Fun or Power?

[Illithid]

Davor ~ Playing to win is exactly how it sounds. People do not sacrifice two-three hours of their weekend to try to lose. you may play for fun, but guess what, I also believe that when you are setting up your miniatures, you are thinking about how you will try to win, what tactics you will use and what the opponent will try.

I play because I enjoy the game. What I like most when I play is when I win (but get bored if I steam-roll the opponent). If I am in a tight spot, I will do everything in my armies power to turn that potential lose into a win, even if it is high-risk / reckless strategies. I am not a WAAC player and make competitive lists and usually do not take sub-par units into any game (be that friendly or tournament play). The major difference is my tactics, I may not go for a two-fer in a friendly game, but I will still target the opponents better units and exploit any mistakes they make. I will not sulk in the corner if things do not go my way or complain loudly that certain units are cheese. But essentially, I see myself as playing to win every time I put my miniatures on the board.

Do I have to win? No
Do I want to win? Yes
Am I playing to win in every game I play? Yes

Davor, we are playing with toy-soldiers, but the game is designed to have a winner and a loser, and the majority of the time, most people (even when playing a fluff mission), want to win and would be happier if they won.

Reading the majority of your posts, you seem to believe competitive play involves "Win at all costs" and involves your opponent being a jerk. You also have this odd gripe about "people believing they are superior to others with toy soldiers". It does not involve any of these things. It simply involves someone playing a competitive miniature and dice game and attempting to win the game. There will always be a better player somewhere on the other side of a board.

[coredump]

I have to win.... No matter what.

If I lose, I get angry and flip over the table.






My GW store hates it when that happens...




Z

[gigasnail]

upon loosing i've been known to defecate copiously in my opponent's miniatures case and/or backpack. the wonders of a high-fiber diet cannot be overstated.

[wisdomseyes1]

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

^^^ Coredump when he loses

[gigasnail]

HE'S A RAGEOHOLIC

[t⊗theark]

Sept 22, 2012 18:24:30 GMT wisdomseyes1 said:

Because I can ensure you if you aren't trying to win you aren't playing the game with the goal to win.

This is true, does not mean one isn't playing a game. I'm sorry, I don't take 'if you're not trying to win than what are you doing' as a great argument, it's rather incredulous.

[wisdomseyes1]

Sept 23, 2012 6:49:44 GMT t⊗theark said:

Sept 22, 2012 18:24:30 GMT wisdomseyes1 said:

Because I can ensure you if you aren't trying to win you aren't playing the game with the goal to win.

This is true, does not mean one isn't playing a game. I'm sorry, I don't take 'if you're not trying to win than what are you doing' as a great argument, it's rather incredulous.

Well, then, if you arent playing to win you are playing to lose or you are indifferent of the results of the game. In both cases you are not playing the game.

Why?

In a situation you are playing to lose.. I guess you sort of win in your own way... but its hell of a lot easier to lose than it is to win. You are intentionally taking the challenge away from the game. Not only that, but I cant imagine HOW someone manages to play to lose. An army that only moves, never shoots, never assaults, and avoids cover whenever possible? That doesnt make sense to me.

Example: Have you ever played a game so mind numbingly easy you wanted to shoot yourself so you turned up the difficulty?

In a situation where you are indifferent of the results, then no result is satisfying. Sure, you can say "no, every result is satisfying" but that isnt true because the result is the same no matter what. The feeling you get is the same no matter what, and that can neither satisfy you or make you feel like (please do not swear).

The moment you say "But winning is a bonus" you are saying "I want to win" which implies you tried to win throughout the game.


Why do we play the game? To have fun. Why do we have fun? Because the game presents some sort of challenge. If you take that away, you are having fun for different reasons, not because you are playing the game, but because you are enjoying the fluff or showing of the aesthetics of your models or... as Davor likes to to point out, because your playing pretend with toy soldiers (or in the case of Tyranids, Dinosaurs)

[Davor]

I see, we are on the same page. I just can't use my words properly. No more debate from me.

[Psychichobo]

I think the thing is we've all met one of those WAAC nutters at some point in our lives and it does colour our perspective somewhat - especially when you don't physically have the models to create a tourney level army and so are at a distinct disadvantage against those players too. I used to worry about encountering a playgroup that was so competitive it would dictate what models (or even army) I could use in order to play, and at that point I wouldn't be playing the game that I want to play.

Plus, when you encounter them on the net they're often a lot more volatile and critical, so it can be rather intimidating, especially if you're a newbie on the Hive. I have seen a couple of people practically get driven off here due to some rather unsporting attitudes.

Still, it's important to approach everyone without bias, as most gamers are trying to build a list that they like, but that will also work. Most people are in the middle ground, and even most of the highly competitive players here admit they're competitive and don't give people hassle for liking the Pyrovore.

[coredump]

We should consider our terminology: (I can not claim these as 40K canon....)

Cheater: One that knowingly breaks the rules in order to win. (from lying about codex to 'measuring' 7-8" moves)

WAAC: One that will use every rule debate in his favor, and against you. Sometimes arguing different sides of the same rule depending on the situation.
Further, one that will knowingly take a break from you; but never give one in return. (ie. forgetting to shoot with a unit)

Competitive: One that optimizes his list to build the strongest list he can, and plays the game with legally winning as the top priority. Usually knows the rules, but will play by them in both directions.

Casual: One that builds lists for various reasons. Still plays to win, but does not put as much effort into optimizing his build nor his game actions.


All of the Competitive/Tourney players I know would never knowingly cheat. And most would correct you from making a rule mistake. (but not a tactics mistake)

[t⊗theark]

Sept 23, 2012 18:10:43 GMT wisdomseyes1 said:

Sept 23, 2012 6:49:44 GMT t⊗theark said:

This is true, does not mean one isn't playing a game. I'm sorry, I don't take 'if you're not trying to win than what are you doing' as a great argument, it's rather incredulous.

Why do we play the game? To have fun. Why do we have fun? Because the game presents some sort of challenge. If you take that away, you are having fun for different reasons, not because you are playing the game, but because you are enjoying the fluff or showing of the aesthetics of your models or... as Davor likes to to point out, because your playing pretend with toy soldiers (or in the case of Tyranids, Dinosaurs)

I think we're quintessentially disagreeing what a game is. Some definitions include:

"A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment."-Chris Crawford;

"A game is an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context." -Clark C. Abt;

""A game is a form of play with goals and structure." -Kevin J. Maroney;

-and so on. Just because there isn't much of a challenge, the outcomes have already been determined or there is no competition that does not really take away from it being a 'game'.

[wisdomseyes1]

-and so on. Just because there isn't much of a challenge, the outcomes have already been determined or there is no competition that does not really take away from it being a 'game'.

Sure, it's a game... just not the same game as the rest of us...

[blindmage]

@wisdom: Was away for the weekend and the thread exploded! We're a by the book group. We do use Forge Word stuff now and then. On very rare occasions (maybe once a year) they'll let me haul out my old Kroot lists or Necron raiders. Aside from that we're playing by the new book. I'll actually be having my first 6th game this week after being prodded by the rest of the group to come back.

[The DeathJester]

Have you ever been so good, you've had to reduce the effectiveness of your army.

[engangsgrill]

At chess, certainly, but not 40K. The simple answer though is to reduce the points alotted to the better player (be it at tactics, building lists or buying the better units in the first place). Make it an equally challenging game and both sides can have fun.