If winning is really that important to you, then really i feel quite sorry for you.

Thanatos_elNyx
21-04-2009, 16:47
My point though, is why a person doesn't want to win.

They do want to win, but having FUN is more important.


I just believe that you should do whatever you can to win.

This is why you are a Powergamer.

Master Stark
21-04-2009, 16:51
I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background

Then you are truely lost.

Captain Micha
21-04-2009, 16:54
Because maybe they have a crappy codex that even in it's best trim isn't even competitive so they might as well field what they think would look cool.

Eldoriath
21-04-2009, 17:21
The Ultimate Point of a game for me is to have fun, fighting for victory with a -fun- list is the method. I don't want to play against a boring list, and i do not wish to play a boring list. Simple as that.

shveen
21-04-2009, 17:21
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for all their respones. It is good to see the views on this board and peoples response to arguments such as this. It has been good to see the analogies people have come up with and the debates have been enjoable to read.
My point, it seems, is not widely appreciated, and I can see why. The "win at all costs" way of thinking does not fully encompass the hobby. Were this simply a game without background or painting, I'm sure the view would be closer to what I have put forward. However, the general concensus is that we do this for fun. With hindsight, I have compared Warhammer to professional sport, where, winning is everything. When accounting for the various other activites within Warhammer, winning is obviously not everything, and having fun is much more important in the grand scheme of things.

Thank you again for your replies

James

Nostro
21-04-2009, 17:58
Don't fell threatened by people's answers against your stance, the "to each is own approach to the hobby" argument goes the other way round. I'm in for story telling and good looking armies (themes or not) but if you're in for the game all good for you too. It's when people that only play to win think that's the only point of the hobby, and take pride of being master tacticians that it gets a bit annoying. If the only single point is being a master thinker of strategy, a lot of people say there are better rulesets for that, or also go and chess.

Judging from your answers shveen, you are not pureley in for the win. At some point you got into that game, got into your favorite army, for reasons other than that. It can be imagery, miniatures, something fitting your playstyle, etc. Lash/oblit armies win decently often, as do nob biker lists, yet they don't play the same. Even in the realm of WAAC lists there is something else that drives your choice, or the biggest powergamers would long have figured out the best list and everybody would be switching armies to the new best one. Or look at dark eldar, an optimised list in the hand of a good player mauls the enemy pretty often, yet ugly minis and flimsy fluff prevents it from being more widespread (that or maybe people just don't know).

Some people take great fun in building themed armies, it can be fluff but it can just be based on whatever they like most, be that a category of units or just on single unit they love: infantry, tanks, jetbikes, crisis suits, terminators, genestealers, you name it.

That said, once the list is built according to the player's ideal, the huge majority will try their best to win with said list once the game is started, at least that's how I play. I'm in for fun: fun is taking the list and units I like, but fun is also trying to snatch the victory with that list.

Some players just play to enjoy a good game, but virtually all the time having a good game is trying to do all you can to get the victory (and by that I mean clever tactics and not being an ass and nitpick over rules, a quarter of inch for a charge or whatever) in the realm of what your list enables you.

I guess it just depends where you put your "I want to win" in the order with which you approach the hobby.

I am:
1) Pick the army
2) Build the list
3) Start the game
4) I want to win

You seem to be:
1) Pick the army
2) I want to win
3) Build the list
4) Start the game

As a rule of thumb, most annoying players are:
1) I want to win
2) Pick the army
3) Build the list
4) Start the game

But not every of them. People arguing that their army is fluffy and yours is not as an excuse for why they lose are also annoying too.

Also, I left aside people who just buy to paint and model. I should put myself in that category because I haven't played a game in 4 years, but I think I did that because even the "only for modelling/painting" people are somehow into 40K for the gaming part, even if it is the distant possibility of having a game, that's why they model cool guns and poses on the minis, because they/we always at least a little bit imagine them into a battle.

shveen
21-04-2009, 18:11
Nostro, thank you for your input. You have made my point more eloquently then I could.

Deadnight
21-04-2009, 18:55
sigh.

playing to win, and playing for fun are not mutually exclusive.

i play sports. rugby. soccer. formerly boxing. and jogging these days. Now, i enjoy playing these games. get some mates around, kick the ball etc. we have a game, i'm still gonna try and score more goals/tries against them than they do against me. such a stance, according to the vast majority of wargamers is beardy, and cheesy though, apparently.:rolleyes: and somehow, trying to win at sports makes me less of a person... yet, all the same, i'm gonna have fun. so will my mates.

its the same with 40k. winning is the objective. having fun is the aim. neither is mutually exclusive. and even though i play tau (severely underpowered in 5th), i play hard lists. i play well. i go to tournaments. basically, i'll play to win.
that said, i am a big fluffhead at the same time. i love the story. i am also quite a good painter, and i have a huge amount of my army converted to the 9s.
and even if i play to win, and the other guy is winning, i'll laugh and enjoy myself. i'll be polite, and chat away to the other guy. i'll shake his hand before the game. i'll be doing everything in a sporting way.

and for some reason, a lot of people seem to think you cant do that. there are people out there whose heads will explode if they try and consider the notion that someone likes to paint/convert well, likes the fluff, and likes to play to win while and at the same time, trying to have fun while he is at it.

and i apologise to all the cleaners who will have to wipe the blood and exploded head-goo off a million PC screens tomorrow for saying this, but this is a fact.

you can play to win, and play to have fun at the same time.


just think about it in terms of soccer. do you go out to lose? no. you try to win. but you'll still try and enjoy it.

Awilla the Hun
21-04-2009, 19:13
Once upon a time, I had thoughts of getting my Imperial Guard army to be a feral world one, with ranks of plate armoured, close ordered, warrior weapon wielding maniacs charging at the enemy.

Now, my "fluff" is my own Rule of Cool. It's as good a fluff as any.

totgeboren
21-04-2009, 19:19
My point though, is why a person doesn't want to win. I just believe that you should do whatever you can to win, if the opportunity presents itself.

A agree 100% with this. Though on the other hand, for me to win, I need to fulfill this criteria.

"I had fun"


For me to have a "fun" game, I try and maximize these factors.

1) I need my opponent to have a fun game. Its not fun playing against someone who is not enjoying themselves.

2) The game should be close-fought. Steamrolling someone, or getting steamrolled is not fun.

3) The game should be cinematically appealing. The easiest way of doing that is making armies that evoke some part of the fluff, and play them according to that fluff.


So, for me to maximize my chance of winning, I need to make fluffy armies that are on the same power-level as what my opponent is bringing.

That why I don't build power-gamer lists.

I practice mma, and its the same thing there. A close-fought fight is awesome for all involved. Someone getting pwned is not fun for anyone.

maelstrom66669
22-04-2009, 02:49
While I like to win, if it were super easy it wouldn't be worth the time a game takes. And cool models are why I play this game, i wouldnt buy something just because it was good, I want it to looks awesome if im going to pay $3 for a little plastic man that I'm going to spend probably an hour painting at least.

Even when I win if I'm playing against a newb I will give them tips on what they could have done to make the game go their way, based on what they have, not "Buy more stuff".

Ethriel
22-04-2009, 03:02
I don't purposefully give myself underpowered themes, I just happen to hate the GW guard tank models, i dislike lascannons, and i like shotguns on veterans. Now if, when i do use my tanks, they blow up spectacullarly, and destroy half my army (close order drill), my lascannons always miss, and my shotguns kill chaos lords. I don't think that playing the way i do is underpowering myself.

Hellebore
22-04-2009, 03:38
The human nature is to win when they compete, yet we see on Warseer, people deliberately give themselves underpowered and almost pointlessly futile lists. By this I mean deliberate weak army composition for the sake of fluff.
I can see how a person may want a weak list for the sake of a tactical challenge, but it goes against the grain for a person not to do everything can to win. People are going to call me a power gamer for saying this, but it baffles me as to why a person would purposely give him/herself a disadvantage. Do people make these weak lists for something to fall back on when their tactics do not pull through? Or is it something subconsciously built in to prevent doing everything you can for a victory?

This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

I know this view will be disliked by some people, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

Shveen


Because I am already awesome and superior to you in any way that matters, beating you at plastic toy soldiers is about as vital to me as beating you at a crapping contest.

Thus, I play to enjoy the game and have fun. I don't need to win at 40k to BE a winner.

Hellebore

Crovax20
22-04-2009, 08:08
For me personally, its not so much about the painting or converting. Its about the gaming. But I don't play to win, I play to have a good time.

I had a mob of boyz assault terminators, and with over 50 attacks I only managed to get a single kill (stupid 2+ save). But in my mind, I see this squad of terminators fighting the battle of their lives to survive against a horde of Orks, gunfire and screams all over the place. Bodies piling up on the floor, slowly getting worn down by the Orks and the approaching Warboss with his nob retinue spells certain doom. Or having gretchin kill some space marines, I can just picture the excitement in those little green buggers over having killed a space marine. For me thats just a lot more fun, than having a nob biker squad wtfpwn everything they lay their claws on.

Guess I am more of a story player :), I like to immerse myself a bit in the situation of my Orks, I reguraly check the battle from an eyepoint view of my models, because I think it makes it much more epic than seeing it from the top

Plastic Parody
22-04-2009, 08:32
If I wanted to win I wouldn't play GW games which is far too subject to chance to provide me with pleasure from a purely technical sense of achievement.

yeh good point.

I like playing with what I would say is a tactically flexible list. The majority of power builds tend to focus on one aspect or require specific tactics to win. Its also fun to be able to beat said lists with my 'sub par' army as people under estimate it.

Choosing your army, while an important part of the game doesnt (and rightly so) count for everything.

bringerofdecay
22-04-2009, 08:43
i hate power gamers with a vengeance, i refuse to play them, i'm talking about the regular buggers who every new army make the strongest list possible to do nothing other than to crush the opponent, that game is boring to me and many others and i really don't understand how you can get any enjoyment out of that.

i often make underpowered lists because

a) i like a bit of a challenge
b) i like to make a fluffy list
c) i like both parties to have fun playing the game

losing is not such a bad thing, especially if you gave it your all and it was a decent game, bit of pushing back and forward of the flanks, a desperate struggle in the middle etc etc. don't get me wrong, i love winning, but not at the expense of the above 3 factors.

getting charged turn one and having it essentially over by turn two is NOT fun for both parties and the person who derives fun out of this style of play is a bit sad.


unless of course it's a tournament and then the chocks are away ;)

N1AK
22-04-2009, 08:49
This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.


O'RLY? I must of missed that bit of the rulebook, cause I didn't see anything saying the ultimate point was to win? Perhaps, you mean that for you the point is to win. Personally, I play for fun, and depending on opponent and what is agreed between us that can be a 100% competitive game or a 100% fun game.

Sometimes I will bring lists I know are weak to games I know will be competitive. Sometimes it's because I feel like a change or want to try something different etc. I also find that I learn more about my units in tough games.



Do people make these weak lists for something to fall back on when their tactics do not pull through?


In some cases it may be, but I've seen far more players who field the cookie-cutter internet lists blaming losses on list weakness, bad dice etc than people who use less standard lists.



Or is it something subconsciously built in to prevent doing everything you can for a victory?


I'm not sure I would call it subconscious but I have certainly made decisions during games which I knew weren't great and this has cost me games in the past. If I get to the point where I know that the odds of winning are way in my favour I tend to drop out of top gear, I don't need to thrash people at toysoldiers to feel good about myself :D

Sir_Turalyon
22-04-2009, 09:13
40k is more of narrative then competetive game to me so yes, being competetive can ruin the fun for me. Besides, my competetive armies often end up looking all alike. To avoid repetetive gaming I strive to always try new things and not reuse an army lists, it would be hard to do that while staying competetive.

Besides, there are better games to win at,

Ozorik
22-04-2009, 09:21
I will only play power gamers if its a choice between playing them or not getting a game at all.

Quite simply they leech my enjoyment out of the game. In my experience people who play to win (WAAC) are the same people who dont bother painting their models (or just slap paint on to get it 'done' as fast as possible) and who are more prone to rules abuse. A sweeping generalisation its true but an accurate one.

My own army selection is based purely on what a certain type of force is likely to contain irrespective of 'gaminess'. I do this with every games system and theme. Once I have a list formulated I will add soem elements which are less likely to be found within my theme but which will be very useful on the table.

Panzerkanzler
22-04-2009, 10:19
I choose what I want to win. I want to do good in life in general, like at work, but always wanting to win everything turns people into [insert nasty words of your own liking]. I think all people need some kind of stress vent because we have huge amounts of pressure put on us in both our personal and professional spheres. My vent, among other things, is playing painting/assembling/converting toy soldiers. That means I mostly (I do attend tourneys every now and then and enjoy them) play fluffy lists and see the game as a social event rather than a potential win against some friend or stranger. Wanting to win a GAME at all costs just seems so...petty and pathetic to me. Try "winning" important things instead...like getting a promotion at work, deliver a top notch essay at university, be the best friend you can be or some other such thing. We all have to prioritize in life, and I certainly think always winning in a toy soldier game is hugely unimportant in the grand scheme of the once in a lifetime adventure called "living".

Fenrir
22-04-2009, 10:45
I choose the army I like, and the forces depending on what I fancy using.

Winning or losing doesn't really come into it, only having a nice evening with friends.

Glabro
22-04-2009, 10:55
This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.


The point is not to win at all costs and by all means, ignoring background concerns, but to win within a framework that accommodates for both fun and fluff.

That is to say, you do not arbitrarily weaken your lists mindlessly to make them more "fluffy", but try to establish a common framework with your gaming group for what constitutes a list that is reasonable within the background and does not make the game any less fun than it could be.

Obviously, the real problems arise when no such discussion takes place and people play with sometimes radically different mindsets, which usually results in grief. A common example of this is tournaments.

So, if your group's mentality is to tweak the crap out of army lists and abuse them as much as possible, then go ape.

Mannimarco
22-04-2009, 11:49
remember that fluffy can also be powerful:

ever seen a massed horde of guardmen in front of a line of tanks?

death guard are an infantry force in the fluff, ever played an all infantry plague marine list? few vehicles means more points for marines, thats a tough list

orks are alays portrayed as a horde, ever faced 180+ boys? thats tough and fluffy

Lordmonkey
22-04-2009, 12:09
Fluffy doesn't equal weak in all cases.

My personal enjoyment of the game comes not from winning, but rather from leading my personal army to victory. If I can make my stylised force defeat the enemy my way, i'm fulfilled.

Wraithguard Iyanden, Tau Ninjas, Nob Bike deathstars? Don't bore me.

IJW
22-04-2009, 12:18
Many people have already made the point, but it's an important one so here we go with another version...

The human nature is to win when they compete
[...]
when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that 40k is a competitive game. ;)

It can be, and when I play against competitive players I'll be doing my best to play to their level - but it can also be a social event where we set up some figures and throw some dice around while chatting.

Chaos and Evil
22-04-2009, 12:28
Even the writers of Warhammer 40,000 don't regard it as a competitive game. :rolleyes:

samiens
22-04-2009, 12:31
I think thats one of the oddities though- in few other competitive games do people not try their best to win- noone turns up at a football match without the right boots because its fluffy lol!

To be serious though, there are many different ways to play the game. if we comapre it with football:

A fluff based game is equivalent to a kick around- its a social event made better because you are doing something.

A pick up game varies tremendously but in general you could see it like training- people play for amny different reasons, some to get better, some to test their uber tactics and some just to get fit (Ok, maybe doesn't apply to 40k lol)

A tournament is like a proper game, where you try your utmost to win asits the most competitive setti9ng.

To quote the imortal words of some rapper: Its all good!

Chaos and Evil
22-04-2009, 12:42
A tournament is like a proper game, where you try your utmost to win asits the most competitive setti9ng.

Warhammer 40,000 is not a sport. :rolleyes:

If it is a sport, then it's one where half the athletes are pumped up on steroids and performance enhancers, whilst the other half are over-the-hill atheletes who were at their best ten years ago (When their now-outdated codex was released, natch).

Souleater
22-04-2009, 12:49
I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.


You are starting from a false premise.

The point of a game is to have fun. it is an amusing diversion.

I've played battles that I won but did not enjoy, and lost and had a blast.

For many winning is part of the enjoyment, but it is a byproduct, not the point.

Necromancer2
22-04-2009, 13:39
I'll take fun over winning any day!!!

Brother Loki
22-04-2009, 13:51
I've never viewed 40k as a competitive game as such. If I did, I probably wouldn't be interested in it (I've never liked competitive sports - the only sports I've ever liked are skiing, shooting, archery etc, which are more about improving your own performance than beating other people). If it helps to understand my viewpoint, I think of playing 40k WITH my opponent, not AGAINST them.

I'm coming at it from a very RPG oriented viewpoint. Someone earlier in the thread said 40k wasn't like D&D. I disagree - for me it is. GW started as an RPG distributor, and I've never separated the two types of games in my mind.

In an RPG I'm controlling a character with a personality and backround who fits into the story of the game world. In 40k I'm doing the same but with a force - usually based on a concept or a bit of fluff. I like to build an army based on the constraints of a particular piece of background.

For example, my current marine army is based on the Scythes of the Emperor chapter who were almost wiped out in the 2nd Tyrannic War. They lost almost all their heavy equipment when the Tyranids destroyed their homeworld, along with most of the Chapter. The army contains many squads of scouts (new recruits, not yet full marines), and some Rhino chassis vehicles, but no land raiders etc. All the power armoured marines are converted with Tyranid trophies to show that they are veterans of the Tyrannic wars, and many have bionics to represent limbs lost to the 'nids etc. All of these considerations are more important to me than their in-game effectiveness, although I have come up with ways to add elements that wouldn't necessarily be there in the pure force, such as an attached Deathwatch terminator team (the Scythes entire first company was lost, so they have no terminator suits of their own), but overwhelmingly the army is about backround compatibility and cool models before any considerations of gameplay.

This is not to say I don't play to win (I enjoy winning games), just that its not the most important thing for me. I enjoy playing with my friends or telling a good story more. I play in tournaments, and I've always had a great time, even though I generally come in the bottom few places - they are an opportunity to play 6 games of 40k in a weekend and either meet new people or catch up with old friends. I try to win the games (to not try would be disrespectful to the other participants), but it doen't bother me if I don't. Even in tournaments, I try to play to the character of the army, even if it puts me at a disadvantage (for example my black templars will always try to engage with the foe, even if it means abandoning an objective).

the_raptor
22-04-2009, 14:19
The human nature is to win when they compete, yet we see on Warseer, people deliberately give themselves underpowered and almost pointlessly futile lists.

[SNIP]

This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

Shveen you should save the arm chair psychological analysis for people who know what they are doing. Human nature is not to win when they compete, that is just the general situation in Western culture. In many other cultures if you engaged in that kind of behavior at all you would be a social pariah. And funnily enough when you do it in the West in a "fun" context you are often a social pariah ("cheesy" or "beardy") as well.

Western culture is very individualistic and based around the exaltation of individual effort, but it is not entirely so. Other cultures (such as much of Asia) are based around collective relationships and achievements and not individual exhaltation, and people in those cultures will do things like refuse to take individual credit for an outstanding individual effort, or play for a draw in sporting competitions when they obviously outclass the opponent.

There are largely two types of people who play Warhammer. Those who play a tactical battles game, and those who play a collaborative story telling game. GW continuously favor the latter (they have stated they don't read the rules, they just "know how to play") which is why Warhammer is rubbish as a real tactical battle game (it is way too random and dependent on list tailoring). The people you are complaining about are the people Warhammer was written for, and who are best supported to this day. The silly people are the ones thinking that doing statistical analysis to generate a list is a sign of skill.

Not that I don't prefer competitive Warhammer, but the game is just not meant for it (unless in the sense of identical Vampire Counts armies dueling).

IAAPS (I Am A Psychology Student).

Lord_Magellan
22-04-2009, 14:42
IAAPS (I Am A Psychology Student).


....He knows too much. Kill him! :)

StraightSilver
22-04-2009, 14:50
I have to admit that probably 80% of the time my army list composition is based around what I want to paint rather than what will "win".

My painting can also influence the fluff too, my Marine army is a forward recon force with a lot of scouts and speeders, purely because I like painting those models and the fluff fitted.

Generally I like to have a little bit of everything in my armies though as I enjoy collecting miniatures and so like to have at least one unit of each.

However as I am a sloooow painter I tend to veer towards small squads as I don't want to take ages painting up my army.

This means that I quite often lose games because my squads simply aren't big enough to be viable, but I enjoy playing and don't play to "win" and would rather play with painted figures tbh.

However this attitude does tend to influence the armies I play too. I would love to do a Nid army, but there is just no way it would be realisticly possible to tackle a Horde army as it would never get finished.

I do however have a Cadian army, but that has taken 4 years to complete so far, and again is made up of lots of small platoons, tanks and elites.

So yes I could design "winning" lists, and am not a particularly bad player, but as many have said it's not about winning, it's about having fun, meeting up with mates and playing with toy soldiers, and I would rather play with what I want rather than what I think can "win".

(I have placed the word "win" in inverted commas because I don't think 40K is designed to be won or lost, it is a narrative game and shouldn't be viewed as a strictly competetive one. After all the rules themselves don't stand up to competetive scrutiny, and as someone once said "it's a game about a war, not a war about a game". In other words if you try to play these sort of games too seriously all you win is an argument, but you might lose a friend).

FictionalCharacter
22-04-2009, 15:02
it's a gigantic leap to assume that someone has absolutely no interest in winning because they don't mathhammer the most powerful possible list for the most powerful possible army. i don't think it's remotely fair to assert that players have no interest in playing well or don't get the point of the game just because they run uncommon builds or switch things up every now and then to take some risks and see what happens.

personally, i'd rather have a good time with some good people than squeak out a victory with a one-dimensional list. there are some units i quite like fielding even though they are not the most competitive, and some competitive units that i have no real interest in playing, for any number of reasons. be that as it may, when i start playing my list, regardless of whether it's strong or weak or fluffy or random, i'm doing my best as a tactician to win the game with it. and that's just the gaming angle, ignoring every other dimension of the hobby.

so please; i'm never going to accuse powergamers in general of not wanting to have fun, so don't accuse people who aren't powergamers of not having any interest in winning a game.

samiens
22-04-2009, 15:25
I do see 40k as a bit of a sport (but unlike the otehrs I play it doesn't involve exercise or injuries lol) and I see it as relatively balanced. My point is merely that there is a whole spectrum of views on why we play and that explains composition. Now my favourite game is Space Hulk, where its utterly unbalanced and should only be seen as a narrartive game (to have a tourney you'd need to do a tennis style sets- playing as stealers would be serving lol). I still play to win, however, even though I'm massively handicapped by wanted to be termies!

Captain Micha
22-04-2009, 15:25
Sometimes people also do it to taunt their opponent.

"I beat you... using Pariah!"

Mannimarco
22-04-2009, 15:37
not a line you get to use very often though is it? right up there with "all guardmen fix baynets! we'll show those berserkers coming at us how to fight!"

loveless
22-04-2009, 16:28
IAAPS (I Am A Psychology Student).


....He knows too much. Kill him! :)

Carl: "Let's make litter out of those literati!"
Lenny: "That's too clever! You're one of them!"

Warhammer 40K is about fun. If I happen to win, well, bonus. As long as something ridiculous happens during the game, it's a good game. If my dice suck and I can't do ANYTHING, it's boring and sad, but if I lose from being outplayed, big deal.

Examples:
- My Ironclad drop pods into the enemy lines and proceeds to blow up a Devilfish, kill several Pathfinders, and then panic the remaining Pathfinders and a unit of Fire Warriors off the board. Doesn't matter what else happened. Good game.
- My Sisters seem to only want to roll twos against my Death Guard opponent. Even with twin-linking. Annoying game.
- A unit of Chaos Terminators deepstrike near to my Marshal and pour plasma shots into him. Between flubbing the rolls and my ridiculous ability to make 4+ saves, he survives. My turn, the Marshall proceeds to charge into the Terminators and kills all 5 with Lightning Claw goodness. Who cares about the result? That was awesome.
- A gun drone holds up my Librarian for 6 rounds of combat. I find this hilarious. Good game.
- My Autarch can't hit an XV8 to save his life. This combat goes on for several turns, ruining my plans of fusion gunning all the fish. The fact that an Eldar fails to hit a Tau is amusing, so despite ruining my plans, I had fun.

Case in point: I don't remember who won any of those games (Well, I know I lost the Sisters v. DG game...stupid dice), but I remember fun parts from them. Winning just...isn't that important.

Captain Micha
22-04-2009, 16:51
not a line you get to use very often though is it? right up there with "all guardmen fix baynets! we'll show those berserkers coming at us how to fight!"

No, not really. Well it depends on the rest of your army really. Sometimes taking one Craptastic Unit won't screw you over if the rest of your list is practically WAAC.

Zedsdead
22-04-2009, 17:02
dont confuse tournament gaming with friendly gaming.

Expect the midset of players in club/friendly games to run the gamit of why they play the builds they use.

Expect tournament games to be competitive.

Semiholy243
22-04-2009, 18:10
I'm more of a fantasy player than a 40k player but when i compete my goal usually isn't to win, it's to demonstrate my skill. playing with an underpowered list doesn't only present more of a challenge, it shows your opponents tactics they have never seen before, shows that you have thought through every possibility.

who cares who wins? If nothing is at stake than winning proves nothing if it's only because you min/maxed your way there. a victory over an underpowered list proves nothing. If "fun" and "fluff" aren't good enough reasons, then i suppose the reason i play with balanced lists is because they are more tactically variant.

monopeludo
22-04-2009, 18:38
Running an underpowered list is like choosing "Dificulty level: Hard" in a videogame. You want to win but you feel much better after wining a hard fight.
Also, some of the lists that are considered underpowered are only so on paper. For example, I like to field mixed special weapons in my squads (Flamer/Meltagun, Psicannon/Incinerator). And I love the flexibily it offers me when things go wrong and the perfect target for your weapons is on the othe side of the table.
Also using underused units gives you the advantage of surprise. People learn how to beat X unit with their main army if they face it on a weekly basis. Even if they are really bad players. But this point is useless if you are facing a skilled general or a wise guy.

LonelyPath
22-04-2009, 20:33
I see it that some people are driven to win, others are driven to enjoy the game no matter what by testing out different units and tactics. I'm more on the latter of that, preferring the fun of testing new army lists, units and tactics. That isn;t to say that I don' enjoy winning though, I just like to find ways t win without fielding super powered armies. I was very pleased when my GK beat down a Nob biks army, but that was more down to luck than anything, he rolled vey badly, I rolled very well.

I also love fluffy armies which my DA fit into very well, usng only things available up until the mid point of the Horus Heresy. I may also have a Vindicator, but I reserve that for Apocalypse most of the time, or games against forces from the traitor legions or other DA.

shveen
22-04-2009, 20:37
Again, thank you for your replies. I need to edit my first post to make my point clearer. I liked the comment from the_raptor, thank you for your input as a psychology student. I have no qualifications when it comes to psychology, but I was going on what I could understand from the world around me, which is mainly "win". I think that you have summed up nicely where my original argument cam from (human nature and winning). I also agree with you on the two types of Warhammer players.

Thank you all again fort he input.

Shveen

Grindgodgrind
22-04-2009, 20:49
I'm with Loveless on this. Win, lose or draw, as long as a game has some decently memorable moments that I can look back to and chuckle about, it's all good to me. For example, a game in a shop campaign a while ago pitted me against a buddies 'nids. I was getting splattered by 'Stealers left, right and centre, when my Chapter Master charged a Carnifex and dropped it with 4 wounding hits with his relic blade. It was....cinematic.

I think people are looking too hard for the auto-win button, and forgetting that you don't need to win every game to enjoy it.

Jernmajoren
22-04-2009, 22:46
Imo everyone plays to win, also it has always been in human nature to win within the context of their cultures, why else do people participate in game shows, (lack of) talent shows, etc?.
Different persons have different criteria for achieving their "win" condition in the game, whether it is purely to paint awesome miniatures, table their opponent by turn 3 or less or even just to have fun and get some fine memories from playing, perhaps even using the game storyline and background history to spice the game;).
All those types of players can be in this hobby to "win", being the greatest painter, tournament/competive player or by having fun moments while playing with fluffed armies.

No one plays to lose this game, but different players can have different goals within the game for them to achieve their own conditions for a win.
Personally I hate losing so I try to improve my chances of winning games i play by reading tactics, army list ideas etc. to see if I can improve on my overall skills as a player.
And by judging from the threads posted on Warseer there seems to be a general higher interest in tactics, army lists and rules stuff than background stuff..
So it would appear that on average most of us play to win, but depending on the environment and people we play the conditions for winning will differ from player to player and many cases everyone can be a winner.
Overall I don't think that the objective of those playing fluff armies are to get hammered by some OP list to "hide" their lack of skill, rather it is because for those that like to play fluff armies they can win on more levels than one when playing against like minded opponents:).

AmBlam
22-04-2009, 22:58
The human nature is to win when they compete, yet we see on Warseer, people deliberately give themselves underpowered and almost pointlessly futile lists. By this I mean deliberate weak army composition for the sake of fluff.
I can see how a person may want a weak list for the sake of a tactical challenge, but it goes against the grain for a person not to do everything can to win. People are going to call me a power gamer for saying this, but it baffles me as to why a person would purposely give him/herself a disadvantage. Do people make these weak lists for something to fall back on when their tactics do not pull through? Or is it something subconsciously built in to prevent doing everything you can for a victory?

This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

I know this view will be disliked by some people, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

Shveen

The problem is, you are trying to understand someone else's mindset but cannot get past your own.

The truth is, you will probably never understand, so I won't answer your question and anyone who has has likely wasted thier time. Your ignorance will bring you happiness.

SnakeWind
22-04-2009, 23:01
There are several elements in this game.

- Story and background
- Modeling
- Painting
- Creating army lists
- Playing

Now, winning only has to do with the last two.
A lot of effort is put in the other three, with models that we like.
And hindering yourself can make creating army lists a fun challenge.
Just 2 cts.

LordofWar1986
22-04-2009, 23:05
Wow this hit 8 pages? well ok.....

Playing with a "hindrance" is not a bad thing, it is just that people will want to try and make a fun (uh oh! FUN! This word should be banned on warseer! :p jk) playing environment.

Winning is indeed the frosting to add on at the end, but the real part of the game is the painting and collecting that makes up the cake underneath.

boogle
22-04-2009, 23:07
I play to the background as the background is what interests me most and what got me into the hobby, winning is good when it happens, but having fun is more important

Chaos and Evil
22-04-2009, 23:10
I do see 40k as a bit of a sport
You need glasses. :angel:

samiens
22-04-2009, 23:31
Lol, I waer them (when I'm not playing actual sports). The truth is that i'm not driven to collect, I'm not driven to paint (though i do so quite nicely), nor to excel in particular, I'm driven to compete. It gets my blood up to face a challenge and win or lose that's what I enjoy. Of course 40k can be seen as a sport, just as it can be seen as a creative hobby (note I'm writing a Space Hulk story on the site as we speak), a social past time or a way of life.

The important thing is that we understand why we do things (I know why i'm uber-competitive) and do things in such a way taht we wenjoy them. i woudl never begrudge any kind of gamer, nor would I refuse to play them or try and make their experience miserable but for me its a kind of sprt and I always want to improve- so i take that from games. i hope other people enjoy playing the games we play- I try to be friendly and make conversation etc- but i know why i'm still in the hobby!

burad
22-04-2009, 23:34
If you truly wanted to have a competitive tournament, everyone would have to play with exactly the same forces, on exactly the same terrain. Then it's about skill.

samiens
22-04-2009, 23:36
And who can roll the best dice! It doesnt have to be fair to be competitive...

Chaos and Evil
22-04-2009, 23:51
Lol, I waer them (when I'm not playing actual sports). The truth is that i'm not driven to collect, I'm not driven to paint (though i do so quite nicely), nor to excel in particular, I'm driven to compete. It gets my blood up to face a challenge and win or lose that's what I enjoy. Of course 40k can be seen as a sport, just as it can be seen as a creative hobby (note I'm writing a Space Hulk story on the site as we speak), a social past time or a way of life.

The important thing is that we understand why we do things (I know why i'm uber-competitive) and do things in such a way taht we wenjoy them. i woudl never begrudge any kind of gamer, nor would I refuse to play them or try and make their experience miserable but for me its a kind of sprt and I always want to improve- so i take that from games. i hope other people enjoy playing the games we play- I try to be friendly and make conversation etc- but i know why i'm still in the hobby!

What I don't get is why you've picked Warhammer 40,000 to be competative in?

Why not Epic, which is a much more tournament-balanced game system using the same setting?

Or Chess, which is an even more balanced game?

Why Warhammer 40,000?

Sasori_jap
22-04-2009, 23:51
Cause you forget that this is a hobbie and many people love to paint their armies and read the backround more than playing and when they play they do it for fun.

samiens
23-04-2009, 00:35
Thats an interesting question Chaos and evil and one that doesn't have a singular answer.

Firstly here's a brief explanation of how I got into 40k. at the age of 10 (Im 25 now) I got Space Hulk for Christams. I loved the game and the background, bought Space crusade and then, when one of my friends got 40k so did I. I didn't play much in my teens until I was about 15 when after a sojourn i found that one of my new friends (I moved around a lot) was interested and I started to play quite regularly, I played dark angels predominantly thanks to the Space Hulk deathwing supplement. Now, before I left school I could paint all day long- something I just don't want to do now. One of my girlfirneds dissapproved and I stopped playing again until the new plastic termies won me over.

Now, as an adult I wanted an army rather than a collection and after some random flirting with armies I settled on necrons and started playing games in a new way- it was no longer a story or an all encompassing hobby but a game and I played to win. As it happens I cheaply won the stores winter war that year in Cardiff and wanted to play tournaments and that's when imoved up to the sport analogy.

I guess I find your question a bit odd as I didn't choose 40k to be competitive in- I play all games in a competitive way- I guess easy access to the tournament scene just means that the spectrum upon which my competitiveness is unleashed is widened.

I truth, i find the question rather odd. i can't think of an adversarial experience where I'm not fully competitive. I play a lot of football (soccer depending where you're from), pool, board games, chess on occassion and computer games and in whatever capacity I play to beat the enemy/opposition. I actually prefer team games (I'm a big fan of 40k doubles) but I always give my best to meet the challenge.

I guess the answer therefore is that I play 40k because of nostalgia, the background and the fact that i enjoy it- I'm competitive in all adversarial type spheres so I'm always going to compete in it. note that I don't quantify my life by 40k competition but personally i maintain my interest by competing.

I can understand other points of view but I could never work that way, without the competition I would lose interest! 40k is just one of my many hobbies and I approach them all in a similar fashion

Chaos and Evil
23-04-2009, 01:00
I(n?) truth, i find the question rather odd.

My point is that Warhammer 40,000 is not a particularly well balanced game.
The games developers don't design it as such.

Epic, on the other hand, was designed to be more balanced (And so more tournament-compatible).
Chess is even more tournament appropriate.

My point is that with other games available that are much more suited to be approached as a 'sport' (Some like Epic set in the same setting but are more balanced, some like Chess don't feature the setting but are even more balanced)... you seem to have made a curious choice of game to treat in an adversarial 'sport-like' manner.


Do you play any other games or wargames?

Why Toy Soldiers? (When there are more tournament-appropriate types of game out there)
Why the Warhammer 40,000 rule set? (When there are more tournament-appropriate wargames out there)

Nostro
23-04-2009, 01:53
People, quit bashing the OP on his original post without reading the rest of the thread, he has already mitigated his point of view by taking into account everybody's input and realizing that people got into the hobby for reasons other than only the playing side :p

As to why Epic is less chosen than 40k even if it's more balanced, the fact that there are a lot less players is a good reason why. And chess is less fun than painting your cool looking minis. :D

Grimbad
23-04-2009, 02:33
The human nature is to win when they compete, yet we see on Warseer, people deliberately give themselves underpowered and almost pointlessly futile lists. By this I mean deliberate weak army composition for the sake of fluff... it goes against the grain for a person not to do everything can to win.
...
This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.


Simply put, I don't see 40k as a game. I see it as a hobby with an optional game attached. I don't have any resentment for people who see things the other way around, I just respectfully disagree with them and sometimes watch their armies eat mine alive, and I don't enjoy the game much less because of such people, as I find watching my orks try and fail to win as enjoyable as watching them succeed. I don't like calling them powergamers, they're just fellow gamers who play differently. I once played Space Marines, had a powerful army of models that all looked very similar to each other and other people's armies, and then I switched to feral orks because I liked the modeling opportunities (I didn't even notice the potential abuse of madboyz until after the new ork codex came out). Armies that don't conform to a win-or-die mindset could be called 'going against the grain,' but the grain doesn't have to be the way it is, and damned if I'll change before it does.

I spend far more time working on my models than playing the game, and that accurately represents how much I care about my excellence in either field. I sacrifice effectiveness so I can put down as many of the models that I spend countless hours building and painting as possible, because I enjoy painting and building more than winning. I wrote my list the way it is because I enjoy building battlewagons more than I enjoy building nob bikers. The investment in time, effort, and emotion that I put in building my army is worth a lot more than the time, effort, and emotion of writing a list. If I tremendously enjoyed building nob bikers, I'd win a lot more often, but I don't so I don't.

I'd rather play (and do play) a weak (or as some insist on saying 'poorly built' - I hate that term. I build models, and build them well, not army lists) army that I have a huge attachment to than a powerful army that's made of statistics rather than caring, but if I loved to build more powerful models than I do, I'd be fielding a more powerful army. The game is, I have found, more fun when you care deeply about all your poor, little and usually doomed toy soldiers, but it's not as if I hide them all behind terrain and try to get through six turns without losing anyone. Once I've brought my army to the table, it is a game and I try my hardest to win, but until that time, it's not a game, it's making models, and that's what I like to do.

Corpse
23-04-2009, 05:24
The human nature is to win when they compete

This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

I know this view will be disliked by some people, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

Shveen

I'll bypass other comments since your just looking for thoughts, not discussions. (at least originally)

So, you mentioned about purposefully holding back. Thats understandable. Anyone can make a dream list and run with it all the time. Though, there are those who are idly curious, or dont like being a pro wrestler when they just like to tackle and rough-house every now and then.

As for the other half of the coin on this subject... There are those who want to learn, and being in a compedetive enviroment can help them learn much. There are those who have a disdain for being in a compedetive nature while learning. Or, the other half of this side would be that in giving themselves a low que army, they can figure out what they want most out of what they use.

The unhappy side though is the un-intended side where they bought the models. And cant/refuse to buy any more, so they work with what they've got and remain stubborn to temptation.

In my 9 years, I was in each category. Personal experience =p

Pink Horror
23-04-2009, 05:36
If the point of the game is to win, at the end of the game, one person wasted his time.

Anyway, I do not get any enjoyment out of repeatedly pressing a win button, which is what it is like to show up to a game against a laid-back fluff army with a fad tournament combo.

Inquisitor Engel
23-04-2009, 05:48
My point though, is why a person doesn't want to win. I just believe that you should do whatever you can to win, if the opportunity presents itself. I see what you mean and thank you for your opinion.

My heart goes out to your loved ones.

40k IS a story, a setting and a narrative experience. Even Tournaments encourage background-themed armies with comp scores and named units and such.

40k is a pool of possibilities, both competitive and intellectually engaging. Jump in.

09Project
23-04-2009, 06:00
The games give me access to the 40k Universe.

The story of 40k is far more important than the game to me. I want an army that reflects my personality with in it, based usually on fun, as an Ork player I have lobbas that lob squigs because it fun, if they hit it great but even if they miss who cares, it squigs! How can you not but smile?

The game merely allows me to extend the story and form my own wee corner of the universe.

That doesn't mean I don't play to win, I think everyone does even with 'underpowered' themed lists. End of the day, you have to balance between the real world and story world. In the Real World you interested in stats and percentages (I find it all very dull) in the story world you interested in 'What type of units would follow my warboss?'. All players are somewhere on the scale. Usually, Real World stats gamers prefer tournaments and Story World players prefer campaigns. Possibly the majority of players fit in the middle of the scale and work both the stats and story together.

Infact lets invent a scale

Real 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 Story

I'd put myself a 9, so far towards the joys of story, sounds like you'd make a 1 and yeah I think you do sound a bit like a power gamer, but I ain't got anything against power gaming, whatever works for the player goes. Infact, I am often very impressed by the way some players can reel off percentages, a lot of effort goes into Real World Stats gaming, it just not for me.

And I like squigs...

Hellebore
23-04-2009, 06:08
If the point of the game is to win, at the end of the game, one person wasted his time.

Anyway, I do not get any enjoyment out of repeatedly pressing a win button, which is what it is like to show up to a game against a laid-back fluff army with a fad tournament combo.

Ooh, that's a good one! The mentality of 'must win' is effectively a gambling fallacy, meaning you have a 50% chance of actually getting something out of the game.

Makes sense, I'm not a gambler. Thus I won't do something unless I KNOW I'll be getting something out of it.

Still, I liked my analogy of winning at a crapping contest. :D

Hellebore

Omniassiah
23-04-2009, 06:44
I think the OP is right in the fact that the goal of each game is to win, but I do not include the creation of the army list as part of that game.

When the models hit the table I expect that you do everything possible you can to win that game. You should through everything and anything your army has at its disposal at your opponent, be it through either pre-planned tactic or desperation maneuver.

Now with Army creation/painting I do not include that as part of the "Game" so to speak, but as part of the hobby. This is frankly because as you move towards more of the "ultra-refined" high powered lists; the less it matters if I actually show up to the game. I have found games to come down more to "oh, look, I won because your army had no shot to begin with." Those games whether I won or lost would not be the ones that I would keep count of anyway. So in my experiences, The more powerful the army lists the less the players have anything to do with who wins. As such at the end of the game it almost s feels like we could have saved the 2-3 hours of our life playing the game if we would have just swapped Army lists and called what we both saw as the result before it even happened.

Kensai
23-04-2009, 07:10
Players derive pleasure from the game of 40k in many different ways. Some enjoy playing with fluffy armies, some enjoy utilizing the best looking units, some enjoy winning, etc you get the picture.

It seems you derive your enjoyment of the game from winning, and that's your prerogative. Just realize that others may not think the same way as you.

Reinholt
23-04-2009, 07:58
I do it just to screw with you.

:p

BuFFo
23-04-2009, 14:29
Sup Skrag,



This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

You are the kind of person who shouldn't even bother to read entire books. All you need to do is skip right to the end, because the rest of the adventure is moot to you. Why bother wasting 2 hours watching a movie? Just skip to the end to see how the hero wins/dies.

You are the type of person who spends his entire life worried about if you are going to be lying on your death bed wondering if your life had meaning... instead of just enjoying everyday you have on teh earth. Me? I don't care about my last day at all. Its only one day. I am not going to let one day ruin my other 25000 days.

What I am saying is this....

The game is what you make it to be. Simple. You make it out to be a competitive game, where the only the win counts. Thats how you play the game.

Many players, like me, don't care for winning. We play for the EXPERIENCE, the road, the fun, the meat of the game. The game is NOT a competitive game at all. It is just a game with rules and toys. You make it be whatever it is you want.

But if all you do is chase the end, you are going to miss out on the means.

And if winning is all that matters, why even waste 3 hours? Just roll a die. 4+ you win. Then go home.

The Clairvoyant
23-04-2009, 16:20
Well for me, its not about making a 'deliberate weak list', nor is it about sticking absolutely to fluff.
I take what i take based on a bit of fluff, an adaptation of old 2nd ed rules (which is the last edition i played before 5th), a bit of army strength and a bit of cool.

I don't take nob bikers because in the old days they couldn't - well they could, but they were passengers, had no autocannons and weren't in mobs of them. And the other reason is because they have a bad reputation as being a cheese unit (especially when exploiting the wound allocation rules).
So my reasoning for not taking them is a bit of fluff (albeit old fluff), a holdover from 2nd ed 40k and the overpoweredness.
I will however take flash gitz. They fall under the 'cool' part. I know i can't make them like 2nd ed ones (for a start there are no wargear cards anymore!) and they've gone up to nob stats, and i know a lot of people find them 'inefficient' but they look so cool on the battlefield that i have to use them.

Now the part which follows 'common wisdom' of how to play orks is a boyz horde.

I like to take large units of boyz with sluggas and choppas because they fit all the criteria - goff boyz armed with bolt pistols (sluggas) and axes (choppas) and no heavy weapons ticks the points of fluff (goff boyz like to fight hand-to-hand), 2nd ed (the basic ork boy config hasn't changed), army strength (the idea is to run the boyz into combat so no point in having big shootas and 4A on the charge is nice!) and cool (ork hordes look good!)

So i'm not out to win and i'm not out for a tactical challenge (I play WFB for that - i use 40k for a relaxing, dice-rolling, mass-carnage fun). I'm also not trying to follow a particular piece of fluff.

And i'm also perfectly happy to bend/break a rule either for/against my favour (with permission of course!) to do something which'll make the game more fun. Throwing in the challenge rules from WFB is a good example of this especially if its ghazghkull who just ended up near Yarrick

petpetpetpet
24-04-2009, 17:03
This has often crossed my mind, and I cannot see why a person would limit themselves for the sake of background, when the object of a competitive game is to win. I am aware the golden rule is to "have fun", but the ultimate point of the game is to win.

If you suck at the game it's a nice excuse :D

galahad67
24-04-2009, 17:32
While I have assembled and do play with "power army lists", I reserve those situation where I know I am going to be playing against the "win at all costs/power gamer" types. I much prefer my mech sisters or grey Knights or space wolves to using my Nob bikers.

I do not have to win. My personal worth as an human being is not deminished by losing a game. I will resign a game if the person I am playing with is behaving in an objectionable fashion. It is not worth my time to play against such foes.

needless to say I do not play in tournaments - I have played in such formats twice - neither were terrible experiences for me but I brought a power army (Ie. nob bikers) knowing that I was going to face power armies. I normally do not use such armies. I have 6 armies and can build apoc forces in each.

Power gamers are to be avoided and such players can almost be garanteed to lose invitatins to play in our monthly large games. We, as a group, have little need to "win" and no desire to play agianst people who place inordinate value on such trivia.
One of the larger successes of our church 40K group is convincing the youngest player (high school senior) that winning a particular match was not the ultimate objective...

40K is JUST A GAME.

It is not life.

a particular games result is not really all that important.

The fun and laughter from having a player's own vortex grenade destroy their own Reaver? - that's priceless and the tale gets retold often.

TheDarkDuke
24-04-2009, 18:14
Well.... how about if I don't like the way a model looks, and can't think of a way where I want to convert it... I don't care if it has a special rule that says on a roll of 2+ you may remove an enemy unit and count it as destroyed.

My DG I wanted only infantry yet everyone tells me to take rhinos. Well I wanted an all infantry DG (which means no tanks/transports/walkers) am I making my list weaker then if I took rhinos? Overall probably. Do I care? No. Why? Its my army and I will take what I want. Pretty simple.

I could go on with well probably all my armies. None of them are designed to be weak. They are designed with the models I like. The modeling ideas I like, and yes they can hold their own. I don't take Big Meks, Cybork upgrades, Lootas or Nob Bikers as I don't want them in my army. Not because I think they are too good, because thats not how I wanted/invisioned/wanted to buy/model/paint for my Ork army. Hey look at my already weak Necrons, they have no monolith but contain a unit of wraiths and a tomb spyder!!!!! Why cause the lith IMO is well not appealing in any way for what I wanted. Wraiths were simply win models. My planned IG army at the moment will not contain any skimmers, artillery. Its looking like it may contain 3 chimera and still thinking about a single tank. I will not be spamming or at this point even adding the worrisome advisors or psycher squad in chimera. Will they hold there own yes, is it going to be considered the best I can make? No. However I think my Sentinel/Veteran army is gonna be kick ass to model, paint and play.

I think the best comment I have read on this thread, in response to the "if you can win at anything... take it". This comment makes me think that you have never had a hard choice to make in life. There are times where the right thing to do is not win. If there was say, one burger left and a 6 year old homeless kid(clearly was given bad circumstances that are beyond there ability to change) was in line behind you and you eat well every day, your gonna "win" and take the burger and walk away? I mean come on right there you can win, instead you purposely loose out. There are tons of example where it is right and moral to ease up/purposely hold yourself back/show remorse which would all define not going full throttle for the win/right for the throat/taking the easy "win" in front of you.

maelstrom66669
24-04-2009, 21:27
If there was say, one burger left and a 6 year old homeless kid(clearly was given bad circumstances that are beyond there ability to change) was in line behind you and you eat well every day, your gonna "win" and take the burger and walk away?

Depends on the scenario, if you need objectives take the burger, if its kill points charge the kid.. :evilgrin:

Oxford
24-04-2009, 22:20
If you suck at the game it's a nice excuse :D
Back in my first tournament of 3rd ed. I took what I thought was a pretty hard chaos army but I still had a bit of a 2nd ed herohammer mindset so my army design was a bit top heavy. This was just after the Blood Angel Codex had come out and I'd never seen them in action before. Due to a combination of my ignorance, mission deployment and a 'lose if reduced to 25% of starting models' tournament rule I literally lost the game in the deployment phase. The BA player got first turn and was on my weakest troops in his first CC phase. At the end of his turn the game was over.
That went down as my most ignominious defeat (I challenge anyone to do any better :p) but me and my mates got a laugh out of it at the time and still do. Probably 10 years later I was playing in a tournament and got soundly thrashed by an Eldar flying circus. As my opponent and I were putting away our models we were talking about how things could have gone differently if only for a couple of dice rolls and he commented 'Don't feel bad, I heard about some poor bastard at a Con in Sydney once, got slaughtered by Blood Angels before he even got a chance to move.'
I introduced myself and took a bow and we had a good laugh about that too.

Since 4th ed I've usually taken as close as I can to 100 Imperial Fist space marines to tournaments and the 5th ed rules certainly haven't hurt that proposition much. 100 marines is a full company so is fluffy and I've found I take roughly the same number of casualties whether I'm fielding 50 marines or 100. The difference is with 100 marines I still have the bulk of my army left and the old Imperial Fist 'force another turn' rule didn't cost me that many tourny games.

PS. I usually finish about upper mid-range in tournaments...honest. :D

stevekl
24-04-2009, 22:45
Shveen, don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean to offend you, but your attitude about the game is so completely 100% opposite of mine that I just have to conclude that you and I are just different people.

To hear anyone say "do anything and everything to win" is baffling to me.

Oh well. As long as we're both having fun, no big deal.

samiens
24-04-2009, 23:13
I acn't believe the guy who says that if the point is tio win one guy has wasted his time. i'm ubercompetitive but lovethe challenge- being a bad loser (ie thinking it was pointless) and thinking the aim is to win sdon't go hand in hand. that's ridiculous. i've lost some of my favourite games- and I'm pretty close to WAAC type of player- but you can have that and still be a sport and enjoy doing things

big squig
25-04-2009, 00:05
Many of us feel that this is NOT a competitive game. (heck,the game is written too poorly ant too unbalanced for it to be a fair competition) It's a game to recreate the setting of warhammer 40,000. When my friends and I play, we play very story driven intricate scenarios, we don't use those crappy plot-less ones in the book.

We read the fiction in the codex's and novels and get inspired and create an army around it.

To us, the object isn't so much to win, but to see some kind of conclusion to the games narrative.

Pink Horror
25-04-2009, 04:47
i'm ubercompetitive but lovethe challenge-

I wish you were more competitive about typing skills...

Anyway, you love the challenge. Ultimately, the challenge is most important. So the game isn't pointless if you lose.

Rioghan Murchadha
25-04-2009, 05:12
Many of us feel that this is NOT a competitive game. (heck,the game is written too poorly ant too unbalanced for it to be a fair competition) It's a game to recreate the setting of warhammer 40,000. When my friends and I play, we play very story driven intricate scenarios, we don't use those crappy plot-less ones in the book.

We read the fiction in the codex's and novels and get inspired and create an army around it.

To us, the object isn't so much to win, but to see some kind of conclusion to the games narrative.

This rather sums alot of things up nicely. 40k is about as well structured/balanced as army men in your parents' back yard when you were 6. The rules are the written equivalent of "pyew pyew!! I totally shot that guy!" "No you didn't you missed!"


I wish you were more competitive about typing skills...

Anyway, you love the challenge. Ultimately, the challenge is most important. So the game isn't pointless if you lose.
Be fair. The spacebar is pretty easy to miss...:rolleyes:

shveen
25-04-2009, 23:08
Haven't checked this for a few days sorry guys. I'm enjoying the points being made by people here although I would like people to read some of my later posts before jumping in and calling me a child abusing, burger stealing, power gaming nut case. Although I appreciate your opinions, please take the time to read what else I have written as it changes the perspective of the argument.
Again, thank you for the points, it seems we've reached the general view of "I do it for the challenge". I would also especailly like to thank those you have taken the "win at all costs" view- not beacsue it is my own- but because you are in the minority and usually will get battered down.

I hope the discussion continues

Shveen

Coasty
25-04-2009, 23:28
I take an army that makes sense according to the theme. So my orks, led by a warboss obsessed with owning impressive fighting machines, take lots of burnaboyz, lootaz, tankbustas, looted wagons and the like. No biker nobz for me, for example. I also only build a new vehicle when I kill an enemy one that can be used as a base or would provide enough scrap.

My marines are renegades based on a backwater world with limited resources. Again, I equip them only with what they have the ability to build themselves or have taken from dead enemies.

To me 40K is just a big story and I like my characters to stay in character. My characters want to win, but they have to do it with what they've got available. For example, my Warboss isn't about to start racing about on a bike when he has his nice big wagon, nor are the small factories on my marines' planet going to start churning out Landraider Redeemers by the dozen.

It's all about the story, and it progresses whether I win or lose, so the 'competition' aspect doesn't matter to me.

I have to admit to finding the 'must win at everything, all the time!' mindset to be a little, well, creepy. It makes me think that a person who sees life in that way has problems with their self esteem. My days are not filled with 'little victories' or, for that matter, little defeats. There are successes and failures, certainly, but who would I be trying to get the better of as I tend my blueberry bushes or tomato plants? I grow them because I love plants (yes, I am short and I do have big feet). I understand the point of view expressed in the first post, but can't subscribe to it. My brain doesn't work that way anymore, though it did once.

Gray Hunter
26-04-2009, 02:34
I always insist upon having an army that fits the fluff, and believe me, any of my friends and regular opponents will tell you that I am pathologically competitive. I hate losing more than anything else.

I don't see myself as deliberately choosing not to win by choosing a fluffly list though. Quite the opposite - I still want to win, but I just assume that I can out-think my opponent regardless of what list I take. It might sound arrogant, but it's the way I think and it's usually accurate.

Thud
26-04-2009, 03:41
Being massacred is not fun.
Steam-rolling over an opponent is not fun.
Playing with an army I don't think is cool is not fun.

I make themed lists, but still competitive within the theme. When I play a game, I try to win. If I'm massacring my opponent, I'll try something unorthodox. If I'm being massacred, I'll only use tried and tested tactics to minimize my losses.

This way I always win, and so does my opponent.

Docnoxin
26-04-2009, 04:40
I think it purely depends on the playing environment. At a tournament I am going to bring the toughest list I can build that has been played tested against various like minded opponents quite a bit. The point of winning in a tournament has nothing to do with the prize (I have sunk sooo much money into this hobby in 15 years no amount of prizes are going to bring it back), the point is winning.

Friendly game against a casual gamer, I will bring a fun army that will guarantee a good time no matter what the out come is. Both of my current main armies (SM and Orks) have background themes with lists that reflect the armies fluff. These games are fun to play, but aren't competitive.

AngryAngel
26-04-2009, 04:49
If warhammer was a totally balanced system, I wouldn't mind how I wished to set up my guys. It isn't however, and some units may be fun but not the strongest. Why don't I take the strongest every time ? It's dull, very few units are worthless. I'd then rather play a diverse list, trying hard to win then to use just the strongest possible set up.

You can make a list that can win, not out of the strongest choices possible. Few people as well, even in a strictly fun based game, don't try to win. I make a balanced list, I play a fun game, and while doing both, I try my best to win. That all makes a fun game to me.

Just my opinions, nothing wrong with victory, most simply don't look at that as the end all be all of playing the game/ having this hobby.

Stormcaller3801
26-04-2009, 05:33
I play 40k for the same reason I play Halo. It's a means to an end.

What is that end? Simple: it's a way for my friends and I to hang out, chat, and generally have fun. It's not much different than watching football or renting bad movies- we're staying entertained while we're together, enjoying being around one another.

That doesn't necessarily rule out competition, but competition is not the end unto itself, and it's generally nonexistent anyways. For instance, let's take Halo. After many, many games in many different arenas, my circle of friends all know how we stack up against each other. We know what maps certain people do well on, we know who favors what weapon, and we know all the spots people like to hang out at. There's the occasional surprise or exceptional performance by one of us ("Dude- you're not supposed to be able to do that!" "Come on, it's easy to dodge the rocket launcher." "YOU'RE IN A TANK!") but for the most part everything's a foregone conclusion.

That's not quite as cut and dried with dice-based games, but it's still a case where competition is a secondary concern. My number one criteria for units when I pick an army is whether or not I think they look cool. If I like them, I'll try to get them in the army. It doesn't matter what I do or do not have in the army already, I'll try to fit them in. And then I'll worry about having everything covered.

My favorite 3rd edition Marine army had nothing but heavy bolters and plasma weapons to support my 10-strong, no upgrade Tactical squads. Did I have issues with tanks? Oh, without question. Did I have games where I'd lose a dozen models to plasma malfunctions? Sure. Did I care? Not in the slightest. If anything I looked forward to the chance to laugh at it.

That's pretty much all the game is to me: an excuse to hang out with good friends and have fun with cool looking toys. Wins and losses are nothing more than justification for rematches next week.

madprophet
26-04-2009, 05:59
I am more into the modeling and painting aspect of the hobby, so for me its about the rule of cool. If I like the way a model looks, even if it isn't the most effective thing in game terms, I'll use it. Even if its DA BOMB! in the game, if I think the model doesn't look cool, I am not going to waste time painting it. If I really like the fluff, I may convert or sculpt my own vision of it but I've only done that a few times.

I also like messing with TO&Es - given the 'reality' of the Imperium - granted I am not going to model every man in my IG regiment (my wife would murder me in my sleep if I tried) but I can field any element of the regimental TO&E out of my collection. I play Guard and tend to bat 670, which ain't bad (winning 2 out of 3 on average). I've won my share or tournaments but I don't consider myself a WAAC. If I had fun and so did my opponent, then we both won.

WorLord
26-04-2009, 06:30
I won't deny that I like to win, but being on either side of a massacre isn't much fun for either player. With an easy win there's no challenge, so no fun. On the other hand, getting an army destroyed in a couple of turns isn't much fun either...

Personally, I want hard-fought battles that come down to the last turn to determine the winner. If that means toning down my list from "tournament-grade" to "friend-grade", that's fine with me. Also, it's an opportunity to experiment with units that don't normally make the cut...

smug
26-04-2009, 09:24
In a world where everything is competitive sometimes it nice not to put it all to one side and have fun.

stiltjet
26-04-2009, 09:42
Relaxed gaming is a lot more fun, I think, than powergaming. Sure, you try to win, but winning is not all, or even half, of the gaming experience. Having time to chat and have fun while trying to beat one another, is much more valuable to me, than winning one of those games where people forget this is a game with small toy soldiers, treating the roll of dice as if it decided the fate of their lives or something like it..

People who try to win at all costs, in a friendly hobby like this, are just not very fun to play against, me thinks..

Misfratz
26-04-2009, 16:21
I think it's more fun to play the part of the red shirts defending against impossible odds of thousands of zulus. The hope of gaining that one fantastic victory out of one hundred [or ten] is worth being rolled over by "list optimisers" the rest of the time.

StefDa
26-04-2009, 17:11
If it is not about the background or fluff behind why we choose an army, and only were concerning about winning, then we would all be playing Daemons.

Are Daemons that powerful?

The_Outsider
26-04-2009, 17:23
Are Daemons that powerful?

Not in 40k they're not - having such a random nature severely hampers their ability to get where they need to be and to deal damage.

Still a good force, but not "oh look i'm facing daemons you win".

StefDa
26-04-2009, 17:43
Not in 40k they're not - having such a random nature severely hampers their ability to get where they need to be and to deal damage.

Still a good force, but not "oh look i'm facing daemons you win".

Oh, okay. I've collected Chaos Daemons since they came out, but I've only had one or two games with them; Warmachine, Hordes and Blood Bowl have taken my time, but it looks like I'm getting back in.

samiens
27-04-2009, 21:34
LOL, my typing is awful in fairness. That said it seems like there's a lot of bad blood between the people who play the game in different ways which is utterly unneccesary. I play to win but there are times when I've done things in the right environment just for a laugh (setting up crazy duels etc)

At teh end of the day, just as some people play Halo ubercompetitively some people play 40k in the same way. Maybe it was not designed that way but that's the way it is- there's room for everyone!

popisdead
29-04-2009, 22:51
because they probably win with a balanced list, like the idea of a themed list for variation and end up tweaking it to do well against most lists.

And they have a personality and sense of humour.

Sheena Easton
29-04-2009, 23:01
Fun to play with and against
Fun and interesting to build, make, model and paint - as well as invent backstories for characters / units and build on it during games (its how most of the classic Special Characters were made - and explains how recent ones are "overpowered" and unbalanced as well as rather uninteresting and badly thought out in all aspects...)
Can be a challenge to use something deemed to be "underpowered" / "crap" - though those perceptions very often turn out to be untrue and unfounded, especially when bandied about by people with no experience with said unit who take the word of some random poster on the internet as gospel...
Different perceptions and experiences - eg most people perceive Orc Arrer Boyz to be crap, useless and a waste of points while I perceive them to be an excellent supporting unit that can help remove rank bonuses, reduce the threat posed by flyers / fast cavalry / skirmishers / War Machines - and can also pack a surprising punch in close combat. I've learned this through experience of using them within the list over the years. Ditto for Ork Shoota Boyz who in 3rd and 4th I championed over the "one shot" Slugga Boyz which now that they have been given a (rather unnessessary) boost are now chosen over Slugga Boyz by those who told me I was talking crap about Shootas and that SLuggas were *THE* way to play Orks... :rolleyes:

etc