[jigplums]

My brother has a theory that there are two types of army

Those that are designed to win at all costs

those that are designed to make it look like you weren't realy trying to win, but wins anyway, so your opp doesn't sulk too much.

Armies designed to look like you dont care if you lose, or like to lose so that when you lose it doesn't look so bad.

Personally i think that may be a tad synical

 

[blkdymnd]

i agree, not everyone is out to win. I know lots and lots of people that care way more about a good fluff driven list than one that is out to win. So there is a fourth at least..

Armies designed for you to get more enjoyment out of the backstory and puts winning at a second priority

 

[pathwinder14]

I care more about how my army looks than winning. I like to win don't get me wrong, but if I lose I lose. It's no big deal.

 

[Jacobite]

I play Deamon Hunters need I say more? :lol:

 

[Jeridian]

i agree, not everyone is out to win.

I disagree. Are you telling me there are people who sit across from you at a table and think "oh, I really want to lose this game"?

Nope. Everyone wants to win. Not everyone factors their army list into this- some design their armies around a certain theme, or with models they like, etc....and then try hard to win.

Others, myself included, vary the challenge level- I could win most games with IW's or BA but that's like the 'easy' setting, it would get boring and no-one really cares if you can.
So I set at the 'medium', with non-ass cannon spam Marines, IG Drop Troops and Sisters.

Some are hard core and go for the 'hard' setting with Grey Knights, Orks, etc I'm not good enough for that yet.
Yet despite their choice they most likely still set up for a game thinking "so what do I need to do to win", rather than "oh great I can lose again".

 

[Jezlad]

My brother has a theory that there are two types of army

Those that are designed to win at all costs

those that are designed to make it look like you weren't realy trying to win, but wins anyway, so your opp doesn't sulk too much.

Armies designed to look like you dont care if you lose, or like to lose so that when you lose it doesn't look so bad.

Personally i think that may be a tad synical

Tell that good looking bastard to buy an army get on here posting and do the GT this year!

 

[blkdymnd]

i agree, not everyone is out to win.

I disagree. Are you telling me there are people who sit across from you at a table and think "oh, I really want to lose this game"?

No, but i am telling you that they are not caring one bit how the outcome actually comes out. They play for the fun of it and winning is secondary to how thier army looks or feels. I've known a few people like this over my 10+ years of 40k gaming.

 

[Stella Cadente]

I only play if I like the look of my army, so I have no cares about victory or defeat, unlike some people

 

[Too_hot_to_handle]

I play Deamon Hunters need I say more?

That yours is a Number 3?

Nope. Everyone wants to win. Not everyone factors their army list into this- some design their armies around a certain theme, or with models they like, etc....and then try hard to win.

So number 2 then

Yeah i think he's right

 

[Jacobite]

Quote:

I play Deamon Hunters need I say more?



That yours is a Number 3?

Yep pretty much :lol:

 

[Viscount Vash]

I think its probably Three types of army.

The win.
It does not matter if your trying to appear like you want the win or not, its all about the rules that get the win.

The Fluff.
Be it certain units or the army as a whole the background has determined the make up of it.

The Models.
I love that '............' and Im going to have one even if its not much cop in the game.


Im lucky enough to have multiple armies so I have some of each type I suppose, but Nobody makes a list to loose.

I have made 'Training lists' to give my Newb opponent a chance to learn about his army and not just watch me turn it into a nasty smear on the table. But even these will still have the ability to win.