Open Play? "Let's read" the General's Handbook

[Nin Win]

One thing I have discovered in my research into whether or not to get into Age of Sigmar is that most people don't seem to have any real concept of how to do Open Play in a way that works.  I saw numerous forum and blog posts criticizing Age of Sigmar for launching with the approach.  Including crazy ideas like it's about putting your entire collection on the table at once so whoever buys more wins (or I guess paints faster?).

Ask yourself honestly, if you had to set up an Open Play game right now, could you?

So this is going to be a "let's read" thread focused on a positive, practical take on Open Play.  Starting on page 9 of the General's Handbook.  We'll cover at least a page per day [Edited:  Ha!  Work got in the way of that for sure!] and can quote things and talk about them.  Hopefully we can shed some light on this paradoxically most simple and most misunderstood way to play.  I'll put quoted text in a different font rather than in quotes to make it easier for anyone who wants to respond in this thread.  Feel free to read along and comment or present your own take.  

If you have negative things to say about Open Play feel free to express yourself but I would like to ask that things stay on topic.  So anything negative should only be posted in the light of how we might go about making Open Play actually work.

What is Open Play for?

Page 10: "Brilliant ideas are sometimes the simplest, and open play games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar epitomise this. Open play is a style of gaming that allows you to take to the battlefield with any army, made up of any Citadel Miniatures from your collection – no restrictions. It’s as straightforward and streamlined as wargaming gets, and it’s a great way to begin, as you can be sure of exciting battles from day one."

Open play is about getting to the actual game.  It's about options.  The word "streamlined" is a reference to vehicle design.  A boat that cuts easily through the water or a car that doesn't drag in the wind.  It's about reducing resistance so you can just get to where you are going.

Why is Open Play "a great way to begin?"

Imagine a couple of young teenagers or even pre-teens going to their local game or comic shop and seeing boxes of cool miniatures.  They buy the ones they think are awesome and they also get a copy of the rules from the employee working there or possibly from GW's website.  They build/paint their miniatures, pull out their warscrolls and maybe set up some books and other household items as a battlefield to fight over.  And start playing.

So how do you begin?  The same way.

Page 10: "All you need to play an open play game are your painted miniatures, their warscrolls, the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet, a set of dice, a tape measure, and a flat surface on which to play. Then, just set up your models and start having fun!"

It isn't just about kids playing shallow games though.  The Open Play section in the General's Handbook is 10 pages, not just a paragraph.  As well, the other sections of the General's Handbook as well as other publications are often full of things you can use for Open Play.  These include battle plans, time of war rules, creating your own scenarios, your own special rules, as well as a lot of the material that people normally associate with the other ways to play.

The list of what you need at a minimum is really quite short.  One thing I do like is the assumption that the miniatures will be painted.  Even in the games described as being the most appropriate for beginners.

Page 10: "This style of gaming is perfect for beginners, who may not yet own a complete collection of miniatures."

The size of the collection?  What an interesting thing to bring up.  One thing I've found in my reading of various reviews, forum threads and blog posts about Age of Sigmar is that it generally supports a lower model count than either 40k or it's predecessor Warhammer Fantasy Battle.  This makes it easier to get into for new players and Open Play is a far, far more reachable goal than building a matched play army of a particular points value, number of battle line units and so on.  This also should provide a valuable clue as to where to get started.  Smaller games.

When Age of Sigmar launched I read about it and people expressed that they honestly believed that the game was meant to be played with as many miniatures as you can jam onto the table as possible.  With the winner being the one who can outspend or outpaint their opponent.  

What exactly is a "complete" collection of miniatures?  In many forms of collecting, that would mean one of everything.  A complete set.  So if you're into Stormcast Eternals it might mean one of every kit.  Others might take a formation chart that shows how many Liberators there are in a given fictional force and see collecting all of that as having a "complete" collection.  However we end up defining complete, it's used here as a point of contrast.

It's probably best to start with whatever you definitely would not call complete.  Perhaps just a few kits worth of miniatures per person.  Of course you can jam an enormous amount of miniatures on the table and have an epic battle, but if you are at all unsure about Open Play, it'd recommend taking the introductory advice to heart and use it like you're approaching the game fresh for the first time. 

But what about...

If my opponent owns more models than me and can flood the table, so I don't stand a chance?  But what about if a wizard just keep summoning daemons every turn?  But what about if one player has an advantage?  But what about... but what about... but what about.

If you find those kinds of questions rising to mind, you may be overly concerned with theoretical problems that don't necessarily exist.  Lots of them come from not trusting your fellow hobbyists.  From seeing her or him as someone you need the rules to protect you from as if they were a threat to your fun.  You may hold to the idea that a game is to be played against someone rather than with them.   If that describes you at all, I invite you to join me in this "let's read" Open Play process.

So the next post will finish up with the introduction to Open Play that continues onto page 11.  It talks briefly about armies and crazy ideas you might try and then leads into the multiplayer section that follows.  

[Nin Win]

On to page 11: "Rather than structuring your collection around a particular allegiance (see page 156), you can be inspired by the diverse and mystical nature of the realms, or simply by the models you most admire."

Usually people really gravitate to a particular look or feel of a range of miniatures.  Or the concepts behind them in terms of the fiction.  There are those however, that have wide ranging tastes.  Or who get really inspired by a new release.  For example at the time of this post the latest release for Age of Sigmar was the Kharadron Overlords.  And there may be those like really like the new sky ships but don't really have anything else that matches their style in their collection.  In Open Play you can have the Grundstok Gunhauler show up alongside your skaven if you really want to.

It's often easier to justify things in narrative terms after the fact rather than worry about it before hand.  Despite being an order unit, it's possible that the mercenary nature of the Overlords has lead to a situation where they are willing to support a group many would assume they would never side with normally.  Even if the Skaven are reprehensible, firing on their enemies in that particular moment makes sense for the larger plans of the sky captain.

If having your army grounded in the fiction of the mortal realms is important to you, I would suggest making the decision about what you want to see on the table first and then worry about justifying it after the fact.  We have a natural ability to fold events into a cohesive narrative and our instincts are more than sufficient for the purposes of why disparate forces might be working together.

Paint What You Like

One of the strengths of being flexible in terms of what models are used in a game is that it opens up the entire range of miniatures for painting.  Even if the majority of the models in a range don't really speak to you, if there's one that you think is awesome, you can paint it up and get it on the table.

Conversion Possibilities

The other thing setting aside allegiences allows for is to make traitorous or redeemed versions of kits that would not normally work with a particular allegience.  For example, with the activity of Tzeentchian cults in major cities, it's totally possible for a group of free guild mercenaries or soldiers to fall under the sway of Chaos.  When the time has come to throw secrecy aside, perhaps the cultist militia will dress in the garish colours of Tzeentch while they bring their freeguild handguns to bear for the powers of Chaos.  Or perhaps that Grundstok Gunhauler was captured by a warlock engineer and the crew can be replaced with left over figures from a Skaven kit.  Their vessel now glowing with the pale sickly green of warpstone and the bearded faces and emblems replaced with Clan Skyre symbols.

The other thing a completely open approach to army building lets you do is get things on the table for a new faction while you are still building your collection.  You may have an army of a particular allegiance or faction but something else has caught your eye.  And while you do plan on making a collection for that new faction, the flexible nature of Open Play lets you put things on the field as you paint them.

But what about...

At this point I'm sure some of you are thinking about how this could all go wrong.  About how someone might pick things from across factions in order to make the strongest possible force.  About how they could justify filling in the weaknesses of their faction with stuff from another.  About how such flexibility will surely lead to abuse.  Again, I think this shows a profound mistrust of your compatriots in this hobby.  And it's a fear based entirely on the potential for problems rather than addressing actual play experiences.  It also seems to be bringing into Open Play ideas from somewhere else.  That Age of Sigmar is somehow only about equal forces chosen from game designer approved lists of models.  Open Play is about so much more than that.  So take the opportunity to...

"... set yourself unusual challenges"

Page 11:  "For instance, you could discover how many Stormcast Eternal Liberators it takes to bring down your friend’s Khorne Bloodthirster, or maybe see how long a Lord-Celestant could fight off the noxious attentions of a Nurgling horde."

All the unfair stuff that you fear someone else doing in a game might actually be fun.  It may not be the negative experience some of you might fear.  When I was looking into Age of Sigmar people cautioned against using large and powerful heroes and behemoths in smaller games.  And yet here we find it right in the section meant for new gamers with lower model counts.

This also introduces a gaming technique that most people simply don't use.  Recycling models back onto the table.  The Lord-Celestant fighting off endless Nurglings requires eliminated Nurgling bases to be brought back onto the table as new units.  A smaller collection might limit the amount of a particular unit you can have on the table at one time, but it doesn't have to limit the amount that appear on the table over the course of a game.

One of my first miniature gaming experiences was a World War 2 scenario based on the beach landings at Normandy.  The Allied victory there was assumed in the game.  So the American forces landing there were recycled as reinforcements that landed in waves later in the game.  The German defenders received no such reinforcement.  The game was about the cost of taking those beaches.  

The scenario would be ideal for Open Play in Age of Sigmar.  Endless Nurgle Daemons assail a small band of Stormcast who need to keep the daemons from a Realm Gate as long as possible.  How long will they hold against infinite waves of recycled plague bearers, nurglings and drones before the endless foul tide inevitably breaks through?  Or perhaps the Nurgle daemons are defending against the assault of a battalion of Freeguild who are determined to smash the standing stones that allowed them to invade from Grandfather's garden.  How many freeguild soldiers will fall in sacrifice in order to save their town from the horrible plagues that will result if this infestation is not dealt with.

Multiplayer Games

Page 11:  "Besides giving you freedom to do more on the battlefield, open play games are also perfect for battles between multiple players."

The page ends with a brief paragraph on multiple players playing on the same table.  Page 12 begins the short section on Multiplayer Games, so that's up next.

An Art Detour

Jumping ahead to page 13 we find a full page piece of art depicting a dual between a Blood Thirster and a Lord-Celestant on A Star Drake.  The storm rages above and below (not shown in the portion I included here) hosts of stormcast and khorne daemons clash.  The forces clashing below are painted to give an impression which contrasts nicely with the clear detail of the two combatants featured in the art.  I recommend taking a closer look at the piece in your copy.

If you were to replicate this art on the table top in a scenario, what would you do?  A battle between two single models can be pretty linear and each opponent having only one element to move around the table means the game might be based on how long the Lord-Celestant can keep away from the Blood Thirster, blasting it apart with lightning and comet strikes before closing to finish it off.  Either way if you and a friend both decide to build and paint a huge monster kit each, it would probably be entertaining to have them duel at least once.

[SuperHappyTime]

On 5/7/2017 at 8:40 AM, Nin Win said:

Page 10: "All you need to play an open play game are your painted miniatures,

This is just my two cents, but miniatures don't need to be painted to have an Open Play Game.

[Nin Win]

For those that want to play without painting their miniatures first, obviously they'll still work.  I happen to like GW's presentation that painting is a core part of their process.  Their Collect Build Paint Play marketing is a really nice summation of the hobby.  If people are interested in dropping one of those elements to get to another quicker, they'll obviously be able to do so.

I just happen to like that the assumption from the beginning is that things will be painted.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, SuperHappyTime said:

This is just my two cents, but miniatures don't need to be painted to have an Open Play Game.

Miniatures don't have to be painted to play Matched or Narrative either. But it should be strongly encouraged.

[wayniac]

CAUTION: LONG POST AHEAD!

I have long considered how to approach Open Play.  I think the main concern in general is how to make things "fair" in the sense of not being a lopsided battle (I'll leave the Matched Play definition of "fair" as in as much being equal as possible out of this, because I think that's an extreme version of "fair" that is best suited to tournaments).  The issue is, it's insanely hard to correctly judge the different warscrolls in AOS to determine what makes a game enjoyable.  The main argument I see though about Open Play revolves around a "but what if?" scenario, as stated in the OP:

• What if my opponent brings 400 models to my 40?
• What if my opponent brings all monsters?
• What if my opponent chain summons and floods the board?

To me, this is a fundamental lack of communication.  Open Play is NOT something you just decide on a whim to do; Matched Play is conducive to the pick-up game scenario where you can literally go down to the local GW/game store/club and ask any random person who happens to be there if they have an AOS army and, if so, if they want a game.  "Matched Play, 2000 points okay?" is about the gist of the conversation.  I think that Open Play requires a lot more open (pun intended) mind and actually discuss the sort of game you want, which I find is something people tend to not want to do because it takes too much time or the two players can have vastly different viewpoints; imagine for example someone who wants to run an entire army of monsters against someone who doesn't have much to handle that; this is not an enjoyable game and as a result it's unlikely that these two will have fun in an Open Play environment.

What I have noticed across forums, communities and even life is that people will travel the path of least resistance whenever possible.  Often, people are afraid to compromise or try things if they even remotely feel it won't be "worth" the effort; everything has to be quantifiable.  So you see Open Play demonized with a slew of hypothetical situations whereby one person (typically always the other person) goes into the game with no desire other than to "break" the system, often just because they can.  As a result, you see the hypothetical boogeymen:  Ten Nagashes, chain summoning daemons, fielding 500 models when your opponent has 20, fielding nothing but the best units in the game.  I saw one vehement anti-Open Play person specifically state that:

Quote

Because if you don't have points the only limit on how powerful your army can be is how many models you're willing to buy. One player can bring a "normal" army while the other can literally fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game. And because it is a competitive game anyone with the ability to buy that many models is going to do it every time and win effortlessly.

Their reason for this was simply because there was zero reason NOT to do it (except the fact of not being a lousy player and your opponent having fun too, but I find far too many people have this attitude that their fun only comes from winning games, everything else be damned).

So, the question becomes how does one approach Open Play?  Let me preface by stating that this is hypothetical, as I have not been able to try it (I play in a group that is mainly worried about "balance" and would probably be too afraid to try open play), however I have at least one close friend and regular opponent who would try it, so maybe I can put it to the test.

First, we have to establish some form of guidelines for picking armies.  We may not use "points", but "pick whatever you want" is far too open and ripe for abuse, because you run into the aforementioned "I can take 500 models to your 20" because there is no limit.  So what I propose is coming up with a rough set of guidelines.  For Open Play this probably needs to be part of a conversation, which might go something like:

Quote

 

Me: Let's take 5-6 warscrolls, with a couple of heroes and up to 1 monster.  I'm thinking of taking two blocks of ghouls, a big unit of horrors, a courtier for each unit, a varghulf, a ghoul king on foot and a ghoul king on terrorgheist.

Him: I really want to try my new Huskard on Stonehorn, so could I have more monsters since I have a mixed BCR army?  I'll take one beastriders on Thundertusk, my Huskard, a unit of mournfang cavalry, and then a couple units of my Ogors.

Me:  Okay, I hate that stupid Thundertusk.  But I can summon so I guess that's okay.

 

Compromise is the key, you want to be open to suggestions not immediately dismissive.  In this (admittedly contrived although it's similar to how my friend and I have conversations) example, my friend is taking an extra monster when I proposed only 1, but I'm not immediately yelling how that's not fair, I'm more accepting because it's a fun game, so why not?  After all, I have a lot more models than him, plus I can replenish and I can summon so I can win on attrition.  I think one of the major problems with Open Play is that you find people who don't want to compromise, they want to immediately refuse or argue instead of just saying sure, go ahead or putting forth compromises (maybe he gets an extra monster but I get an extra hero or a unit or something like that).

Second, I think Open Play really needs something other than the default "to the death" Battleplan, and needs to ignore the Sudden Death rules.  This often mixes with Narrative Play, but what I mean is a battle with no objectives other than tabling your opponent just heightens the "abusive" nature of Open Play; either your goal is to just field enough so you can easily kill your opponent, or you try to game the system with the "Sudden Death" rules, neither of which are fun if you immediately try to game it (I heard stories but can't find the source of when AOS came out, people would field like a cannon or two, kill the enemy general the first turn and claim sudden death immediately to show how broken the game was). 

Third, in general I think that you need to realize that Open Play is very relaxed rules, and just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.  In my example above, I could spam summoning spells if I wanted to bring in a horde of other Undead; if I played Chaos I could take wizards and flood the table with daemons.  But why would I in a friendly game?  So I can "win"?  I think too many people are overly concerned with "winning" and will do anything and everything to win if nothing stops them, and as a result forgets that the end goal is to have a fun game, not necessarily to win.  Sure, you could abuse summoning in Open Play (or any spells really).  But doing that breaks the social contract with your opponent.

In short, as this has gone on pretty long:  Open requires a lot more dedication, communication and a willingness to compromise with your opponent instead of work against them in order to fully enjoy it, and the sad truth is there are a lot of people who don't or won't see their opponent as anything other than an obstacle to be conquered rather than someone to work with in order to make sure you both have fun.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, wayniac said:

 I saw one vehement anti-Open Play person specifically state that:

  Quote

Because if you don't have points the only limit on how powerful your army can be is how many models you're willing to buy. One player can bring a "normal" army while the other can literally fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game. And because it is a competitive game anyone with the ability to buy that many models is going to do it every time and win effortlessly.

Their reason for this was simply because there was zero reason NOT to do it (except the fact of not being a lousy player and your opponent having fun too, but I find far too many people have this attitude that their fun only comes from winning games, everything else be damned).

 

All very good points. I think in this section of the forum you're preaching to the choir to some extent. Ironically it's the people who are least likely to read this thread that could probably benefit most from it. The people who (as shown in the part I've quoted above) can't comprehend the game as being anything other than a 100% competitive experience, and who don't take basic social niceties into account.

Your point that Open Play needs something more than the pitched battle scenario is very interesting. Scenarios designed specifically to address the 'unfair' situations you listed would be a great start - addressing them not by compensating for them, but by making them absolutely central to the scenario.

Your opponent has a much bigger army than you? Play the 'Desperate Last Stand' battleplan.

Your opponent has brought all monsters? Play the 'Monster Rampage' battleplan.

Your opponent has 6 Nagash's? Play the 'Splintered Avatar' battleplan.

Your opponent has the option to chain summon and flood the board? Let them do it! And make it fun with the 'Relentless Sorcery' battleplan.

 

This would certainly turn the tables on those who like to dismiss Open Play by imagining extreme situations - rather than making excuses for Open Play and trying to wish away these ridiculous situations, we could embrace them and make them fun.

[wayniac]

Absolutely.  I hate the term "forge the narrative" due to the almost meme-like connotation 40k gave it, but that's the sort of fun things you can and should do.  Pick a batlteplan that helps to even the match, or even invent your own.  One of the best thing I like about AOS is that since the rules are a basic framework, it is often trivially easy to just ad-hoc add things or discuss a cool scenario to play.  I have a lot more models than my opponent, so maybe the narrative is that his army is en route to the larger battle our armies are fighting, and my canny general has ambushed them!  I can split up my army into two groups and try to pincer him while he needs to breakthrough my deployment to send word of the ambush to his commander who is elsewhere, or some such custom scenario to the game at hand.  And those, I find, are often the games you remember MORE because they are automatically special, rather than that random pitched battle game you played.

I also wanted to specifically address this quote in the OP:

Quote

One of my first miniature gaming experiences was a World War 2 scenario based on the beach landings at Normandy.  The Allied victory there was assumed in the game.  So the American forces landing there were recycled as reinforcements that landed in waves later in the game.  The German defenders received no such reinforcement.  The game was about the cost of taking those beaches.  

The scenario would be ideal for Open Play in Age of Sigmar.  Endless Nurgle Daemons assail a small band of Stormcast who need to keep the daemons from a Realm Gate as long as possible.  How long will they hold against infinite waves of recycled plague bearers, nurglings and drones before the endless foul tide inevitably breaks through?  Or perhaps the Nurgle daemons are defending against the assault of a battalion of Freeguild who are determined to smash the standing stones that allowed them to invade from Grandfather's garden.  How many freeguild soldiers will fall in sacrifice in order to save their town from the horrible plagues that will result if this infestation is not dealt with.

It has been my experience that many gamers will not even bother with such a scenario, because there is no way to "win".  They are not interested in seeing the "cost" of taking Normandy or destroying the daemon gate, because there is no element of competition.  It's already been decided that the Allies will take Normandy, so why bother playing it out if the Germans don't have a way to stop it, especially if you are the person who plays Germany?  The Nurgle player has no way to win against the Freeguild player, so most players I'm aware of would find such a game to be a "waste of time" (the Nurgle player, anyways) because they can't do anything to win, just spend time seeing how long it takes them to lose.  For many people, that is not acceptable because the game is already determined; it's no different than seeing how long you can survive with your 20 models against the hypothetical boogeyman 500 model army in an Open Play game, and for many people being on the losing side and the only thing being how much time it takes for you to die is not fun in any way, shape or form.

[Nin Win]

6 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Miniatures don't have to be painted to play Matched or Narrative either. But it should be strongly encouraged.

I find the easiest way to encourage it is to say "I don't play with unpainted miniatures on the table.  Let's play a smaller game with what we have painted already instead."

5 hours ago, wayniac said:

Open Play is NOT something you just decide on a whim to do [...] I think that Open Play requires a lot more open (pun intended) mind and actually discuss the sort of game you want, which I find is something people tend to not want to do because it takes too much time or the two players can have vastly different viewpoints; imagine for example someone who wants to run an entire army of monsters against someone who doesn't have much to handle that; this is not an enjoyable game and as a result it's unlikely that these two will have fun in an Open Play environment.

I actually think it can be something that you decide to do on a whim once you have two like minded individuals who see a game as something they play with others rather than only against others.  Get two people like that together and they can pull out their models start setting up terrain, come up with a scenario and really get things going.  And they may even pull surprises on the other player and the other player will be happy about it rather than feeling that it was "unfair."  I played a historical skirmish scenario on the eastern fringes of the Roman Empire and my opponent, about half way through the game, dropped another war band on the table slightly larger than the one he placed at deployment.  Surprise reinforcements had arrived and I suddenly had to switch to being on the defensive and finding choke points in the terrain and make sure he couldn't bring his superior numbers to bear on my already outnumbered legionnaires.

Open play can be a like a muscle.  Getting stronger the more you use it.

I take your meaning though.  Part of the misconception about Open Play is that people approach it like it's matched play with no thought given at all to setting up the game.  So far just in the two short pages I've covered Open Play is definitely about more than just showing up and hoping it works.  Communication really is key.

5 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

All very good points. I think in this section of the forum you're preaching to the choir to some extent. Ironically it's the people who are least likely to read this thread that could probably benefit most from it. The people who (as shown in the part I've quoted above) can't comprehend the game as being anything other than a 100% competitive experience, and who don't take basic social niceties into account.

It seemed like the proper forum for the thread.  I imagine once we've gone through the dozen or so pages in the GHB and talked about a lot of stuff, this will be something that can be shared elsewhere later.  And if the thread stays active it will be seen by those who browse forums not by going into each sub forum that interests them but by looking at unread posts or which threads are active.  Apparently lots of people browse forums that way.

Also, I think your connecting the problems people imagine with particular battle plans was really smart.  I'll definitely be quoting your post again when i go through the "let's read" for the battle plans.

4 hours ago, wayniac said:

I have a lot more models than my opponent, so maybe the narrative is that his army is en route to the larger battle our armies are fighting, and my canny general has ambushed them!  I can split up my army into two groups and try to pincer him while he needs to breakthrough my deployment to send word of the ambush to his commander who is elsewhere, or some such custom scenario to the game at hand.  And those, I find, are often the games you remember MORE because they are automatically special, rather than that random pitched battle game you played.

Absolutely.  And it's actually a pretty fast process.  Simply taking a moment to ask "what is the situation here?" and talking about it will set the game up as something special very, very quickly.

Quote

It has been my experience that many gamers will not even bother with such a scenario, because there is no way to "win". [...] The Nurgle player has no way to win against the Freeguild player, so most players I'm aware of would find such a game to be a "waste of time" (the Nurgle player, anyways) because they can't do anything to win, just spend time seeing how long it takes them to lose. For many people, that is not acceptable because the game is already determined; it's no different than seeing how long you can survive with your 20 models against the hypothetical boogeyman 500 model army in an Open Play game, and for many people being on the losing side and the only thing being how much time it takes for you to die is not fun in any way, shape or form.

I think a lot of people would have the enjoyment of their miniature gaming increased if they let themselves enjoy the process of playing itself rather than being so focused on the outcome.  Cliches about the journey mattering more than the destination or about living in the moment exist for a reason.

The funny thing is that the same people who wouldn't find it fun playing out a hopeless situation or a desperate last stand would actually likely have their range of enjoyment expanded by doing the very thing they find to be a "waste of time."  And that there is, within pretty much any scenario, a place to find what they find fun in a game.  At that historical miniatures night with the Normandy scenario, a couple guys who were ultra competitive got into a series of rematches based on who could get the landing done with the least casualties.  Or who could take the most of the invasion force out before being over run.  When my friend dumped another warband on the table half way through the historical skirmish game I mentioned above, and I fought them to a draw after destroying the original warband, that was about as much of a victory as I could ever claim to have in a game.  And had the opponent dumped yet another warband on the table, again and again until my force was defeated, I'd still claim I won the game.

In a lot of ways finding the fun in multiple approaches to the game is a skill.  One that simply won't be developed playing the same pitched battle approach over and over again.  Open Play is presented as a great way to start for new players and I think one of the reasons its so great for them is that it can open up a larger range of enjoyable table situations rather than locking them into a equal forces pitched battles mindset.

[BunkhouseBuster]

9 hours ago, wayniac said:

Absolutely.  I hate the term "forge the narrative" due to the almost meme-like connotation 40k gave it, but that's the sort of fun things you can and should do.

I keep using it in a sincere and enthusiastic way in order to get the hang-ups off of that negative association.  It does just really work with Age of Sigmar and it's open-ended playstyle.

I absolutely love the idea of Narrative gaming.  But the problem is that it takes more effort than just "1500 point game, mkay?"  With the points, it is easier to have much quicker pick up games that make for a swifter gaming experience and gets you home or to your next game quicker.  And that is fine.  While coming up with scenarios on the fly is cool, it can be hard to have a steady supply of narrative ideas ready.

i have a couple years experience as a DM for D&D in my collegiate years, and Age of Sigmar has been scratching that creative, world-building itch that I have been having.  But between full-time job and family at home, it is hard to write down all my ideas as I get them.  So instead of coming up with an ideas to base my games on, I am instead writing up some personal fluff based on my experiences.  In my area, my main opponents are Chaos and Seraphon, so I have been writing up my fluff based on the exploits of my models on the table.

See, these Orruks have been doing a lot of fighting for a long time.  And one day, the Megaboss of Da Crimzon Crushas had an epiphany: Destruction shouldn't win.  While not yet able to count past ten, he reached a philosophical epiphany: He had a vision of a lone Orruk floating in a void who had beaten everything down and won; if Destruction wins it all, then there will be no one left to fight!  And so, he takes his fights to the biggest foes he can find.  By fighting the biggest and baddest forces around, he helps the underdogs rise up and build as a society so that they can make a good opponent in the future.   While not going so far as to help a civilization build their walls and fortresses, he will keep the bigger, badder threats at bay in order to have a good scrap.  And so, Megaboss Blurrog, leader of the Da Blue Gits of the Crimzon Crushas, takes the fight to Chaos, large Order armies, and other forces of Destruction, making loud boasts and challenges to the enemy generals and working to keep things perpetually fair and fun for all armies to fight each other until the end of days.

It's still growing too.  I take inspiration from my games and interpretation of the fluff based on my games.  And now that is deciding what armies I take in the future and how to expand my collection of models.

The point I am trying to make is that not everyone enjoys doing that.  Not everyone has a creative mind that is inclined to story telling and world building, but that's okay.  Sometimes a custom armor color scheme is enough for them, others want to go all out and write full novelization of every game they have.  Age of Sigmar can handle all those players just fine and dandy, and even encourages more narrative players to step up and try something.

The problem I see is that there are so many players that think it is about playing to win, that the objectives of the game and pursuit of overall victory is the reason for playing to the exclusion of other reasons.  In my personal experiences, there are WAAC players that would totally be the table-filling, hundreds-of-models players f they got into Age of Sigmar (thankfully they didn't!).  In my opinion,  I don't like that play style, and I find games with those players to be a chore and not fun what with all the rules lawyering and questioning of every little thing I did.  Everyone is out for a different gaming experience, so it is important to know what you are playing for before rolling dice.

Open Play is in the same position as Unbound 40K was a while back, in that many players aren't excited for it, and don't like the potential for rules abuse that can be had by certain players.  But the same fix is available for both: communication.  One thing that Age of Sigmar almost requires is to communicate with your opponent before-hand on what kind of game you are looking for, which, for some undiscovered yet prevalent reason, is difficult for wargamers to handle.

[wayniac]

8 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

The problem I see is that there are so many players that think it is about playing to win, that the objectives of the game and pursuit of overall victory is the reason for playing to the exclusion of other reasons.  In my personal experiences, there are WAAC players that would totally be the table-filling, hundreds-of-models players f they got into Age of Sigmar (thankfully they didn't!).  In my opinion,  I don't like that play style, and I find games with those players to be a chore and not fun what with all the rules lawyering and questioning of every little thing I did.  Everyone is out for a different gaming experience, so it is important to know what you are playing for before rolling dice.

100% agree.  I actually think there are way too many people who feel that the entire game is about "winning" and that their only enjoyment is to win, to the extremes of saying that people are doing a disservice to their opponent by bringing a subpar list to a game (the person I quoted above about the "Why wouldn't you do this" also if I recall correctly said words to this effect) because it's not making the person who brought a good list have a fun game (i.e. because it's too easy for them to win).Winning is fine and can be a goal, but it shouldn't be the only goal.  When I play games, and I often lose, I care more about having an enjoyable game than I do just wanting to win.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Nin Win said:

Also, I think your connecting the problems people imagine with particular battle plans was really smart.  I'll definitely be quoting your post again when i go through the "let's read" for the battle plans.

I should maybe clarify that those Battleplans don't actually exist! But I think maybe they should. Who knows what the GHB2 might bring. Or maybe I'll just write them myself.....

[Nin Win]

24 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I should maybe clarify that those Battleplans don't actually exist! But I think maybe they should. Who knows what the GHB2 might bring. Or maybe I'll just write them myself.....

Lol.  That's awesome.  I had assumed they were from somewhere even if they weren't the ones coming up later in the chapter.  I think the point stands either way though.  That the battle plan should be connected to or make sense with the models.  Or that the common objections to open play are actually specific opportunities.

I'll be away from anywhere with WiFi/data for a day, so the next post will be late.  If anyone wants to quote stuff from page 12 and talk about it, feel free!

[BloodReign]

I don't think anyone should knock Open Play. It is an easy way to get into the hobby and learn the rules. I am relatively new to the game, after many years away from the hobby, and introduced my son to it as well. 

On that introduction my local store signed us up to their 'Academy' in which they taught building and painting skills and also how to play games and strategy tips. These games that were played were all open play as every member of the Academy had different models ready to battle with and each week this would change. That said there was a great many games played such as racing to control Realm Gates or all factions team up to beat a mighty beast with regenerating health or a battle of wits using wizards or priest to bolster a unit in a pre-set number of rounds.

All were most enjoyable and my son and I are always just getting our latest buys built and painted and onto the table for a battle. This is fun and helps to learn some of the skills available from those models. Besides not everyone has the funds to instantly go out and purchase an army worth 2000+ points and the books to teach them the intricacies of Match play.

I say: Agree with your opponent(s) what you will play with (models), decide on a setting / theme and PLAY!

[Nin Win]

So my time away from wifi/cell networks was longer than I thought it would be.

Anyway,

Page 12: "Should you find yourself with three players on hand, a multiplayer battle means that no one needs to sit it out. Of course, the real joy of multiplayer games is the social aspect."

I do like that the General's Handbook's open section continues with the basic theme that it is about getting in fun games with people with whom you enjoy playing.  Here we have multiplayer games presented as a means of including more people and concentrating on the social side of the hobby.

Page 12: "Team games can also be a boon for new players or those thinking about collecting a new army. Teaming up with a skilled veteran is a great way to learn the nuances of tabletop wargaming, while those dabbling with a new force can see how it might fight and fare in a larger game."

New players are the lifeblood of a gaming community and the sooner they get involved in all the aspects of the hobby the better.  So a team game where they only supply a few models they have finished is a great way of doing that.

As for seeing how things play in a larger game, I'd say this is actually quite important for anyone planning on using their miniatures in larger games.  While matched play might have important considerations when evaluating a unit, Open Play is about the experience.  What does a given unit or army feel like when you play it.  In what way do the rules make it awesome?  If something is lacking, what is it?  It's possible that you won't be getting what you think you are going to get out of a new force and that a slight adjustment is all that's needed to make sure you do.  

Unlike matched play, this might not be about the new force or the models you want to include being sufficiently powerful.  It may be about whether or not they evoke a certain sense or feeling when you play.  Like if you want a force that's all about being mystical or magic and you finish a small group or unit and you test it out as part of a larger force but it just doesn't feel "mystical" enough it might tell you that going forward you may want to add things that do more magical stuff or have more pronounced special abilities.  That the direction you want to head in might require a greater focus.

Page 12: "Uneven player numbers also provide the opportunity for one of the players to serve in a role known as ‘Games Master"

Unfortunately this paragraph is the only place the General's Handbook talks about GMing.  About just how to go about being a "Games Master."   It's basically a single paragraph.  That said,  if they did go into it in depth it easily could have taken up the wrest of the pages in the book.  GMing is something people playing roleplaying games have talked and written about for decades.  So there's lots to read elsewhere on the topic.  Off the top of my head, I'd go with the following:

1. You are not there to win.  If you do have miniatures on the table as the GM, they are there like a supporting cast.  I once assisted a GM who was running a giant bring and battle 40k game where he brought out his entire tyranid collection to fight a huge number of players who all brought relatively small collections.  Once the game began I noticed a young lad had his orks no where near the enemy and I was like "let's move those termigants towards those orks so he can kill something" and the guy got mad at me saying it was a dumb tactical move.  He was playing the game like his job as a GM was to win rather than to provide a good gaming experience for everyone there.
2. Include surprise.  Most games of Age of Sigmar (or any game that is doesn't have a GM) don't have anything hidden or surprising.  Usually everyone knows everything that is going on, what the opponent is playing and so on.  So take the opportunity to surprise the players.  There might be another group of enemies hiding somewhere.  Maybe moving models to a certain spot triggers something.
3. Name everything.  The chaos sorcerer is Zabelthrux, not just "the sorcerer."  And keep using names.  And ask players what their characters are named and then use the names when playing the game.
4. Play to see what happens.  Don't plan out how the scenario will go in advance.  Concentrate on setting up an interesting situation.  Other people will rarely approach the situation in ways you expect so if you set up a scenario on the table top and it has a single "right answer" you're doing it wrong.
5. Go easy on yourself and the other players.  It's often hard to organize multiplayer games and there will be games where things are amazing for everyone and others where things are a bit more flat.  But here's the thing, your compatriots may not share your evaluations.  The scenario where things didn't go as you planned or where things felt like they deflated rather than exploding might have disappointed you, but it might have been the best game in a long while for the players.

Page 12: "Finally, the members of your gaming group might decide that they don’t like to share victory and prefer that each player goes it alone."

It's important if you're going to do this to accept the consequences.  While there may be threats all around, generally speaking free for all games tend to reward being conservative and getting other people to engage with one another first.  it can still be fun, but I've seen many 3 player games where the scenario may as well have read "the player that attacks another player last wins."  So I'd give some extra thought about objectives and deployment to avoid the tendency for people to hang back in multiplayer games.

[Nin Win]

On 5/13/2017 at 5:00 PM, BloodReign said:

All were most enjoyable and my son and I are always just getting our latest buys built and painted and onto the table for a battle. This is fun and helps to learn some of the skills available from those models. Besides not everyone has the funds to instantly go out and purchase an army worth 2000+ points and the books to teach them the intricacies of Match play.

I say: Agree with your opponent(s) what you will play with (models), decide on a setting / theme and PLAY!

Sounds like you guys are having an awesome time with the game.

I think you're right about the process being that simple (agree on models that will see the table, decide on setting/theme and PLAY!).  Many experienced wargamers tend to over think things rather than diving in.

It can be bad if a local area ends up having 2000 point matched play games become the norm or expected way to play.  It ends up putting a pretty big barrier in front of new players before they can fully participate.

[wayniac]

The biggest issue I have with multiplayer games is they tend to be overly long and drawn out.  Thus far my group has tended to prefer them as a side effect of for a long time playing at our local GW that has only one 8x4 table for AOS (nobody likes when they get there and 2 people are already setting up for a game and they have nothing to do for a couple of hours), but in every case these battles take like 6 hours and end up just a big cluster in the middle.  I'd like to see more multiplayer scenarios, honestly, because the ones in the General's Book are either lame ("Doomed Defenders") or use a very weird board set up (the two triumph and treachery ones that use 7 board tiles instead of 6) that no typical gaming table can accommodate anyways.  About the only one I like is the one with the artifact in the middle (or "Fog of War" without the random teams), but I find that one is trivially easy to game since you just snipe out the enemy general, and that person has no reason to play anymore because they can't win without the general alive.  As a result most of our multiplayer games have just been a "last man/team standing wins" affair that is just hugely time consuming and has no real payoff.  However, we also only do multiplayer games in a Matched Play context with points, usually a lot as well (although I like the idea of a multiplayer game that restricts to X units like, I forget the name, one of the multiplayer plans in the General's Handbook mentions, do a cool themed army).  

[Guest]

@wayniac Agree with you on all those points. I'd also add that 6 players is just too many for a coherent game that flows well and takes a reasonable amount of time. Four players works OK in my experience.

I think the reason that multiplayer games tend to end up as a cluster in the middle is down to players setting up equidistant from each other and from the centre of the table. I assume it's done in the name of fairness and balance, but honestly if you're playing Open Play those probably aren't your prime concerns. Battleplans with more creativity and asymmetry in the positioning of deployment zones might be a worthwhile experiment. Or battleplans that give each player a wildly different objective.

[Nin Win]

Multiplayer games also need someone to step up and be the facilitator when it comes to the phases of the turn and keeping people on point.  People can get distracted, start side conversations, check their phones at the same rate as a two player game but with more players.

I'm definitely a believer in team games over free for all.  People can move models at the same time and scenarios are usually easier to come up with.

[BunkhouseBuster]

41 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

Multiplayer games also need someone to step up and be the facilitator when it comes to the phases of the turn and keeping people on point.  People can get distracted, start side conversations, check their phones at the same rate as a two player game but with more players.

I'm definitely a believer in team games over free for all.  People can move models at the same time and scenarios are usually easier to come up with.

In any game system I have played, I notice the same issues cropping up multi-player games.  I agree that team games are preferable over free-for-alls, as that works better in the turn-based structure of most wargames (and even in RPGs).  Yes, more players can get distracted more quickly, but that stems from them not being involved and engaged in the game outside of their turn or reactions.  To use an example, back when I was a DM for D&D, some of my players would not be paying any attention to what was going on in the combat or RP encounter, and when their turn came up, they had to ask what was going on, which usually resulted in a repeat of what happened, increasing the amount of time spent on simple things or a long combat.

In team games, you have the added effect of working together to come up with strategies and tactics about what to do in the game.  That adds in a bunch of time, especially if some less-than-confident players ask the more experienced and strategic player what they should be doing and where to send there army.

In both cases of team and free-for-all games, everyone needs to be paying extra attention to what is going on in the game so as to not slow things down to a crawl and keep everyone on task.

[Nin Win]

I run an RPG game with 7 regular players and everything moves very swiftly.  We use an older version of D&D where everyone says what they are doing and then thing are resolved.  So if someone isn't paying attention during the time to declare actions, they get skipped.  With 3 second rounds, hesitating for a moment doesn't create silly situations where someone skipped is standing there for 10+ seconds.  If a hesitating person is attacked with a missile weapon they use their shield the best they can or dive if they don't have one.  If they are attacked in melee they give ground and concentrate on defense.  It doesn't take many times of people getting skipped for them to start paying attention.  Similarly in a game of Age of Sigmar and I was like "Defending Team Hero Phase." and then after the people ready to do stuff were done "Last call for hero phase" and people didn't speak up, they skipped their command ability, spells, etc.,.

A few weeks ago I played in many, many multiplayer games over a weekend at a local convention.  Each slot was 3 hours and no game went over time.  Some had 8+ players with 200+ models on the table.  At every single game there was at least one person who had never played the particular rules set before.  Everything still finished on time.  It really is on how it is run.  That person beating the drum and keeping things moving is key.

[BloodReign]

14 hours ago, Nin Win said:

Sounds like you guys are having an awesome time with the game.

I think you're right about the process being that simple (agree on models that will see the table, decide on setting/theme and PLAY!).  Many experienced wargamers tend to over think things rather than diving in.

It can be bad if a local area ends up having 2000 point matched play games become the norm or expected way to play.  It ends up putting a pretty big barrier in front of new players before they can fully participate.

We are having fun, that to me is what it is all about. Yes I play to win and so does my Son but at the end of the day it's all about having fun, a bit of a giggle and not taking everything too seriously.

We play games to escape the humdrum and seriousness of life, don't we?

[BloodReign]

3 hours ago, Nin Win said:

Multiplayer games also need someone to step up and be the facilitator when it comes to the phases of the turn and keeping people on point.  People can get distracted, start side conversations, check their phones at the same rate as a two player game but with more players.

I'm definitely a believer in team games over free for all.  People can move models at the same time and scenarios are usually easier to come up with.

Totally agree here. When there are multiple players in the fold keeping track of turn order and phases can become painful. Here is where a good GM is needed.

Teaming up and have a couple of teams does make this easier and is therefore a possible solution to the problem.

Back to General's Handbook and most notably the uneven player guide. One option is to play a game of predetermined number of rounds and one player Holding a line against the other two for as long as possible. This can also be added to a Narrative game as a beginning to a whole other battle.

[wayniac]

It still amazes me how many people are reluctant to play an uneven game because they are afraid they will be at a disadvantage to start.

[wayniac]

37 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Especially considering the current points like any past points don't do anything for balance so pretty  much every game has someone starting off at a disadvantage.

But they have the illusion of balance with "even" points.  So it must be better than not having anything else or *gasp!* talking about what seems good.