Just like this page break.
I do this with video games (one of the reasons many games in the past have sat around 50-75% complete,) but where I notice it most often is with miniature gaming. Video games are a little different in that you can complete a video game; you can't necessarily "complete" a miniature game in the same sense. There's almost always something new to try out, even if it gets to be more and more of edge cases/crazy ideas as time goes on.
Something I have noticed as I've hopped between armies and game systems is that there are some remarkable benefits to playing different armies, and sometimes even different game systems, that help you when you come back to your favorite army/game.
First: it is very valuable to get out of your own head for a bit. This varies by game, but most game systems involve at least a little bit of theorycrafting and list/build dojo. For a game like Warmachine, that can be an important, fun part of the game, but it is also very easy to get stuck in mental ruts. Or to start subscribing too much to the advice/opinions of others and let it shape your thoughts. That can lead to frustration and burnout, especially if you're trying to solve a particularly pesky problem (match up, personal nemesis, improving your own play, etc.)
By stepping away from that army - and sometimes even that game system entirely - you give yourself the time and mental space to reset your thinking. It doesn't need to be a long break (though sometimes that's the best cure for a serious case of burnout/overexposure); sometimes just a game or two with a different army or playing a different game can allow you to come back to your favorite army feeling refreshed and revitalized. It can be really surprising how much of a difference just a little break can make.
Second: playing different armies and/or different games entirely allows you to work on new skills that may serve you well when you cycle back to another army/game. How this applies varies wildly by game, so I need to get specific to Warmachine here.
For as much as people may have complained at the start of Mk. 2 that all of the factions were homogenized (and did they ever complain about it,) all of the Warmachine factions still have a very clear playstyle identity. There is still plenty of crossover (probably inevitable when a game gets as big as Warmachine is) - for example: Khador, Cryx, and Retribution all run roughly similar list configurations - but even when there is crossover there is also still a need to approach each problem with an eye on what specifically your faction can do against it.
Going back to the Khador/Cryx/Retribution example: although all three armies run similar list configurations (loads of infantry backed up by a warjack or two, if that,) they are all going to be wildly different in how they attempt to solve specific problems. The way Khador deals with Cygnar is very different from how Retribution or Cryx would; the same as Cryx dealing with Circle compared to Retribution or Khador; the same as...
By playing those other armies you gain the experience of using different tools to combat a problem you thought you had figured out, and in the process you may end up learning key things that you can take back with you when you return to your favorite army.
As a personal example: I've noticed over the years that I run Khador with more guns than most players do (based on the totally non-scientific metric of "I look at other people's lists sometimes.") Not a ton of guns; I usually have at least one "major" shooting component (Nyss, Winter Guard) or two "minor" shooting components (Widowmakers, solos, etc.)
I am certain that this predilection comes from my time playing Cygnar way back when. After experiencing how much of a difference it makes being able to whittle your opponent's army down a bit on the way in, I've shied away from melee-centric or melee-only armies. Khador has some very excellent shooting options that are often overlooked or marginalized in the enthusiasm to embrace the faction's ability to dole out lots of melee hitting power, and I think one of the ways I've been able to stay sane for so long playing one of the most (reportedly) "static" and "straightforward" factions is by exploring and including those options a little more often than most. And I never would have really considered it without my experience from playing another faction.
Third: playing as another army can give you valuable insight into the challenges they face and how it feels to come at your lists from the other side of the table. It is very easy to get into a mindset of thinking of other armies as being more powerful/capable/flexible/favored than yours (it's a very seductive frame of mind); the best way to dispel those thoughts is to experience the game from their perspective.
You can do this mentally, but it can be difficult to really empathize how it would feel to be facing a situation when faced with the limiations of another army. Point of fact, it may be impossible if you're entrenched enough in your prejudices - you can easily imagine an out for any bad situation, regardless of the feasibility of it. It is much, much more effective to actually put the models on the table and try it out for yourself.
To go back to my brief time with Cygnar, they're a faction that earns a lot of ire and understandably so. They trade fairly heavily in two things that tend to drive players crazy - control elements and potent ranged attacks - and their game plan is to wear you down at arm's length until they can finish you off in melee (or ideally, never engage at all.) All of that is a recipe for gamer rage. And anyone on the receiving end of it a few times will probably quickly develop...lets call it a "strong reaction" to Cygnar's models and lists.
However, what you're probably not appreciating from the other side of the table is how difficult it can be to play that list/army. Cygnar teaches you a lot of things - target priority, resource allocation, spacing, acceptable losses - in a way that other factions don't, and you're likely to get run over a number of times until you get those concepts down. And even when you do have those concepts "mastered", they'll be put further to the test by lists that are specifically engineered to counter what your faction does, forcing you to figure out how to get out of that situation.
I can't even really hate on two of the most irritating Cygnar models (at least in my opinion), Haley2 and Stormwall. For as maddening as Haley2 is to fight against, she's also not at all easy to use. If her denial game works, she usually wins. If her denial game isn't enough (and a lot of it hinges on her feat) then the game often runs away from her. Being able to manage that takes a fair degree of skill and practice, even though it feels like (from the other side) that Haley2 has so many options she's tripping her way to victory.
Likewise, for how much I hate trying to deal with it in Khador, I absolutely understand the Stormwall. Cygnar is an odd faction; if you start playing it from Prime and work your way forward, you get the sense that it's a faction that is supposed to rely on it's warjacks, with them being supplemented by the 'caster's abilities (most often denial based) and some semi-elite infantry. The problem is that it's very difficult to do that in game, so you end up with a the pre-Stormwall state of Cygnar (faux-Mercs.) Stormwall finally gave them the battlegroup vanguard model their army was always supposed to have (which is of course why it's so ballbusting with them, but that's another discussion entirely.)
My point is not to focus on those models; rather, I wanted to highlight how my experience with the faction has allowed me to view some of their most hated models with a (begrudged) understanding. That is valuable because it helps to demystify those models a bit for me, which in turn has helped me be able to face them more rationally. I would not have been able to put myself in that mindset without having played the faction.
Finally, stepping outside of your favorite army or game system can give you some valuable, often exciting and refreshing perspective on it.
I have never appreciated Khador more than when I've come back to it after playing another faction for awhile. In fact, I think Khador is a faction that benefits tremendously from having that kind of experience. Khador is a faction that kind of dabbles in a lot of different things, but doesn't do any one thing super well; it's grown into being a very combined arms/jack of many trades kind of faction. While that's great from a list building perspective, it's also kind of frustrating/discouraging when you run into other armies that are more focused on one or two aspects (and thusly perform very well in those aspects.) Taking the time to play those factions then come back to Khador allows me to really appreciate the flexibility of Khador's options and general list building, and it gives me renewed appreciation for some of it's more unique models.
Similarly, I would not appreciate Warmahordes nearly as much as I do if I hadn't tried out a bunch of other game systems. Warmahordes has it's issues, but for everything the game hiccups on there are two or three things it handles very well/does very right. It's very easy to become overly content with that if Warmahordes is the only game you play; spending a few gaming sessions playing less refined/designed/considered games really opens your eyes to how well PP has been able to keep the game together and refine it over the years.
-----
Hopefully that communicates some of the value in having alternate armies and/or game systems to dip into once in awhile. I think it's one of the keys to staying excited and motivated in the hobby, and even "dedicated" faction players like Jake VanMeter have stepped away from their faction of choice periodically (even if they didn't buy into another faction or play it extensively.) The change in perspective is often extremely beneficial when you return to the army you really like, and if nothing else the break can be refreshing.
This was motivated by me cycling back to Malifaux a bit more after taking lots of time away from it following the conclusion of the Wave 2 beta. I'm not sure how much Malifaux writing I'll be doing (I love playing the game, but I don't enjoy discussing it analytically as much as something like Warmachine,) but I'll definitely have some thoughts to share about M2E and likely the upcoming Wave 3 beta.
No comments:
Post a Comment