When a Scenario Gets in the Way of the Fun
Every now and then we end up talking less about who won and more about whether the game itself was actually fun to play. This time the spark was a discussion about a very specific kind of scenario: one where the table setup and mission rules can push both players into a pretty narrow, awkward game.
The immediate trigger was a Necromunda game with the Toll Bridge scenario. And honestly, the more we talked about it, the more it turned into a broader chat about how much a mission, map, and army matchup can shape the whole experience.
The bridge problem
As end3r put it, it was his first time playing that scenario, and his first impression was pretty blunt: if you’re playing dwarfs, then at “100% they shouldn’t even go near the river.” In that setup, sitting back, shooting, and maybe sending a small scouting element over the bridge feels like the only sensible option.
And that naturally led to the bigger question from Michał: is a game where one side stands behind a river and just shoots, while a melee-heavy opponent has to cross under heavy fire through a single choke point, actually fun for either player?
That question hit home because it gets at something we run into across different systems: fun in Warhammer is often only loosely connected to the final score.
Winning is not always the fun part
Michał summed that up really well. We can lose badly and still have a great time, or win and come away feeling like the game was flat.
He brought up two examples from other systems that really show the difference.
Before the FAQ, playing Cathay in Warhammer: The Old World just wasn’t fun for him, even though the army was steamrolling opponents and almost nothing could get close.
On the other hand, he remembered a game at Colosseum against Marek’s Necrons in Warhammer 40k. He was killing loads of them, but somehow one model always survived, and then the whole unit came back. He still lost 12:8, but the game was hilarious and memorable.
That’s the kind of thing we mean when we say the result isn’t everything. Sometimes a game is exciting because it keeps producing dramatic moments, weird reversals, and opportunities for interaction. Sometimes a “strong” setup just removes all of that.
Interaction matters more than balance on paper
What really sat at the center of this conversation was interaction.
Michał wondered whether the fun starts to disappear when the map itself limits how much the players can actually engage with each other in interesting ways. If one side mostly waits and shoots, and the other just tries to survive a forced crossing, then even if the mission is technically balanced or thematic, it may not create the kind of back-and-forth that makes a game memorable.
And that’s where end3r’s perspective was really interesting, because he doesn’t dislike shooting at all. Quite the opposite.
He likes the whole spectrum of ranged play: classic long-range sniping, but also shorter-range firefights. Depending on the system, that works better or worse. He even said that The Old World is the system where this gives him the most trouble.
In Kill Team, for example, he can happily go all-in on melee if the matchup demands it, lose several games in a row, and not really mind. That says a lot about how much room that system gives for adaptation and decision-making.
And with Salamanders, positioning itself becomes part of the fun, because they want to get relatively close to make the most of their bonuses within 12”. In a board like Colosseum, that turns into a proper little game of movement and setup rather than just passive gunline play.
Necromunda is not always that extreme
It’s also worth saying that this wasn’t meant as a blanket criticism of Necromunda.
End3r pointed out that other Necromunda scenarios are not usually this extreme. There have been plenty of close encounters with enemy fists and axes, and those games felt perfectly fine. In this particular Toll Bridge mission, the objective was simply to get across to the other side. One Junior managed it. The boss, sadly, got set on fire while trying to do the same.
And honestly, that little detail tells us a lot about why we still love these games even when we’re complaining about them. Even in a frustrating scenario, Necromunda can still produce exactly the kind of cinematic nonsense we remember afterwards: one ganger making the run, the leader going down in flames, and the whole table telling a story.
Maybe it’s also a lineup issue
Right at the end, wilini threw in a short but fair point: maybe it’s a lineup issue.
And yeah, maybe it is.
Sometimes a scenario feels miserable not because the mission itself is broken, but because a specific gang, army, or build runs into exactly the wrong table and objective combination. That’s part of what makes campaign and scenario-driven systems so interesting, but it’s also where some of the rough edges show up the most.
Our takeaway
Our main takeaway from this chat is pretty simple:
- a good game does not have to be close on points,
- a winning game does not automatically feel good,
- and a brutal or asymmetric scenario can still work if it creates interaction, tension, and memorable moments.
But if the mission reduces the game to one player waiting and the other suffering through a bottleneck, then even a thematic setup can start feeling more like a puzzle with one correct answer than an actual battle.
And maybe that’s the real dividing line for us. We don’t mind losing. We don’t even mind getting wrecked. What we want is to feel like we’re playing the game together.
If you’ve had similar moments in Necromunda, Kill Team, Warhammer 40k, or Warhammer: The Old World, we’re always curious: which scenarios gave you the best stories, and which ones just turned into a slog?