Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Some games allow for great customization when building an army. One single model might have the opportunity to choose from more than 30 different unique combinations of weapons and gadgets. Other games has very little freedom of choosing equipment and weapons.

Say a normal w40k Space Marine Sergeant has a load of options. While a unit in Warmachine normally has no option other than possibly taking 1 extra model as weapon attachment or an officer and banner as unit attachment.

What level of customization do you like? Or is it not important how much customization a game allows, but other factors?

Discuss below and vote in poll.

This is probably the main reason I dislike warmahordes. I play IG in 40k but I play DKoK as my chosen army type. I like the minis and they make me feel like a unique snow flake in a world full of Cadians and Catachans. I like my army to be unique even when I am playing something generic. I just don’t get that in some games and it’s the reason I don’t play them. Its been a bone of contention in my play group who have now started to play warmahordes, while I am into games like gorkamorka.

The ability to make something you build uniquely your own seems to be part of the human condition. It is nice to have options to fire the imagination.

HOWEVER

I can see why Warmachine and such reduce the options for a more balanced game. Too many variables keep the math-hammer folks in business and various friends that like to find "broken" combos.

This is why chess is the true strategist game but does not fire the imagination.

Warmachine kind of does have that customisation to some degree... they just handle it differently. Where 40K has, say, a Space Marine Dreadnought with a bunch of different options, Warmachine has a bunch of different Warjacks that all use the same chassis. Which ultimately amounts to more or less the same thing as if Codex: Space Marines had separate entries for a lascannon Dreadnought, an assault cannon dreadnought, etc...

It's more elegant for some types of games than others. Generally, unit customization works best for 'small scale' games, than 'large scale'. But in this case, scale means the number of discernable commandable units, not the number of physical pieces.

40k is a 'small scale' game in terms of commandable units. You field perhaps 6-10 squads/vehicles with quantifiable properties (That's a Tac squad with a plasma gun, that's a terminator captain with a power fist, etc). But you really only move those 10 units around.

It's sort of like Infinity. You have the potential of one very customizable unit (the spec op), or up to 10 moderately customizable units (ie, a soldier with a specific weapon, or a hacking tool)

Warmachine and some other games with large numbers of individually maneuvering and significant models meanwhile, creates a different situation. They are 'large scale' games, in the sense that every single trooper's position and armanment matters a great deal. Entire games of warmachine can be decided by the placement of 2 or 3 grunts, or their weapons. In this case, customization adds too much unnecessary bloat, complexity, and room for confusion. It's much easier (and cleaner) to have discrete units that can be instantly recognized and understood, instead of having always ask 'what does that guy have?'

I like customisation options. That's partly because I got into miniature wargaming via pen'n'paper RPGs. Coming up with the fluff behind whatever army I'm compiling, conceptualising characters and marrying that fluff with their equipment selection, and reflecting those choices in the models themselves, gives me almost more enjoyment than playing the game itself.

There are downsides, of course. Often the fluffiest equipment selection is either utterly ineffective on the table, or expensive beyond all reason. And on the occasions, like Sisters of Battle, where the fluff dictates all weapon selection, and whatever is the most effective set-up is consequently utterly fluffy, anyone who doesn't know you personally will always assume the selection was made for math-hammer reasons, rather than narrative. That, or they'll look at said Sisters and pat you on the shoulder in sympathy.

I'd rather have all the options, and be able to use those to create a "fluffy" army (either a historically accurate army or an army that fits the fiction I'm in) than not have enough options to do so.

However, you usually reach a point where there are too many options, and that's never fun. It's gotta be done in moderation.

Funny, this issue is cropping up in the game I play; Malifaux. With the move to a second edition, they've streamlined a lot of the complicated figures and even removed or changed some powers, many of which can be added back on (or left off and other/new things added in their place). This is being done to minimize some of the more counter-intuitive interactions that could happen and speed up the game, but it hasn't been without controversy in the community.

Some like that they can tailor their crews even more (not just what models they bring, but the upgrades those models carry), while others see it as "dumbing down" the game, making them 'pay' (as it does cost a resource) to play the masters they've grown accustomed to, and that some intangible "flavour" of the game risks being lost with said streamlining.

Personally, I find myself trying to remain open minded about the matter, while respecting that it's not just about what I think, but my playgroup as well, and several of those are old guard WH/40K players, whom have their own admitted baggage present over the notion of 'streamlining' and 'edition changes' on top of those considerations.

This is done alongside a serious bit of retooling and rebalancing the figures and factions in the game, so it's quite a lot to take in, and with an open beta going on right now, the situation is evolving week to week.

If nothing else, it'll be interesting to see where things go.

Well yes I do enjoy having the liberty to customize my army, and thuss making it my own. Have done so with all my armies, either by paint style or by modifications done to different kits.

Agree with Killionaire's post - the level of customisation that works in a particular game system depends on the structure and mechanics of the system itself. Too much customisation into a game that can't support it ruins that game with bloated overcomplicated situations (or else it has certain dominating builds that everyone takes), not enough in a game that requires is would result in a very bland experience (imagine Necromunda where everybody had just a lasgun and nobody gained skills).

I agree about the Warmahordes difference. Pretty much the main reason I play 40k is because of the massive, massive variety, and I'll happily state that more variety makes for a better gaming scene.

I want to have a unique, 'different' army, or be able to 'theme' an army to a weird bit of fluff. This customization then keeps me interested while I paint the army. I realise that this makes the game harder and harder to balance, but I'm fine with that..

Baxx wrote:
Some games allow for great customization when building an army. One single model might have the opportunity to choose from more than 30 different unique combinations of weapons and gadgets. Other games has very little freedom of choosing equipment and weapons.

Say a normal w40k Space Marine Sergeant has a load of options. While a unit in Warmachine normally has no option other than possibly taking 1 extra model as weapon attachment or an officer and banner as unit attachment.

What level of customization do you like? Or is it not important how much customization a game allows, but other factors?

Discuss below and vote in poll.

This is a narrow view of customization. Wouldn't you consider taking a different unit instead of an option be customization as you are selecting an otpion? You view customization as a small scale option when it exists in many flavors and levels. Flames of War has a huge number of army lists that offers great organizational customization. Warmachine has variations of casters and optional tier lists for them and the unit attachments you easily dismiss for no reason. Nearly every game has choices between units. To define customization solely as what an individual model can take rather than a game as a whole ignores true value of choice.

I voted doesn't matter, but I would be better with a "both" option.

I like customization that looks good. And flows as a whole army.

I also like the customization in warmahordes where there is tons of options of what units I can take. Although a note here, I think the models only look good in the scheme from the rule books.

I prefer balanced game systems, putting the customization in the hands of the players is an invitation to getting things broken, I rather have the designer balance the options and produce load outs and variants, exactly as Infinity is designed.

The problem is that when you have things that can benefit other things- for example markerlights- you open up a can of worms for balance, but if you create a good formula you can pretty much balance anything besides that.

I love customization.

The greatest joy for me in this game is having passers-by marvel at how awesome the game looks. Win or lose, I just want other people to be impressed by what we're doing. Perhaps a bit shallow, I know, but I think I can examine my motives honestly here.

Customized minis go a long way to making my favorite part of the game easier.

Yes. It lets you really make your models and army your own. It also means more variety, and variety is a good thing. I can live with the balance issues since I play mostly for the spectacle and ridiculousness of it all.

Wow, did I ever miss the topic by a mile.

My answer is still yes, but I sure do feel silly.

I too prefer to have the options to customise characters and units to what I want them to be.

That is why I love all the relic items that GW are putting in the codexes now like remnants of glory or tau signature systems.

It adds so much versatility and customisation to the army building process.

This is also why I love necromunda so much.

I voted Yes. I like the customization options a lot and even more so when my Necrons are so restricted in this aspect. My pretty big options are "Tesla or Gauss" but I do have plenty of happy fun times when it comes to "pimp your overlord" or crypteks and I love it.

Warmahordes just make me go "meh". Which is a pity because here there are more people playing Warmahordes than 40k :(

Yep, definitely.
I think having a high level of customization keeps things fresh, meaning you can play the same models in a list but play it completely differently by changing equipment around.
It is one of the main reasons i enjoy 40K so much, by simply swapping a few units equipment around you can have a very different playing style from game to game.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
I voted Yes. I like the customization options a lot and even more so when my Necrons are so restricted in this aspect. My pretty big options are "Tesla or Gauss" but I do have plenty of happy fun times when it comes to "pimp your overlord" or crypteks and I love it.

Warmahordes just make me go "meh". Which is a pity because here there are more people playing Warmahordes than 40k :(

Well when you use necrons as a comparison it isn't actually too bad. You choose between warriors, immortals (tesla) and immortals (gauss). Cygnar choose between Long Gunners, Trenchers and Trencher Commandos. You choose between Lychguard with swords and with warscythes, Cygnar choose between Stormblades and Stormguard, both of which are further customized by including their solo. You choose between different equipment on Tomb Blades to get better shooting/better CC (not sure on their options) Cygnar choose between Tempest Blazers and Storm Knights, the latter of which can be further customized by the inclusion of their special solo. Your triarch stalker has one of three weapons, you have 3 different jacks on the ironclad chassis, one an AT, one an Anti-Infantry and one a melee bruiser. You get quite a bit of customization, but it depends how you look at it. The minutae of detail on the lords/crypteks you can miss out on, or you can see the many different solos (both faction and merc) and casters as that diversity (cryptek with a night stick [forget the name] meet Gorman, cryptek with a shooty stick meet Gun Mage Captain Adept, lord with a res orb meet Rupert Carvolo).

Admittedly armies that have more individual choices in the unit are a bit different, for example while I could say with SM you have tacs and scouts, I'd have to go into what those unit's different options are, for example scouts with snipers and scouts with bolters meet Rangers and Trencher Commandos. If the scout sergeant has a combi something that's no real different to giving the Commandos a scattergunner attachment.

So it really depends on how you look at 'customization'. Insaniak said it pretty well above

 insaniak wrote:
Warmachine kind of does have that customisation to some degree... they just handle it differently. Where 40K has, say, a Space Marine Dreadnought with a bunch of different options, Warmachine has a bunch of different Warjacks that all use the same chassis. Which ultimately amounts to more or less the same thing as if Codex: Space Marines had separate entries for a lascannon Dreadnought, an assault cannon dreadnought, etc...

I would take customization over balance any day of the week.

Plus, the idea and philosophy of customization reinforces an informal approach to gaming that non-customizable rules sets do not. Even if the designer intent is to have informal and less-rigid rules, lack of customization does not reinforce that design choice.

I prefer an informal approach to gaming and therefore see cutomization options as a double benefit.

 Easy E wrote:
I would take customization over balance any day of the week.

I'd take balance over customization hands down, 100 times over! And this is coming from a non-competitive/ fluff player and a modeller/ painter who loves customization. LOVES IT!

Customization is great when there's a point to it and people actually do it. When I started playing WM/H I was worried that it would end up feeling "samey" because units changed very little beyond the addition of a few guys whereas my IG have a vast amount of options to chose from. However, when I thought about it and looked at the lists people play, that get posted online, that are used in tournaments, or get suggested to new players, It's always the same stuff. Loads of units are ignored because of internal balance issues (why take unit X when unit Y is so much better), or people try to maximize their points/ efficiency ratio (and say don't bother taking upgrades to vehicles). Really, while a IG squad Sgt has the option to take a whole host of wargear people generally don't bother because it's a waste of points. The options could largely be removed and the vast majority of players wouldn't care, or even notice - since said options don't help them win. It ends up being needless customization that clutters up the army lists to no real benefit. all those options are just false choices and I largely think this is due to balance issues within the game.

I feel that in WM/H, as others have described, what you lose in a given units customization you make up for with different units - which usually have vastly different abilities. Tacking on a unit or weapon attachment changes a given unit even more.
For example, if I add say a plasmagun to an IG squad it opens up an option or two for me against armoured infantry and light vehicles and that's great but when I take a unit attachment for my Trollblood Kriel Warriors suddenly I'm immune to knock down and I can spread my forces a bit farther. Add 1-3 Cabers to that and suddenly even the nastiest things my opponent has are in serious trouble. The entire way I and my opponent plays changes based on the addition of a single thing, often times drastically.

All of that said, both games are good in their own way and I still play both. If WM/H could feed my craving for something sci-fi I'm sure it would be my only game.

I like customisation, but not too many options. I think a game like LOTR did it really well. Only a handful of options and only two model types but each model has wargear options that drastically alter its function. A swordsman is a warrior in the thick of the fighting but you wouldn't send an archer into the same situation at all.

I like customisation because it allows you more in-game options, it gives you more unique modelling options and also for the model-maker it gives extra bits for the bits box.

Lack of balance makes customization not customization.

It makes it easily determined optimal builds, which leads to boring, boring, boring repeat builds.

Seriously, 'customizable' Long Fangs results in seeing the same 15 missile launchers over and over again, for example. Or 'customizable' IG flyers means hooray, three vendettas again, with three executioners on the ground.

Balance is one of the most important elements of any game, because it has wide reaching consequences elsewhere.

---

Also, overly simplistic view of 'customization' is silly. Being able to buy a different item of gear is not inherently customization, compared to two similar units with a different item of gear. An example may be SM Dreadnaughts. They're pretty much as customizable really as a Warjack.

I play Mordheim because I like customization.

I do not play Malifaux - not enough customization. Depending on how well the RPG integrates with the miniatures game... this may change.

If it is a skirmish level game then I very much want to be able to customize my warband/crue/army.

The Auld Grump

I think Insaniak has it right with WMH: it may look like you get less 'options', but really these options are simply considered different units by WMH.

For example, 40k might have a Heavy Support choice 'Dire Troll', base 9 pts. Upgrade to a 'Bomber' for 1 pt or to a Blitzer for free.
I think if you actually divided a WMH army up into the number of different 'chassis', you'd end up with roughly the same amount of units as an older codex (WMH hasn't been around for as long as 40k so hasn't had the same number of release cycles yet).

The ampersand man also has a good point about what level of customisation is actually 'real'. Sure, I *can* take 100pts of upgrades on a 50pt vehicle, but why would I? I'll identify the single more efficient upgrade for the unit, take it all the time. I ran into this problem with my Crisis suits: I thought they were so cool and customisable, so I spent hours magnetising them everywhere...only to run them as Fireknife pattern for the entirety of 3rd, 4th and 5th edition.

More 'real' customisation is always good, and it doesn't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive with any other game aspect, but you need to think about what customisation really is and whether one game just does it differently to another.

.

My answer is "Yes" and "No." Some games have too much customization which leads to only certain setups being used. 40K is very much like this . Sure, that SM Sergeant has a couple dozen options, but do you ever see more than 3 or 4 versions? No, because some of them aren't worth taking or aren't "powerful" enough.

Other games have next to no variation, and that leads to the EXACT same problem. You will only see a unit configured one way. This time it just isn't by choice of the "best" options.

I think a low number of highly balanced options is the best way to have it. Some choice, but the choice suits a play style or fits with an overall force instead of an obviously superior option.