After some rather heated discussion in our Age of Sigmar group following Battleplan 2 of the Path to Glory Campaign, the 3 types to play Warhammer (both 40k and Sigmar) came up, and I thought to share some thoughts and opinions on the matter.
Disclaimer. I do not consider myself an expert in any shape or form. I just have a number of games and editions behind me, mostly casual competitive (what we currently refer to as "matched play"), some tournament play and one and a half narrative campaigns.
So, right into it. The first and foremost rule is to be upfront about what you want to accomplish. After the local community got into competitive/tournament-style gaming, I find this rule the most important in any kind of game. On forums, this is referred to as "the gentleman's agreement". In short, negotiate with your opponent. Do you want a competitive game with efficient lists? Do you want a narrative game with a custom scenario? Do you want to break out some models you never use because they suck in the current meta? These are all goals that can be accomplished, and the game can be fun, as long as both players are on board.
Case in point, look at this hot mess: the first game of my first narrative campaign. I wrote the story, and my opponent decided that he did not want to see the scenario before playing. He wanted to be surprised and immersed, like into a video game. And so I told him: I took the scenario out of the book. I don't know whether it's balanced or not. (We read it on the spot together and it seemed fair at first glance.) I'm playing an army that I have a rough grasp of, but no hands-on experience so far. (He saw my list on the spot.) His own list was built after a couple of iterations, as I set out some rough guidelines based on the narrative and at first he picked them apart with a tournament player's eye for detail and gaming the system. Both of us simply had to shake off the competitive mentality. Win or lose, there's more than that, as we had the whole campaign progression and RPG elements going on. So this was the overall mindset we had going into the game. And it was not a very good game, as I proceeded to curbstomp the Imperial Fists with what I originally thought of as a mediocre list. I mean who brings bikers? It turns out, when you both play "down", mediocre units can become good. But guess what? After the game ended, came the after-game rolls. And we were sweating buckets as the life of characters we were both invested in hung in the balance of dice rolls. (Because I had the Fists player create his own command staff of characters, each with a short background story. And I custom-built a character progression for each of them.) There was real excitement and real drama, even though the game had already ended.
The scenario can be very important in a narrative game (as they tend to be asymmetrical and sometimes wonky). However, as long as you abide by the first rule, you can work around that. Some scenarios even include suggestions on list building. Talk to your opponent. If one of you is trying his best to game the scenario, while the other one is trying to tell a story, it's not going to be fun for at least one of you.
Come to think of it, there is no other rule. Talk to your opponent. Just tell him what you want to accomplish. He may not agree, and you can still have a fun game by meeting in the middle, or doing what he wants. Or just don't play at all if you can't reach an agreement.
This narrative campaign was a decisive point in buying my first scouts. :)
ReplyDelete