Are you "competitive"?

[daedalus81]

Are you WAAC, narrative, or straight up just a points hater?  Make your mark.

[PraetorDragoon]

You might want to recheck spelling there. It's "If there is no story then it's boring." not "If there is not story then its boring"

[polarbear]

Extremely in my professional life. 

In Warhammer, don't care at all. It's an excuse to see my old friend from childhood. I have no ego involved in playing well.

[Trout]

I don't think this poll really covers the full spectrum. What about people who enjoy both competitive games and casual games? I enjoy building the most powerful list possible to play against other people who did the same and I like the more narrative casual style lists for playing against everyone else.

[Furious]

I don't want to get rolled every game. Unfortunately, that sometimes encourages me to up my army building to more competitive than I would have originally gone.

[BURF1]

I pick what I like and min/max it until I can't play it in casual games anymore.

[Aginor]

Hmmmm..... I tend to optimize more than I like to admit most of the time.

I still have fun losing games if it at least looks like a win could have been possible at some point.

I feel bad when winning too quickly or too often.

Choosing an army I like (visually, by reading lore, or by play style) is more important to me than choosing a strong one. I am angry about it being bad though. I like balance. Choice should not be between weak and strong but between styles.

 

...sooo... I think that's number two or three in your list. I chose three because if I can have fun losing I don't mind losing.

[jkav86]

I polled that I just like to get a game in. Its nice to win once and a while, but I've lost many a fun game.

[Killax]

2nd, play mono Khorne because I like it. Play their strongest Battalions sometimes, completely depends on how my opponent wants to play.

To date I still really see AoS like sparring for example, just discuss with an opponent how extreme you want to go with things and youll have a good time.
Note that this also applies to Narrative play aswell. Sometimes players love to create their own stories, some keep it at a single page, some write half a book...

[wayniac]

I am kind of in the middle.  I like to be somewhat competitive, but not soul-crushing competitive WAAC or resorting to spam lists and gimmicky tactics.  I care a lot about the story but I also don't want to lose every game because I play a thematic/somewhat fluffy type army that isn't pure cheese.

[Mikester1487]

Second for me as well.  Its fun to see how far the list you built takes you.  But at all times I just like to sit back and have a good game.

[RuneBrush]

I've gone for the "Happy to get games in" but I'm probably something between that and the next option up.  I like to run a list that will challenge my opponent and equally not be tabled either.

[shadowgra]

I won't but the last competitive choice just for being the guy that wins everytime, but i can see myself as a really competitive gamer. I do not stress my opponent however i really hate losing for a mistake i made, so i like to bring competitive list and i enjoy if my opponent does the same :). Finally one thing important for me is that i need to like the army i am building. I bought nothing but Nurgle and i will continue until i have everything i could ever need. Really like to build stories around my army!

[#SteveJames]

I always name my characters and try to come up with a bit of a back story. When I play I try to win and give my opponent a good game but,  would much rather loss a fun game and make new friends than table someone and have no fun. 

That's why I love tournaments it's cool to catch up with old friend and make new ones. 

[Galas]

"

If there is not story then it's boring.

"

Was my vote. I'm as casual as Candy Crush. At least from a competitive standpoint. From a narrative one? Doing a good narrative campaing is 100 times more work than doing a competitive tournament!

[Sleboda]

I don't really fit the poll options.

I accept and am fine with the essence of man being competitive. In fact, at tournaments I actually have a problem with players who do not give every game their all (it's unfair to all the other players there to give an "easy" game to only some of them).

That said,  I take no pleasure in beating the other guy (usually). I always try to do the best I can for me - intetnal competition, of a sort.

I don't react much to The New Hotness (for rules) in an attempt to win.  Hell, I had Stalkers in my TK army! Doh!

I play my share of "for the lulz" games too.

I love a game where the enemy is the game,  not the other players.  It really feeds the need to improve myself, but at the expense of no one else, and let's me roll with the narrative.  Black Plague is damn near perfection in this way.

[Deathmaster Snikch]

I know people who meet that first answer and they'd never admit it!

[Myzyrael]

I went for the second option, though I try to be the person going for the third more often.

Currently I'm a bit like conflicted. Just recently bought a Lord of Change for my Tzeentch army (which is my one and only even in the old world) but I see that the guy leads me to include more and more mages. I Don't have much else against armor but the strong magic phase kind of ruins the game experience for me and my buddies... completely tabled some ogors only losing like 20 chaos warriors... no fun for both Players. 

So I try to include variance and less tough stuff, but once the models are on the table I will utilize them best i can. No problem losing when it feels halfway fair without feeling like you restrict yourself too much. But this kind of Balance seems harder to achieve when your opponents arent maxing to some degree...

[angelust]

I think my #1 concern is having a relatively evenly matched game - i.e. I don't want to roll my opponent or be rolled - I want the game to start off mostly level.

That said, I enjoy more casual play where we can both use the models and units we personally enjoy- when my opponent is bringing a really basic and awesome looking Tamurkhan list, I can bring a pretty basic army with the models and theme I enjoy.

I just don't want to show up to a tournament with a pretty and casual Iron Jawz list and get rolled by Kunnin Rukk, or bring 18 skyfires against a Wednesday night game against a friend's casual Brettonia.

[EMMachine]

When I started playing tabletop (40k) playing was pushed to competitive play because the group I joined played that way and played tournaments.

I never liked the 0815 Meta Armybuilds, and tried to find my own style I could stand out with but mostly sucked at tournaments. When I started playing fantasy in 7. Edition (while 40k was in 5. Edtion most of the group left the game because there Metalists didn't work anymore).

Lately I pretty much started to hate competitive play because the only point is, to find the next broken combo to get an easy win, while the armies are as far away from looking like an army that could exist from the game like the range between sun and Saturn.

Wish I could play more storydriven but its hard to find people that didn't want to win at all cost. So I spend more time with painting and writing than playing (except for some 9th Age, because it's one of the only games the rest of my group wants to play).

[Mr. White]

I play BB for competition (ironically). I'm in the Mortal Realms for the story and narrative...that is Skirmish and Open Play/Narrative games.

[daedalus81]

4 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:

You might want to recheck spelling there. It's "If there is no story then it's boring." not "If there is not story then its boring"

Done - thanks.

I also added a 6th option for those that don't quite fit a mold.

[angelust]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

That is exactly my situation.  Many of us are emotionaly vested in certain models or themes.  When our models or themes are going to get rolled all the time because they arne't at the top of the GW bell curve, a lot of us will leave for greener pastures.  

Fortunately I've found the opposite experience - my opponents keep bringing weak lists that they like so I can comfortably downscale my armies and play with units that I like.

On the flip side, sometimes I genuinely like a model that plays more competitive than our casual meta, and I need them to catch up so I don't feel like such a douche using it. i.e. I spent a lot of time and love painting up Archaon, who isn't the very best by a stretch, but he's still hard for opponents to deal with using the armies they like to play. So I need their armies to catch up before I can comfortably start using him and just let loose.

[someone2040]

I voted I like to compete but don't stress cutting edge, but it was a hard call between that option and just happy to get games in.

I think I favoured the above, because at the moment I do crave a bit of competition. Mainly because I haven't actually gotten to compete in the last local event due to running it (and only competed in the event before due to odd players).

That being said, none of my armies are top tier competitive. And I like to strike a balance between a force that definitely has some potential, but isn't going to wreck face.

If anything, I'm happy to play any style of game, but I don't want to play games where one player is being steam rolled by the other. I want there to be tactical play during the game that decides the outcome, and not just because one player has a much better list.

[Ulf]

I'm not competitive at all in AOS. I think the strength of the game is in how loose & open the basic core rules are.

I'm super competitive in other games, that are built with that in mind, however. But AOS is the breath of fresh air I'd been hoping for; a casual/narrative approach that's actually intentional.