I don't magnetise my models.
Many people do, nowadays. There are lots of tutorials on blogs and websites across the 'net showing you how to do it. There is one here on Mini Wargaming and a video here on Way of Saim-Hann. It's reasonably simple to do and doesn't cost much. In fact it saves you money in the long run.
The main reason for magnetising your model is to maximise your investment in the model; you can buy one Predator tank, for example, and fit it with heavy bolter sponsons, but then switch those out for lascannon sponsons without having to buy another tank. This also gives you greater tactical flexibility too, as you can tailor your army to your plan and opposition.
So it's easy to do, saves money and gives you a more competitive army. What's not to like?
The reason I don't magnetise my models is because I care about personality, theme and background.
I don't view models as just playing pieces in the game, but as part of a living breathing army in the 41st millennium. Those armies are defined by their weaknesses as much as their strengths.
A Predator tank in my Blood Angels army is not just a tank, it is Sacrum, a two century old vehicle which has fought in numerous campaigns. It is armed with an autocannon, heavy bolter sponsons and a pintle storm bolter. It earned it's name after it's first engagement against an Ork Waaagh. Leading from the front, it allowed several rhino troop transports to reach the Ork lines and despite being immobilised and drawing heavy fire, it spat a hail of death back into the greenskins. Without the sacrifice of that Predator, the Blood Angels may not have won the battle. Since then then, Sacrum has fought in countless battles, always utilising the same tactics, getting stuck in to the heart of the fighting and somehow surviving to fight another day.
Would it still be Sacrum if I swapped out the sponsons? I don't think so. It's the same with the weapons I choose for characters. Their weapons, wargear and armour become a defining part of them so I couldn't choose any others. It would seem like a betrayal!
I'd rather have the stones to pick the model as is, and try and make the tactics fit my force and the way my models are equipped. That might not be the 'best' choice for a game but at least you keep the background of your force pure and intact. I just think it's the start of a slippery slope switching between magnetised kit options. I don't want to start thinking of my models as just playing pieces. If I really want a certain combination I'll buy and paint a new model.
Besides, you never remember when your Predator with lascannons blows up an enemy vehicle because that's what you expect it to do, but you always remember when your Predator with heavy bolters does the same because the odds are against it. That would earn Sacrum a great honour, perhaps worthy of some extra painting on the model, a purity seal or maybe a write up in a battle report.
Anyway, it's often surprising how often I think I really need a particular combination of weapons only to find that I don't when I start playing the game. If after a few games it's clear I really do need a particular model or weapon then I build a specific model for that purpose. I will write up it's own history and then develop it further as I play some games with it.
I don't hate those who do magnetise their models, in fact I admire their ingenuity, but it's not for me.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
OPINION: Ideas to shake up your 40k games
Back in 2008 I was feeling a bit jaded with 40k and gaming in general. Gary, my regular opponent, and I had gotten into the routine of playing 1500 point games with missions straight from the rulebook week after week. In order to try and spice things up a bit I came up with a few ideas for unusual games.
As it happens we never did actually play any of these games but that shouldn't stop you from trying them out. Perfectly balanced tournament scenarios aren't the only way to play the game!
Tank battle
For a long time I preferred to paint and model infantry rather than vehicles but I then went through a phase of mechanising my armies, adding tanks and transports to them all. Gary was always more pragmatic and included vehicles in many of his armies. Between us we had about ten different factions with three to four vehicles each. So I got to thinking - wouldn't it be great if I could use all of those vehicles, across all the different factions, in one big game?
My plan was to put together the biggest table we could find, maybe even use the floor, and fight a gigantic tank battle. We would split the armies into the forces of order and disorder and then have at it. Points values be damned!
Any vehicles, including Dreadnoughts and walkers, could be used and no other models. We would play until one side had no mobile vehicles.
Seven Samurai
I think there is a scenario similar to this in the 6th edition Warhammer Fantasy battle rulebook. One person picks his 1500 point army as normal, without using too many vehicles, special characters or too many funky rules. The other person must spend his entire 1500 points on up to seven HQ choices. The 'normal' army has to wipe out the seven samurai by the end of the game otherwise they lose.
This game would probably be very quick to play, so you play two games in one night, with each player coming up with their own version of the seven samurai.
Arena of Death
Gary and I have large model collections including numerous special characters, greater daemons and sundry HQ choices. My idea was to gather them all together and plonk them on the table together. Each player rolls a die with the winner picking a character to activate. They get a full turn to move, shoot and assault with that character and then the other player chooses a different model. The players alternate characters until every model has had a turn and then the players dice off again.
The last model standing is the winner. That should help answer those annoying questions such as 'who is harder, Abaddon or Ghazghkull?' At least for a while.
40k League
My last idea was based on our Blood Bowl leagues. We would write up 500 point fixed lists for each of our armies - probably around 10 or so factions. These would be kept the same for the duration of the league. Each army would play every one of the others once. That would mean playing a lot of games! Now you understand why the armies are kept at just 500 points. Small games means you could play four games a night if you wanted to.
Each army would get 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a loss. Whichever army had the most points at the end of the league is the winner.
Anyway, that's all for now. This already feels like one of those rambling Standard Bearer articles by Jervis Johnson so I'll shut up.
As it happens we never did actually play any of these games but that shouldn't stop you from trying them out. Perfectly balanced tournament scenarios aren't the only way to play the game!
Tank battle
For a long time I preferred to paint and model infantry rather than vehicles but I then went through a phase of mechanising my armies, adding tanks and transports to them all. Gary was always more pragmatic and included vehicles in many of his armies. Between us we had about ten different factions with three to four vehicles each. So I got to thinking - wouldn't it be great if I could use all of those vehicles, across all the different factions, in one big game?
My plan was to put together the biggest table we could find, maybe even use the floor, and fight a gigantic tank battle. We would split the armies into the forces of order and disorder and then have at it. Points values be damned!
Any vehicles, including Dreadnoughts and walkers, could be used and no other models. We would play until one side had no mobile vehicles.
Seven Samurai
I think there is a scenario similar to this in the 6th edition Warhammer Fantasy battle rulebook. One person picks his 1500 point army as normal, without using too many vehicles, special characters or too many funky rules. The other person must spend his entire 1500 points on up to seven HQ choices. The 'normal' army has to wipe out the seven samurai by the end of the game otherwise they lose.
This game would probably be very quick to play, so you play two games in one night, with each player coming up with their own version of the seven samurai.
Arena of Death
Gary and I have large model collections including numerous special characters, greater daemons and sundry HQ choices. My idea was to gather them all together and plonk them on the table together. Each player rolls a die with the winner picking a character to activate. They get a full turn to move, shoot and assault with that character and then the other player chooses a different model. The players alternate characters until every model has had a turn and then the players dice off again.
The last model standing is the winner. That should help answer those annoying questions such as 'who is harder, Abaddon or Ghazghkull?' At least for a while.
40k League
My last idea was based on our Blood Bowl leagues. We would write up 500 point fixed lists for each of our armies - probably around 10 or so factions. These would be kept the same for the duration of the league. Each army would play every one of the others once. That would mean playing a lot of games! Now you understand why the armies are kept at just 500 points. Small games means you could play four games a night if you wanted to.
Each army would get 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a loss. Whichever army had the most points at the end of the league is the winner.
Anyway, that's all for now. This already feels like one of those rambling Standard Bearer articles by Jervis Johnson so I'll shut up.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
OPINION: On wargear and weapons options
As I build my armies, I tend to skimp on equipment. I will give squads the minimum amount of equipment that I think they will need, and never a bit more. Examples? My suicidal take one for the team imperial guard squads don't get squat. My Tactical space marine squads in rhinos get a melta. My Eldar Fire Dragons don't get an exarch. Why? I have always saved those points to buy another squad. I like to field as many units as I can, and this usually means I drop equipment to near baseline status.
Now I know from experience that many people are exactly the opposite. Every squad has the maximum amount of special/heavy weapon/upgrades that it can take. The idea being to make each squad the best they can be, no matter what might pop up. I have seen squads on the table that are paying almost 100% more for upgrades and wargear, and I often wonder if sometimes these extra points don't seriously put some armies at a disadvantage.
Now surely, there are pro's and con's to both of these situations. What do you guys think?
This was my answer:
I'm one for being minimalist, trying to scrimp by on the least amount of equipment necessary for the squad to do what I want it to do. My main opponent, Gary, is the opposite, and he thinks nothing of dropping hundreds of points on extra gear.
A good example is our approach to Chaos Terminators. My idea was three man squads with combi-plasmas/meltas at 105 points per unit.
His idea was a five man squad with icon of Khorne, lightning claws and Terminator champion coming in at 250 points.
Which is better? There's only one way to find out - FIGHT! ;~)
I've always liked the idea of playing a Space Marine horde army, with lots and lots of basic troopers and just one cheap and cheerful HQ choice. In fact I did come up with a list under the previous Marine codex which allowed me to field the entire Blood Angels 3rd Company for just 2000 points. Of course it meant not overly tooling up the squads, but who wouldn't want to bring six Tactical squads, two Assault squads and two Devastator squads to one 2000 point battle?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
OPINION: On proxies
Definition
What is a proxy or proxies? In a wargaming context it is the substitution of one model for another, generally a stand-in for a model you do not have but want to play. You own a rhino, but want to play a predator? Proxy it. You have a lascannon model but want a heavy bolter? Proxy it.
All well and good you might think.
You're wrong.
Let me tell you why.
Confusion
Using proxies can confuse your opponent and therefore give you an in-game advantage. Going through all of your models and units one by one before the game helps a little but doesn't get you off the hook. In the thick of a game, three or four turns in, it is all too easy to glance at the table and take a scatter laser shot at the front armour of your opponent's rhino.
'What, it's a predator?'
'Well I did tell you at the start of the game.'
'Yeah, thanks pal. It's entirely my fault that I failed to memorise every single model in your army in the thirty second before the game started. Besides, I thought that rhino was the predator.'
'No that's a whirlwind.'
'Aaaargh!'
Aesthetics
Proxying almost always makes the game look worse. Most people agree that wargames have a tactile quality which is an important part of the game. The best games are played on good terrain with two well painted and themed armies. In my experience the sort of person who regularly plays with proxies also plays with unpainted, and even unbuilt, models.
Take a stand I say!
Raping the background
Most proxying is done by players trying the lever an in-game advantage and they don't care if they trample all over every other aspect of the game in the meantime. If you've gone to the trouble of glueing together a lascannon, don't proxy it for a heavy bolter. You have a perfectly good lascannon. Use it, even if it won't have the best utility in the game.
If you are going to proxy models then you have to stick to the following rules:
What is a proxy or proxies? In a wargaming context it is the substitution of one model for another, generally a stand-in for a model you do not have but want to play. You own a rhino, but want to play a predator? Proxy it. You have a lascannon model but want a heavy bolter? Proxy it.
All well and good you might think.
You're wrong.
Let me tell you why.
Confusion
Using proxies can confuse your opponent and therefore give you an in-game advantage. Going through all of your models and units one by one before the game helps a little but doesn't get you off the hook. In the thick of a game, three or four turns in, it is all too easy to glance at the table and take a scatter laser shot at the front armour of your opponent's rhino.
'What, it's a predator?'
'Well I did tell you at the start of the game.'
'Yeah, thanks pal. It's entirely my fault that I failed to memorise every single model in your army in the thirty second before the game started. Besides, I thought that rhino was the predator.'
'No that's a whirlwind.'
'Aaaargh!'
Aesthetics
Proxying almost always makes the game look worse. Most people agree that wargames have a tactile quality which is an important part of the game. The best games are played on good terrain with two well painted and themed armies. In my experience the sort of person who regularly plays with proxies also plays with unpainted, and even unbuilt, models.
Take a stand I say!
Raping the background
Most proxying is done by players trying the lever an in-game advantage and they don't care if they trample all over every other aspect of the game in the meantime. If you've gone to the trouble of glueing together a lascannon, don't proxy it for a heavy bolter. You have a perfectly good lascannon. Use it, even if it won't have the best utility in the game.
If you are going to proxy models then you have to stick to the following rules:
- Never proxy one type of model for something else when you are using the same type of model in the army already (or worse still proxying them for something else again). Yeah, that lascannon is a heavy bolter, but that lascannon is a melta gun. That lascannon? It's a lascannon. Duh.
- Proxy approximately similar models. They should be roughly the same size and shape and should have the same base size. Don't proxy a monolith with a Necron destroyer. Don't use a gaunt as a carnifex.
- If you are going to proxy a unit, or even a whole army, with the intention of experimentation, don't let me find you using the same proxies 18 months later. If you like the unit or army buy it and paint it and I'll give you a game.
Friday, August 28, 2009
OPINION: Comments?
My back is much better, thanks for asking. I've sacked off the gym for the rest of the week as a precaution ahead of my holidays in two weeks time. I don't want to suffer a five hour flight with a bad back!
Mike on Santa Cruz Warhammer recently wrote about comments on his blog. He was musing on his expectations for comments and how perhaps they aren't the best indicator of whether people like and read your posts.
Here was the comment I left:
The vast majority of time I read new blog posts through Google feed reader on my phone. I do this standing in queues, on the bus, anytime I have a spare minute. I rarely visit individual blogs and therefore rarely read the comments or indeed make one.
The way I read blogs is not conducive to making comments. I don't know if the way I read your blog posts shows up in your numbers or not but if it does I'd imagine a fair few other people do the same as me. The ironic thing is that they are unlikely to comment on this thread!
I made a mental note to go to your blog the next time I was sitting at a proper PC. I run a blog too and have found that opinion pieces get the most feedback, while conversions and good paintjobs also get feedback but most say 'good job' rather than enter into dialogue.
I run the blog for myself and therefore any comments are a bonus for me.
And that's the way I genuinely feel.
Even if no-one ever commented on my blog again I'd still be posting updates because I see my blog as a kind of journal. It records my gaming time, helps structure my painting and thoughts and it's fun in and of itself. If my ramblings appeal to anyone else then great, but it's not my purpose to go out and attract lots of new readers.
I guess that's why I've never really bothered with Google analytics - I have no real idea how many people visit my blog, nor do I really care. It's also why I never bothered with in-depth tutorials and the like. I do show you the way I do things, and if anyone asks for a bit more detail I'll happily oblige, but I'm not trying to take over the world; I don't want to compete with the other 'big' blogs out there and I don't want to make money through my blog.
I'm happy enough just beebling along. The minute I start thinking about the Unique Selling Point of my blog and how to monetize it is the time when it is starting to feel like work and therefore the time to quit.
Mike on Santa Cruz Warhammer recently wrote about comments on his blog. He was musing on his expectations for comments and how perhaps they aren't the best indicator of whether people like and read your posts.
Here was the comment I left:
The vast majority of time I read new blog posts through Google feed reader on my phone. I do this standing in queues, on the bus, anytime I have a spare minute. I rarely visit individual blogs and therefore rarely read the comments or indeed make one.
The way I read blogs is not conducive to making comments. I don't know if the way I read your blog posts shows up in your numbers or not but if it does I'd imagine a fair few other people do the same as me. The ironic thing is that they are unlikely to comment on this thread!
I made a mental note to go to your blog the next time I was sitting at a proper PC. I run a blog too and have found that opinion pieces get the most feedback, while conversions and good paintjobs also get feedback but most say 'good job' rather than enter into dialogue.
I run the blog for myself and therefore any comments are a bonus for me.
And that's the way I genuinely feel.
Even if no-one ever commented on my blog again I'd still be posting updates because I see my blog as a kind of journal. It records my gaming time, helps structure my painting and thoughts and it's fun in and of itself. If my ramblings appeal to anyone else then great, but it's not my purpose to go out and attract lots of new readers.
I guess that's why I've never really bothered with Google analytics - I have no real idea how many people visit my blog, nor do I really care. It's also why I never bothered with in-depth tutorials and the like. I do show you the way I do things, and if anyone asks for a bit more detail I'll happily oblige, but I'm not trying to take over the world; I don't want to compete with the other 'big' blogs out there and I don't want to make money through my blog.
I'm happy enough just beebling along. The minute I start thinking about the Unique Selling Point of my blog and how to monetize it is the time when it is starting to feel like work and therefore the time to quit.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
OPINION: Dividing my hobby time
In the latest issue of White Dwarf (UK 355) Jervis Johnson talks about pies. Hobby pies.
His theory is that gamers are into their hobby for five main reasons; playing games, painting and modelling, collecting models, the background material and camaraderie. Of course not all gamers are as enthused by each part of the hobby equally so each slice of their hobby pie will be a different size.
I thought it might be fun to show you my hobby pie as it stands at the moment.
As you can see the biggest slices of my pie are background and painting and modelling. I've been enjoying my painting a lot recently so it is not a big surprise that this is a major part of the hobby for me. Immersing myself in the background is probably the thing I find most enjoyable, though. I love reading gaming novels, campaign and source books, codexes and rulebooks. I also create my own background material and link this into my armies and games. I've even gone to the trouble of creating my own sector to set my games in!
Gaming comes in third for me. I do like the tactical challenges that games throw up but I much prefer to play the game in the context of a scenario or campaign which in turn links back to background. I also won't play games against unpainted armies. The aesthetics of a well painted and modelled army are very important to me. I think this is why it has been relatively easy for me to stop playing games at all in the last few months because the games I was playing were simply not been satisfying my deeper gaming needs. If these things weren't important to me I think I would play computer games more often.
Camaraderie and collecting come low down on my list. My small collecting slice might sound strange given that I own so many models and armies but they are only there to facilitate my painting, to develop my background material and to play interesting games with. I've never been one to get obsessed about completing a collection - I've never collected stamps, collectible card games or anything similar and I don't view my models as a collection which needs to be completed.
That leaves camaraderie. This is quite small at the moment given that I'm not playing games, I rarely visit my local Games Workshop store and I don't go to many tournaments. Most of my camaraderie at the moment comes from online forums and this blog. This is one slice of pie that I'd really love to increase in size.
I'd love to be around a group of players who are into the same aspects of the hobby that I am. I want to play long, involved campaigns, develop story driven scenarios and play great games with beautifully painted models on characterful terrain. I want to swap painting tips, tactics and discuss background material with people who are as into it as I am.
Maybe it's my age; perhaps as I get older I want deeper and richer experiences from my gaming. Or maybe I've just been outraging my true nature for ages and I'm now finally realising it.
So how do I go about satisfying my gaming needs? Well, for starters I could get more out of this blog and the forums I browse. I could join some other blogger groups and take part in more forum threads discussing background material and painting and modelling.
I could also (re)start going down to my local Games Workshop store to try to build up some relationships and play some campaign games. The problem here is that many of the players are quite immature, play with unpainted models and don't have the commitment to see a campaign through. That's one of the reasons I stopped going in the first place!
There is a club called the North East Wargaming Association but they seem very tournament orientated and predominantly play Warhammer Fantasy battle rather than the 40k I love. Transport is an issue - they are about 40 minutes away by car and I don't have a car! By bus it would probably take closer to an hour and I reckon the times between buses could be an issue. I wouldn't want to miss the last bus late on a Tuesday night! Not ideal.
Another way to get some games in and to meet like minded gamers would be to attend more events such as the GW grand tournaments, campaign weekends and even Games Days and independent events. The good aspect of this would be that they would be held once every month or two so even though they may be in remote parts of the country, they would still be viable. Many events last a whole weekend so I could immerse myself in the hobby completely for two or three days, play half a dozen games and have a good laugh with my fellow gamers. The downsides would be the cost of accommodation, travelling and ticket prices, getting time off work and getting time away from my girlfriend. I'd have to have some serious brownie points in the bank!
Well, there is a lot to think about there but it feels good to have laid out my thoughts. I'll let them percolate through my brain in the coming weeks and might return to the subject with a real plan.
His theory is that gamers are into their hobby for five main reasons; playing games, painting and modelling, collecting models, the background material and camaraderie. Of course not all gamers are as enthused by each part of the hobby equally so each slice of their hobby pie will be a different size.
I thought it might be fun to show you my hobby pie as it stands at the moment.
As you can see the biggest slices of my pie are background and painting and modelling. I've been enjoying my painting a lot recently so it is not a big surprise that this is a major part of the hobby for me. Immersing myself in the background is probably the thing I find most enjoyable, though. I love reading gaming novels, campaign and source books, codexes and rulebooks. I also create my own background material and link this into my armies and games. I've even gone to the trouble of creating my own sector to set my games in!Gaming comes in third for me. I do like the tactical challenges that games throw up but I much prefer to play the game in the context of a scenario or campaign which in turn links back to background. I also won't play games against unpainted armies. The aesthetics of a well painted and modelled army are very important to me. I think this is why it has been relatively easy for me to stop playing games at all in the last few months because the games I was playing were simply not been satisfying my deeper gaming needs. If these things weren't important to me I think I would play computer games more often.
Camaraderie and collecting come low down on my list. My small collecting slice might sound strange given that I own so many models and armies but they are only there to facilitate my painting, to develop my background material and to play interesting games with. I've never been one to get obsessed about completing a collection - I've never collected stamps, collectible card games or anything similar and I don't view my models as a collection which needs to be completed.
That leaves camaraderie. This is quite small at the moment given that I'm not playing games, I rarely visit my local Games Workshop store and I don't go to many tournaments. Most of my camaraderie at the moment comes from online forums and this blog. This is one slice of pie that I'd really love to increase in size.
I'd love to be around a group of players who are into the same aspects of the hobby that I am. I want to play long, involved campaigns, develop story driven scenarios and play great games with beautifully painted models on characterful terrain. I want to swap painting tips, tactics and discuss background material with people who are as into it as I am.
Maybe it's my age; perhaps as I get older I want deeper and richer experiences from my gaming. Or maybe I've just been outraging my true nature for ages and I'm now finally realising it.
So how do I go about satisfying my gaming needs? Well, for starters I could get more out of this blog and the forums I browse. I could join some other blogger groups and take part in more forum threads discussing background material and painting and modelling.
I could also (re)start going down to my local Games Workshop store to try to build up some relationships and play some campaign games. The problem here is that many of the players are quite immature, play with unpainted models and don't have the commitment to see a campaign through. That's one of the reasons I stopped going in the first place!
There is a club called the North East Wargaming Association but they seem very tournament orientated and predominantly play Warhammer Fantasy battle rather than the 40k I love. Transport is an issue - they are about 40 minutes away by car and I don't have a car! By bus it would probably take closer to an hour and I reckon the times between buses could be an issue. I wouldn't want to miss the last bus late on a Tuesday night! Not ideal.
Another way to get some games in and to meet like minded gamers would be to attend more events such as the GW grand tournaments, campaign weekends and even Games Days and independent events. The good aspect of this would be that they would be held once every month or two so even though they may be in remote parts of the country, they would still be viable. Many events last a whole weekend so I could immerse myself in the hobby completely for two or three days, play half a dozen games and have a good laugh with my fellow gamers. The downsides would be the cost of accommodation, travelling and ticket prices, getting time off work and getting time away from my girlfriend. I'd have to have some serious brownie points in the bank!
Well, there is a lot to think about there but it feels good to have laid out my thoughts. I'll let them percolate through my brain in the coming weeks and might return to the subject with a real plan.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
OPINION: On poor units
Over on Warseer Natura posted this question:
Something's been bugging me for a while now, because it just doesn't seem to make any sense. In every Codex or Fantasy Army, there are units that the vast majority of people won't take. This is almost always due to the unit being perceived as overpriced or underpowered. In rare cases the model itself may detract players from using it, but the reverse is also true: the model itself may be so awesome that regardless of it's usefulness, you buy one. You're unlikely to buy a whole swag of them however, and any sales of these models will be vastly outweighed by people buying units perceived as powerful or useful.
Now here's the part that confuses me. Games Workshop write the rules and produce the models. It's in their interest to sell as many models as possible, obviously. So why, when writing the rules, would you create intentionally bad units that people will almost never take? Surely it makes far more sense to make units as equally attractive as possible. I say intentionally here because I simply cannot believe that the rulebook writers honestly thought all their entries were good.
I'm not suggesting that GW make every unit an uber-death-dealing monster. I just can't understand why they'd shoot themselves in the foot like this.
This was my view on the matter.
In order think about why GW might create poor units you first need to ask why GW produces army lists and the units that populate, then you can put them into some sort of context.
GW releases army lists to allow people to play games of different types including tournament play, pick up games at a GW shop or club, casual basement games at home against regular opponents and campaign games.
Then each army book/codex includes units for their in game effectiveness, to highlight a theme or background to the army, for legacy reasons (because a unit was included in the last three lists) or for aesthetics because a cool model exists.
As has been pointed out, tournament and pick-up game players are the most likely to complain about poor units because they have to pick units without knowing which army they are facing in a competitive environment. They have to look at the army list and make a judgement about which units will be most useful. All other considerations are secondary.
But that is not the only way of playing the game.
Players in a casual setting are unlikely to spam a forum with complaints that a unit is poor because they know who they are facing every week. This shifts the balance of army books quite significantly. For instance I have recently been playing a lot of casual games against a Chaos Daemon player using my Daemonhunters. Because I know what I will come up against every week I know I can load up on some units that are great against Daemons but would be classed as poor against everything else.
Another good example is my WFB games, which I have not been playing for very long. My only opponent is a Dark Elf player and I play Warriors of Chaos. He picks a Hydra every game and thinks it is a poor choice because my Knights and characters beat it up in many of my games, but I hear that it is a bargain in competitive play. His view is entirely coloured by the types of games he plays.
And what about background driven/scenario driven/campaign play? At least if GW includes an entry for a Techmarine it gives players an option to use one for such games.
Plus you have armies, sub lists and units such as the Eldar Craftworlds, Ork clans, IG regiments which GW cannot drop. If GW were redesigning 40k as a game with a totally clean slate some of these ideas would be dropped or changed considerably and the game would be easier to balance but GW has 20+ years of history to adhere to. They have tried to incorporate these armies into the main lists recently but it is obviously very tricky to balance everything together.
How can GW write a codex which allows an Eldar player to choose freely between all units and balance that against a player just picking from Iyanden units? A separate book for each is one option but at one point there were something like 60 different army lists available for 40k, not including Forge World. Balance is then even harder to obtain especially as editions of the core rules change.
So, just to sum up, I think that it depends entirely upon how you play the game.
Something's been bugging me for a while now, because it just doesn't seem to make any sense. In every Codex or Fantasy Army, there are units that the vast majority of people won't take. This is almost always due to the unit being perceived as overpriced or underpowered. In rare cases the model itself may detract players from using it, but the reverse is also true: the model itself may be so awesome that regardless of it's usefulness, you buy one. You're unlikely to buy a whole swag of them however, and any sales of these models will be vastly outweighed by people buying units perceived as powerful or useful.
Now here's the part that confuses me. Games Workshop write the rules and produce the models. It's in their interest to sell as many models as possible, obviously. So why, when writing the rules, would you create intentionally bad units that people will almost never take? Surely it makes far more sense to make units as equally attractive as possible. I say intentionally here because I simply cannot believe that the rulebook writers honestly thought all their entries were good.
I'm not suggesting that GW make every unit an uber-death-dealing monster. I just can't understand why they'd shoot themselves in the foot like this.
This was my view on the matter.
In order think about why GW might create poor units you first need to ask why GW produces army lists and the units that populate, then you can put them into some sort of context.
GW releases army lists to allow people to play games of different types including tournament play, pick up games at a GW shop or club, casual basement games at home against regular opponents and campaign games.
Then each army book/codex includes units for their in game effectiveness, to highlight a theme or background to the army, for legacy reasons (because a unit was included in the last three lists) or for aesthetics because a cool model exists.
As has been pointed out, tournament and pick-up game players are the most likely to complain about poor units because they have to pick units without knowing which army they are facing in a competitive environment. They have to look at the army list and make a judgement about which units will be most useful. All other considerations are secondary.
But that is not the only way of playing the game.
Players in a casual setting are unlikely to spam a forum with complaints that a unit is poor because they know who they are facing every week. This shifts the balance of army books quite significantly. For instance I have recently been playing a lot of casual games against a Chaos Daemon player using my Daemonhunters. Because I know what I will come up against every week I know I can load up on some units that are great against Daemons but would be classed as poor against everything else.
Another good example is my WFB games, which I have not been playing for very long. My only opponent is a Dark Elf player and I play Warriors of Chaos. He picks a Hydra every game and thinks it is a poor choice because my Knights and characters beat it up in many of my games, but I hear that it is a bargain in competitive play. His view is entirely coloured by the types of games he plays.
And what about background driven/scenario driven/campaign play? At least if GW includes an entry for a Techmarine it gives players an option to use one for such games.
Plus you have armies, sub lists and units such as the Eldar Craftworlds, Ork clans, IG regiments which GW cannot drop. If GW were redesigning 40k as a game with a totally clean slate some of these ideas would be dropped or changed considerably and the game would be easier to balance but GW has 20+ years of history to adhere to. They have tried to incorporate these armies into the main lists recently but it is obviously very tricky to balance everything together.
How can GW write a codex which allows an Eldar player to choose freely between all units and balance that against a player just picking from Iyanden units? A separate book for each is one option but at one point there were something like 60 different army lists available for 40k, not including Forge World. Balance is then even harder to obtain especially as editions of the core rules change.
So, just to sum up, I think that it depends entirely upon how you play the game.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
OPINION: On rules
This is a bit of a mixed bag of a blog entry. The main meat of my post is an opinion piece/rant about rules and rules lawyering and can be found below.
First up though, thanks to everyone who made comments regarding my Assault squad, they are all much appreciated! I feel like I am getting into my stride with painting my Blood Angels infantry and I look forward to painting more. It's almost enough to stop me from moving on to the Orks once I reach the 2000 point mark for the Warseer pledge. Perhaps I should plough on with the Blood Angels until I've painted the lot?
Anyway, that's a decision I won't have to make for a few months yet.
The completion of my Assault squad adds 10 points to my painting score for the year. Rather than keep track of the score in individual blog entries I've added some text to the column on the right so it will be there for all to see at all times. My total for the year is now 30 points and with a quarter of the year almost gone I'm on track to beat my target of 100 points for the year.
On a kind of related note I'll be taking off some of those widgets on the side of the blog for a while. I've been having some technical difficulties with my blog so I need to find out the source of the problem and I suspect one of the add-ons is causing Firefox to crash.
So finally we come to the main topic of this blog entry. I've written up another 5th edition game I played using my Daemonhunters and Imperial Guard against Gary's Chaos Daemons. The game threw up a few interesting rules issues which allowed me to rant about wider rules issues at the end of the battle report. I've reproduced this discussion topic here in the hopes that I get some useful advice.
Just in case you haven't read the report this was all sparked by an incident where I shot through the edge of a wood. If you go to page 22 of your 40k 5th rulebook the unit I shot at was in the same position as marine C in the diagram, behind a wood but beyond the furthest tree meaning it got no cover save.
We also had a problem with the Changelings' rules which state that it can pick an enemy unit within 24" when it shoots and force it to make a Leadership test. If the unit fails it shoots at it's own units. For a 5 point upgrade it seems clear that this shouldn't apply to EVERY unit within 24" every turn but the rules are written poorly and don't rule this out.
On rules
The forest LOS/cover save and Changeling issues were perfect examples of the problems I have playing games against my regular opponents.
I read the rulebooks when I buy them, read the army codex, read White Dwarf, print out the FAQ's, check out online forums and listen to podcasts . My opponents don't. That means I am usually well informed about potential rules issues before they come up while my opponents aren't.
Most of the time I shy away from contentious units when I'm building my armies, and/or discuss them with my opponents in advance. I also 'pull my shots' on the tabletop and usually take the weaker option when a possibly arguable rule presents itself. I usually let my opponents get away with minor rules infringements during the game rather than pull them up on every little thing. This means I often feel like I'm playing a kind of 'ghost' version of the game with one hand tied behind my back.
By the same token my opponents must get frustrated when they play against me because every now and then I'll reference a rule that they are completely unaware of. Then they will point out that several games ago we played differently. That's usually because I didn't think it was a game breaking moment at the time and therefore not worth pointing out, because a new FAQ has been released, a codex is reprinted or rules are 'clarified' in White Dwarf, or maybe just because I thought they understood the rule and it was tight but I couldn't be bothered to argue about it.
In the LOS issue we had in the game that sparked this debate I probably wouldn't have gone for the shot if my shooting unit was decent in close combat. If the unit had been a Terminator squad instead of an Imperial Guard I would have shot at something else or otherwise fudged the issue to not create a problem. Similarly, if I was winning or losing heavily I might not have taken the shot, just because it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the game.
My opponents are probably coming to the issue from the point of view of precedence; they play the game the way they played last time without any in between reading of the rules or seeking out of FAQs and such. If it was good in the last five games why should it suddenly change now? From my opponent's point of view these inconsistencies might seem like rules-lawyering or worse, outright cheating.
When I got back into Warhammer fantasy I tried a different tack by trying to get the rules perfect during every game. I thought if we could nail things early there would be no problem later but that doesn't work either. Our games slow down to a crawl and I still feel bad about winning a game because my opponent didn't fully understand the rules rather than through a clever strategy or tactic.
It's like we're playing the same game but at two different levels.
Here's the question: is that my problem or is it up to my opponent to learn the rules?
Maybe I should just be a bit tougher, press my knowledge advantage and take the wins? Then the ball is back in my opponent's court and it's up to them to either put the effort into learning the game or continually get beat.
Or maybe I should just loosen up and play rough and ready with the rules, turning a blind eye to rules infringements and taking the hits when they come. It is just a game after all, a way to wind down after a tough day at work. Why should I get so worked up about something so minor?
I really don't know.
Does anyone have any thoughts? How does your group play? What is your rules level?
First up though, thanks to everyone who made comments regarding my Assault squad, they are all much appreciated! I feel like I am getting into my stride with painting my Blood Angels infantry and I look forward to painting more. It's almost enough to stop me from moving on to the Orks once I reach the 2000 point mark for the Warseer pledge. Perhaps I should plough on with the Blood Angels until I've painted the lot?
Anyway, that's a decision I won't have to make for a few months yet.
The completion of my Assault squad adds 10 points to my painting score for the year. Rather than keep track of the score in individual blog entries I've added some text to the column on the right so it will be there for all to see at all times. My total for the year is now 30 points and with a quarter of the year almost gone I'm on track to beat my target of 100 points for the year.
On a kind of related note I'll be taking off some of those widgets on the side of the blog for a while. I've been having some technical difficulties with my blog so I need to find out the source of the problem and I suspect one of the add-ons is causing Firefox to crash.
So finally we come to the main topic of this blog entry. I've written up another 5th edition game I played using my Daemonhunters and Imperial Guard against Gary's Chaos Daemons. The game threw up a few interesting rules issues which allowed me to rant about wider rules issues at the end of the battle report. I've reproduced this discussion topic here in the hopes that I get some useful advice.
Just in case you haven't read the report this was all sparked by an incident where I shot through the edge of a wood. If you go to page 22 of your 40k 5th rulebook the unit I shot at was in the same position as marine C in the diagram, behind a wood but beyond the furthest tree meaning it got no cover save.
We also had a problem with the Changelings' rules which state that it can pick an enemy unit within 24" when it shoots and force it to make a Leadership test. If the unit fails it shoots at it's own units. For a 5 point upgrade it seems clear that this shouldn't apply to EVERY unit within 24" every turn but the rules are written poorly and don't rule this out.
On rules
The forest LOS/cover save and Changeling issues were perfect examples of the problems I have playing games against my regular opponents.
I read the rulebooks when I buy them, read the army codex, read White Dwarf, print out the FAQ's, check out online forums and listen to podcasts . My opponents don't. That means I am usually well informed about potential rules issues before they come up while my opponents aren't.
Most of the time I shy away from contentious units when I'm building my armies, and/or discuss them with my opponents in advance. I also 'pull my shots' on the tabletop and usually take the weaker option when a possibly arguable rule presents itself. I usually let my opponents get away with minor rules infringements during the game rather than pull them up on every little thing. This means I often feel like I'm playing a kind of 'ghost' version of the game with one hand tied behind my back.
By the same token my opponents must get frustrated when they play against me because every now and then I'll reference a rule that they are completely unaware of. Then they will point out that several games ago we played differently. That's usually because I didn't think it was a game breaking moment at the time and therefore not worth pointing out, because a new FAQ has been released, a codex is reprinted or rules are 'clarified' in White Dwarf, or maybe just because I thought they understood the rule and it was tight but I couldn't be bothered to argue about it.
In the LOS issue we had in the game that sparked this debate I probably wouldn't have gone for the shot if my shooting unit was decent in close combat. If the unit had been a Terminator squad instead of an Imperial Guard I would have shot at something else or otherwise fudged the issue to not create a problem. Similarly, if I was winning or losing heavily I might not have taken the shot, just because it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the game.
My opponents are probably coming to the issue from the point of view of precedence; they play the game the way they played last time without any in between reading of the rules or seeking out of FAQs and such. If it was good in the last five games why should it suddenly change now? From my opponent's point of view these inconsistencies might seem like rules-lawyering or worse, outright cheating.
When I got back into Warhammer fantasy I tried a different tack by trying to get the rules perfect during every game. I thought if we could nail things early there would be no problem later but that doesn't work either. Our games slow down to a crawl and I still feel bad about winning a game because my opponent didn't fully understand the rules rather than through a clever strategy or tactic.
It's like we're playing the same game but at two different levels.
Here's the question: is that my problem or is it up to my opponent to learn the rules?
Maybe I should just be a bit tougher, press my knowledge advantage and take the wins? Then the ball is back in my opponent's court and it's up to them to either put the effort into learning the game or continually get beat.
Or maybe I should just loosen up and play rough and ready with the rules, turning a blind eye to rules infringements and taking the hits when they come. It is just a game after all, a way to wind down after a tough day at work. Why should I get so worked up about something so minor?
I really don't know.
Does anyone have any thoughts? How does your group play? What is your rules level?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
OPINION: On painting
This is the first in what will hopefully be a series of monthly opinion pieces on different aspects of the gaming hobby. It's kinda like Jervis Johnson's Standard Bearer column in White Dwarf. Only I'm not selling anything. And there will be, you know, actual opinions expressed.
They will be controversial, may spark some debate and will almost always include swear words. Those of a nervous disposition should look away now.
You have been warned...
Playing against an unpainted army has all the appeal of watching a naked Jade Goody eat a greasy kebab.
Surely one of the primary reasons we play with toy soldiers is the aesthetic element? Hordes of Goff Orks, replete with dags and checks, sweeping majestically over the plain of a well crafted Armageddon ash wastes table, crammed with unique terrain like ruined factories, fallen monuments and Titan wrecks. The Steel Legion Imperial Guard, led by Commissar Yarrick, furiously repulsing an attack on their hastily erected barricades. Blood Angels Space Marines dramatically crashing to earth in their drop pods unleashing bolter death upon the greenskins.
It’s not quite the same when you have a proxied coke bottle as a drop pod, second edition mono-pose Orks, bare metal Guardsmen sagging in their unglued bases and grey plastic Marines without arms. Even 3 flat colours on a model would be better than that.
Now everyone will have played with unpainted models at some point. Probably when they were eleven years old. Then they grew up.
But some people didn’t. Instead they started whining and whingeing and preparing their excuses.
I just don’t have the time to paint.
Bollocks!
I’ve played against people who’ve been in the hobby since Rogue Trader days and they are still playing with their original unpainted lead models. Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that you haven’t had time to paint a single model in 20 years?
How come you had the time to buy 12 Nob bikers, two Warbosses on bikes and 90 Ork boyz and then glue them all together? Three weeks after that you made the time to assemble two winged Lash Princes, 9 Obliterators and 21 Plague Marines. Next month you’ll be putting together your fluffy mechanised Eldar list led by Eldrad and Yriel. And have enough time to play three games of 40k. And you’ll have clocked Half Life 2. Gimme a break.
I know this is just a lame excuse because I have an extremely busy life but I still find time to paint my models. I have a full time job which involves weekend and evening work, I’m in a relationship, I have an active social life and I have loads of other hobbies and interests. Because my time is such a precious commodity I have to plan it quite carefully. 30 minutes every other day keeps me ticking along and I’ll get the models finished eventually. Just paint all the bolters black one night. That’s all. The next time highlight them. Paint the metallics next. You’d be surprised how quickly you progress if you keep it up. Even if you’re playing games with the models in the meantime at least your opponents will see that you’ve made progress.
Everyone has the time to paint; they just choose not to.
I’m terrible at painting.
That’s because you’ve never really tried, you cretin.
I can’t play the guitar. If I threw some time and, God forbid, some effort at it I would be able to, even with my fat sausagey fingers. Okay, so it’s unlikely I’d be as good as Slash. But I’d probably be good enough to jam with my mates on a Tuesday night. Maybe I’d make it into a band. Maybe I’d write one or two passable original songs. Maybe I’d waste away in a lonely garret, my works of genius unheard by any other ears until rediscovered some years after my tragic death.
Ahem…where was I? Ah, yes.
Just because you won’t be able to paint like Mike McVey doesn’t mean you should give up before you start. We were ALL crap painters when we started out. The first models I painted would make your eyes bleed if you looked at them. You’d probably try to gouge your eyes out with rusty spoons and start crying for your mummy. But I practised. I experimented. I improved.
You’re not terrible at painting; you've given up before you've even started.
So stick your excuses, I don’t want to hear them. At least have the courtesy of not lying to my face. Just tell me you can’t be bothered to paint your models, you don’t care about how the game looks, it’s not a high enough priority for you. You’d rather be playing Halo 3 or Warhammer Online. You’d rather be watching Big Brother. Fair enough. I can take it. I can handle the truth.
If you had the stones to be honest I’d have more respect for you.
They will be controversial, may spark some debate and will almost always include swear words. Those of a nervous disposition should look away now.
You have been warned...
Playing against an unpainted army has all the appeal of watching a naked Jade Goody eat a greasy kebab.
Surely one of the primary reasons we play with toy soldiers is the aesthetic element? Hordes of Goff Orks, replete with dags and checks, sweeping majestically over the plain of a well crafted Armageddon ash wastes table, crammed with unique terrain like ruined factories, fallen monuments and Titan wrecks. The Steel Legion Imperial Guard, led by Commissar Yarrick, furiously repulsing an attack on their hastily erected barricades. Blood Angels Space Marines dramatically crashing to earth in their drop pods unleashing bolter death upon the greenskins.
It’s not quite the same when you have a proxied coke bottle as a drop pod, second edition mono-pose Orks, bare metal Guardsmen sagging in their unglued bases and grey plastic Marines without arms. Even 3 flat colours on a model would be better than that.
Now everyone will have played with unpainted models at some point. Probably when they were eleven years old. Then they grew up.
But some people didn’t. Instead they started whining and whingeing and preparing their excuses.
I just don’t have the time to paint.
Bollocks!
I’ve played against people who’ve been in the hobby since Rogue Trader days and they are still playing with their original unpainted lead models. Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that you haven’t had time to paint a single model in 20 years?
How come you had the time to buy 12 Nob bikers, two Warbosses on bikes and 90 Ork boyz and then glue them all together? Three weeks after that you made the time to assemble two winged Lash Princes, 9 Obliterators and 21 Plague Marines. Next month you’ll be putting together your fluffy mechanised Eldar list led by Eldrad and Yriel. And have enough time to play three games of 40k. And you’ll have clocked Half Life 2. Gimme a break.
I know this is just a lame excuse because I have an extremely busy life but I still find time to paint my models. I have a full time job which involves weekend and evening work, I’m in a relationship, I have an active social life and I have loads of other hobbies and interests. Because my time is such a precious commodity I have to plan it quite carefully. 30 minutes every other day keeps me ticking along and I’ll get the models finished eventually. Just paint all the bolters black one night. That’s all. The next time highlight them. Paint the metallics next. You’d be surprised how quickly you progress if you keep it up. Even if you’re playing games with the models in the meantime at least your opponents will see that you’ve made progress.
Everyone has the time to paint; they just choose not to.
I’m terrible at painting.
That’s because you’ve never really tried, you cretin.
I can’t play the guitar. If I threw some time and, God forbid, some effort at it I would be able to, even with my fat sausagey fingers. Okay, so it’s unlikely I’d be as good as Slash. But I’d probably be good enough to jam with my mates on a Tuesday night. Maybe I’d make it into a band. Maybe I’d write one or two passable original songs. Maybe I’d waste away in a lonely garret, my works of genius unheard by any other ears until rediscovered some years after my tragic death.
Ahem…where was I? Ah, yes.
Just because you won’t be able to paint like Mike McVey doesn’t mean you should give up before you start. We were ALL crap painters when we started out. The first models I painted would make your eyes bleed if you looked at them. You’d probably try to gouge your eyes out with rusty spoons and start crying for your mummy. But I practised. I experimented. I improved.
You’re not terrible at painting; you've given up before you've even started.
So stick your excuses, I don’t want to hear them. At least have the courtesy of not lying to my face. Just tell me you can’t be bothered to paint your models, you don’t care about how the game looks, it’s not a high enough priority for you. You’d rather be playing Halo 3 or Warhammer Online. You’d rather be watching Big Brother. Fair enough. I can take it. I can handle the truth.
If you had the stones to be honest I’d have more respect for you.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
OPINION: Optimizing army lists, part two
In my last post I explained the design philosophy behind optimizing units and army lists, using the six man las/plas squad as an example. I stated that it's strengths were:
So if a six man las/plas squad is the pinnacle of optimized unit design for a Tactical squad then what would it look like when chosen from an all rounder viewpoint? To begin with it would need to have more members, to help it be able to capture objectives and preserve it's scoring status. I would recommend the full ten marines so that you have the in game flexibility of using combat squads (splitting the squad into two five men squads). Ten marines also make more use of the carrying capacity of the Rhino you will want to buy for the squad. The transport is needed to provide mobility to the unit. This will help it to advance upon enemy units and capture objectives. A Razorback is another useful transport option. It can only be used if the unit stays at six models but it does carry a twin-linked heavy weapon. A Drop Pod would give the unit an alternative type of mobility.
So, we have now two of our tasks accounted for. The squad comes with built in infantry killing firepower with it's bolt guns. They can use these dismounted and at range, up to 24" or when leaping out of their Rhino at up to 12." This could be augmented with a special weapon such as a flamer or plasma gun. A plasma gun could also help out with shooting at tough targets. Melta guns would also work. I would also take a missile launcher for the squad. This weapon is usually overlooked in favour of the lascannon, but it is perfect for an all rounder list. It's krak missiles can threaten tough targets while the frag missiles can help with hordes.
The large squad size helps in close combat against hordes, but the squad's main killing power will come from it's sergeant. The obvious choice of weapon for him is a powerfist. This works well against hordes but is perfect for pulling down tough targets.
This philosophy has an added benefit in that it keeps redundancy in the army list without having to duplicate unit choices (often referred to as cookie-cutter lists). Because each unit can perform a wide range of tasks it is very difficult for the enemy to cripple your army in a certain area. In an optimized list, for example, you may have four las/plas squads to act as your vehicle killing power. A canny opponent with a mechanised Tau list may identify those squads as his priority targets and go all-out to destroy them. That would leave the rest of the optimized player's list to take out the opponent's vehicles; units that are optimized for close combat, mobility or other tasks.
To recap, then, we have a ten man squad with a veteran sergeant with a powerfist, a plasma gun and a missile launcher. The squad is mounted in a rhino. This is a squad that can fulfill a very wide range of battlefield roles.
An alternative would be a six man Tactical squad in a Razorback. You lose the heavy weapon in the squad but you get a twin-linked one on the vehicle instead. The squad is a bit smaller, but it is a bit cheaper. It can still achieve a lot of in-game tasks.
All-rounder lists help to stop the list from being extremely boring, which many optimized lists are. Instead of this:
The key to playing an all rounder army list is in assessing your opponents army before the game and coming up with a plan to defeat it. This can be a challenge, but surely this has to be better than coming to the table with an army that can only be played in one way as optimized lists often do? Once you have decided how your enemy will approach his game, your list has the flexibility to exploit his weaknesses.
Say your opponent has an Imperial Guard gunline army. You can mount up all your units and use your mobility to engage them in close combat and short range firefights. Against a Tyranid assault force you can split your squads into combat squads to utilise their firepower and stand off with the vehicles, using them to shoot, corral and stall enemy attacks. In every game you play, you will have options. Your games should be more enjoyable, both for you and your opponent.
- Small squad size maximises the number of special and heavy weapons across the army
- Even squad size helps with victory points and scoring status
- Lascannon has good range, high strength, low armour penetration
- Plasma gun matches lascannon well
- Good redundancy if similar squads are also selected
- Poor in combat
- Fragile
- Slow
- Cannot adapt to other battlefield roles
- Encourages a rock/paper/scissors mentality in 40k
- Good mobility (at least 12" per turn)
- Tough target busting firepower (vehicles, characters, monstrous creatures)
- Infantry killing firepower
- Ability to threaten hordes in close combat
- Ability to threaten tough targets in close combat (vehicles, characters, monstrous creatures)
- Decent scoring potential
So if a six man las/plas squad is the pinnacle of optimized unit design for a Tactical squad then what would it look like when chosen from an all rounder viewpoint? To begin with it would need to have more members, to help it be able to capture objectives and preserve it's scoring status. I would recommend the full ten marines so that you have the in game flexibility of using combat squads (splitting the squad into two five men squads). Ten marines also make more use of the carrying capacity of the Rhino you will want to buy for the squad. The transport is needed to provide mobility to the unit. This will help it to advance upon enemy units and capture objectives. A Razorback is another useful transport option. It can only be used if the unit stays at six models but it does carry a twin-linked heavy weapon. A Drop Pod would give the unit an alternative type of mobility.
So, we have now two of our tasks accounted for. The squad comes with built in infantry killing firepower with it's bolt guns. They can use these dismounted and at range, up to 24" or when leaping out of their Rhino at up to 12." This could be augmented with a special weapon such as a flamer or plasma gun. A plasma gun could also help out with shooting at tough targets. Melta guns would also work. I would also take a missile launcher for the squad. This weapon is usually overlooked in favour of the lascannon, but it is perfect for an all rounder list. It's krak missiles can threaten tough targets while the frag missiles can help with hordes.
The large squad size helps in close combat against hordes, but the squad's main killing power will come from it's sergeant. The obvious choice of weapon for him is a powerfist. This works well against hordes but is perfect for pulling down tough targets.
This philosophy has an added benefit in that it keeps redundancy in the army list without having to duplicate unit choices (often referred to as cookie-cutter lists). Because each unit can perform a wide range of tasks it is very difficult for the enemy to cripple your army in a certain area. In an optimized list, for example, you may have four las/plas squads to act as your vehicle killing power. A canny opponent with a mechanised Tau list may identify those squads as his priority targets and go all-out to destroy them. That would leave the rest of the optimized player's list to take out the opponent's vehicles; units that are optimized for close combat, mobility or other tasks.
To recap, then, we have a ten man squad with a veteran sergeant with a powerfist, a plasma gun and a missile launcher. The squad is mounted in a rhino. This is a squad that can fulfill a very wide range of battlefield roles.
An alternative would be a six man Tactical squad in a Razorback. You lose the heavy weapon in the squad but you get a twin-linked one on the vehicle instead. The squad is a bit smaller, but it is a bit cheaper. It can still achieve a lot of in-game tasks.
All-rounder lists help to stop the list from being extremely boring, which many optimized lists are. Instead of this:
- Six man las/plas
- Six man las/plas
- Six man las/plas
- 10 man squad, vet sergeant with Powerfist, flamer, missile launcher, mounted in Rhino
- 8 man squad, vet sergeant with Powerfist, plasma gun, missile launcher, mounted in Drop Pod
- 6 man squad, vet sergeant with power weapon, melta gun, Razorback with twin-linked heavy bolters
The key to playing an all rounder army list is in assessing your opponents army before the game and coming up with a plan to defeat it. This can be a challenge, but surely this has to be better than coming to the table with an army that can only be played in one way as optimized lists often do? Once you have decided how your enemy will approach his game, your list has the flexibility to exploit his weaknesses.
Say your opponent has an Imperial Guard gunline army. You can mount up all your units and use your mobility to engage them in close combat and short range firefights. Against a Tyranid assault force you can split your squads into combat squads to utilise their firepower and stand off with the vehicles, using them to shoot, corral and stall enemy attacks. In every game you play, you will have options. Your games should be more enjoyable, both for you and your opponent.
Friday, August 10, 2007
OPINION: Optimizing army lists
I've been posting a lot about army lists lately. I've just settled upon a 1500 point Chaos Renegade list that can also be used as a Chaos Renegade Militia army. Now I am poring over the new Blood Angels codex. They will be my main army in the current tournament season. I want to try something different with my Blood Angels army. The best way to illustrate why this army will be different is to discuss the traditional way that armies are built; for optimization. In fact the principle of optimization can be shown with just one unit; the las/plas squad.
The las/plas squad
This squad is a staple of Marine armies. I have used them in my Chaos Undivided list and have encountered many of them in competitive games. The set-up is always the same, consisting of six Marines; four have boltguns, one has a lascannon and another has a plasma gun. Why is this squad so prevalent?
Why six marines?
It is because the majority of competitive players try to optimize their units so that they fulfill their role as efficiently as possible. The las/plas squad is designed for shooting. It is six men strong because shooting squads benefit from having fewer numbers. A disproportionate amount of damage in 40k comes from a small number of models. In shooting squads this damage is largely generated by heavy and special weapons. By picking smaller squads a player can have more of them and therefore cram in more of those crucial special and heavy weapons. Of course, five men is the smallest possible unit size, but that sixth man actually helps to preserve victory points. Even numbered units are always preferable to odd numbered units because it takes an extra casualty to drop the unit below half strength and claim half victory points. It also helps to retain their scoring status and to protect the special and heavy weapons. Six is the optimal number of marines in a shooting squad.
Why lascannon and plasma gun?
The lascannon is the primary gun here. It has obvious strengths; long range, high strength and low armour penetration. It may be expensive but it can crack the toughest armoured vehicles and take on tooled up daemon-princes, carnifexes and hive tyrants and terminators. It can also instantly kill most multiple wound characters and punch through power armour effortlessly. Most army lists also discount lascannon in troops choices because GW believe that troops choices fufill multiple battlefield roles. If you have to move then you can't use the heavy weapon, and the squad could be used in a close combat capacity. However, because the las/plas squad is being optimized for shooting the cheaper weapon price is a real bonus for canny players.
The plasma gun is chosen for synergy. None of the other special weapons match the lascannon as well. The plasma gun has high strength, low armour penetration and a decent range. It can threaten pretty much all of the same targets as the lascannon can. In addition, it is especially good against marines. Approximately 60% of all armies are MEQ's (Marine EQuivalents) so it makes sense to pick weapons that can attack them well.
When you look at all of this together, the six marine las/plas squad makes for a formidable shooting unit.
Weaknesses
The las/plas squad does have some weaknesses, though. Because it is so optimized for one task, it cannot do any others very well. It is vulnerable in combat. Although the raw stats for marines are good, they will be defeated by any half-decent close combat squad. They are also somewhat fragile. Again, marine stats are good, but just four casualties make the unit non-scoring and bags their opponent half of their victory points. Just two more kills wipes out the squad. This makes them somewhat suspect when it comes to claiming objectives with them. Objectives are problematic for movement reasons, too. The las/plas squad only moves 6" per turn and loses lots of firepower if it does so. If the objective is even a moderate distance away the las/plas squad will have to make tough choices about whether to move or fire.
There is a wider weakness, too. If a player employs the optimization method of army design across their whole army, they will have a range of units each built for their specific role. But what happens if a savvy opponent targets all units which fulfill that one role? The optimizing player could then simply not be able to compete in some parts of the game. Optimizing means that there will always be an element of having all your eggs in one basket, as you mono-task each unit in your army. What happens when a marine player is playing a take and hold scenario and he loses his two assault units in the first turn. Will his four las/plas squads be able to storm into the assault and dislodge the enemy from the objective? Unlikely. It's not what they are designed for.
I wouldn't do that, you might say. I would just do what each unit is good at and try to damage the enemy army so that it can't contest the objective. But what happens when the enemy army is simply better at doing what you are trying to do? A static gunline marine list might be powerful but it would probably lose against a static imperial guard list. This is sometimes called the rock/paper/scissors dilemma of army building in 40k. If all players optimize their lists in the ways outlined above, it is relatively easy to compare the two lists before the game and predict the winner. A Tyranid genestealer horde will have the advantage against a close combat marine army but will really struggle against a mechanized Eldar list. Barring freaky dice rolls or excellent/terrible players, the outcome will be a formality. This is not a good thing.
Phew! This has grown into a massive post, much longer than I first envisioned. I'll post part two tomorrow when I outline the alternative to list optimization, using my Blood Angels.
The las/plas squad
This squad is a staple of Marine armies. I have used them in my Chaos Undivided list and have encountered many of them in competitive games. The set-up is always the same, consisting of six Marines; four have boltguns, one has a lascannon and another has a plasma gun. Why is this squad so prevalent?
Why six marines?
It is because the majority of competitive players try to optimize their units so that they fulfill their role as efficiently as possible. The las/plas squad is designed for shooting. It is six men strong because shooting squads benefit from having fewer numbers. A disproportionate amount of damage in 40k comes from a small number of models. In shooting squads this damage is largely generated by heavy and special weapons. By picking smaller squads a player can have more of them and therefore cram in more of those crucial special and heavy weapons. Of course, five men is the smallest possible unit size, but that sixth man actually helps to preserve victory points. Even numbered units are always preferable to odd numbered units because it takes an extra casualty to drop the unit below half strength and claim half victory points. It also helps to retain their scoring status and to protect the special and heavy weapons. Six is the optimal number of marines in a shooting squad.
Why lascannon and plasma gun?
The lascannon is the primary gun here. It has obvious strengths; long range, high strength and low armour penetration. It may be expensive but it can crack the toughest armoured vehicles and take on tooled up daemon-princes, carnifexes and hive tyrants and terminators. It can also instantly kill most multiple wound characters and punch through power armour effortlessly. Most army lists also discount lascannon in troops choices because GW believe that troops choices fufill multiple battlefield roles. If you have to move then you can't use the heavy weapon, and the squad could be used in a close combat capacity. However, because the las/plas squad is being optimized for shooting the cheaper weapon price is a real bonus for canny players.
The plasma gun is chosen for synergy. None of the other special weapons match the lascannon as well. The plasma gun has high strength, low armour penetration and a decent range. It can threaten pretty much all of the same targets as the lascannon can. In addition, it is especially good against marines. Approximately 60% of all armies are MEQ's (Marine EQuivalents) so it makes sense to pick weapons that can attack them well.
When you look at all of this together, the six marine las/plas squad makes for a formidable shooting unit.
Weaknesses
The las/plas squad does have some weaknesses, though. Because it is so optimized for one task, it cannot do any others very well. It is vulnerable in combat. Although the raw stats for marines are good, they will be defeated by any half-decent close combat squad. They are also somewhat fragile. Again, marine stats are good, but just four casualties make the unit non-scoring and bags their opponent half of their victory points. Just two more kills wipes out the squad. This makes them somewhat suspect when it comes to claiming objectives with them. Objectives are problematic for movement reasons, too. The las/plas squad only moves 6" per turn and loses lots of firepower if it does so. If the objective is even a moderate distance away the las/plas squad will have to make tough choices about whether to move or fire.
There is a wider weakness, too. If a player employs the optimization method of army design across their whole army, they will have a range of units each built for their specific role. But what happens if a savvy opponent targets all units which fulfill that one role? The optimizing player could then simply not be able to compete in some parts of the game. Optimizing means that there will always be an element of having all your eggs in one basket, as you mono-task each unit in your army. What happens when a marine player is playing a take and hold scenario and he loses his two assault units in the first turn. Will his four las/plas squads be able to storm into the assault and dislodge the enemy from the objective? Unlikely. It's not what they are designed for.
I wouldn't do that, you might say. I would just do what each unit is good at and try to damage the enemy army so that it can't contest the objective. But what happens when the enemy army is simply better at doing what you are trying to do? A static gunline marine list might be powerful but it would probably lose against a static imperial guard list. This is sometimes called the rock/paper/scissors dilemma of army building in 40k. If all players optimize their lists in the ways outlined above, it is relatively easy to compare the two lists before the game and predict the winner. A Tyranid genestealer horde will have the advantage against a close combat marine army but will really struggle against a mechanized Eldar list. Barring freaky dice rolls or excellent/terrible players, the outcome will be a formality. This is not a good thing.
Phew! This has grown into a massive post, much longer than I first envisioned. I'll post part two tomorrow when I outline the alternative to list optimization, using my Blood Angels.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
OPINION: Elements of a successful competitive army
A while back I wondered if there were common elements to successful competitive armies whatever type and race they were and regardless of how they worked.
For instance, would you consider having a push-back unit to be essential - something cheap and/or durable to force back enemy deployment? Similarly, would you never leave home without an infiltrating unit, just to deny enemy infiltrators? Do you always have some sort of response to indirect weapon fire, or do you always ensure that you have indirect firing of your own? Would you always recommend commanders to purchase a psychic hood if they had access to it?
With the help of the members of the Dakka Dakka forum I came up with this list.
Would you add anything else to the list?
For instance, would you consider having a push-back unit to be essential - something cheap and/or durable to force back enemy deployment? Similarly, would you never leave home without an infiltrating unit, just to deny enemy infiltrators? Do you always have some sort of response to indirect weapon fire, or do you always ensure that you have indirect firing of your own? Would you always recommend commanders to purchase a psychic hood if they had access to it?
With the help of the members of the Dakka Dakka forum I came up with this list.
- Optimise for escalation. Build your army either all-infantry (the whole army starting on table) or all mechanised (whole army starting off the table). This stops your force being destroyed piecemeal by heavy infiltrators or deep strikers. On table is preferable as you cannot be hampered by poor reserve rolls, though off table does give you a chance to observe the enemy and blow them away as you arrive.
- Emphasise firepower rather than assault. Shooting units can begin to inflict damage early in the game and can potentially hurt more units, without exposing themselves to too much risk. Mobile firepower is preferable as it can outwit static shooters and keep away from assaulters. Some counter assault is necessary, though. If you rely on assault, then you must have a reliable method of getting there.
- Include several mobile objective grabbers. Objectives are important in most missions now. Be careful, though, as you usually sacrifice firepower for mobility.
- Be durable. Tougher armies can take more damage and are more forgiving than fragile ones. It should be hard for your opponent to significantly reduce your killing power in a single turn. Tough armies could be MEQ’s (T4 3+ save) or have a lot of bodies (Guard), or even be able to hide well (Tau). Eldar Falcons are particularly durable if they select the right wargear. Another way to be resilient is to specialise. If you go all mechanised all of your enemy’s basic guns are useless. Similarly, if you go all infantry all of their anti-tank guns are much less effective.
- Build an anti-MEQ force. 60% or more of your tournament games will be against MEQ’s. (MEQ - Marines or EQuivalent)
- Include a push-back unit to limit enemy deployment. Otherwise you will have to concede ground during deployment or place a valuable unit in harms way.
- Include at least one infiltrating unit to hamper enemy infiltrating. Just one cheap unit can cripple armies that rely heavily on infiltrating.
- Maximize your number of scoring units. Missions are very important due to the victory points they give and only scoring units can achieve the missions.
- Try to fill out the force organisation chart. This allows you to outmanoeuvre the enemy in the deployment phase.
Would you add anything else to the list?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
OPINION: On Luck - Maximising your opportunities by being open to new experiences
Last time around I explored the idea of building a network of luck, how by being more outgoing you could increase your insight into your own game and that of the other players around you. In this follow-up article I want to take a look at how you can be 'luckier,' and expand your network of luck, by being open to new experiences.
As in my previous examples, we need to imagine two different types of player. I'll call the first conventional Colin and the second open Owen. They are playing in the Warhammer 40,000 (40k) Grand Tournament for the first time.
Colin likes to do things now as he has done things in the past. He doesn't like big surprises. He thinks that he is unlucky. Owen craves variety and novelty. He likes to explore new experiences and try new things. He believes that he his lucky. So how does this relate to playing 40k?
Conventional Colin
Colin's conventional approach informs his whole approach to the game. He likes to play with the same army, week in, week out. He doesn't like to change his army list from game to game. Colin will even use the same tactics in each game. He will feel more comfortable playing against players he has played before. He likes to play against armies he has had experience against, armies that are predictable, have solid, obvious tactics and he understands the rules for.
Colin likes to play 1500 point Gamma Level cleanse missions. He feels that this is fair, that it gives each army a chance to use their special rules and everyone knows what to expect. He doesn't want his game ruined by 'too simple' Alpha missions or 'stupid' Omega missions. Colin probably does fairly well in his gaming group. He has a tight little list which he knows the rules for without having to read the Codex. Colin knows what he likes and he likes what he knows.
Open Owen
Owen is the polar opposite. He might have half a dozen different armies and will swap between them on a whim. Even if he plays the same army two weeks in a row he will vary the list and his tactics. One week he will play mechanised Space Marines and the next he will play an infantry heavy gunline. His opponents never know what they will come up against from week to week. Owen likes to play against opponents he has never faced before. He is always on the lookout for new tactics and strategies. He especially likes to play against unusual armies that are rarely seen, like Daemonhunters, Kroot Mercenaries and Armoured Companies. Sometimes he won't even bother to learn the rules for them before the game. Surprise me, he'll say to his opponent.
This attitude also encompasses wider factors such as the mission or the game size. Owen might play 500 point games, 1000 point games, 1500 point games and 2000 point games. He'll volunteer for unbalanced games, taking half as many points as his attacker while he gains a defensible position. It doesn't matter to him that he is likely to lose. It'll be fun and he might learn something new. He'll play campaigns with home-made scenarios, he'll play in smaller tournaments with one-off missions and he'll use the full range of missions and levels in the 40k rulebook. Owen's results are up and down. His relentless experimenting means that he sometimes loses 10 games in a row. When he wins 10 games in a row he continues to change his lists. Owen is always on the hunt for something new and different.
So why is Owen 'lucky' and Colin is 'unlucky?' Why will Owen place better at the Grand Tournament than Colin? It's obviously down to their behaviour.
Owen has a big bag of tricks he can delve into during a game. If he is in a tight spot, he might remember a manoeuvre that an Imperial Guard player made in a previous game and replicate the same move despite the fact he is using Marines. It will be enough to gain him a draw instead of a loss. Similarly, all the games he played as Crisis suit heavy Tau will stand him in good stead when he plays against such an army with his Dark Eldar. He will remember the armies, units and tactics that challenged him and he will be able to use those ideas to beat the Tau army he is now facing . He will win that game comfortably. He'll use a unit in a counter-intuitive way during a game because he did that in a special scenario months ago and it worked - this will surprise his opponent and could upset his plans. Colin's broad experience of playing with and against a wide range of players, armies and tactics means he always has a chance against anybody, no matter what surprise they drop on him.
Colin won't be so 'lucky.' His narrow range of 40k experience will leave him woefully unequipped for an unusual game. He might be anxious when he faces off against a Tyranid 'Godzilla' list. Nevertheless he will simply grind forward using his standard game. The Tyranid player will recognise the obvious tactics and destroy him. Colin will put it down to bad luck and playing against a 'cheesy' army, and move on to the next game. He might be forced to play an Omega level game when he usually plays only Gamma level games. He finds his tanks start off the board and his jump-pack commander cannot deploy with his assault marines because they get different reserve rolls. His army is hopelessly disjointed and easily beaten. If only he had gotten luckier reserve rolls! In fact the problem is that he is under prepared, he just hasn't planned his army to take reserve rolls into account and he hasn't practiced enough to cope with inconvenient rolls.
There is no guarantee that Owen will win the tournament and that Colin will finish bottom, but I'd bet that Owen would finish above Colin.
Colin's inflexible approach to the game means he is easily knocked out of his comfort zone and can't cope in a different environment. I have seen a lot of Colins in the past and invariably they put this down to bad luck rather than addressing the real problem.
Owen is more easy going, his openness to new experiences means he is rarely surprised and even if he is, he can usually use some previous game to help him to relate to this particular game. His outlook to 40k informs his entire attitude and his perception of whether he is lucky or not.
So what are you - a Colin or an Owen?
As in my previous examples, we need to imagine two different types of player. I'll call the first conventional Colin and the second open Owen. They are playing in the Warhammer 40,000 (40k) Grand Tournament for the first time.
Colin likes to do things now as he has done things in the past. He doesn't like big surprises. He thinks that he is unlucky. Owen craves variety and novelty. He likes to explore new experiences and try new things. He believes that he his lucky. So how does this relate to playing 40k?
Conventional Colin
Colin's conventional approach informs his whole approach to the game. He likes to play with the same army, week in, week out. He doesn't like to change his army list from game to game. Colin will even use the same tactics in each game. He will feel more comfortable playing against players he has played before. He likes to play against armies he has had experience against, armies that are predictable, have solid, obvious tactics and he understands the rules for.
Colin likes to play 1500 point Gamma Level cleanse missions. He feels that this is fair, that it gives each army a chance to use their special rules and everyone knows what to expect. He doesn't want his game ruined by 'too simple' Alpha missions or 'stupid' Omega missions. Colin probably does fairly well in his gaming group. He has a tight little list which he knows the rules for without having to read the Codex. Colin knows what he likes and he likes what he knows.
Open Owen
Owen is the polar opposite. He might have half a dozen different armies and will swap between them on a whim. Even if he plays the same army two weeks in a row he will vary the list and his tactics. One week he will play mechanised Space Marines and the next he will play an infantry heavy gunline. His opponents never know what they will come up against from week to week. Owen likes to play against opponents he has never faced before. He is always on the lookout for new tactics and strategies. He especially likes to play against unusual armies that are rarely seen, like Daemonhunters, Kroot Mercenaries and Armoured Companies. Sometimes he won't even bother to learn the rules for them before the game. Surprise me, he'll say to his opponent.
This attitude also encompasses wider factors such as the mission or the game size. Owen might play 500 point games, 1000 point games, 1500 point games and 2000 point games. He'll volunteer for unbalanced games, taking half as many points as his attacker while he gains a defensible position. It doesn't matter to him that he is likely to lose. It'll be fun and he might learn something new. He'll play campaigns with home-made scenarios, he'll play in smaller tournaments with one-off missions and he'll use the full range of missions and levels in the 40k rulebook. Owen's results are up and down. His relentless experimenting means that he sometimes loses 10 games in a row. When he wins 10 games in a row he continues to change his lists. Owen is always on the hunt for something new and different.
So why is Owen 'lucky' and Colin is 'unlucky?' Why will Owen place better at the Grand Tournament than Colin? It's obviously down to their behaviour.
Owen has a big bag of tricks he can delve into during a game. If he is in a tight spot, he might remember a manoeuvre that an Imperial Guard player made in a previous game and replicate the same move despite the fact he is using Marines. It will be enough to gain him a draw instead of a loss. Similarly, all the games he played as Crisis suit heavy Tau will stand him in good stead when he plays against such an army with his Dark Eldar. He will remember the armies, units and tactics that challenged him and he will be able to use those ideas to beat the Tau army he is now facing . He will win that game comfortably. He'll use a unit in a counter-intuitive way during a game because he did that in a special scenario months ago and it worked - this will surprise his opponent and could upset his plans. Colin's broad experience of playing with and against a wide range of players, armies and tactics means he always has a chance against anybody, no matter what surprise they drop on him.
Colin won't be so 'lucky.' His narrow range of 40k experience will leave him woefully unequipped for an unusual game. He might be anxious when he faces off against a Tyranid 'Godzilla' list. Nevertheless he will simply grind forward using his standard game. The Tyranid player will recognise the obvious tactics and destroy him. Colin will put it down to bad luck and playing against a 'cheesy' army, and move on to the next game. He might be forced to play an Omega level game when he usually plays only Gamma level games. He finds his tanks start off the board and his jump-pack commander cannot deploy with his assault marines because they get different reserve rolls. His army is hopelessly disjointed and easily beaten. If only he had gotten luckier reserve rolls! In fact the problem is that he is under prepared, he just hasn't planned his army to take reserve rolls into account and he hasn't practiced enough to cope with inconvenient rolls.
There is no guarantee that Owen will win the tournament and that Colin will finish bottom, but I'd bet that Owen would finish above Colin.
Colin's inflexible approach to the game means he is easily knocked out of his comfort zone and can't cope in a different environment. I have seen a lot of Colins in the past and invariably they put this down to bad luck rather than addressing the real problem.
Owen is more easy going, his openness to new experiences means he is rarely surprised and even if he is, he can usually use some previous game to help him to relate to this particular game. His outlook to 40k informs his entire attitude and his perception of whether he is lucky or not.
So what are you - a Colin or an Owen?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
OPINION: On Luck - Maximising your opportunities by building a network of luck
According to Blogger this is my 100th post. Whoo-hoo! It's a small milestone, but a milestone none the less. Here's to another 100 posts and more!
Anyway, back to the blog. This post topic is the first real article on luck in wargaming and how it doesn't really exist. I have had to split this first article into two posts as it was so long, so this is part one of article one. Keeping up? If so, read on...
On Luck - Maximise your opportunities
Building a network of luck
Are you an extrovert or an introvert? If you're an extrovert, the chances are that you will be more lucky than an introvert. Why is that?
Imagine an extrovert who is playing 40k at his local store, games club or at a tournament. During games he will chat with his opponent, examine his opponent's army and talk about previous games or players they have in common. Between games he will walk around and chat with other players, he'll shoot the breeze about anything and everything from rules queries to tactics to other players. He'll watch other people's battles, checking out playstyles and army lists, getting a feel how others approach the game. He might chat with the store owner, the club manager or the tournament organiser and ask their opinions about about 40k, what he thinks are strong and weak armies, how he approaches rules disputes and why he favours certain types of terrain over others.
Now imagine an introvert at the same store, club or tournament. He'll show up for his games and set up in silence, giving one word replies to his opponent's questions about his models and the terrain. He'll play the game quietly and efficiently, then pack up his army to be ready for the next battle. Between games he'll sit to one side for some peace and quiet and will get really annoyed if anyone deigns to talk to him. He'll leave for the night and no-one will even remember he was there.
The extrovert will be more lucky, perhaps not in each individual game, but in the long term, because he is building a network of luck. He will have a broader vision of the game than the introvert who only has whatever thoughts pop into his head. The extrovert will get a better feeling for how the game is played in that particular environment, which armies and lists succeed and which fail, which players are competitive and which are laid back. He might encounter a new tactic for a unit which he never thought of, a rule he was never aware of or see a rare army being played. He will also have a better knowledge of the quirks of his local 'scene' - which ways rules questions are likely to be enforced, what terrain will be used and the armies and tactics of the best players.
All of this information will inform the extrovert's game and what decisions he makes in terms of which army to play, how to build an army list and what tactics will make it work. He'll know when to push a rule and when to pull back. Things will just seem to work his way in lots of his games and he may not even be conscious of the reasons why. He just does what 'feels' right.
The introvert will have no such insight. He might play an army that, even though it is perfectly potent in general, is inferior to others in his area. He might assume rules work in a certain way when in fact his common opponents play them differently. He might turn up for a tournament with his static Imperial Guard army only to find tables crammed with area 3. He'll fall for the bait against an average player who always uses the same tactic. He'll probably put it down to bad luck.
But he would be wrong. It's just that outgoing, social people have built up a network of luck and that reserved, solitary people haven't.
Part two will follow soon.
Anyway, back to the blog. This post topic is the first real article on luck in wargaming and how it doesn't really exist. I have had to split this first article into two posts as it was so long, so this is part one of article one. Keeping up? If so, read on...
On Luck - Maximise your opportunities
Building a network of luck
Are you an extrovert or an introvert? If you're an extrovert, the chances are that you will be more lucky than an introvert. Why is that?
Imagine an extrovert who is playing 40k at his local store, games club or at a tournament. During games he will chat with his opponent, examine his opponent's army and talk about previous games or players they have in common. Between games he will walk around and chat with other players, he'll shoot the breeze about anything and everything from rules queries to tactics to other players. He'll watch other people's battles, checking out playstyles and army lists, getting a feel how others approach the game. He might chat with the store owner, the club manager or the tournament organiser and ask their opinions about about 40k, what he thinks are strong and weak armies, how he approaches rules disputes and why he favours certain types of terrain over others.
Now imagine an introvert at the same store, club or tournament. He'll show up for his games and set up in silence, giving one word replies to his opponent's questions about his models and the terrain. He'll play the game quietly and efficiently, then pack up his army to be ready for the next battle. Between games he'll sit to one side for some peace and quiet and will get really annoyed if anyone deigns to talk to him. He'll leave for the night and no-one will even remember he was there.
The extrovert will be more lucky, perhaps not in each individual game, but in the long term, because he is building a network of luck. He will have a broader vision of the game than the introvert who only has whatever thoughts pop into his head. The extrovert will get a better feeling for how the game is played in that particular environment, which armies and lists succeed and which fail, which players are competitive and which are laid back. He might encounter a new tactic for a unit which he never thought of, a rule he was never aware of or see a rare army being played. He will also have a better knowledge of the quirks of his local 'scene' - which ways rules questions are likely to be enforced, what terrain will be used and the armies and tactics of the best players.
All of this information will inform the extrovert's game and what decisions he makes in terms of which army to play, how to build an army list and what tactics will make it work. He'll know when to push a rule and when to pull back. Things will just seem to work his way in lots of his games and he may not even be conscious of the reasons why. He just does what 'feels' right.
The introvert will have no such insight. He might play an army that, even though it is perfectly potent in general, is inferior to others in his area. He might assume rules work in a certain way when in fact his common opponents play them differently. He might turn up for a tournament with his static Imperial Guard army only to find tables crammed with area 3. He'll fall for the bait against an average player who always uses the same tactic. He'll probably put it down to bad luck.
But he would be wrong. It's just that outgoing, social people have built up a network of luck and that reserved, solitary people haven't.
Part two will follow soon.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
OPINION - On Luck. Introduction
Lucky players seem to pick the best army list for any given game, get the perfect dice rolls just as they need them and have the right models in the right place at the right time. Their success is not down to them working particularly hard, being amazingly talented or exceptionally intelligent. Instead, they are watched over by lady luck. They always get the good luck while you always get the bad.
You always seem to come up against the army that can best defeat yours. You get the worst dice rolls and even remember specific games where you rolled that triple one. Your models are always an inch short or just out of range. Now matter how hard you plan and practice, defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory time and again and it's all down to one thing; bad luck.
Bollocks.
Over the next few articles I aim to show you that you hold the key to creating your own 'luck.' By changing your gaming habits you can understand, control and increase good fortune and using these tips you can revolutionise your games.
I will post five more articles in total.
You always seem to come up against the army that can best defeat yours. You get the worst dice rolls and even remember specific games where you rolled that triple one. Your models are always an inch short or just out of range. Now matter how hard you plan and practice, defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory time and again and it's all down to one thing; bad luck.
Bollocks.
Over the next few articles I aim to show you that you hold the key to creating your own 'luck.' By changing your gaming habits you can understand, control and increase good fortune and using these tips you can revolutionise your games.
I will post five more articles in total.
- How to maximise your opportunities by maintaining a strong network of luck and being open to new experiences.
- Why you should listen to your intuition and hunches (math-hammer can't help you in every situation).
- Why you should expect good fortune with the key being to persevere.
- How you can take constructive steps to turn bad luck into good luck.
- A summary and round-up of the main ideas in these articles.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
What responsibility do you owe your opponent regarding how you play the game?
One of the most memorable games I have ever played was a game of Horus Heresy, a Games Workshop boardgame written by Jervis Johnson. My opponent was Gary, my gaming buddy and long term nemesis. We had been playing lots of 40k and Blood Bowl and were getting jaded. For a change of pace we broke out the Horus Heresy boardgame.
Being a goody-two shoes Imperium-lover I played the Emperor while Gary explored his dark side by commanding Horus. It took an hour and fifteen minutes to set up the counters. It's not that we were particularly slow, it's just that sort of game.
We had just two hours left to re-enact the single greatest battle in the whole of humanity's history. Would history repeat itself, with the Emperor teleporting up to Horus' battlebarge in a desperate final gamble? Would Horus risk his life and the whole crusade by setting foot on holy Terra? We were about to find out.
The forces of Chaos had first turn.
Gary dropped Horus straight onto the Emperor's Palace. The best defended location on the map board. Hell, it's the best defended place in the entire Imperium. And Horus volunteers for the first drop pod.
Of course, the defenders shot up the pods as they came in and the Emperor smacked Horus upside out. The game ended after twenty minutes.
I was shell shocked. Was that it?
Even if Gary's audacious plan had worked, and Horus had killed the Emperor, the game would have been over in the first turn.
I felt no elation or sense of achievement in the win. My tactical acumen had not been tested. It was an entirely pointless waste of time. We didn't even have enough time to set the board up again, so our gaming night was over.
This recollection leads me to the point of this post and the following question.
What responsibility do you owe your opponent regarding how you play the game?
I'm asking this question now because I played a couple of games of Warhammer recently which made me question my own, and my opponent's, approach to the game. The first was played after a three week hiatus caused by my work commitments. Gary deployed his Dark Elves almost entirely within a third of his deployment zone with most avenues of approach blocked by a large wood on one side and rocky columns on the other.
His stated aim was to slow my units down as they came through the gap and let my own units get in my own way.
My initial thoughts were to refuse the bait, sit outside the terrain and play for the draw. But I'd waited three weeks for the game, I wanted to have a battle, not just shuffle a few units around, and besides, I was Chaos dammit! In the end I charged right in and was defeated. Gary congratulated himself on his superior tactics and I went away with a peculiar feeling of disenchantment.
In the following week's game Gary repeated the trick, deploying all but two units of his army inside the bend of a river. This time I refused the bait and simply destroyed the two units with my whole force then shuffled into the table quarters. I won a marginal victory, but I felt worse than I had done the week before. This time I had participated in this travesty of a game.
I was deeply unsatisfied. I felt that the 'unusual' deployment of my opponent had significantly affected my enjoyment of the game.
Did Gary really have some sort of moral obligation to consider how his play might impact upon me, though? Surely it is none of my business what my opponent does with his own army?
Does the context matter? Are the expectations different in a tournament versus a 'beer and pretzels' game? What if you play three times a week or only play once a month?
Let me know what you think.
Being a goody-two shoes Imperium-lover I played the Emperor while Gary explored his dark side by commanding Horus. It took an hour and fifteen minutes to set up the counters. It's not that we were particularly slow, it's just that sort of game.
We had just two hours left to re-enact the single greatest battle in the whole of humanity's history. Would history repeat itself, with the Emperor teleporting up to Horus' battlebarge in a desperate final gamble? Would Horus risk his life and the whole crusade by setting foot on holy Terra? We were about to find out.
The forces of Chaos had first turn.
Gary dropped Horus straight onto the Emperor's Palace. The best defended location on the map board. Hell, it's the best defended place in the entire Imperium. And Horus volunteers for the first drop pod.
Of course, the defenders shot up the pods as they came in and the Emperor smacked Horus upside out. The game ended after twenty minutes.
I was shell shocked. Was that it?
Even if Gary's audacious plan had worked, and Horus had killed the Emperor, the game would have been over in the first turn.
I felt no elation or sense of achievement in the win. My tactical acumen had not been tested. It was an entirely pointless waste of time. We didn't even have enough time to set the board up again, so our gaming night was over.
This recollection leads me to the point of this post and the following question.
What responsibility do you owe your opponent regarding how you play the game?
I'm asking this question now because I played a couple of games of Warhammer recently which made me question my own, and my opponent's, approach to the game. The first was played after a three week hiatus caused by my work commitments. Gary deployed his Dark Elves almost entirely within a third of his deployment zone with most avenues of approach blocked by a large wood on one side and rocky columns on the other.
His stated aim was to slow my units down as they came through the gap and let my own units get in my own way.
My initial thoughts were to refuse the bait, sit outside the terrain and play for the draw. But I'd waited three weeks for the game, I wanted to have a battle, not just shuffle a few units around, and besides, I was Chaos dammit! In the end I charged right in and was defeated. Gary congratulated himself on his superior tactics and I went away with a peculiar feeling of disenchantment.
In the following week's game Gary repeated the trick, deploying all but two units of his army inside the bend of a river. This time I refused the bait and simply destroyed the two units with my whole force then shuffled into the table quarters. I won a marginal victory, but I felt worse than I had done the week before. This time I had participated in this travesty of a game.
I was deeply unsatisfied. I felt that the 'unusual' deployment of my opponent had significantly affected my enjoyment of the game.
Did Gary really have some sort of moral obligation to consider how his play might impact upon me, though? Surely it is none of my business what my opponent does with his own army?
Does the context matter? Are the expectations different in a tournament versus a 'beer and pretzels' game? What if you play three times a week or only play once a month?
Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
