|
Post by Davor on Sept 22, 2012 2:22:31 GMT
Irratble arse? Nah. Well the tournie is an exception. There you go to win. But we don't play all games in tournies. As you said you made your A-Team Hive. Was that for a tournie or a friendly game? I should have said friendly games, (forgot about torunies).
What I mean, is, when most people play friendly games, as I said, they play to have fun with the objective to win. I don't know, someone who says "I play to win" to me sounds, like "I only play to win and not have fun, so I must conquer you with plastic toy soldiers to have fun". To me that sounds like something is wrong or the person is not all there if they "need" to win.
Lets start over for a minute. Why do we play? Do we play to have fun? I believe we play to have fun and we aim to win when we play. I agree we don't aim to loose, but if we still loose, alot of us still have fun.
What I am trying to say is if someone is only playing to win and that is that, I believe that person has issues, who has to win with his plastic toy soldiers and something else more is going on then.
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 22, 2012 2:39:22 GMT
Well, you have to understand, I made my A Team list for the sole purpose of losing.
Even in friendly games, I make my lists to win. Someone who doesnt isnt playing the game. They are just throwing plastic models that look cool on the table and boost the ego/ self confidence of the other person.
Also, in a "friendly" game, both players are assumed to not be using models of the highest tier. Your using pyrovores and the CSM player is using chaos spawn and the Sisters of battle player is using... troops choices... so for the most part you are on the same level of playing. So you are still trying to win against someone of a tier that is matched to you.
I play with lists I hope can win against anyone. You play with lists you hope you can win against your friends with. That is a difference you are not seeing.
I play to win and I have fun doing it. You suggested in your last post you cannot, and that is where my "maybe I am being an arse" comes from.
|
|
|
Post by blindmage on Sept 22, 2012 6:51:11 GMT
Wisdomeyes1: you're saying that if you intentionally make a list of 'subpar' units and play for a Draw (intentionally throwing the opponent a major curve by your playstyle) and no matter the outcome you and your opponent have fun you're not playing the game?
Well, that means I've spent the last 5yrs doing it all wrong an enjoying the wrong thing.
I'm not saying I like losing every game, but I don't. I've managed to pull off a 50% Loss, 35% Draw 15% Win ration with my list. To me, I'm coming out at 50/50, the list does what I made it for and is always fun to play.
|
|
|
Post by t⊗theark on Sept 22, 2012 7:36:36 GMT
Wow, just wow. So, like, in space hulk where the odds are stacked for the terminators, that's not really playing? You want to recreate the the polar fortress Macragge stack it against the spacemarines by having the tyranid have more point to recreate the fall of the first company, but you're not really playing? I said that you can play to win which is fun, but playing for cinematic sake is just as fun - not all games are a competition.
|
|
|
Post by ravengoescaw on Sept 22, 2012 9:22:56 GMT
This is interesting. There is a long arguement about semantics. Granted semantics is alot of everything. But I am going to give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume that he ment Fluff vs. Power. Now my personal opinion I go in to every game with a list I like trying to pull off a victory at the end of the game. I expect and would be disapointed if my opponet did not enter the game with the same mind set. Why because both me a Player 2 are trying to improve our skills. To improve your skills you need practice, practice, practice. If one of us is entering the game planning on not winning, or trying their best, then niether one of us gets any practice. Niether one of us improve. Now this doesn't mean I fill and expect Player 2 to have enough chesse to satisfy france. But I hope they shop up with an army that will be challengeing to me. I hope I show up with an army that is challengeing to them.
|
|
|
Post by Anggul on Sept 22, 2012 12:58:26 GMT
The problem with Tyranids is that we have great units and terrible units. There is hardly any middleground whatsoever. So you can either use the good units and do well, which means a lot of people's lists look similar, or use the others and lose so badly you wonder why you even bothered playing the game.
I for one don't mind because I like all of the Tyranid units, they are my first and most beloved army. For this reason I have no problem with just using the good units. It's not anyone's fault but Cruddace and Games Workshop that most of the codex sucks. I'm all for playing varied lists, but the codex simply doesn't allow much variation without sucking.
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Sept 22, 2012 14:20:11 GMT
Maybe I have not explained myself pretty good. No surprise there, I am horrible at words and explaining things.
When you play 40K, what is the purpose of playing? For me, it's to play a game for fun. Just like there is an objective in Chess, Monopoly, Poker, Checkers, any video game, any card game, I play to have fun. The obejective is of course to win. I don't play a game just to win and then I have fun afterwards if I win, and don't have fun if I loose. I play a game to interact with other people, be it family for fun, or a stranger for a 40K pick up game.
See what I mean? We play for fun (execpt in tournies where you show up to win, just like in any other sport you play) and then aim to win the game once it starts.
So when someone says they "play to win" that tells me they are not playing for fun but just to win. So if they lose they don't have fun. For me, something is wrong with that person then. Do you really need to meet up strangers and beat them? It's almost like they have to see a psychatrist because they "have to win" with plastic toy soldiers. I am not trying to belittle anyone here, and if I have, I am extremly sorry since I am using a poor choice of words.
Again, I agree, we all aim to win. We all know, just like in Poker, Chess or what ever game, there can only be one winner and when we play we aim to win (in most cases, as was said before recreating a cinematic game where one side is expected to lose).
So you telling me, that you don't START OFF a 40K game to have fun? Your only reason to play 40K is to win and that is it? What happens if you lose? You going to throw a tantrum and pout because you lost? Will you nerd rage? Yes you can still have fun if you loose, even when you tried to win.
TL;DR What I am trying to say, we start off playing 40K to have fun. We just don't play 40K just to win. I am sorry anyone who plays just to win has serious issues going on and needs to see a psychatrist then. Something wrong with "I play with plastic toy soldiers just to win and that is it."
|
|
|
Post by thatnidguy on Sept 22, 2012 15:02:34 GMT
I have never played for nothing more then fun. and you can win with weaker units. its people like to have cookie cutter lists. everything had a use in the codex.. and YES even those pyrovores.
|
|
|
Post by Psychichobo on Sept 22, 2012 15:16:13 GMT
I think the problem you guys are having is that you're making a classic mistake here - you're thinking that when someone says they play to win, they are willing to sacrifice anything in order to win.
You're also thinking that someone who likes to field whatever units they want isn't intending to win and isn't taking the game seriously.
Finally, you're not really seeing a middle ground here.
It is entirely possible for people to use the units they like and still go into a game with a strong strategy and the intent to win. There are perfectly valid reasons too for wanting to use the units you like and aiming to win - for one, you don't want to end up using a list that wins, but is genuinely boring and systematic to use. You can have competitive matches that test and challenge you - but sometimes you just watch to relax and make it a bit more about the fluff.
Similarly, you can't expect to throw a list together of what looks cool and complain when it gets wiped off the board. You need to have something that works to some degree at least, even if the outcome doesn't always guarantee victory.
We need to stop having these weird attitudes towards gamers who have preferences for one or the other. We shouldn't view all tournament gamers as WAAC insecure obsessives who'd field a horde of plastic turds if it won them the game. And we shouldn't view all casual gamers as inexperienced losers who throw hissy fits when their overly fluff based travesty army dies turn one.
We can all agree that a lot of this is GW's fault - if they had built a more balanced ruleset then there wouldn't be such a strong difference in power levels, and tourney players wouldn't feel they had to hold themselves back, and casual gamers wouldn't feel compromised for just liking the army they do. But if you're playing a GW game, you've got to accept it's a bit of a mess. And the best way to do that is to not start having a go at one another.
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Sept 22, 2012 16:07:55 GMT
I don't think the proble most of us are making is "you're thinking that when someone says they play to win, they are willing to sacrifice anything in order to win." Psychichobo. I think it's the other way around.
It's you can't play for fun but to win. The way some of the people who say they play to win, seems like they are sacrificing anything in order to win. What we are trying to say, is we play for fun first. We don't play to win, but to have fun. If we win, great, we loose, great as well.
But to say you play to win, and the fun comes second, just seems wrong.
So you telling me, some people are just playing to win and nothing else? Are people not playing for fun because you enjoy rolling dice and moving minitures on a table?
So the question I have to ask for people who play only to win, what happens when you draw or loose?
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 22, 2012 18:24:30 GMT
Blindmage: doesn't your game group use 3rd edition/ house rules?
Totheark: you might want to look in the dictionary for the word "competition" and then revise your statement. Even I. Thematic games you are trying to win. If you are not trying to win then what exactly are you doing? Because I can ensure you if you aren't trying to win you aren't playing the game with the goal to win. You can't be.
In response to hobos post, I believe he has it right... People are assuming I an saying that I am a WAAC player and if someone else isn't they aren't having fun. No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying if you play with the goal to lose, your not playing this game, you playing something entirely different. If you play and you don't care about the outcome, that's fine... But you are still playing to win.
If you don't play to win and your opponent does, your opponent eh s without issues. Now the game became "unique ways for me to win"
If you don't play to win and your opponent doesnt, you and your opponent are litterally playing toy soldiers, moving your toys around aimlessly.
If you both play to win, it becomes a battle of wits and tactics. IT ALSO IS MORE FLUFFY! No space marine player is going to say that using his marines in a way that he knows it will lose is a good way to play his marines and no commander in 40k would command his marines to arm themselves with krak missiles against hormagaunts.
If you and your friends find it fun to play with the goal to lose, fine. I wont judge. But then, I dot know why your playing the game at that point...
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Sept 22, 2012 20:23:07 GMT
Are we assuming that Wisdom is a WAAC player? Well this being the internet and all we do is post a few sentences, then yes, it's easy to misunderstand that. It does make a bit more sense knowing that Wisdom is not a WAAC player.
Then again, I am still scratching my head. Why is anyone playing 40K to win? I mean why do you have to win with plastic toy soldiers? This is what I don't get. Yes I know, and understand when we do start playing, we play to win. I also know before we even play a game and make lists, we make them to win. Thing is, this is also part of the fun of the game. Making lists.
So if someone is making a list and is not having fun, and just doing it in order to win, what is the point? Like Wisdom said, what is the point if you are not trying to win, I ask, what is the point where you play to win with plastic toy soldiers? Does this make you a better person over the next geek? While sadly I see this as true, some Geeks have to be superior to other geeks, like the "jock in highschool" was better than the geeks and nerds.
So is this what it's all about? Playing to win so you are better than another geek with plastic toy soldiers? I am sure this is not the case, but I am still scratching my head over this
We play for fun. Winning is the after effect, not we play to win and having fun is the after effect. I didn't get into this hobby to win, but for fun.
So can someone explain what the "play to win" is suppose to mean then?
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 22, 2012 21:14:22 GMT
Why are you assuming that play to win means you HAVE to win? Seriously, playing TO win and HAVING to win are *not* synonymous.
If I am playing tennis, do I HAVE to win in tennis? No. But am I playing with the goal too win? Yes. What is the difference between a casual tennis player and a competitive one? the equipment they bring to the game and the amount of time the invest in training for the game (and yes, tennis is a game).
::Note worthy question I don't expect or really want a response to. What makes having to win at a game of tennis or in a cross country race or anything like that okay and winning in a strategy game "wrong"? Think about that...
Really? I find it dreadfully tedious and annoying.
better... person
Woah woah woah, bro, I think your taking this a bit to deeply. It means your a better PLAYER, and even then... it really doesnt make you a better player, it just means you won.
Also, a "jock" in high school enforces his dominance by asserting it. Two nerds mutually go into the game in a competition of wits. Similarly, the jock in high school, when he isnt a bully, asserts it in football against the other team. And, guess what, that jock... yea he probably enjoys playing football. Win or lose he tries his hardest to win and he enjoys every moment of the competition. It is only perspective that makes the jock "better", and I could go into hippy mode and start talking about societies views, but I think I will pass on that one.
Anything with a goal to win has an element of competition to it. There HAS to be. If there isnt a sense of competition you are literally doing nothing. You are playing to win in an environmental where it doesnt matter if you do.
Kind of like if you played basketball and the other team was standing around and not trying to get the ball...
This is where logical arguments are important.
I didnt say you have fun because you win. i said you have fun because you try to. If I lose, well... then i lost. Then i come here and evaluate how that happened and I find away around it.
If I didnt have fun with the game I wouldnt play it, and I wouldnt be trying to find funds to continue playing it. But I only have fun if the game has some sort of competition to it. If my opponent took only spore mines and I took snipers, guess what, I wouldnt have any fun! I know its an extreme example, but it portrays my belief that people should be trying their best when playing or the game becomes less appealing for both sides. One person barely trying and winning and he is all "yay..." and the other side not being able to role dice because they dont have anything left so they are sitting there doing nothing and are all like "*sigh*"
In a casual game, both sides are assumed to be casual. Both players are on the same level of competition and therefore both players are having fun because it is a fairly even match.
And someone early said, "so recreations of missions that happen in the book arent fun to you?"... you know what I have to say to that? No, no they arent. Recreations of events in the books that dont translate well to the game, where one side is clearly at an unbeatable advantage but the book says that side wins... yea... I mean I guess its sort of fun on the side of the lone space marine going up against an entire tyranid force just to see if he can manage to win can be fun... test out tactical skills an all... but if you can win with that you are a god among men when it comes to tactical genius and insane luck
|
|
|
Post by ravengoescaw on Sept 22, 2012 21:40:42 GMT
Davor. I don't think/hope anyone on this forum is the kind of player that HAS to win. I do think this forum has many different kinds of players the two extermes being pure fluff, and pure stragy. Most people falling some where in the middle. All of these being about having fun. Just different people find different aspects fun. I do agree with you on if you HAVE to win a plastic army men, you need help. But I beieve/hope none of us think the winning makes you supior, to another person. Does it mean you have supior tatics, list, or luck then your opponent? Yes. Does that make your inherent value better then theirs? No. I also hope that the fluffiest player is still trying to win. Because that is how your, mine and everyone's tatics and list improve, by experence and practice.
|
|
|
Post by Anggul on Sept 22, 2012 22:40:37 GMT
The fact is, it's one thing to play a fun game and lose, and it's another thing entirely to basically sit there and watch your army get blown off of the board. That's not having fun playing, that's just running a rubbish army and getting slaughtered.
I find it very hard to enjoy playing when I'm just spending the whole time taking my models off of the board while another guy rolls dice. That's not an enjoyable game.
Fair enough if you're playing a scenario where it's meant to be unbalanced and you're trying to take as many of them down with before you go down, but if it's a 'standard' game of 40k, one side vs another, equal points, fight to win, it's not very fun when your army sucks and you're just removing your beloved models from a board for a while.
|
|