Just about every aspect of Warhammer 40,000 has been reimagined over the years, including army lists. But Why do we still use them at all?
Pouring over a codex or army book to make a characterful, fun and competitive army list is a foundational memory for me. It is a constant in every edition of every GW game I have played over the years. It’s a process I only think of fondly, as it is a fantastic creative outlet, next only to building and painting the actual miniatures. But in this modern age, with so many new and innovative games on the market, why are we still made to create static army lists before we start playing?
Today, points and army lists are nearly ubiquitous in miniature gaming, and it is easy to understand why. If two players want to play a reasonably fair game, you need to figure out how to make evenly matched armies, right?
The problem is that this doesn’t work, at least not as intended. On paper, army lists of an equal points value should generate equally matched forces, but we all know how unrealistic that is. How many of us have cobbled together an army list only to realize after a game or two that we somehow screwed it up and it will not be competitive? Worse, who has not participated in a friendly club or event only for it to get blown up by the one guy who did some research and showed up with a tournament list? If your points system is working correctly there should not be casual and competitive lists, just lists!
So here is my solution: wargames like 40K need to stop using static army lists that players make before the game. When was the last time you played a computer game where you bought all your units before the match started? Was it Myth: The Fallen Lords, the greatest game of all time? What was the last 40K video game you played where you were forced to purchase all your units ahead of time?
My favorite 40K video game is Dawn of War II, a highly tactical game where a good player can absolutely wipe the floor with an average one. In every scenario players start with a basic unit and a hero of their choice. They purchase the rest of their forces over the course of the game like a normal RTS. Why can’t we do this on the tabletop?
What if you started a game of 40k with a single squad on the board and the rest of your points in the bank. You can select any unit from your codex and bring it on from your table edge over the course of the game, as long as you have the points and follow the normal force organization rules. This does not solve the problem of point systems being inherently unbalanced, but it would allow players to adapt to their opponent’s strategy. It would also require a truly insane number of models to have every option in the book available, but you could still play with whatever units you have and would encourage players to continue adding to their armies.
Here is a less radical idea, what if you could spend VPs to bring on reinforcements? Credit to Sid Meier’s Gettysburg for having this incredible idea more than 25 years ago. Maybe you are five points down with no way to make up the deficit, so you spend five VPs to bring on a squad of terminators to help with a couple of your objectives. Will they score them for you and turn the tide, or end up dragging you even lower?
Don’t get me wrong, I still love writing an army list for the right occasion, but if the homework can be taken out of playing against a stranger or a new faction for the first time, I won’t be sad.
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
Sounds like a boardgame to me. Nothing wrong with that but that’s a different game.
Yes, I am advocating for a different game!
The real herasy is why the game is still you go I go.
1,000%
Truly! Pull chits or something! Way more fun and dynamic. Also means you can actually defend a point without needing to counterattack and kill everything…
When was the last time I had to purchase units before a battle? Literally today — Total War Warhammer 3
touche!
That’s basically crusade dude.
How so? In Crusade you are still building an army list ahead of time (your Crusade Force) and then you pick which elements of it you want to use in a given match and play a normal game.
I think comparing the table top experience to a video game misses every actually-good thing about the hobby. If you want a video game, there’s already plenty of them to play, take your pick.
I forsee serious advantages in your proposal for folks who already have lots of models. What about the guy who only has the budget and time to get his small army list filled out?
Isn’t this already how the game works?
Not really, as you can play at different points levels, or play one without monsters/vehicles with Boarding Action. There’s also now combat patrol games with just the one box. They’ve given many avenues of approachability.
Sure, Boarding Actions and Combat Patrol games are meant to keep everyone operating at a similar price point by limiting their options, but standard games are not. If you are playing a standard game based on points then advantage goes to the player that can afford the best list, as opposed to the bare minimum.
Just saying vp for reinforcements means the winner just wins harder
But you spend the VPs, deducting them form your total. The player in the VP lead is indeed winning, but they could accidentally put themselves in a hole.
The only real drawback to the idea is the increased time spent bookkeeping to decide what new unit you are going to bring in. A game that is expected to take 1 hour due to points value might now take 2 hours as you stop and reasses your strategy to decide what best to bring to the table to counter your opponents decisions.
I agree with you here, and it was not something I was thinking of at first. Familiarity will cut this down some, and the number of options could be limited as well, but it is definitely a problem that needs more examination.
I’ve run an RTS style apocalypse game or two in the past, they need a lot of structure and additional rules to make it work which I’ve learnt over various games.
I’m also lucky / daft enough to have built a huge collection over the years so players have total freedom to choose units.
It’s still something I’m working on as (with most game mechanics) it can be exploited.
The other issue with RTS is once one side has a lead it’s almost impossible for the other to counter it.
If you’re thinking to do away with army lists I’d look at narrative scenario’s where the forces aren’t fair but the mission objectives for each side compensate for that, these tend to be loads of fun in my experience! (Though can take a while to get the balance right).
Desperate last stands, ambushes, sneaky infiltration, forcing a beachhead, rescuing a unit etc
Anyways, good article and interested to see how your exploration of this idea goes!
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply! I would be very interested to know more about your RTS style apocalypse game. Making a game where an advantage can be countered is tough! You need to be working with a game system where a sound tactician can win a fight with a handicap. Narrative scenarios, or as we call them in historical wargaming: scenarios, are the way I play most of my tabletop games. I love competitive gaming, but I far prefer video games to scratch that itch, which is where this idea came from.
That’s not really feasible, I’m not a fan of painting so it’s hard enough to get motivated to paint 2000 pts of units, let alone paint another ~500 pts of what basically a sideboard, and that’s if you’re lucky, some armies if you want a different strategy it’s 1200-1500 pts difference
I totally hear you. I had not considered that angle because I love painting, but now I know I have a blind spot.
Isn’t this what “A Billion Suns” (basically batleefleet gothic style naval space battles) already does? It’s essentially spending VP.
I don’t know, I’ve never looked into it, but now I’m interested!
Both of these ideas are things in heresy2.0 . That campaign book that came out gave some real fun missions like that
Well now I need to check this out!