PDA

View Full Version : Your peferred way to play a game



Eternus
16-02-2012, 08:36
I guess this could apply equally to many types of games which are organised and played in a similar way to Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but I would like to ask how you prefer to organise your games. Really this is about whether you prefer to plan the type of game you'll play and agree in advance with an opponent which scenario and which armies you'll be using, or whether you prefer things to be more random and how much so. Also, how does increased randomness, not knowing in advance what the scenario will be or even which army you'll be facing, affect your own army selection?

Nito
16-02-2012, 09:08
I prefer to play against someone I know (simply so I don't come up against an ******), but I prefer random scenarios to

1) Avoid one-trick ponies
and
2) Add a bit of excitement to the game

Just my opinion though.


Also,

Also, how does increased randomness, not knowing in advance what the scenario will be or even which army you'll be facing, affect your own army selection?
When there's a random scenario, I make a fluffy list. If I know the scenario beforehand, I just have a tendency to unconsciously write up a catered list.

Dark Aly
16-02-2012, 09:15
I voted for unknown opponent and random scenario as I assumed by 'unknown' you were implying random or not pre-arranged and therefore I'd have no idea about which army I was to face.

Eternus
16-02-2012, 09:56
I voted for unknown opponent and random scenario as I assumed by 'unknown' you were implying random or not pre-arranged and therefore I'd have no idea about which army I was to face.

You assume correct. By 'unknown opponent' I do mean that you don't know what army you'll be facing.

Bloodknight
16-02-2012, 10:00
Next time I should read the thread before voting...

I voted unknown/known, assuming the latter is a person. If it's about the armies, then I prefer unknown/unknown.

Corvus Corone
16-02-2012, 10:13
I think a healthy mix is essential.

Obviously I play against friends a lot, because they're my friends! However I love playing against new people (it's a good way of making new friends, of course). Sure, you take the risk that they're not the kind of person you enjoy sharing a game with, but I find mostly I'm good at judging that without committing to a game anyway (e.g. if they're playing on a table near me and they seem cool, I'll see if they're up for a game afterwards).

As for scenario, again, variation is healthy. Sometimes its cool to throw down a challenge to a particular battle a day or two in advance so that both players can get psyched and come up with cool plans for the game, but also I like randomly generated games because they're more of a test for an army and encourage well rounded, robust lists.

Healthy variety.

zoggin-eck
16-02-2012, 12:13
Wow, I usually (always) hate polls, owing to how useless or one sided they can be, and usually they are created to try proving a point, but this is a pretty fun question mate :)

For me, I voted "pre-selected scenario, known opponent".

I always play against friends, choosing whichever scenario we feel like playing/have terrain to do it justice, be it form the books, white dwarf or website.

I guess until I read this poll, I was just continuing on assuming this is how everyone plays it :)

Tupinamba
16-02-2012, 12:57
I think a healthy mix is essential.

Obviously I play against friends a lot, because they're my friends! However I love playing against new people (it's a good way of making new friends, of course). Sure, you take the risk that they're not the kind of person you enjoy sharing a game with, but I find mostly I'm good at judging that without committing to a game anyway (e.g. if they're playing on a table near me and they seem cool, I'll see if they're up for a game afterwards).

As for scenario, again, variation is healthy. Sometimes its cool to throw down a challenge to a particular battle a day or two in advance so that both players can get psyched and come up with cool plans for the game, but also I like randomly generated games because they're more of a test for an army and encourage well rounded, robust lists.

Healthy variety.

My thoughts exactly.

vinush
16-02-2012, 13:00
I prefer to make a generic army list for my army, as do all of my opponents, and then we decide on the night who we're playing against and roll for scenario. It makes for a much more balanced playstyle. It also helps that we play in a friendly, non competitive environment as opposed to a competitive or tournament playstyle.

THE \/ince

zak
16-02-2012, 13:30
Not knowing what army or scenario your facing tends to make you go for a more balanced list. This is what we aim for and generally we only know who we are playing that evening when we arrive.

MasterValrik
16-02-2012, 13:33
All of the above..LOL, but picked unknown both.

Akkaryn
16-02-2012, 14:38
As my group is small but we all use multiple armies. We usually roll which army we will be using. In some cases we'll even roll which variation of said army we will use.

We roll for scenario but depending on mood we get one veto each) and we completely randomise terrain. We roll to see what coordinates of the field it will appear rather than just placing them in turns.

SunTzu
16-02-2012, 16:08
To my increasing frustration, I prefer to play a random scenario determined on the day. I like the idea of having to field an army that can cope with anything, it cuts down on cheese - but in practice it just means that (seemingly) every single game I play with my Warriors of Chaos, I roll the Dawn Attack scenario, and inevitably my strongest units always get forced to deploy in the corner of the table, facing off against 20 point units of Gnoblars or something equally irritating.

For armies, I'm easy either way; the only thing I expect is that if I tell my opponent what army I'll be using, he tells me what he'll be using (or vice versa). Once or twice I told an opponent what I'd be taking, I took a general-purpose army, and they turned up with an army designed to destroy mine. That didn't make for a fun game. So either we should both know in advance, or neither of us should.

Oh - and when playing games at my house (as we usually do) we roll on terrain tables similar to the ones in the old 5th Ed rulebook, ie. themed around civilised/wilderness/desert etc, instead of the completely random and stupid one in the BRB. As well as making for a more believable battlefield, the tables match the terrain in my collection.

arthurfallz
16-02-2012, 21:36
Since my group only plays casually, and is a finite size, we typically know who we're going to match up against. But we random roll the scenario.

Harwammer
16-02-2012, 22:26
Next time I should read the thread before voting...

I voted unknown/known, assuming the latter is a person. If it's about the armies, then I prefer unknown/unknown.

uuuuuh! I did the same mistake and would have made the same choice. Easy mistake as 'opponent' normally means 'other player' not army, so I'll try to shift the blame by saying the poll options were misleading!

Edit: I guess this highlights the importance of absolute coherence between the poll options and the post they go with.

WarmbloodedLizard
16-02-2012, 22:32
we pretty much always know what the other one will be bringing since we arrange games beforehand. we also play pitched battles 90% of the time.

bluemage
17-02-2012, 00:46
I also voted for known opponent and unknown scenario assuming that by known opponent you meant playing a friend as opposed to a pickup game. I prefer not knowing what army or scenario it will be.

Malorian
17-02-2012, 01:02
Why is there no 'Drunk' option?

rickie82
17-02-2012, 01:20
Why is there no 'Drunk' option?

This!
I have only played like 2 times while sober, and both sucked. I'f I'm able to make tactical corect desisiions after turn 4 I know someone has been watering down my drinks ^^

SilentTempest
17-02-2012, 23:05
I really don't like the idea of tailoring lists to face a certain army. Then it becomes as much about list-building as it does skill, and enjoyment of the game (at least for me it does). That said, I've always stuck to my playing group, so when I say that I prefer unknown opponent, I mean I just don't know which of my mates I'll be playing... Another thing I'll do sometimes is write multiple lists and select one at random once my opponent is known...

arthurfallz
18-02-2012, 02:35
I really don't like the idea of tailoring lists to face a certain army. Then it becomes as much about list-building as it does skill, and enjoyment of the game (at least for me it does). That said, I've always stuck to my playing group, so when I say that I prefer unknown opponent, I mean I just don't know which of my mates I'll be playing... Another thing I'll do sometimes is write multiple lists and select one at random once my opponent is known...

I'm not big on tailoring lists either, and I love this idea... I'm going to suggest it to my group to spice things up a little.

Gorbad Ironclaw
19-02-2012, 11:46
I really don't like the idea of tailoring lists to face a certain army. Then it becomes as much about list-building as it does skill, and enjoyment of the game (at least for me it does).

On the other hand by not building a generic all-comers list you might get to see some other options than you would normally see. Is the list going to be better at facing X and worse than facing Y than a generic list might be. Quite possible, but I don't think that always matters. That said, even if I knew what I was facing up ahead I'd be unlikely to tailor my list, but that's because I tend to tend to have a very clear idea of what I want from an army, build that and that's it. Anyway, slightly more on topic. What I've usually I'd arrange to play a friend, we will agree on what game we are playing and the point level and that's usually it. We might talk about what army we each want to play but that's sort of a different discussion to arranging the game. And scenarios and the like will almost certainly be randomly determined at game start unless either of us want to play something specific.

RanaldLoec
19-02-2012, 12:37
I arrange allot of games due to size and time required to set up and play.

I've not played a scenario in a while and I can't think why as I love the variety it adds to the game.

If I go to my local gaming group I prefere to know I've got a game rather than turning up to find no ones free.

I'm more than happy to play complete strangers.

The Low King
19-02-2012, 14:54
for speed i tend to play battleline a lot.

However, if i can i like the variation of scenarios.

I also much prefer not knowing the army before i write my lsit...if i know it i tend to just use an old list as the temptaion there to consider who you are playing as you write it is extreamly strong (even if you only do it subconsciously)

Eternus
22-02-2012, 15:01
I guess I better post my own opinion as well!

Personally, I prefer not to know what scenario we will be playing, but knowing what army you're facing allows you to form some kind of plan for how to use your army under different circumstances, so my vote goes for Random Scenario and Known Opponent. What I don't like personally is when you know what the scenario is and what army you're facing in advance, because I don't like games that have a chance of being decided before the first die is even rolled. Games should be fun, and that for me means both sides having a chance of winning, and the game being exciting, not predictable.