How do you play open/casual?

[Overread]

NOTE this is not an attack on casual/open play and I'd like to avoid it being a competitive battle between matched and open viewpoints (though I'd encourage healthy debate). 

The question in the title also sounds really simple and lends itself to just out lining how you setup and play games, but I'd also like to encourage people to talk about how you think and make choices during a game; if there are any differences in how you approach them. 

It would also be really good to hear of things you've done, matches and scenarios and setups you've played that worked really well and were fun for both parties; as well as what you found did and didn't work. A real way to share how your casual/open games pan out and what you find improves the enjoyment of them. 

[CaptainSoup]

I wish I could put some real input on this thread. Unfortunately my area plays purely competitive or in a competitive mindset (not to mention it leans pretty heavy into 40k more than AoS which pushes competitive even more). In what "casual" gameplay that I've ever experienced would be using the open war cards. While some games could lead to some really one sided games due to lack of the draw, other games become real nail biter which can be really fun.

I've never really played any narrative or open play games before but I would love to hear people's stories and experiences. Maybe that way I can start believing that people actually play those games modes lol.

I would also be curious if people are in the same slump as I am and yearn for the casual gameplay experience.

[Fisren]

Most of the players here at my flgs are pretty new (around 75% of the players or so with <1 year experience to both 40k and AoS, myself included). None of us are using mortal realm rules yet (several still getting used to their own allegiance rules), so would consider ourselves as being pretty "casual".  Several of us play on a weekly/bi-weekly basis, and tend to discuss lists if we plan a match for the following week or next time (behemoths Y/N; wizards Y/N). 

I've played a couple of the battletome battleplans (including the BoC one!), and our store hosts a couple fun events from time to time (had a 3v3 (1k point each) battle once, where at the third round, one player from each side turns "traitor"). For the most part, people here are more model/hobby lovers than wargaming players (personally I'm still big on fairness of rules, so will call out/question stuff if something seems OP/fishy), so in general everyone brings a variety of models (i.e. usually its only 1~2 MSU of each unit for our <1500 games). 

For the most part we still use matched play rules for army setup, imho, its mostly just communicating with other players on what you want to play (are we duking it out with behemoths today? playing for objectives or just tabling each other? going for massive horde battles?) that makes it more of an enjoyable experience for both parties. Granted, part of it is that several of us have pretty big army collections (I have 4 different armies at 1~2k, several others who play more often may only have 1~2 armies but at 3k or so) so we can plug and play what we need to based on what kind of game we want to play that weekend. 

(not sure if this answered your comments XD) 

[Ollie Grimwood]

Nothing pretty eldritch or arcane really, I just use a non Matchplay Battleplan and make use of the open/narrative play section of the generals handbook. 

 

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

Come up with an idea for a scenario - doesn't have to be difficult, just something that can be an action on the table and played out.

Come up with some background to give context as to why they are meeting and why the scenario is taking place

Give some suggestions about "the kind of force" that would be involved in this or what sort of thing fits the context

Give the other players fairly free reign to do what they like within that framework.

Play the game - you can't always anticipate what other players will do, unfortunately as one WWII game was ruined by a player being a moron on the first roll of the dice and ignoring the whole scenario and set up, so he's been relegated to the dullest of dull roles a scenario has since, seeing as he can't be trusted with anything more difficult than bullet catching. The game still happened, but it became more of a straight three way fight. (I generally play big multiplayer games). 

Let the events of the game and potential actions dictate the context and scenarios that could be played out in the next few. Work on how the characters and players acted during the game/across the games so far to give reasons why the next scenario happens.

[Dead Scribe]

I've never seen anyone do it in my area ever, as we are all 100% tournament competitive matched play only, but from what I gather from reading posts on it over the last year its basically matched play points with a non-standard non-tournament scenario used for most people.

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

28 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I've never seen anyone do it in my area ever, as we are all 100% tournament competitive matched play only, but from what I gather from reading posts on it over the last year its basically matched play points with a non-standard non-tournament scenario used for most people.

Not always - the forces can be decided by the scenario...........for example, a retreat action would see one side outnumbered and attempting to get away from a much larger force, whilst having to split their own grouping and be worried about the potential of off table flankers having been sent out by the attacking side. Theres also the question of having to get the baggage into safety too.

Those sides could be players choice or chosen in advance by the person running the scenario and given to the players when they turn up.

 

Just doing "matched play points with a non-standard non-tournament scenario" is easy, but the least fulfilling way of approaching it.

You can do anything you can think of, literally any situation. 100% of my games are played with a heavy scenario approach, part GM'ed and everything done to make a context around the game and why they are there. Only takes 20 mins work!

[Nacnudllah]

1. Don't even make an army list.

2. Choose a battleplan that looks like fun, or bust out the open war cards.

3. As you're setting up your army, try to match your opponent's army unit for unit in your head.  If they set up 20 Saurus Warriors, throw down 5 Blight Kings, if they put down a Bastilodon, drop your Maggoth Lord.  It won't be perfectly balanced, but an awful lot of AoS comes down to dice rolling, so it will probably be fun.

4. Bring that new unit you've been wanting to get out on the battlefield, regardless of whether it fits the synergies of the rest of your army.

5. As you're playing, don't avoid cinematic moments just because they aren't good ideas.  If you think your general has an off-chance of taking down that Bastilodon, charge it.  Crash your hordes of infantry into one-another.  Engage the scenery special rules (especially if they are goofy homebrew rules that you or your opponent cooked up).  Throw caution to the wind.  Challenge your opponent to do the same.  If you see a piece of terrain that really needs to have an epic duel on it, go duel.  Instead of defining your gameplay by winning or losing, define it by the moments that you will remember in years to come.

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

1. is a solid suggestion. Can't believe I forgot that! We almost always never use an army list. Just let people take what they think is appropriate, what they fancy modelling or whatever the scenario order of battle requires.

 

[Overread]

7 minutes ago, Mosquito onthe TenthFloor said:

1. is a solid suggestion. Can't believe I forgot that! We almost always never use an army list. Just let people take what they think is appropriate, what they fancy modelling or whatever the scenario order of battle requires.

 

Out of interest how well does that work and how easily do people new to your group adapt to that. Plus how to you manage varying player expectations. How do you deal with that guy who has 5 dragons models who wants to use them; or the person who only puts down the same models every time etc......

I can see no points no limits working in certain situations, but often for pick-up games or games between strangers or for new people I Can see it being an issue. Sometimes I wonder if experienced people have gotten away with it working because, whilst they aren't adding up points; they've been playing long enough that they can eyeball at least their army if not many others and guess at the points value. Thus they aren't formally using points, but informally they are basically using what they interpret to be the roughly similar points value of model.s 

[Nacnudllah]

1 minute ago, Overread said:

Out of interest how well does that work and how easily do people new to your group adapt to that. Plus how to you manage varying player expectations. How do you deal with that guy who has 5 dragons models who wants to use them; or the person who only puts down the same models every time etc......

I can see no points no limits working in certain situations, but often for pick-up games or games between strangers or for new people I Can see it being an issue. Sometimes I wonder if experienced people have gotten away with it working because, whilst they aren't adding up points; they've been playing long enough that they can eyeball at least their army if not many others and guess at the points value. Thus they aren't formally using points, but informally they are basically using what they interpret to be the roughly similar points value of model.s 

Those are really the reasons for my setup suggestion (step 3).  If you're matching infantry for infantry, monster for monster, hero for hero, (start collecting battalion for start collecting battalion) etc, then you'll probably be close enough even without the experience.

As for the player who has 5 dragons, that sounds pretty darn cinematic!  I'd play against their 5 dragons any day.  I'd probably bring 5 monsters of my own, or, failing at that perhaps just a whole slough of heroes (for maximum awesome).  Nobody ever offers to fight me with 5 dragons  

If someone keeps bringing the same thing every time, trying different battleplans and bringing different units yourself seems like it would be quite enough for me.  That said, if you keep losing to their tournament list, just gradually bring more stuff each time until you win.  They might appreciate the challenge.

[Overread]

I wonder if casual and open army building without lists works better in an environment when people can bring more of their collection to the game site.  As army diversities have gotten bigger and bigger (and admitidly this is more of a 40K issue at present, though I'm sure some stormcast players might feel the pinch on space too now) collections have grown a lot. 

The old suitcase of models that used to be all you'd need for two armies is, honestly, long gone barring one or two elite armies. 

 

So the way I see it being able to adapt on the fly would work great, if you've got a wide variety of models to pick from rather than just the one army that you've brought. So I wonder if gamers at your club are indeed bringing a bulk of their collection with them each week - either on site storage; magnetic trays; cars; perhaps everyone just has really small collections.

 

 

 

Also the lack of 5 dragon armies I put down to the lack of FW and GW making enough dragons darn it! 

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

47 minutes ago, Overread said:

Out of interest how well does that work and how easily do people new to your group adapt to that. Plus how to you manage varying player expectations. How do you deal with that guy who has 5 dragons models who wants to use them; or the person who only puts down the same models every time etc......

I can see no points no limits working in certain situations, but often for pick-up games or games between strangers or for new people I Can see it being an issue. Sometimes I wonder if experienced people have gotten away with it working because, whilst they aren't adding up points; they've been playing long enough that they can eyeball at least their army if not many others and guess at the points value. Thus they aren't formally using points, but informally they are basically using what they interpret to be the roughly similar points value of model.s 

Well, the person running the game types it all up and sends out the scenario and setting in advance. Then people mull over what they want to take and what fits. Someone wanting to take 5 dragons will either get a "be real" or a "you need to take a turn and write a scenario if you want to run that" We're all adults, we can manage it.

The person who wants to put down the same thing every time? Perfectly fine, that his force on campaign and thats what they are doing. They'll find it being broken into separate deployments, half off in reserves, perhaps on the side thats exhausted from marching all night - the scenario we're playing is what dictates. Indeed, some people have had the same ECW brigades for years without needing to add or change anything.

We never play pick up games. Ever. We all share forces between sides and players, normally use my terrain (well, always really) on a bigger table (8X6 usually) and play as a collective multiplayer. New people get invited if they are interested, but with caveats about how we approach the game.

Sometimes a player will do something thats a bit off and silly, but trusting people to self manage and having a discussion about what we expect from gaming beforehand goes a long way. Bear in mind we all play historical as well.

Only real strict rule is 100% painted and based.

Whether its two players on a small game with 20-30 models a side or a bigger game with 300-400 models per side, we always approach it from a narrative first.

[eekamouse]

Does using points, but using Open War or narrative missions instead of Matched Play missions count? 

That's all I've ever done. I just find it too hard to balance without using points.

[Nacnudllah]

30 minutes ago, Overread said:

So the way I see it being able to adapt on the fly would work great, if you've got a wide variety of models to pick from rather than just the one army that you've brought. So I wonder if gamers at your club are indeed bringing a bulk of their collection with them each week - either on site storage; magnetic trays; cars; perhaps everyone just has really small collections.

I can definitely see the issues there.  I do game in an area rich with all of those options (players bringing lots of stuff, also on-site storage, a focus on smaller battles, and a fair number of long-time gamers).  Also, my gaming pals tend to be collectors rather than putting together a single perfected army.

You may be interested in this battleplan I've written (I went ahead and uploaded it today, just for this thread).  Instead of aiming for balanced gameplay, it aims to create cinematic and narrative gaming experiences on a "pick-up game" basis.

 

[chord]

It Depends.

If it's a new player who has just a start collecting box I just tell them to put out whatever they have, I then usually take a look and pull out an army that is roughly the same power level or a little lower.  Then we usually pick a simple battleplan.

Many times I go with battleplans from the realmgate wars and just discuss.  "Hey I want to bring x cause I think it would be cool. Ok I can bring y", etc.  If the battle gets too lopsided to quick the losing army can bring in reinforcements, etc.  The goal is both have a good time.  

Sometimes its "Hey how many liberators does it take to bring down a bloodthirster?", "how long can this small warband evade capture?", or other crazy matchups. 

And sometimes its just using matched play battleplans and points but neither side bringing a smash face list but units they like, and eyeballing before, cause not all points are equal and adjusting as needed.

[JackStreicher]

custom scenarios, forbidding named characters unless they fit to the narrative, check if the powerlevel of each list is crudely about the same.
Using open war cards, actively avoiding the most potent lists (eel spam) and instead trying different units.

[eekamouse]

Just now, JackStreicher said:

custom scenarios, forbidding named characters unless they fit to the narrative, check if the powerlevel of each list is crudely about the same.
Using open war cards, actively avoiding the most potent lists (eel spam) and instead trying different units.

I like the bold part. In 40k, they actually added an additional restriction to matched play that you can't take the same unit more than 3 times (I think Troops can be taken more than 3 still). That could be an interesting wrinkle. I'd think for AoS, it would be: 

"Except for battleline units, you can't take more than two of the same unit or more than one of the same unit if you are taking a maximum sized unit."

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure that's not perfect.

[hughwyeth]

In AoS 1, GW released "Open War" cards- allowing you to randomise deployment, scoring, twist etc for each game. I still use them and have loads of fun with them. Also the battleplans in battletomes can be pretty fun!

[Artobans Ghost]

7 hours ago, Mosquito onthe TenthFloor said:

seeing as he can't be trusted with anything more difficult than bullet catching

My comment is Unrelated to thread but none the less I have to point out how extremely funny this is👆 

This then led to the name of the contributor and I laughed again. 

[bsharitt]

My local AoS scene is pretty casual for the most part. Matched play is still used pretty heavily for the points and easy balancing for pickup games, but not overly strict about things like battlelines all the time even though most people adhere to those requirements most of the time. The open war cards are used a lot, probably as much or more than the battleplans in the GHB and Corebook even though we're playing with points. Even using some of the more narrative battleplans in the battletomes, we generally use points for the most part.

[Skreech Verminking]

Well the club I’m apart of, supports our local store in skavenblight.

For which our club can be visited ones per month on a Saturday.

we usually have around two persons, which were tasked to answer questions, show and play a game of aos or 40k, with the newbies.

We ususally use against this people as few rules as possible which mostly means, that the battle is fought with around 1-2units, a hero and just the core rules (which could be seen as open play.).

Than we have those players who know the core rules very well, but still struggle with the game.

sometimes this players even have their own collection of models, and would love to use all of them if possible. We usually ignore all of the matched play restriction like you have to have this many battleline and so on. We still use points to get an idea of what we will be facing (afterall I don’t think that a newbie would be interested in facing 3nagashes😂). This is also were open play turns up most of the time in our club.

As for narrative games, well we never had one (yet!). 

((Still thinking of organizing one. It shall be known as the great uprising of the horned rat))

[S133arcanite]

95% of my games have been narrative since a joined a gaming club. It's certainely my preferred style of play.

[karch]

We play exclusively open/narrative. One kind would be the, let's say, casual game where someone brings something and the opponent more or less tries to put a similarly sized list. Some times one by one, just like someone above mentioned. It works better at smaller "point" counts.

Then there are others are heavily based on a certain scenario. A surrounded force of elite troops battling wave after wave of, say, zombies or skeletons trying to see how long  does it hold. Mobile battles, weird terrain, etc. There's plenty of scenarios you can take from older editions, flames of war, 9th age or infinity you can use as a base for a certain battle.

And finally you have the massive multiplayer battles, usually a variation on the king of the hill theme, but with higher model count the pace tends to be sluggish so it's a maybe once a year if anything. The game is definitely less fluid when too many things are on the table.

[Moonlightwolf]

At its simplest, my group tends to do open play by just matching points values but not worrying about unit restrictions. Its not balanced but can be a lot of fun. For example I'll bring a force consisting entirely of gargants which looks impressive and everyone gets afraid until they realise that the entire force is luck based, and two of my giants roll doubles on their charge and fall over whilst the others are decimated by a freeguild gunline.

It definitely helps if your group is down for having fun more than seriously competing but its also far easier to accept a loss when everyone knows the forces aren't remotely balanced.