Jump to content

Torn between competitive and non-competitive without direction


wayniac

Recommended Posts

I've decided to use my downtime from gaming to take a step back and really decide what I want out of this game because I haven't ever really been able to pinpoint what my goal is.  I've been involved in GW games since 1996, and I've always gotten the impression that the goal has never been to have a competitive game.  The rules have never really been conducive towards it.  I look at armies as they show in White Dwarf battle reports, with varied units and usually little or no spamming, and think to myself "This is how GW envisions the game".  Then I start to read sources online, which let's be honest here tend to usually focus on the competitive side of things.  Places like The Honest Wargamer, AOS Shorts and several podcasts focus on approaching AOS as a high-level competitive game with seemingly little concern to how an army is in the fluff other than "is this unit good" (which often means "overpowered in some way").

My dilemma now, and for the past couple years as well, has been trying to think of how I want to approach the game.  I've long tried to find a middle ground, and find an army/style that could behave at least remotely like it does in the fluff without sacrificing the army's background for effectiveness, and I have failed miserably in this approach every time.  I'm sitting here now trying to decide on a new army, and every potential choice is limited by something, whether it's the fact that it's not at all competitive (while I may not want to go full blown "I only care about how good something is" I also don't want to pick something I like only to find it's weak and get steamrolled in games.  From past experience this just makes me want to stop playing), the fact that I would want a well-rounded army which doesn't work well (constantly receiving "advice" in the form of "Drop X and Y, take more of Z"), or simply the fact it's popular and a lot of people in the area have the army (I am a big proponent of the idea that having a diverse playgroup benefits everyone.  If half your group play the same army, or even worse mostly the same list, it leads to a stagnant community).  

As you might imagine, this has led me to be incredibly indecisive and anyone who has spoken to me frequently know that I often change what army I'm doing every few days, and never fully commit to anything because every time I decide something sways me to change my mind/approach to the game.  While of course that's an issue I have to face myself, it lends itself to the question of, first of all is there a sweet spot, a middle ground, between having an army solely focused on competitive without care to the army's actual fluff, only what units are good, and not caring about how good a unit is only how it fits in?  I often find that there's only the two extremes:  Either something is good and therefore competitive, or it's not good (and again this usually means "overpowered") and is therefore bad and shouldn't be taken.

The way I see it, I have to "choose a side" as it were and decide to either treat AOS as a game first and foremost and fluff be damned if it means not making optimal choices (the more competitive approach, as this is usually but not always what sticking to competitive play entails), or else focus on the other aspects of the game and perhaps try to talk to a few locals I feel would have similar mindsets to have a smaller subgroup (we don't really have gaming clubs in the USA like they do in the UK but along those lines) that we focus more on the narrative/casual gameplay and less on the competitive side altogether, which would limit the players (as I wouldn't likely turn up to play against the people I know play more competitively) but may result in a more close-knit experience.  I don't think there's a happy medium between the two, or if there is I certainly haven't been able to find anything that resonates with me when looking.

I realize this got a bit wordy, so the main point here is if anyone has successfully dealt with this same dilemma that I have been struggling with for years now and how you handled it?  I feel like I'm going around in circles without ever deciding, and usually buying a few things only to change my mind later which is putting me in the doghouse with my wife because she feels I'm just spending money and never doing anything else.

  • Like 8
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, You sound like your playing SCE like me;). Love the fluff and backstory but every fluffy list around the warrior chamber that feels like im playing an actuel army just gets stomped cause it does nothing on the table. I kind of made my piece with it and did take it to a tournament with 100 players and went 32. 3-2. Sometimes i make a more competive aprouch but within the limit of the theme i have in mind. For example the warrior chamber and not going evocators even tho the evocators clearly outmatch every form of paladin atm. At home i face all kind of lists from more competive to fluff but never as fluffy as i make them. For me the battle always starts uphill and im oke with that. It makes me better as a general. To learn and play with the weaker units. I dont expect to win and i dont care a lot about winning but i do care about having a chance and thats where the dilemma comes in.. I build 2 lists from the same format of units. Within the format i go as competive as i can and i go they way i like a list on the table. Keeping the expertations low and dont spend to much money on buying powerfull stuff i never going to field. Not sure ill be helpfull but just wanted to put this here;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wayniac said:

The way I see it, I have to "choose a side" as it were

Why not both? Seriously? It will take you longer to get there, so you gotta love your hobby. But why not both?

That's how I do it. I had my dwarves which I loved back in the day. But against certain friends it wouldn't be much of a game. So I got my (quite netlisty) Dark elves on the side. 

That way I could easily and openly communicate before with my opponent. What is it you want? Just a fun beer and pretzels game? Or do you want a Tournament practice game? And depending on that bring the army. Play the same opponents more often and you will learn to adjust so it's a fun game that gives you what you both want. 

You could even do so within a faction. Get Bonereapers, play netlist petrifax at tournaments and bring the cool models in the self immolation subfaction for the narrative games. Only differs a few units and if rules changes you can easily adjust. Works for every top faction. 

The fact that you're considering choosing tells me there is something in both that you like. And often it will differ where on that spectrum you want to be. So why deny yourself one or the other? It isn't a black and white hobby. 

So a wordy question demands a wordy reply, so there you have my wordy advice ;) 
All that said, just do what makes you enjoy the hobby and to me it sounds like you need to be able to do both to have fun. So enable yourself that choice every game and talk before hand with your opponent. 

quick side note, the game is super fun at 1K and 1,5K just a little more unbalanced. So maybe that's a good starting point for the narrative/fluffy army. Start at 1K for that and just a killer 2K tournament list. 
 

  • Like 10
  • LOVE IT! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in a similar position. What I have done is buy the army that had the most awesome models, and I didn't aim for a 2k points list. I went for a bit more and I tryied to look for a mix of the best units and the fluffy ones (just made some modular system alternating between this this two type of units). I will use an example for Fyreslayers to make it clear what I'm saying: [10-20 HB+battlesmith] could be a good pack for Matched Play (just don't spam them), and maybe [10 vulkite+runeson] could be the "hobbit-style company" that I find the most fluffy reasons to field. If you have a good rooster of units, you will have enough tools to make a list for any Matched Play and steal some wins.

Note: Remember that the rules are not permanent, spaming X unit today maybe will not be the best option in a year.

If you have the oportunity to play narrative, you will have a fun enough list-building options. Just talk with your oponent before the game and find the rules that you like the most. If there is some type of imbalance between armies, use the GHB2019 rules to help the units that are underperforming (Regiments of Renown, Hidden Agendas to score more points, etc...). Open and Narrative Games have a lot of tools to make the game fair enough for both players, it just need a bit more preparation than Matched Play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My approach is to build a larger collection that allows for lists to suit all situations. I aim to have atleast one of everything that an army list offers, with multiples if I like 'em, and if something just doesn't look good to me I'll find a way to convert it somehow. I'm a little extra picky though since I always consider if something's going to look good on the shelf, so the composition of the collection matters to me.

You'll want to be sure that you're going with an army you really like, you will be spending a lot of resources on it in this way.

Edited by TMS
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi wayniac,

Seems that you are in a real dilemma. During my early years of wargaming I encountered a similar situation, where I have to decide how I will go forward with my hobby. I started somewhere during the 4th Edition of Warhammer (so basically during the early/mid `90s of the past century) and during this time it was just a “kill the enemy with the most broken combo possible”! With the start of the 5th Edition this behavior vanished and was replaced by a more “This is cool, give a **** on the playability” approach. It was my best time of Wargaming (until lately). I just collected and painted the stuff I want and only play only against people I personally like – even if they were power gamers (friends are really important for such kind of games). I think I just played three times in a Shop so far in total and each experience was a nightmare (except for the Blood Bowl game we do for White Dwarf – this was a blast).

Then I started to work for GW and even if you do believe it or not – from all the great people their only a couple play for the sake of a good story. The rest game for the win and only for the win. And this sucked the urge of me to play Warhammer anymore (just a couple of games during sixed edition, twenty or so during 7th and three during 8th - the most cumbersome and unfunny ruleset of all time in my opinion) and so I switched for a while to 40k. Funny enough the gamers here were more chilled till 5th Edition comes true (stopped 40k also). The only game during this time I could fully enjoy was “The Lord of the Rings” and it still is my favorite GW game to this day.

Long story short: The competitive gaming killed my creativity and enjoyment of the games. Competition is part of each game, true, but if a game, also rules wise, tends to just cater for one side of the pendulum it is not well written. The middleground is allways the best for me and I think each should choose his own path in the hobby without the “preasure” of company or gamers behavior.

I decided (after the split of my group) to enjoy the painting part of the Hobby and play a GW game once or twice a year with the intention of having fun (I think beer and pretzel approach together with a good backstory). Basically I’m back at the “feeling” of the WHF 5th Edition.  😄

Side note: I own three painted armies for AoS, two for WHF (as well three for Kings of War, all of Runewars, two of 40k and so on) – seems that I have too much time, but in nearly 30 years of collecting a lot comes together. And no one of them are competitive, but I learned to play with them. 😅

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

To me its pretty easy.  Wargames are competitive.  Story driven games should be where you go with RPGs.  

Then you ignore the whole history of wargaming. Early wargames were more like RPGs - e.g. WFB 3E, especially Realm of Chaos expansion with character creation and development tables. With so much random tables you couldn't be competitive if you tried. The competitive mindset appeared later. Wargames can be story driven  - that's what campaigns are for.

  • Like 10
  • LOVE IT! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AoS is a great time to be a narrative wargamer.  I don't think you have to choose necessarily (especially since it sounds like your local group is heavily skewed towards the competitive end), but you should try grabbing a friend or someone who is open to the idea and playing some of the narrative battleplans in your respective battletomes.  If that goes well, try some of the Open Play stuff like the Close Quarters Battle Generator in GHB 2019 (with the Army Generator), or get a deck of the open play cards.  If your group shows interest in that, maybe you could rope them into a Path to Glory campaign!

Anyhow, I do a lot of narrative play, and I'd start slow and try to build from there.  Wean them off of Pitched Battles, then wean them off of Points, and the ones who are left are your narrative players :)  Best of luck!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole issue wouldn‘t be as bad as it is if GW would balance their games properly. By balance I mean: every choice should feel viable. That way even fluff lists can be played without being massacred each and every time. Also stupidly powerful combos should be restricted or avoided.

As to a Rather successful approach:

I tend to switch armies really often (which is easy since my collection is vast) and when I play a list I usually think about what units it‘d need to feel right, what units I want to play and what units I need to include to not automatically lose and to not build a tournament list.

So my process of building the army usually looks like this:

-Adding all the units the army should have (depending on theme I chose)

- adding all the units I‘d love to field

-adding all the units I need to not be slaughtered

-then I try to get some synergies in

- The final and hardest step is to remove units until one meets the point requirements 

This works okay-ish and also makes casual games interesting

You even stand a decent chance against pure cheese lists.

If both players build their army this way it makes for great games.

Also: Random Army matches are a joy!

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 4
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's several elements you need to consider:

1) Are you really into wargaming? Pause and ask yourself this very question if you actually enjoy it. Because right now its sounds like you go through phases of enjoying aspects of it, but then disliking others heavily that results in you getting confused and frustrated. This can sometimes manifest itself when you're focusing on doing something that once brought you enjoyment, but which no longer does. Changes in yourself; in the game; in your social group can all mean that at hobby needs a break. Sometimes you move past and move onto other things fully; sometimes you just box it up and come back later - could be a week for some or a few years. 

It might also be that you enjoy collecting building and painting more so than playing wargames. So perhaps instead of regretting the choices to buy you can instead put aside any notion of building an "army" and put up a few display cabinets and focus on the build and paint side.

Or you might consider something like RPG games where you can still use your models, but where the focus of the game is very different and where, again, you don't need a huge army to get fun out of it. 

 

2) I dislike the view of the game being split between casual and competitive. To my mind those are attitudes toward the game, but elements which should not affect the mechanical learning and understanding of the game. Ergo the better you can play the more it broadens your options. In fact you can better play and plan casual games by having a greater understanding of the game and its mechanics. It's a lot easier to build casual fluffy armies and to play with others and setup good expectations for the game when you really understand it. You can say "Hey lets have some fun 40 spearmen against 2 dragons" and know that, mechanically, there's a chance for either side to win; or that the spearmen are likely going to die so see how long you can last etc... A sound game understanding doesn't close down the option to play casual, if anything it greatly opens it up. 

If anything casual play can be more complex to setup because you have to spend a bit more time pre-game setting things up with your opponent. Sometimes building an army when you're specifically not power-gaming can be hard when you just say "oh build it casual" because it means nothing on its own. It's like when work says "come dressed casual". Casual to you might be ripped jeans, studded wrist bands and thick platform boots; whilst to the guy next to you it means putting on a funny tie. Wargames are the same, by understanding things better you can craft your casual game with your opponent so that you both to into it with the right expectations. 

3) If you want to keep with your armies then STICK with one. Sometimes you have to bring a little formality to your collecting. I went through this recently. I could EASILY build and collect almost any army and have fun and love the lore, stories, models etc... So its easy to end up with several armies going nowhere. Sometimes you've got to sit down - plan and WRITE it down then stick to it. Focusing on a single faction can make it easier to build a collection that can have varied uses. You then have options to play with. You can go casual or high competitive because you've choices. I think that also it would give you a sense of achievement that you're missing if you lay out some clear plans that you can see and stick too.

Completing an army is an achievement; its worth celebration. It will give you a great hobby uplift rather than what's clearly tormenting you at present where you're jumping force to force for the new shiny (even if its just new to you and not a "new army" as such), but never finishing building let alone painting. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a big part of the issue is that as I said, having been around the block for a long time with GW games I know that at their heart they have never been intended as cutthroat competitive games.  They've been manipulated to sort of resemble that as of late, but it was never their goal.  I also know that there's a strong aversion, even among the more casual/narrative players I know, to have asymmetrical games; like for example the "40 spearmen vs. 2 dragons" example above would never get any traction whatsoever because "it's not balanced", from either the casual or competitive player alike.  Which is what partially pushes me towards the competitive approach.  My mind tends to go through two trains of thought:

1) It's a game, games are competitive.  Besides, GW's balance has always been so bad that you usually hurt yourself by not caring about a unit's effectiveness.  I can play the game as a game, I don't have to have a narrative behind my army and name my characters/etc.

2) GW games have always been about narrative/casual/laid back gameplay.  It's only recently that the ultra-competitive everything needs to have world championships "tSport" mindset has come about and doing that means I'm ignoring 90% of the game to focus on 10% which can and will change thanks to the "meta" constantly churning.

And to me these are largely mutually exclusive (they shouldn't be but the reality is they are) because of the game's design.  So as a result I have trouble even deciding what "new army" to pick because I'll look first at what's played locally and try to pick a complement to that (having half your group all playing the same faction is boring) and/or look at models I like before I check what's "good".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, michu said:

Then you ignore the whole history of wargaming. Early wargames were more like RPGs - e.g. WFB 3E, especially Realm of Chaos expansion with character creation and development tables. With so much random tables you couldn't be competitive if you tried. The competitive mindset appeared later. Wargames can be story driven  - that's what campaigns are for.

The history of wargaming has no relevance on Age of Sigmar.  Age of Sigmar is driven by competitive play.  They can certainly be story driven, just like I can play a game of football with a round ball (or play a game of european football with an american football) - it doesn't mean that its really going to work as well.  

I think you're right.  You can't be both storytelling and competitive in AOS.  If you are storytelling you are going to get hammered, unless your story is about how your army gets hammered.  Then I suppose that makes sense.  tSport mindset is the future of wargaming.  The Honest Wargamer is already pushing that into the next realm and others are following him.  

If you want to do story telling, you'll need a group that lets you play like that.  Otherwise I wouldn't understand why you'd want to do "narrative wargaming" when the narrative you're going to be telling is how you watch your army get massacred in a couple turns by a tuned list.  "Narrative Wargaming" requires everyone to be doing "Narrative Wargaming" and there you will find your biggest problems.  

If you're new to AOS, the balance is not very good at all, and so to me if you aren't tuning your list as best as you can, there isn't really a point in playing if you care about match outcomes.  

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think you're right.  You can't be both storytelling and competitive in AOS.  If you are storytelling you are going to get hammered, unless your story is about how your army gets hammered.  Then I suppose that makes sense.  tSport mindset is the future of wargaming.  The Honest Wargamer is already pushing that into the next realm and others are following him

Whether or not this is a good thing though is subjective.  Personally I feel that "tSports" are a terrible idea that ****** all over the foundation of the genre (but I also feel the same about esports).  But you are right, this mindset is becoming more and more prevalent and is a huge part of why I keep feeling the draw of that style of gameplay, knowing how much it removes choices and reduces 25 options to 5 because those 5 have been decided to be "the best".  It just feels completely wrong sometimes.  I mean, the competitive mindset literally looks at a brand new book and throws out 90% of it instantly and then encourages everyone else to ignore that 90% too since it's "not good".

You basically hit the exact nail on the head.  You can't do both in AOS, and I don't know which one I want to focus on because I see the benefit of both, but one side (the competitive one) makes me feel so many times that I'd just be doing something boring.  Not because I dislike the aspect, but because let's say I pick whatever FOTM new hotness army is dominating (OBR, let's say).  Well there are a few other people in the area who have that army too.  These games then become boring mirror matches that may as well be pseudo-tournament rounds because there isn't going to be any sort of logical story to it, it's literally just like matchmaking in an online game where you don't care about the lore or background of your character, you picked it because it's the best one currently.  That shouldn't be something that I care about (what everyone else plays), but the problem is I DO.

Edited by wayniac
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

The history of wargaming has no relevance on Age of Sigmar.  Age of Sigmar is driven by competitive play.  They can certainly be story driven, just like I can play a game of football with a round ball (or play a game of european football with an american football) - it doesn't mean that its really going to work as well.  

The 'look at the history argument isn't very persuasive' I agree. But looking at the current way Games Workshop is approaching wargaming, it's three ways to play isn't it? So to just say it's only driven by one, is ignoring parts to suit your argument. 

Also your analogy is flawed. you can play a game of football just for fun instead of competitive. Look at any family tournaments, child leagues, G- football*, business leagues and all of those work very well. But they aren't competitive. The players, just as in narrative, still aim to win but value other things than winning higher. 

* don't know of this translates but it's leagues for people with a mental/psychical disability.

EDIT: Hey! You edited you post while I was writing this 😂. We seem much more in line now. 

Edited by Kramer
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow that to its logical conclusion though.  90% of most books aren't good and you should never use them if you care about the outcome of your matches.  The designers have done this for years, this is obviously their intent.  We can either accept that and do it, or not accept it and find different games to play.

I play because I like fantasy and the community is huge.  I don't have to struggle to find games anywhere else even if I find other games to be "better" from a competitive standpoint, because a "better" game is not better to me if there are only a couple people playing in some basement somewhere 200 miles from me, whereas Adepticon has 200 people world championships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The 'look at the history argument isn't very persuasive' I agree. But looking at the current way Games Workshop is approaching wargaming, it's three ways to play isn't it? So to just say it's only driven by one, is ignoring parts to suit your argument. 

Its three ways to play, but I almost never see the other two ever, and when you see someone trying to do narrative gaming they have to convince the other person to do it, and then there are arguments that the other person brought a too-powerful list.

All seems very dramatic if you ask me.  This whole modes to play sounds great on paper but hardly anyone follows it and it often just results in angry feelings. 

I've watched the narrative gamer group post about their games, and the lists I see are often just tuned lists playing non standard scenarios.  I mean if thats the definition of narrative wargaming thats fine, I'd like to see people stop complaining about people tuning their lists though and acting like narrative gaming means take non tuned lists, because it clearly doesn't mean that.

I think if you want to do narrative wargaming you better have the right group.  And I think that a proper narrative AOS group is as hard to find as a "better game" group to not be worth the bother IMO.  

There's always that tabletop simulator thing that people were posting about here though that lets you play anyone anywhere in the world.  That may help you.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Follow that to its logical conclusion though.  90% of most books aren't good and you should never use them if you care about the outcome of your matches.  The designers have done this for years, this is obviously their intent.  We can either accept that and do it, or not accept it and find different games to play.

If this is the case though, they don't show it.  Their armies in white dwarf (and yes I know its a marketing publication at its core) show a variety of units, not spamming the 3 units that have been deemed "good".  This is part of the dilemma.  That shouldn't be the case.  The reality is that it is, but it's the hardest thing to adopt that and not care about the rest.

You're making very valid points, you really are.  Just... it's such a hard mindset to get into.  Especially when not only part of books but entire armies are deemed "not worth taking" because they aren't competitive.  It can't be "S tier or bust"

Edited by wayniac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so.  A narrative player like stories and stuff from what I'm told.  I dont care about the story, nor do I care about "reality" or "how armies would look in the story".  I care about winning and doing my best and competition.

I like the fantasy genre over sci fi genre.  I tried 40k but I find that game to be pretty broken at the moment to enjoy it, moreso than AOS is currently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think so.  A narrative player like stories and stuff from what I'm told.  I dont care about the story, nor do I care about "reality" or "how armies would look in the story".  I care about winning and doing my best and competition.

I mean they aren't mutually exclusive at the high level,  but I wish I could not care about the lore/reality.  I mean if you ignore that, then what keeps you to an army?  Wouldn't you just swap armies to whatever is the "best" at a given time, if the army background/aesthetics are meaningless?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I mean they aren't mutually exclusive at the high level,  but I wish I could not care about the lore/reality.  I mean if you ignore that, then what keeps you to an army?  Wouldn't you just swap armies to whatever is the "best" at a given time, if the army background/aesthetics are meaningless?  

For dead scribe everything is always only competetive, so he would. Though I doubt that talking to him will necessarily give you any answer or relevant input.

I don‘t say that to be rude towards DS, but he has a very strong opinion on this topic and I do not think that anything will make him think differently ^^
 

cheers 

jack

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your turn between competitive Non competitive play.

you have problems deciding to take units that are immensely broken, just better then other options (for example like plague monks over Stormvermin) or just to take those units you just like more, because the fluff of them is great or just their looks seem to be winning your favor.

well as somebody who enjoys both ways of playing I can tell you non of those things can be seen or called wrong.

every person is different and so we find those players who enjoy winning more then the fluff of the game, and other who well enjoy the story telling.

as for the competitive side, having a unit or two that you really like, even if it isn’t that great in the game and is mostly overshadowed by other units from the same tome or just in total won’t take you instantly onto the loosing side.

I find that knowledge of the enemy forces or what just seems to be dominating the meta can often be the deciding factor for a game.

For example I’ve been playing the last 13years the skaven. 
although the first two years of aos has been more then a challenge to use the skaven, especially when we are talking about certain units, there has been no game were I haven’t used my Stormvermin. They are my fan favorite, outshined by literally anything else in the roster we have and since most tournament partakers tend to not know much  about units that aren’t really seen often or at all it can really give you an upper hand.

I may not have Gotten any first place in the last few Tournaments I’ve partaken, since the book dropped, but I was able to rank 8th in multiple events, with well 30-60players.


oh right like probably halve of the players already mentioned, having an army for both ways to play isn’t a bad option, although You can always have numerous units from the same army, which you can then use for either play style.

as bad as some people make narrative play, I can tell you that it is in fact the opposite.

it’s a lot of fun to take part in a path to glory campaign, or even right your own narrative, something I’ve done with some Swiss folklore, for a friend of mine who well started building a Swiss freeguild army (with lot’s of cheese.no wonder his lands are infested with rats)

well in the end it just depends what you want. How you enjoy the game.

I would try a few different things out, and even talk to your friends.

and then make your decision in what direction you want to go with that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm attracted to Idoneth Deepkin, which honestly from what I see seem to be able to go more competitive or not depending on what you take (i.e. how many eels).  So I might be able to swing both if I get lucky... although there's still the issue of not really being able to do a roundede army, but that's been the case for years.

Edited by wayniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...