Is it better to have one army for many games or many armies for one game?

[noyjatatParticipant 16155xp 2]

Thought I might raise a bit of a discussion point. As I get older I struggle to keep up and absorb the updates and available armies to play games. I also find that I don’t enjoy the hobby that I used to on my return during my mid-life gaming crisis some years ago. I actually think I sabotage myself through jumping from project to project leaving armies close to finished rather complete them so I don’t have to play. I am not even sure this is a conscious decision but rather something that my grey matter has been doing without me really noticing.

With that in mind and my waning focus, I thought I would throw a question out to the community. The title only covers part of my thoughts as there is plenty of in-between as well. The XLBS this weekend raised the question about a genre being boring, I am not sure that wouldn’t sweep over to all genres and that boringness (not sure if this is a word) is what leaves many of us to stall or wax and wane in our hobbies. I know guys and girls who are more about collecting and complete collection of their chosen parts of the hobby who seem to do much better and keeping up their momentum.

How do we manage our own expectations and focus on what we want to do?

How does having our large to-do piles of shame affect your hobby and your mental state for the hobby?

And although this may sound bad, would we have been better off not getting into the hobby in the first place, as those moments of enjoyment when gaming or finishing painting a mini are outnumbered by the frustration of any number of other times we don’t really talk that much or hear about?

[phaidknott 7023xp 2]

Problem these days with so many rule systems, types of basing, scale of miniatures etc meaning finding an opponent who playing the same rules, in the same scale, and the same period almost impossible (unlike back in the 80s for example where if you played Naps it was usually 15mm and using Newbury Quick Play rules as there was simply not a lot of choice out there).

So these days we gamers have to provide the whole game rather than just one side (particularly with historical gaming), so I’d say it’s best to have many armies (well at least two) for one game. One army for many games is less of a slog when it comes to painting as “new” always inspires creation, but alas you’ll probably find these armies just end up in storage.

Even with the club scene it’s almost impossible to get two players choosing the same period to buy and collect the same rules, minis etc. We all seem to run off an do our own thing these days (due to the sheer amount of choice), it may be the “golden age of wargaming” when it comes to availability, but it’s not been without it’s negatives.

 

[horati0nosebl0wer 19648xp 1]

Aha! A question to let my understimulated mind loose upon. Pounce, Meredith! (One should always have a pet name for their brain… well, the one kept in a jar around the house atleast).

I believe that there is the eternal fear of missing out which leads us to hunt the most recent shiny figures and thus drives the imaginations of concept designers/sculptors for our cash to fund their livelihoods.  From there we fall prey to the trap of great marketing in seeing box/website art that most of us wish we were capable of and few able to achieve. In our frustration we kick our halfway realized dreams aside when the reality of our ability doesn’t match. After a while we get the urge to go back again and then relent to just doing the hobby come what may and feel better in the accomplishment of the process. In general the meditation of creation should be our zen.

These lockdowns make us face these issues head on as we are in isolation to consider them and the Hoards of Shame. Massive purchases that lie around are just going to lie around unless we do something with them. On that note I’ll say more games with less need of many figures is great (perhaps mini agnostic systems are best). More figures for the collection as singular display items will help limit the clutter and give clear examples of what can be done with focused effort (your command/signature figures in bigger force games).

Reflection shouldn’t make anything boring as we come to appreciate genre (music and movies are always making and breaking themselves). All of it really is boring if you boil it down to manufactured conflict between two sides and then resolve with dice/cards. Which side is better? It doesn’t matter. One group of tiny fighting men with particular stat lines and sculpted motifs or a deck built with particular features functioned better than another in a semi random situation. No countries were won or lost. We’ll get up tomorrow and work so that we can play again. The hobby act of making things look cool that we can hold in our hand and show off really is what we all gather around for. We tend to do poorly in the beginning but we gain skill with experience so we display more competence. In this mini world we take every little victory in the long slog of hobby battle which really is a personal war against feeling incompetent/inept/insignificant in a much bigger world. We’re all in it together as gaming nerds and the unspoken bond of understanding the fact is why this site even exists. This is zen, and might be both uncomfortable and comforting.

[torros 23816xp 2]

I would go with the many armies

 

The important bit is working out a basing  system that works for  many games

[pagan8thParticipant 10863xp 1]

I’d say both.

Buy armies that appeal to irrespective of the game, especially if you get as much (if not more) pleasure out of the painting.

Personally, I got bored painting units especially if they have a uniform. Rabble, pirates, savage tribes… these often have more variety and it becomes more fun to paint them because it’s more like painting characters… or so it is with me.

[theamazingmrgParticipant 2703xp 5]

Honestly, I think the first step is to eliminate the phrase “pile of shame” and the mentality that models absolutely have to be painted before they can be played with.  All that is doing is piling extra pressure on ourselves to achieve a standard that we may not always be capable of for whatever reason.  Life has a habit of getting in the way of even the best intentions.

 

Yes, models look better painted.  Of course they do.  And yes, painting is a major (if not primary) part of the hobby for many people, but so is gaming and we often let ourselves fall into the trap of “I’m not playing that until its painted”, and then the painting doesn’t get done, for whatever reason (I haven’t painted a single thing in 2020 – I just haven’t had the mental capacity for it).  And if you refuse to play with something until its painted, but can’t finish painting it, then all you’ve done is hung a weight around your own neck that makes you unhappy with the things you bought for pleasure.  And that unhappiness spreads on through the rest of the hobby.

 

The hobby is slightly different for each of us as individuals and we need to focus on the things that bring us, as individuals, pleasure otherwise what is the point?

 

As far as the question of “which is better, many armies, or many games” the answer is the same – whatever makes the individual happy.  There is no collective right answer.

[pagan8thParticipant 10863xp 1]

I recently bought Folklore the Affliction board game… with standees… no painting required…

And I’ve finished off my Eldritch Horror collection which also uses standees… although I could use the already painted Mansions of Madness minis I have if I feel the need.

I did have a Daughters of Khaine weakness lately… Shadow and Pain, Warcry Catacombs plus Kraeth’s Shadowpact. I still haven’t played Soul Wars, but now I can look forward to passing Sigmars fantasy marines to a friend at some point and killing them all with a bunch of psycho women 🙂

I just hope I got enough flesh paint to cover them all…

[Author]

Posts