How to build an army that is fun to play against - mindset and practicalities

[Antarius]

So, a bit of a spin-off from my thread about balance and fun - one of those subjects that alway seems to come up among hobbyists is how to build armies in a game that by its nature is not balanced (and very likely cannot be, but let's keep that discussion for another thread). While I am, broadly speaking, of the opinion that players should sort out things for themselves and make sure their expecations of a fun game/army are aligned, I also freely admit that it's a bit of a handwavium, more than a practical solution, in many cases.

 

So, I was thinking it might be fun to discuss what makes an army fun to play against and how to make sure that we actually create such armies ourselves - or at least try our best to do so.

 

To start us off, earlier this week, I was thinking about how many people enjoy army building and how almost nobody enjoys games that feels like it's decided before the actual game is played - so why is it that it is sort of difficult to strive for suboptimal armies? My own guess is that, among other things, there is a little bit of a prisoner's dilemma at play for many people ("if I don't create a "good" army, I'll just be tabled if my opponent creates a good army, so I'd better make sure my army is good") and then a sort of arms race quickly ensues, even among friends.

More philosophically, I think there is an interesting conflict lodged in the very concept of "war games". I know this might seem like pointless semantics and overthinking the issue, but I actually think it's pretty simple: we want a game that is fun for everyone, but we also want it to simulate (at least to some degree) war, where you're out to defeat the opponent and the last thing you'd think about is if things were "fair" or "fun" for the other side. Sure, you say, but what does that mean in practice? Well, I suspect that when we're conceptualising and building our army, we're much more in "war mode" than in "game mode" and we want to give our force the best possible chance of overcoming every conceivable challenge (I think this is the case even if we don't think of ourselves as competitive players; fluff-wise, all 40K armies are ruthless killers who are out to destroy the enemy). So I'm wondering what will happen if we try to flip this approach and concentrate more on how to make our army a fun army to go up against.

I don't pretend that this is some radical new innovation or that I have all the answers or anything like that - but I do think it would be fun to think about and discuss what we enjoy in armies we play against and how we can construct our own armies to be fun to play against (which doesn't necessarily mean building "bad" or ineffective armies, of course). So I'm curious to hear your ideas 

[gideon stargreave]

An army I would like to play against has the following features

 

1. some cool mechanic I have to take into consideration 

2. Caveat to 1, no nasty surprises

3. be killable at roughly the same rate as my own. I want to slay mighty beasts or remove buckets of chaff. I don’t want it to be futile.

4. To look awesome on the table. It must be painted.

5. To be thematic. I don’t want to play a list with seven dreadnoughts and three bikers unless it comes with a story.

 

[kabaakaba]

IMHO. I'm a casual/crusades/thematic player, so.

Always like to play against army what closely resembles lore. 

Not a something packed with combo-wombo. And it's at least painted somehow. Considering effectiveness it's the main scourge of casual play. Cause bringing current meta top build to thematic/fun event/play day is... Back in time time I'd play we just ignore that ppl. And even that way ppl bring that again and again.

[Teetengee]

Putting a list together of all the same defensive statlines is often pretty boring/frustrating to play against. Having a variety of different units so your opponent can have some more interest in the movement phase trying to maneuver their weapons to the right place to target your units, and also have to choose between targeting your most dangerous units or the ones most efficiently hit by each of their units weapons. You want to give your opponent meaningful choices to keep them engaged in the game.

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

Also a casual, crusade player chiming in here. I agree with the two frater above—no unpleasant surprises, if there are combos, they’re not insane or an “auto-delete” feature, and the biggest key is probably that the army is designed to look right based on its lore. This will usually mean taking more Battleline (old troops) units than typical competitive lists take, among other things. Maybe some more characters too. 
 

The one point I will add is regarding redundancy. Tournament and competitive lists require redundancy around key game pieces—you try to have two or even three of your best pieces so you can continue to execute the mission of your opponent kills one. 
 

For friendlier lists, redundancy is still a valuable concept, but it’s better achieved through different units that do the same thing (or very similar things, i.e., they overlap in roles to some extent). Rather than running 3 of the most efficient unit for a particular task (for example, 3 Vindicators) in a friendly Space Marines list, try 1 Vindicator and something else that fills the powerful ranged attack role. 
 

In my crusade list, to give a better example, I have 1 Ballistus dreadnought, 1 unit of Eradicators, and 1 unit of Hellblasters as my main ranged damaged dealers. I don’t change that based on which is most efficient at the time; I just run 1 of each all the time. That gives my opponents a chance to deal with whichever threat is extremely efficient while also giving me other options in game if, say, the Ballistus goes down early. 

[Karhedron]

My starting point for an opponent-friendly list is one which does not spam any particular unit. In fact I normally build "Highlander" lists (There Shall Be Only One!) where I do not include duplicates of any non-Battleline units. This can be hard for a few armies like Votann which have very small ranges but is a good principle.

 

I also try not to spam too much armour (which means I don't field my Imperial Knights very often). Basically I want my opponents to feel like all their weapons have viable targets and they do not have to kill an unreasonable number of targets of any given type.

[MARK0SIAN]

I always find it more fun to play against an army with a bit of variety in it. Variety in types of units, the power of units, the toughness of units and the playstyle of units. 
 

I also find it more fun (or maybe just less stressful) to play against an army that’s easy to understand. Armies that require too many layered synergies and buffs from different sources just become a chore for me to try and wrap my head around.

 

As a kind of side note to the above, I also find it more fun when it feels like my opponents army is playing the same game as me and is bound by the same rules. There’s been occasions in the past where people have been able to build armies that  ignore or change a lot of basic rules and it starts to feel like I’m playing checkers whilst the person on the other side of the table is playing chess. 

[Karhedron]

5 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

As a kind of side note to the above, I also find it more fun when it feels like my opponents army is playing the same game as me and is bound by the same rules. There’s been occasions in the past where people have been able to build armies that  ignore or change a lot of basic rules and it starts to feel like I’m playing checkers whilst the person on the other side of the table is playing chess. 

 

I know what you mean. I have found that this trend has diminished somewhat in 10th edition as the Detachment system is one-in/one-out. This means that you can't layer multiple sources of buffs on top of each other and you only ever have to account for a handful of Enhancements and Stratagems.

[kabaakaba]

is this army comfortable for you to play against? for 1000
 

Spoiler

Cadian Castellan 
Cadian Command Squad 
Commissar
Primaris Psyker
Tech-Priest Enginseer

20x Cadian Shock Troops 

Cadian Heavy Weapons Squad
Field Ordnance Battery
10x Kasrkin
Armoured Sentinels
Scout Sentinels
Valkyrie

nothing fancy nothing you can't kill, can kill your units. thematic army

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I know what you mean. I have found that this trend has diminished somewhat in 10th edition as the Detachment system is one-in/one-out. This means that you can't layer multiple sources of buffs on top of each other and you only ever have to account for a handful of Enhancements and Stratagems.

Yeah, I agree, it was more of an issue in older editions. 9th and some of 8th felt very much like that but it was also an issue in earlier editions. 

[Antarius]

38 minutes ago, kabaakaba said:

is this army comfortable for you to play against? for 1000
 

  Hide contents

Cadian Castellan 
Cadian Command Squad 
Commissar
Primaris Psyker
Tech-Priest Enginseer

20x Cadian Shock Troops 

Cadian Heavy Weapons Squad
Field Ordnance Battery
10x Kasrkin
Armoured Sentinels
Scout Sentinels
Valkyrie

nothing fancy nothing you can't kill, can kill your units. thematic army

I think I would be very comfortable playing against it; I think it tells a story, includes units I consider iconic to the army, feels like a "real army" and not just a bunch of tricks and doesn't seem to have any units that would be impossible to deal with. I don't know if it's "weak" or not, but I would hope it's also reasonably effective at playing the objectives etc.

[Antarius]

Thanks for your replies everybody; lots of interesting ideas to consider  I'll come back with some of my own thoughts on army construction later, but just wanted to pop in and say I appreciate you all taking the time!

[Arikel]

Still running my classic half company with scout and 1rst company for the most part. Haven’t played anything over 1k points in years so they don’t all fit. For 10th been using the last version of the index as the codex retired a bunch of first born so I haven’t bothered to pick it up yet.

 

Last list I ran had I think 2 tac squads (PP/CS/MG/ML and tbe other had CW/PF/PG/PC), 5 man shooty termies with Cyclone,  a Firstborn command squad, Bob the dreadnaught (MM/SB), alexei the tech marine (PP/Axe) and my Vanguard Vet Sgt (BP/RB) as Acting Captain

 

I have a rhino/razorback, 5 man sniper scouts, a vanguard squad on foot, a 3rd tac squad and a few other things I can toss in (devs, assault marines, chaplain with bike, foot libby, an LRR that usually only comes out in bigger games) but the core is always 2-3 tac squads with appropriate support that a single company task force might bring with them. I haven’t really branched into the whole primaris thing yet, not enough to make any full squads yet, but  that will come eventually I suppose.

[ThePenitentOne]

I tend to play with other folks who, like me, see 40k as a roleplaying game with minis. So what drives games is always the narrative, and if folks are in on they narrative, they've probably had a hand in shaping how my army grew.

 

We also always start small- 500 points. I'm too slow to point 2k points, and my army's ability to escalate is always curtailed by my dinosaur pace. Fortunately, many of the folks I play with suffer from the same limitation, so we grow the abilities of our 500 point armies rather than focusing too much on the escalation aspect.

[ThaneOfTas]

As others have said, variety is the spice of life and of list building.  Playing against a list that is just 3 or 4 units repeated 3 times each is really not very fun, even if it is the best option for them, (players of smaller factions obviously get more of a pass here). 

 

I also tend to have more fun fighting armies that are designed to fight on similar terms as me. In 8th and 9th I had a lot of frustration playing against a friend of mines Tau as it seemed that they were only playing half of the game that I was. Focusing entirely of shooting and movement, while doing everything possible to avoid melee and psychic, wasn't particularly fun when may army was primarily Melee, but I had made a point to be able to do a bit of everything. Honestly this goes for most skew lists, although I have often had a bit of fun fighting Knights at least. I think in this particular case, It was at least partially due to this friend constantly castleing up his Tau. As a play style it was very un-interactive and left me with limited options. Even though I won fairly often, I left the game feeling as though I may as well not have bothered. In comparison, Tau wen played in an aggressive manner are much more fun in my experience.

Edited May 21 by ThaneOfTas

[kabaakaba]

2 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

As others have said, variety is the spice of life and of list building.  Playing against a list that is just 3 or 4 units repeated 3 times each is really not very fun, even if it is the best option for them, (players of smaller factions obviously get more of a pass here). 

 

I also tend to have more fun fighting armies that are designed to fight on similar terms as me. In 8th and 9th I had a lot of frustration playing against a friend of mines Tau as it seemed that they were only playing half of the game that I was. Focusing entirely of shooting and movement, while doing everything possible to avoid melee and psychic, wasn't particularly fun when may army was primarily Melee, but I had made a point to be able to do a bit of everything. Honestly this goes for most skew lists, although I have often had a bit of fun fighting Knights at least. I think in this particular case, It was at least partially due to this friend constantly castleing up his Tau. As a play style it was very un-interactive and left me with limited options. Even though I won fairly often, I left the game feeling as though I may as well not have bothered. In comparison, Tau wen played in an aggressive manner are much more fun in my experience.

i can say from other side of your frustration that being basicaly a shooting army with very limited access to psychic powers that there is half a game many armies try impose me to play. i don't like khorne demons for eample in melee but it's not mean it's not fun to outmaneuver them and shoot from distance. or die and that was frustrating. cause i have no chance in melee. still it's the same game. 

[Pacific81]

Really interesting idea for a topic and I will say it's a shame more people don't consider it when they are playing!

 

I am extremely fortunate with my playing group in that we have tremendous freedom to mix and match games systems, miniatures etc.

Most recently in between Necromunda, One Page Rules and old Epic we've been playing 2nd edition 40k - that version you *absolutely* could make your opponent have a miserable day with any number of broken combinations. I'm sure even younger gamers with no experience of the game will have heard of the horrors of virus & vortex grenades, polymorphing super-assassins and five men Wolf Guard all armed with cyclone missile launchers & assault Cannons! So, quite simply, we don't use that stuff.

We all work, have families etc and have too little time for hobby activities. Why we would do that to each other and ruin our evening's entertainment? (You do it once of course, for a laugh, but that's it!)

 

I understand context is very important, but even when playing against someone you don't know, I think it's doubly important to be conscientious. It's a shared social experience. I think I actually get more satisfaction from knowing my opponent has enjoyed themselves than I do, but YMMV.

[Stealth_Hobo]

22 hours ago, Karhedron said:

My starting point for an opponent-friendly list is one which does not spam any particular unit. In fact I normally build "Highlander" lists (There Shall Be Only One!) where I do not include duplicates of any non-Battleline units. This can be hard for a few armies like Votann which have very small ranges but is a good principle.

 

I also try not to spam too much armour (which means I don't field my Imperial Knights very often). Basically I want my opponents to feel like all their weapons have viable targets and they do not have to kill an unreasonable number of targets of any given type.

 

I've always been a fan of "take a bit of everything" type of lists and nowadays I really like highlander games, especially for smaller-sized games. I just enjoy having a limited set of tools at my disposal and the tactical challenge comes trying to make the best use out of those tools. 

 

What I don't enjoy playing against is the opposite of that, so one trick pony or spammy lists.

[Rogue]

In the context of playing against friends (rather than pick-up games against strangers), I've found that fun games have been ones that take the opponent's limitations into consideration.

 

For example, one of my regular opponents is building up a Tyranid force. Until recently, he didn't have much that could deal with my heavier vehicles. Once we'd realised that, I stopped including them in my lists (until just recently, as he's now got some anti-armour bugs).

 

At the same time, he didn't just lean into an anti-infantry build (knowing that that's what I'd have to bring). 

 

In that sense, part of the list design process is thinking about your opponent's army at a practical level. Yes, Tyranids (as a faction) can deal with armour, but these Tyranids can't, so going full Outlander Claw isn't going to produce a fun game.

[kabaakaba]

I'm again and again returns to 7th(kind of PTSR) when you ask your potential opponent "is your army built? - yeap. painted? - yeap. some meta overpower? - noooo. fine." going to FLGS(for minute its 30miles away from my home) and sees half builded mostly unpainted(not even primed), half of units is proxied. and that meta top... it's not like im against meta, but all together it looks not good. i'm fine to not win at all. but common... pile of unpainted unconsistent plastic. that army im uncomfortaple to play against

[Tawnis]

For me, I find that if I build a list within some kind of thematic restriction, I still get the same joy out of making the best list I possibly can, but it balances it out a little against less experienced players. This makes it more assailable for newer players, and much more obvious at a glance what my list does, this in turn gives a newer player more of a clear idea of a strategy they can use which make it a lot more fun out of the gate than stating at an army that you have no idea how it's going to work. 

 

For example, in something like Necrons, when I run Annihilation Legion, I'd only play Destroyer and Flayed units, (though I might thematically toss in a Nightbringer) and nothing else which restricts the kind of support the army can have. Or I might go hard into a less optimal detachment and play it the best I can, something like running First Company in Space Marines and getting as much use out of Terminators and the other Veterans as is possible. Otherwise, (and I know not everyone can do this) I'd run an whole army that is underperforming, like busting out my Imperial Agents list. 

There is also part of me that enjoys the uphill battle, I ran Kroot as my main army since 8th edition and until the Ta'u codex in 10th when they finally became very good, they were mediocre at best. Even so, taking wins off of players with objectively better lists made up for the games I lost and then some. I think most people that enjoy things like the Soulsborne games can find some fun in this mentality as well. 

Edited May 21 by Tawnis

[Antarius]

Personally, I tend to think of the following things as fun to play against, as well as things I just like to see in both my own and opponents' armies:

- Basic troops (I guess, battleline units in 10th), especially ones that feel essential or iconic to the faction. For example, Space Marines in power armour, Imperial Guardsmen or the various kinds of Gaunts. I generally think 10th edition seems to have succeeded at making these units useful as well, but that's just an added bonus.

I also tend to think multiples of these units are fine and dandy, whereas I dislike doubling up on most other choices (unless we're talking really big armies).

- Units (and armies as a whole) that can do a bit of everything. The received "wisdom" seems to be that these units are trash, because they aren't specialised, but I find that they tend to make for more fun games, especially if both armies bring them.

- Units that have highly situational abilities. More or less the same as above, but with the addition that it's usually fun to try and bring the situations where these units will shine about. And I always feel good when my opponents manages to do the same, simply because it's cool, thematic and it's only fair their efforts are rewarded. I mean, if I have a unit that can climb walls, it's not exactly a game-winner, but it's always fun to see if I can actually use it for something, like getting at an objective from an unexpected angle.

 

- Units that change certain aspects of the table/mission parameters (obviously much less so, if they're overpowered). An example would be booby traps or similar. I like these types of units, because they a) are thematic b) present me, as opponent, with interesting choices (do I go through that boobytrapped area or do I go around it)

 

- Units that force me to decide what to do about them (although this can of course be annoying, depending on the unit and situation). For example, I played a 750ish points game the other day and my opponent brought a Defiler that I didn't really have an answer for. But rather than ruining the game, it actually turned out to be good fun trying to avoid it and accepting that my strategy would have to be to cede part of the table and win by scoring other objectives (and of course, the Defiler was a big chunk of his army, so it was possible for me to dominate in other areas).

 

- Redundancy that's not dependent on doubling up on units. For example, bringing several dfferent vehicles or anti-vehicle units, rather than doubling or tripling up on the same units.
It's not that I can't appreciate a thematic army that is skewed in one direction and/or includes several of the same units if it fits the theme, but I also think those are best announced in advance, perhaps even tailoring the scenario to match.

[Antarius]

One thing I genuinely find difficult at times is how to merge my love for thematic armies with "non-annoyingness". Especially when those armies either naturally lean towards one-sidedness or have to lean strongly into certain mechanics.
For some armies, it's obviously not a problem - for example, I have a lot of Poxwalkers that I expect I'll use when I eventually play my Death Guard army and they have that returning/multiplying mechanic, but those also feel cool to play against, because everybody loves gunning down zombies. My old WFB Ghoul-heavy Vampire Counts army was probably less fun, even if the theme was awesome, because the army sort of "broke" several of the game's basic mechanics, even though I tried to rein it in, while listbuilding.

To some degree, I think this is a question of thinking "yeah, this is thematic, but before I get started on this army, is it really a theme that's going to be fun on the table?". I mean a ruthlessly efficient, heavily armoured siege force is dead on for Iron Warriors or Fists, but if the theme can be brought out without bringing three Vindicators (or whatever thing that's going to really skew a list these days), maybe it's just not a theme that needs to be represented to its fullest. This is where things can get rather tricky if you, or your opponent, just really loves an idea that's difficult to pull off in a balanced faction.

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

Largely I think it comes down to having an honest assessment of which units are overpowered or extremely efficient for their points, and avoiding spamming those particular units, even if the army as a whole keeps to a theme. There’s a lot of ways you can do this. 
 

Take an Imperial Fists siege force, for example. Instead of 3 Vindicators, like you suggested, perhaps run one Vindicator and one Gladiator Valiant, and then take some Eradicators to all represent the up-close, wall-breaching element of the force. 
 

This is often going to be easier to achieve with Marines, Guard, or factions with similarly diverse rosters. It will be harder with smaller or newer factions. For those, theme may have to be adjusted a bit more as well. 

[apologist]

An excellent topic; thanks @Antarius. Collaborative wargaming – with a spirit of competition running alongside that of telling a story together – has given me the best experiences of wargaming, and finding an army that:

• You think is cool
• Is fun to play with
• Is fun to play against

... is surprisingly difficult to find!

 

Much of the discussion above has swirled around the pre-game discussion – and I think that social aspect of wargaming is fundamental to making armies that are fun to play against. Different groups and individuals have their own preferences; which is where the idea of a 'competitive meta' comes from.  My experience has been that 'go hard or go home' players tend to favour explicitly competitive events (like tournaments) and take armies that exploit a particular element of the rules; whatever the supposed gaming setting. In a lot of games, that tends to mean maximising particular unit or wargear choices, and minimising others. Likewise players who are after a more social event tend to take more varied forces and favour non-tournament gaming events.

These are, of course, sweeping generalisations, and so I want to make clear that I've had fun great games with players both in competitive environments and in non-competitive settings – what really makes the difference is the attitude of the other player(s) involved, and what they're looking for.

 

A parallel discussion might be the nature of themed armies. I've often seen found the idea of themed armies conflated with 'highly specialised' – as in your example above of three Vindicators in a siege force. However, an army could just as easily be themed around 'reinforced platoon', with a bit of this and a bit of that, and no more than one of anything. Placing restrictions on making certain choices, whether they're compulsory – you must have X number of unit(s) – or limited – you may not include Y – is a rules-led sort of theming. It's useful for a central rulesmaker, but is not inherent in the idea of a fun, themed army.