Poll Results: Prebuilt Armies

well 40k is a hobby, not just a game.  If you supply the list, the models, the scenario…all were left with is the game.

My idea was to have everyone bring a list of their own, but then random off armies to players (bearing in mind, internet people, this is between good friends not randoms so no one is gonna abuse our models).  This keeps your hobby in the game as you see your units, and your list, just not under your control.  The idea again being that you A) want to bring a balanced list in case you fight against or with it B) Learn other armies through actual play, not idle chit chat or codex skimming C) have fun

Oh, I’m totally a fan of that concept–but I like this idea as well. But I do think you probably hit the nail on the head there in that building someone’s army for them takes away from those other aspects of the hobby (to some degree). That does seem to be a succinct explanation.

My guess (I’m half of the people that said I’d be strongly in favour) is that while some people see a game of 40K as being a story; a roleplaying game in a way, others see it more as a game.

For those of us who’ve had loads of fun roleplaying (and who see gaming as a form of roleplaying), the idea of playing with a pre-built army is not just natural, but relaxing (I don’t need to bother doing anything pre-game), but liberating too.   It’s not ‘my’ army, so if I lose, it doesn’t ‘matter’.   My aim is to play the role of that army in that story.   If the role of the army is to put up a last-ditch defence and die to a man, knowing in advance what is expected frees me up to enjoy playing that role to the max.

I also see prebuilt armies as being a balancing factor.   True, they might be horribly unbalanced by anyone’s usual definition – but they will be balanced in terms of the goal of the story.   In a normal game, if you’re ever tempted to try something weak or new, a small part of you may be saying ‘but why – it’s going to be killed before it gets the chance to do anything’.

If you see the game more as a strategy game, then playing with someone else’s army is not just a handicap, it’s removing one of the main levers you have to influence the result of the battle (i.e. your army list design).   It’s possibly not so much about the (percieved) increased chances of losing, but the feeling that you didn’t really have the means to even fight to the best of your ability to achieve victory.

I wonder after reading this response if you like games like Memoir ’44? That game is packed with recreations of real life scenarios where there is an obvious imbalance to the game (since the forces weren’t balanced in the real battle)?

I’ve never played it, and don’t know anything about it.   Going back to the roleplaying thing though, it follows that to draw me in, I’ve got to find the character and/or the setting very interesting.   It’s not to say that nothing interesting happened in WWII, but I don’t automatically think ‘I’d love to play it’.

Actually, the other thing about roleplaying games is that they tend to be very personal.   i.e. you know the players and the storytellers usually.   So even something that doesn’t naturally appeal, if run by people you trust (or being played by people you like), I’m much more likely to be keen, even if the subject is something that doesn’t jump out at me.

For a prebuilt 40K game, i’m assuming that I’d be playing with friends (that’s basically the only time/way I play these days).   Some of them would run games I’d be less keen on, but others would run games I’d love to take part in.   Even those that went for things that didn’t appeal to me though (more high-fantasy, high-powered type stuff), as I’d be using their army, I would probably still enjoy it, as I wouldn’t feel I was trying to force the way I want to play (with my army) into someone else’s mold.

Careful, I might just bring my Daemons and hand them to the first person I see with a Bio-Titan!  Enjoy misshaping!  Kidding.

It’s an interesting idea, but I guess my only problem with it is that I don’t want to get stuck with an army or army build that I end up being bored with. 

It’s a process getting people to watch rolls already, and I can’t imagine having to continually find the owner of the army to ask which unit that Wolf Priest is.  I guess it would have to be really thought out – and 3,000 points might be a bit much to start something like this.  Maybe a 2,000 point per person limit with no Titans/Heavies that way you still get to learn about a large section of the armies units and how they interact, but don’t have to bug the armies owner so much about who is who or crazy special army rules. For instance Descent of Angel’s isn’t listed in the Vanguard Vet section – it is listed in the equipment section under Jump Packs.  The only way you would know Vanguard Vets get DoA in a BA army would be if you happened to read the Jump Pack section in the Equipment area of the rulebook which states that all infantry with Jump Packs has the special rule. 

I don’t know asses from elbows when it comes to Grey Knights, Tau, Eldar, or Guard, but I could find my way around Orks, Vanilla, Chaos, and Wolves pretty well.  How would we figure out who gets what army?  Would we base it on who wants to play what, or basic knowledge level of the army?  Handing me GK would be a grave mistake, but giving me Space Pups or Orks would be awesome.  I know basic things about them, I’m fairly familiar with the Codex itself, and I already know most of the army wide special rules (WAAAGH, and Counter Attack respectively).

I would strongly agree with 08ak1′s statement.

Consider a couple of other points:

1. A good Apocalypse game is not just a throw down, let’s see who shows up sort of game. The players invest time and effort to get there, get their armies together, sometimes even finish up last bits of terrain. So everyone has “skin” in the game.

2. After all that effort for preparations, to paraphrase 08ak1, “it’s about seeing how my guys/gals play their part”. Apocalypse is all about the story and for a lot of us, that story involves a character, unit, formation, etc. playing out their part. If you take that away, then you inadvertently depersonalize a key part of the game itself.

3. People pick the armies that they play for a reason. By giving them some other army to play, you invalidate that motivation.

It appears that you are attempting to make access to the game easier, which should be applauded, but I think removing the other part of the hobby also removes some of the fun…at least for me. Now would I play in such an event? Yeah, probably I’d give it a shot. Would I want to get involved in a campaign with the same mechanics…that’s not as attractive to me.

Note: Our group gets together to play Apoc about 2-3 times a year, outside of War Games Con. We usually field on the order of 15-20K per side, with something on the order of 2-4 people per side. We only allow painted armies (i.e. 3 color minimum) because it’s also about the spectacle for us. We play to a scenario (which your campaign will provide). Having seen Apoc games where people just bring all their stuff and then slam it together is Ok the first couple of times, but it really is the story behind the game that adds the spice.

Cheers,

well look at it this way, maybe if you did get GK’s you would learn them during the game and the next you play against them you would have a better understanding of what you were up against!  It’s like having fun while studying!

Filthy Ginger. iv seen enough porn to see where this is going.