|
Post by gloomfang on Sept 20, 2012 18:12:28 GMT
I make it a point to play at least 3 games with every unit in the codex at least once per big update. Learn some new tricks and learn what units work well with my playstyle. I will say that I do not have fun with netlists, but that is becasue I have a REALLY hard time winning with them. I can curb stomp most armies with my current list and most people would consider it a ""fun" list. [No flyrant, no Dakka-fex, no Hiveguard, only one tervigon]
So competitive =/= same as everyone else. Competitive means that you can win with your list against most opponets.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Sept 20, 2012 19:18:30 GMT
Coming from card games into 40k I'm used to building my decks to be as competitive as possible while still being built around the same theme, strategy or archetype I chose for the deck. I apply this to my 40k lists as well, I'm not above using the best units in the codex (Tervigons and Hive Guard for example) to increase my chances of winning, but I won't spam them either. For me the game is the most fun when both players are striving for victory with well designed and equally matched armies, rather than getting curb-stomped by my friend's Imperial Guard because I wanted to run an all Warriors list. There's also the fact that I'm still building up my army, so I want to collect the most versatile and effective units before dipping my funds into getting Old One Eye and converting a Parasite of Mortrex. So yes, I designed my lists for power, to be competitive, and I have a lot of fun doing so.
|
|
|
Post by engangsgrill on Sept 20, 2012 20:03:33 GMT
The two are not mutually exclusive by far. Half the battle is having a strategy and making a list that works, the other half being the tactical execution of your strategy, obviously. Making a bad list for "fun" just seems ... not clever. In fact, by playing bad lists you are potentially ruining your opponents enjoyment of the game - what satisfaction is there to get from defeating someone deliberately playing poorly? Now, I can understand wanting to play something out of the ordinary from time to time, but it's better to agree to additional limitations with your opponent beforehand, and making the best list you can within those boundaries, instead of artificially gimping yourself. You might even consider yourself gimped enough by playing Tyranids - no need to take it further. (and yes, in that way I am guilty of doing the same thing myself) In short, I like competitive and fun lists, rather than bad and boring, because competitive games that makes you improve are fun. For those who haven't read it I highly recommend www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
|
|
|
Post by Psychichobo on Sept 20, 2012 20:06:29 GMT
Some people build armies purely to win games with no regard to fluff or enjoyment. Some people build armies purely around a fluff concept with no regard to how well it performs on the table.
So it's more a case of:
How thematic is your army?
And:
How much do you gear your army to win?
|
|
|
Post by Geneva on Sept 20, 2012 20:49:10 GMT
I'm implying nothing. Oo I said what I said. Twice. Nothing more. You asked if people played for fun or to win implying that the two things are separate. Even the thread name is Fun or Power?. If I were to start a thread asking Do you play for fun or play for fluff? it would imply that playing for fluff is the non-'fun' side of gaming. I'm not attacking you here, by the way. It's just a common misconception. Nobody would play the game if they weren't having fun. Personally, I usually try for both. I'll build a thematic army that is also competitive. If it's lacking in theme I generally won't play it, likewise if it doesn't stand up well against other armies I won't play it. There's a common misconception that armies have to be copy-pasted from the internet to handle themselves in top tier tournaments but it's not entirely true. A couple years ago theme and fluff would have been all I cared about as I was purely a casual player. I don't get many games in anymore though so on the occasion I do I like to have a much more intense experience that pits my wits against the opponent. Yes, the staple core units will usually be there; Tervigons and Hive Guard, Vendettas and Command Squads, Rune Priests and Long Fangs but that's only because they work well in most armies and offer the support needed to have a thematic list without losing any of the ante. Tervigons mean I'm sorted for Troops so I can get more of the Fast Attack choices I really want. Long Fangs mean I don't have to worry too much about anti-tank. Also, some units fit the playstyles of certain people differently. Back in 5th I had a themed Outflanking army based around Swarmlord that was both unique and a killer at tournaments. Likewise, I cannot stand Manticores, Razorbacks or Trygons. They just don't into my playstyle very well. Not because they're too overpowered, but more so that I tend to get better use out of other units. I like an army that can bring a lot of mid-field firepower but still stay mobile if the enemy closes in almost all games. It's been a staple for me since I fell in love with the Hungarians in Medieval 2: Total War. I play those kinds of armies well and I love the idea behind them too. It's a mixture of preferred theming and the ability to play with the best chance of winning at the same time. (Except with an all Rough Rider army. That was the biggest blunder of a list I ever came up with. It does look cool on the shelf though.) Another factor is who I'm going to be playing. I like to offer my opponent a game they can enjoy as well. I tend to leave aside the missile Fangs when tackling my mates Tyranids in favour of more easy to handle Predators. I enjoy those sorts of games. I know another guy who plays Purifier Grey Knights against whom I usually crack out all the cheese I can muster and it's a laugh as we try desperately to one up each other on every corner. We even joke about how ridiculous we are sometimes. In essence, I like a good game. Not particularly a fluffy game or a competitive game but a solid, good game. A fun game. And that can be had in a number of ways. I like to experience everything the hobby has to offer from cheesy tourney lists to popcorn lists that have bizarre units and house rules to everything in between. I don't believe any one style of play is the 'fun' version of the game. Each kind has its own appeals, charms and laughs to be had.
|
|
|
Post by swarmy on Sept 20, 2012 23:46:32 GMT
I think it all goes back to the fact 40k is so lopsided and strangely balanced for the sake of pushing models out the door. I think the frustration comes when people who get into the fluff or the modelling/painting aspect build up a collection that they realize will not hold up at their gaming scene; No matter how many different ways they try to arrange it their sexy thematic army it just can't hold up to the cheese supplied at the shop. Great example being hormagaunt heavy armies on occasion versus some other tougher "top tier" armies.
Better questions might even be "Do you buy models based on their "internet competitiveness rating" or do you buy models for their looks/fluff alone? Do you spam things because it's effective mechanics-wise and because you were told/have experienced it to be true, or do you make your decisions based on some other metric?" Because at the end of the day you can only get so far with a list based on what you own. For many people who don't go balls-to-the-walls into the hobby financially that crucial decision making process dictates where they can even go with their lists. Neither approach is right or wrong...it just matters if you are a good sport and you understand both people have to enjoy the game.
I've found it's really the *people* you get to play with that make or break the game more than anything. I've played at shops where there was a prevalence of WAAC lists and an endless ..... measuring contest, coupled with bad sportsmanship. I never went back. Lately, I've found a far better community and it's made all the difference.
|
|
|
Post by blindmage on Sept 20, 2012 23:51:05 GMT
I think it depends on your win condition.
I don't like getting I strongly disagree handed to me. On the other hand, I love fluffy lists that are as true as possible to fluff (all Rippers..yay!).
Now, I expect to be stomped. I've never played someone that didn't have a fun time killing all my babies. However, I play for a draw. The list can't win. It's mechanically impossible with the exception of a slim chance at getting the bonus VPs. I try and play list list to Draw the game. IT means that I do things he wouldn't expect or thinks that I don't realize my 'mistakes'.
I'm competing in a very different way. And if I loose...meh, at least I got to play a game.
|
|
|
Post by Bot on Sept 20, 2012 23:53:39 GMT
I choose power... Because power is fun. [edit] Where's my manners. I'm a little tired.. Sorry about that. If there's a unit I know fulfill its purpose better than another unit... Then why would I take the bad choice? Often it is difficult to go wrong with Tervigons, Trygons and Hive guards. That's why you see them that often. Also... I'm sure that there's a lot of people taking spore mines and stuff like that. But most of the people here is trying to get better. Not to make bad army lists.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Sept 21, 2012 2:33:28 GMT
I am not voting because you set up a false dichotomy. I can play for fun, and not need to take very sub-par units to do it. Did I? Yes, you did. That, is a false dichotomy. You are presenting an either/or option, and there many more possibilities; and even the two you have chosen are not mutually exclusive. On top of that, I don't agree with your premise: Even assuming you actually meant "virtually the same"; I still don't agree. There is a pretty long list of units that regularly show up in lists here. Granted, almost all with have a HT and some HGuard, and maybe a Tervigon...... but even that leaves a ton of variation. And of course almost no one take some of the crappier units... but why would they? Even in a fun game...
|
|
|
Post by demoric on Sept 21, 2012 3:35:38 GMT
Fluff came first for me, but a really fun thing happened to my mainly flying tyranid army, it went from decent in 5th to really good in 6th.
I honestly enjoy creating models for nids. Models I have kitbashed in 5th: 2 different 3rd edition flyrants (made before the flyrant kit was available) Parasite of Mortex 3 shrikes Doom of Malantai Harpy Tervigon (made before kit was available) 2 custom broodlords
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 21, 2012 18:01:20 GMT
This type of question annoys me.
Do we not play to win? When you play a game you play with the goal to win. You do it in any manner you can. It annoys me because I play to win and I play to have fun. i have the most fun when I know I won. That I know I was capable of winning and I the tactics I implemented got me there.
This type of question implies that I cannot play to win and have fun... and that people who play to have fun aren't trying to win.
So, no, I wont play provokes because they suck. They suck so bad that they will die very quickly and give my opponent an advantage in the game I dint want to have to deal with. Also,nerds at my level of nerddom will get angry at my models for not doing what i want them to.. and a pyrovore will never do what I want it to and it will never be advantageous to me.
IF i though Pyrovores had some sort of ability that would advance me in a positive way in the game, I would totally take them. Some people have just to run them up and have them die.
If I though OOE was actually better than a carnifex and that a carnifex was actually worth taking with crushing claws and that the role that OOE filled was something I desired, I would take it. It *isn't* fun to take a model that I know isn't going to be of any use to me or do anything to advance me in the game... just a large amount of points that stops me from taking models I do like and that will die without having done anything or will just laterally not even do that.
If I thought rippers where good at tarpitting and ID from S6 wasn't an issue, i would take them. if I didn't have an issue with scoring as is, I would take them. If they actually did a suitable amount of damage to a variety of targets I would take them. It is NOT fun to take them if I think they aren't going to be good.
IT ISN'T fun to take a list composed of things that mean that my opponent lost nothing and I lost everything. Its not fun for me, its not fun for my opponent. It is just not fun.
So, yes, I guess I am a "power gamer" because I play to win... I am also a power gamer in Monopoly for the same reason...
|
|
|
Post by malebranche on Sept 21, 2012 20:00:27 GMT
Of course I like to win, and I try not to waste points when I don't have to - but I love running a different army, and don't particularly like Tervigons, so instead of running a Tervigon swarm with 2 broods of zoans/hive guard, I go with what I like first, and then try seeing how I can get a win with that. I always try to fit old one eye in, I dont even own hive guard, and I quite often have a lot of raveners and warriors. Not an overly effective list, but I manage to do alright because its different. Even Old One Eye can cause some carnage with a meat shield and a bunch of lash whips standing next to him, especially when everyones bogged down with rippers and gargoyles, or focusing all their fire on raveners and genestealers. I cant imagine doing too well in a tournament, but i'm happy with where I am.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 21, 2012 20:52:21 GMT
i have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. troll op is troll. in a game with a winner and a looser, if you're not playing to win...why are you playing? closest i will go to fluff/fun vs. power is that i play the three armies i enjoy the fluff/aesthetic of, but i play them to the best of my ability with the tightest lists possible.
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Sept 21, 2012 23:03:59 GMT
Oh my, not everyone plays to win. Alot of people make lists that are not suppose to win, and they play for fluff. If they win, it's a bonus, but not ALL people play to win.
Maybe because I suck and have bad rolls in 40K, I know I can't win, but I still keep playing. Do I try to win? Yes, but I don't play TO win. That is where alot of people are mistaken. WE all play to have fun. The objective is to win. To play to Win, then something is wrong because that means you have to win with plastic to soldiers.
So we play to have fun, but the objective is to win, just like in Monopoly, or checkers, or 40K or what ever.
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 22, 2012 2:09:45 GMT
So you play to lose then? Actually, i have done that before. it was entertaining. I took OOE, rippers, pyrovores, the swarmlord, and used the remander of my points into a small brood of skyslashers and a carnifex. I called it "The A Team". You make the list for fluff reasons, you play the game with the goal to win, but you still construct a fluffy list with some sort of sense to it. There is still some tactics behind it. And because you dont have infinite points, the list has restrictions and you choose what is best for the points within your criteria of fluff rather than just what looks cool. bad rolls arent the same as bad playing. Also, your a special exception. Most people who think they suck at the game tend to get annoyed with the game and leave it altogether or just focus on the modeling/painting aspect. You play the game apathetic to the outcome? You just dont care what the result of the game is? I'm starting to think its not bad luck that is effecting your game results. Maybe its just me being the irritable arse I feel like today but... You just made fun of every single person on the hive who has attended a tournament. And that bothers me. I dont have fun losing. Even when I make my lists for fluff reasons I dont like losing, because I put effort into making the list work. Its really easy to lose. Like, moving your middle finger up at the guy who just tried to steal your phone easy. I guess I am strange and I enjoy the challenge of having a battle of wits with my opponent and seeing just who is better, knowing we are both trying our best to win and seeing if I can overcome the challenge they present. Not to say I dont enjoy a good laugh, with a list designed to basically laugh at what is going on (blob IG dying in droves to gants, Orks using as many psykers as they can, freaking epydimus eating all the grotz on the table... jakero weaponsmiths just in general ) I do... I just like a challenge and a serious game more. laugh at the things that happen there more (A lone ethereal charging a swarmlord with 1 wound left and killing him with his stick...) In checkers and monopoly, our "lists" are built for us and the rest of the game is based on what we do. So, in reality, if we are going to compare them we have to assume that all lists are perfectly balances no matter what army you play. And in monopoly and checkers, if you are the guy with 20 dollors and no property, you want the game to end. In checkers, if your opponent has 2 kings and you have one piece on the board, you want the game to end. it is a simple fact the game is more appealing when you have a chance to win unless you are going in with the mentality you want to lose for one reason or another (make stupid stuff happen)
|
|