It has been a little while since I’ve put something up here, and in all likelihood I’m probably just talking to myself but in further lurking on Australian forums, and talking with people still involved in the game, it appears a strong motivator for discontinuing warhammer as a hobby has only grown more prevalent.
When the elite can act as judge jury and executioner when dismissing representatives of Australia’s tournament environment in the shadows away from public the question begs to be asked who are tournaments run for in Australia.
Australia is now little more than an antipodean offshoot slave to the direction set by Europe via our ruling class of elites. Whilst the game is set in feudal times actually adopting a feudal system for the governance of the game seems a little out of place in a modern society.
Thankfully for myself witnessing the continued devolution of the tournament scene has reinforced that going forward this is not something I ever want to be involved in again.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sayonara
Well so I know I promised an article a month but it turns out I inadvertently may have mislead people.
After Convic, which I’m not particularly psyched for but have tickets paid for with Mr Joyce, it will be so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good night from myself hopefully only temporarily but more than likely permanently.
For many this may be time to rejoice and sing to the heavens for the respite from the tyrannical flamer. I have offended many unapologetically and those who oppose my style of communication have every right to dance in the streets. But a warning for those please stop reading now – honestly don’t spoil this joyous moment by reading my last piece of criticism of Australian gaming.
For those interested as to why I’ve pulled up stumps I’ve basically narrowed it down to four reasons:
One
I think the game is broken at the moment. The advantage of DoC, VC and DE is such that part time comp panels can’t effectively adjust. This is not the fault of players who use VC, DOC and DE, this is the fault of a games company which has employed people in games design that I wouldn’t entrust to photocopy a pitch book and personally I no longer see the reason behind shelling out a few thousand a year to play a game which is broken?
I’ve discussed this with a couple of people and I think Mr Dennison has a good concept in train and I am seriously considering designing something more balanced to play amongst friends using my now redundant figures.
Two
Recently the list of “guys I would forfeit a game if I was drawn against them because I want to enjoy my tournaments” grew to five the number I always promised myself I’d reconsider everything at.
Ironically the guy who first made me consider both the list and the rule is no longer on it, alas five other guys have now taken his place. I figure I work a minimum of 70 hours a week so why pay money to waste my leisure time playing a game where there is a decent chance of meeting up with someone who would ruin my weekend?
Also ironically at the same time it has been made clear that I’m on at least two other player’s list of weekend ruination, something I also always thought should be a big signal to reconsider if you should be playing. [Though perhaps not that ironic given that there is probably a high correlation between someone making my list and me making their’s]
Three
The direction of the game, I don’t know if was entry into the ETC or what but the game to me is going down a spiralling path that I’ve seen before and would rather not be a part of. I was unfortunately part of the machine driving this the first time round and refuse to be involved in the second iteration of what I consider an obviously fundamentally flawed concept.
I think we are at the point that this is almost a foregone conclusion that this is adopted, some of the more influential people have firm shoved the game on this route and I think it will take something radical to move it off that path.
As I’ve said before adopting a system which attracts [admittedly according to the data I have] a smaller portion of the pan European gaming population compared to the percentage of Australians playing warhammer tourneys [my estimates based on sales data from GW’s accounts you can refute me but hell I won’t read it so I don’t care] because it “works for them” is nonsensical.
I see overseas boards having discussions we had 7 years ago so by adopting a system that is the result of old conversations seems to me to be devolution not progress
I also offer the following piece of advice do not take one data point as evidence that all is good. When you have one single data point supporting where the status quo was largely maintained do not use that as an indicator that it will be forever maintained.
At the end of the day I have been brainwashed with the notion that we are rational beings and that when we see a way to gain an advantage we will take it, once that advantage is both identified and deemed socially acceptable. [admittedly this is based only on what I’ve read and not on my personal research so I am taking the risk that the plethora of guys with sir, dr and prof in front of their names may not have more insight than a few gamers]
I liken viewing the first tourney as an indicator that the “cheese” will never creep in the same as thinking that because you had unprotected sex once with a $2 hooker and no funky growth has emerged that you will never get an STD via unprotected sex (despite logic dictating otherwise)? So please go forth rubber free with a $50 note in your hand?
Four
The politics of the game has perhaps been the biggest driver. As the game has become more national [my apologies to NZ I’m making you an Australian warhammer state] the politics have become more concentrated. I have recently bitterly offended the head of the game’s most influential club [whilst their may be more vagabonds than Catholics in Australia you aren’t the most influential], his primary misgiving for our altercation was that it was public.
For me the public nature of it was the only positive part of being called the biggest problem with Australian warhammer tournaments [yes I am more than a little bitter about that but I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinion].
The guys who effectively run the tournament scene are unwilling to actually have disagreements in front of the “plebs”.
Perhaps if people with a controlling role in the game were actually willing to have public disputes the notion of an overarching elite caste running the game would be dispelled. But hey I know I’m virtually alone in the transparency is a good thing argument, I think vigorous public debate is the only way ideas are tested and the only way people can feel involved.
So a few key parting messages – Ken you win the bet, looks like I’ll have to find something else to do one those weekends I booked in for tourneys.
To the guys I’ve gone out with after tourneys, when in the city give me a call always happy to grab a beer with anyone, to the Brisbane boys, I’ll certainly make time to keep in touch.
To those left playing I hope you enjoy the game like I have for the past 17 or so years. I’ll probably be still lurking on the old off topic so to those that want to keep in touch send me a PM.
Stay strong WAU
After Convic, which I’m not particularly psyched for but have tickets paid for with Mr Joyce, it will be so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good night from myself hopefully only temporarily but more than likely permanently.
For many this may be time to rejoice and sing to the heavens for the respite from the tyrannical flamer. I have offended many unapologetically and those who oppose my style of communication have every right to dance in the streets. But a warning for those please stop reading now – honestly don’t spoil this joyous moment by reading my last piece of criticism of Australian gaming.
For those interested as to why I’ve pulled up stumps I’ve basically narrowed it down to four reasons:
One
I think the game is broken at the moment. The advantage of DoC, VC and DE is such that part time comp panels can’t effectively adjust. This is not the fault of players who use VC, DOC and DE, this is the fault of a games company which has employed people in games design that I wouldn’t entrust to photocopy a pitch book and personally I no longer see the reason behind shelling out a few thousand a year to play a game which is broken?
I’ve discussed this with a couple of people and I think Mr Dennison has a good concept in train and I am seriously considering designing something more balanced to play amongst friends using my now redundant figures.
Two
Recently the list of “guys I would forfeit a game if I was drawn against them because I want to enjoy my tournaments” grew to five the number I always promised myself I’d reconsider everything at.
Ironically the guy who first made me consider both the list and the rule is no longer on it, alas five other guys have now taken his place. I figure I work a minimum of 70 hours a week so why pay money to waste my leisure time playing a game where there is a decent chance of meeting up with someone who would ruin my weekend?
Also ironically at the same time it has been made clear that I’m on at least two other player’s list of weekend ruination, something I also always thought should be a big signal to reconsider if you should be playing. [Though perhaps not that ironic given that there is probably a high correlation between someone making my list and me making their’s]
Three
The direction of the game, I don’t know if was entry into the ETC or what but the game to me is going down a spiralling path that I’ve seen before and would rather not be a part of. I was unfortunately part of the machine driving this the first time round and refuse to be involved in the second iteration of what I consider an obviously fundamentally flawed concept.
I think we are at the point that this is almost a foregone conclusion that this is adopted, some of the more influential people have firm shoved the game on this route and I think it will take something radical to move it off that path.
As I’ve said before adopting a system which attracts [admittedly according to the data I have] a smaller portion of the pan European gaming population compared to the percentage of Australians playing warhammer tourneys [my estimates based on sales data from GW’s accounts you can refute me but hell I won’t read it so I don’t care] because it “works for them” is nonsensical.
I see overseas boards having discussions we had 7 years ago so by adopting a system that is the result of old conversations seems to me to be devolution not progress
I also offer the following piece of advice do not take one data point as evidence that all is good. When you have one single data point supporting where the status quo was largely maintained do not use that as an indicator that it will be forever maintained.
At the end of the day I have been brainwashed with the notion that we are rational beings and that when we see a way to gain an advantage we will take it, once that advantage is both identified and deemed socially acceptable. [admittedly this is based only on what I’ve read and not on my personal research so I am taking the risk that the plethora of guys with sir, dr and prof in front of their names may not have more insight than a few gamers]
I liken viewing the first tourney as an indicator that the “cheese” will never creep in the same as thinking that because you had unprotected sex once with a $2 hooker and no funky growth has emerged that you will never get an STD via unprotected sex (despite logic dictating otherwise)? So please go forth rubber free with a $50 note in your hand?
Four
The politics of the game has perhaps been the biggest driver. As the game has become more national [my apologies to NZ I’m making you an Australian warhammer state] the politics have become more concentrated. I have recently bitterly offended the head of the game’s most influential club [whilst their may be more vagabonds than Catholics in Australia you aren’t the most influential], his primary misgiving for our altercation was that it was public.
For me the public nature of it was the only positive part of being called the biggest problem with Australian warhammer tournaments [yes I am more than a little bitter about that but I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinion].
The guys who effectively run the tournament scene are unwilling to actually have disagreements in front of the “plebs”.
Perhaps if people with a controlling role in the game were actually willing to have public disputes the notion of an overarching elite caste running the game would be dispelled. But hey I know I’m virtually alone in the transparency is a good thing argument, I think vigorous public debate is the only way ideas are tested and the only way people can feel involved.
So a few key parting messages – Ken you win the bet, looks like I’ll have to find something else to do one those weekends I booked in for tourneys.
To the guys I’ve gone out with after tourneys, when in the city give me a call always happy to grab a beer with anyone, to the Brisbane boys, I’ll certainly make time to keep in touch.
To those left playing I hope you enjoy the game like I have for the past 17 or so years. I’ll probably be still lurking on the old off topic so to those that want to keep in touch send me a PM.
Stay strong WAU
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sometimes you got to be positive
Well we all like to complain and criticise, I think mainly because you need to be more vocal about change, or opposing proposed change, in order to achieve the desired outcome. But sometimes it can appear with enough complaint and counter complaint that the game is in a poor state. [note: Now when I say “game” I mean tournament game].
Now before I push forward I would argue that for Australia to regularly produce 50 and 100 player tournaments we need a system that is far stronger than Europe or the US, simply with how small and dispersed our population is means we need to provide tourney goers with a greater level of enjoyment than our European cousins.
This is one thing that frustrates me when people hold up European systems and suggest that if it works there it must work here? Now setting aside the inevitable cultural differences that could lead to a concept working in one and not the other the fact remains that you need a lower percentage of both the general and war gaming population in Europe to accept the system in order to make it successful.
So with that in mind I thought it might be time to put out a positive stock take of the 5 best things about the Australian game I see today versus the game I saw in 1992.
Attendance: I don’t think I ever would of envisaged being able to pick and choose between 50 player tourneys. Back when the tourney scene first started heating up in Brisbane (special thanks to Ken Remington and Adrian Roberts who drove that and strangely composition in QLD) we were stoked at 35 players and most tournaments had a circa 20 field. Now 50 seems to be the standard benchmark for a good sized tourney and many “small” events are coming in at 40 players and shocking the organisers.
For me the most positive sign is that these tourneys aren’t being propped up by the travelling contingent anymore. The past few years you really needed to attract the 10 or so guys who would travel in order to hit 50 plus, now we have 50 locals trotting out once a month.
Now it’s impossible to determine what led to the increase, was it online forums giving players access, a successful GW marketing ploy etc. But I’d like to think that soft scoring actually contributed somewhat – I’m sure it pushed some players out but I’m relatively confident it brought more players into the game as it gave the impressions that hyper competitiveness was tempered and that opponents were considered a part of the game not an obstacle.
The Cliques: Remember I said this would be wholly positive? Well I’m using the cliques in an entirely positive manner. I see it as exceptionally positive that the scene has developed into almost a sub society. Players care enough about the game to actually form social groups that are bigger than a simple extension of their playing group or club. To me I think this is more encouraging to a newcomer that this is indeed social atmosphere and that the different groups give someone to relate to.
General quality of play: Moving to NSW I noticed a sharp increase in the depth of quality players, the ability of the top players was roughly the same but it was the second tier guys who were substantially tougher in NSW. I’m still not sure if this was a product of NSW having a more competitive “tourney” club set up or that I just moved to NSW in 2002 which was probably the year tourney play started to really take off here following on from dogcon.
Either way I think currently with the increase in tournaments, and a lot more tournament focused clubs propping up, the depth of quality players at tournaments have improved dramatically. More importantly the quality of play in the mid tables has, form my observation, lead to a muck quicker progression for new players to the tournament scene.
Soft scores: Now that the pro painting debate ahs been seemingly put to bed by making painting scores something eminently achievable by anyone willing to put in a measure effort I think it is fair to say most tourney goers believe sports and painting scores are a positive for tournament play not part of a black box system.
Composition: yes that’s right I think this is one of the 5 best things today. Sure composition will always be a somewhat controversial issue as people invariably succumb to self interest in these matters. But I think we’ve come a long way to a point where the majority of the arguments are more at the fringes than fundamental opposition. Anything which improves the balance, or at least has players thinking about their opponents enjoyment, has to be a positive for new players in general.
There will always be people alienated by comp these are generally the more hyper competitive [because comp only affects you if you are really concerned with winning] who will be alienated under any system which doesn’t allow them to gain an edge.
Furthermore I think that having a system which only disallows the most abusive of builds provides the freedom necessary to attract new players and encourage diversity.
So there we go 5 positives amid the quagmire of negativity.
Now before I push forward I would argue that for Australia to regularly produce 50 and 100 player tournaments we need a system that is far stronger than Europe or the US, simply with how small and dispersed our population is means we need to provide tourney goers with a greater level of enjoyment than our European cousins.
This is one thing that frustrates me when people hold up European systems and suggest that if it works there it must work here? Now setting aside the inevitable cultural differences that could lead to a concept working in one and not the other the fact remains that you need a lower percentage of both the general and war gaming population in Europe to accept the system in order to make it successful.
So with that in mind I thought it might be time to put out a positive stock take of the 5 best things about the Australian game I see today versus the game I saw in 1992.
Attendance: I don’t think I ever would of envisaged being able to pick and choose between 50 player tourneys. Back when the tourney scene first started heating up in Brisbane (special thanks to Ken Remington and Adrian Roberts who drove that and strangely composition in QLD) we were stoked at 35 players and most tournaments had a circa 20 field. Now 50 seems to be the standard benchmark for a good sized tourney and many “small” events are coming in at 40 players and shocking the organisers.
For me the most positive sign is that these tourneys aren’t being propped up by the travelling contingent anymore. The past few years you really needed to attract the 10 or so guys who would travel in order to hit 50 plus, now we have 50 locals trotting out once a month.
Now it’s impossible to determine what led to the increase, was it online forums giving players access, a successful GW marketing ploy etc. But I’d like to think that soft scoring actually contributed somewhat – I’m sure it pushed some players out but I’m relatively confident it brought more players into the game as it gave the impressions that hyper competitiveness was tempered and that opponents were considered a part of the game not an obstacle.
The Cliques: Remember I said this would be wholly positive? Well I’m using the cliques in an entirely positive manner. I see it as exceptionally positive that the scene has developed into almost a sub society. Players care enough about the game to actually form social groups that are bigger than a simple extension of their playing group or club. To me I think this is more encouraging to a newcomer that this is indeed social atmosphere and that the different groups give someone to relate to.
General quality of play: Moving to NSW I noticed a sharp increase in the depth of quality players, the ability of the top players was roughly the same but it was the second tier guys who were substantially tougher in NSW. I’m still not sure if this was a product of NSW having a more competitive “tourney” club set up or that I just moved to NSW in 2002 which was probably the year tourney play started to really take off here following on from dogcon.
Either way I think currently with the increase in tournaments, and a lot more tournament focused clubs propping up, the depth of quality players at tournaments have improved dramatically. More importantly the quality of play in the mid tables has, form my observation, lead to a muck quicker progression for new players to the tournament scene.
Soft scores: Now that the pro painting debate ahs been seemingly put to bed by making painting scores something eminently achievable by anyone willing to put in a measure effort I think it is fair to say most tourney goers believe sports and painting scores are a positive for tournament play not part of a black box system.
Composition: yes that’s right I think this is one of the 5 best things today. Sure composition will always be a somewhat controversial issue as people invariably succumb to self interest in these matters. But I think we’ve come a long way to a point where the majority of the arguments are more at the fringes than fundamental opposition. Anything which improves the balance, or at least has players thinking about their opponents enjoyment, has to be a positive for new players in general.
There will always be people alienated by comp these are generally the more hyper competitive [because comp only affects you if you are really concerned with winning] who will be alienated under any system which doesn’t allow them to gain an edge.
Furthermore I think that having a system which only disallows the most abusive of builds provides the freedom necessary to attract new players and encourage diversity.
So there we go 5 positives amid the quagmire of negativity.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
My best advice is...
If I had two pieces of advice to new tournament players the first would be always pack deodorant and jeans for any tournmanet. Jeans just in case some of your fellow gamers are socially adept enough that you wouldn’t mind spending an evening drinking with them in town and deodorant so those same gamers won’t mind drinking with you. If there is one piece of advice I’d like to be remembered for – it is that.
The other, and far more on table top performance related, is never post your list in the army list forum. Seriously it is perhaps the most counter productive exercise.
See both the problem and the benefit of an open forum is that everyone is able to put forward their view. This means it is often tough to distinguish between who is a really eager guy to give you comments, but doesn’t know crap and guys who know what they are talking about but are a little more reserved. So for someone soliciting genuine feedback to try and garner a deeper understanding of what is or is not effective it is impossible to distinguish between the posts which are going to help or hinder you.
I know a lot of the top players steadfastly refuse to provide comments on army list forums. Why because they typically get drowned out by either inexperienced commentators or by the original poster who hasn’t really looked for criticism but rather validation.
So if army list forums aren’t any good how do I fix things? What I recommend instead is that you read some of the other threads in the general discussion on what ever boards you frequent. Try and search for people who seem to have either had success with the army you intend to play or seem to think about the game in a similar fashion to yourself. Once you’ve identified those people PM them directly and engage in a direct discussion.
Now in this discussion you don’t need to accept everything they say in fact back and forth on both the pros and cons of choices and why you want the army to play a certain way will only make the other person more engaged in the discussion. But bear in mind these people might get a fair few of these PMs so don’t be offended if you get a luke warm response, either follow up or go looking for another opinion.
The other, and far more on table top performance related, is never post your list in the army list forum. Seriously it is perhaps the most counter productive exercise.
See both the problem and the benefit of an open forum is that everyone is able to put forward their view. This means it is often tough to distinguish between who is a really eager guy to give you comments, but doesn’t know crap and guys who know what they are talking about but are a little more reserved. So for someone soliciting genuine feedback to try and garner a deeper understanding of what is or is not effective it is impossible to distinguish between the posts which are going to help or hinder you.
I know a lot of the top players steadfastly refuse to provide comments on army list forums. Why because they typically get drowned out by either inexperienced commentators or by the original poster who hasn’t really looked for criticism but rather validation.
So if army list forums aren’t any good how do I fix things? What I recommend instead is that you read some of the other threads in the general discussion on what ever boards you frequent. Try and search for people who seem to have either had success with the army you intend to play or seem to think about the game in a similar fashion to yourself. Once you’ve identified those people PM them directly and engage in a direct discussion.
Now in this discussion you don’t need to accept everything they say in fact back and forth on both the pros and cons of choices and why you want the army to play a certain way will only make the other person more engaged in the discussion. But bear in mind these people might get a fair few of these PMs so don’t be offended if you get a luke warm response, either follow up or go looking for another opinion.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Clash of the Titans report
The army lists on display here were, as is typical for a tournament attended by a tight knit gaming group, were “different”. I’d say 50% of the field was probably balanced or tuned lists and the other 50% were scissors paper rock armies.
Some feedback on the tourney: Positives, now these far outweighed the negatives: Played in excellent spirits, great to see so many young WHFB guys play in the open rather than the junior. Clearly the CTA guys are doing a great job of encouraging young fantasy players. Quality of game play was actually well above what I expected.
The negatives were firstly that transparency was very low I still don’t know how the sports and comp scoring actually worked including what mark I gave my opponents? I’d normally expect to know what the score I gave was. The scenarios, okay capture the flag and kill the general, a couple of hundred points at most here and there is fine, it skews the game a little but not disastrously so. The take and hold style scenario was in my view an utter diaster that completely destroys any balance in the game,.
Army List
My list was very similar to the list for dog con minus the useless unit of marauders.
Characters:
Level 4 MOT – collar of khorne, enchanted shield, black tounge, demon steed
BSB MOT – favour of the gods, armour of damnation
Lvl 2 MOT – puppet
Core
2 x 5 hounds
2 x 5 marauder horsemen with shield flails and MOS
20 Marauders – MOT LA/SHLD
Special
2 x 6 Knights – MON, one with War banner other banner of wrath
Rare:
Warshrine (mos)
Hellcannon
Game 1: Louis Samuels (Dwarfs)
First game up against an unknown young guy with dwarves. Great a 15-5 at worst and a good start to the tourney unfortunately it became the old age lesson of never underestimate your opponent.
Louis had a moderate dwarf army with 2 bolties, a cannon, a unit of thunderers, 2 units of quarrellers, a unit of hammerers, a unit of clansmen, 2 rune smiths, 2 units of ogres, a BSB and a lord. Magic items were heavily weighted towards defence.
Louis made only one mistake in deployment putting a unit of thunderers, with rune smith on the extreme flank that best case could only claim a unit of horsemen. His placement of artillery thought was perfect, aligning them so there was no way for me not to offer a flank on both of my knights when I pushed forward.
I on the other hand screwed my deployment and first turn something fierce. I didn’t screen the flanks of my knights from the bolties (idiot) and for some reason spent a runt dicking around rather than pressing forward. That one turn cost me my knights and saved his clansmen (with rune smith) from a 6 knight + BSB charge (all with +1 attack from the shrine).
In the end his shooting took care of the knights and the hell cannon (well his engineer in combat killed the hell cannon but hey...)
End result: 8-12 loss and me left wondering about my case of muppetitis.
Game 2: Joel Espinosa High Elves
Joel is a former club mate of mine but we had only really played once, thanks to my sporadic attendance, in that game Joel made a couple of deployment errors that cost him.
In this one he had a rock hard He army with the obligatory two units of sword masters, dragon princes, 2 mages, phoenix guard, two min units of sea guard, 2 eagles, 2 bolties and of course the obligatory lord on star dragon (seriously they should rename it COTD clash of the dragons).
Game was kind of decided turn 2 when Joel brought his star dragon and lord out from behind cover hoping to get him in combat ASAP to stop gateways being opened up left right and centre. So I got one turn to shoot at it with the Hell cannon, after a perfect guess the cannon hit killing the lord.
Next turn he threw the dragon into the flank of my unit of knights which had the Stubborn 4+ ward gift bestowed on it by the warshirne along with banner, BSB, warbanner. Knowing he would otherwise lose combat he threw the phoenix guard into the front of the same unit. Over the course of the next 4 turns it went back and forth him beating me, me passing the stubborn, me beating him, him holding until eventually both units broke. I didn’t get the dragon but got half points.
Across the rest of the battlefield my magic held sway (after black tongue killed his best wizard), still Joel was able to eventually shoot down my knights and do enough to keep the result close.
Result: 13-7 (21/40 points)
Game 3: Tom Goldie (Wood Elves)
Tom had a relatively typical wood elf army – 2 units of war dancers, a treeman, an eagle, wild riders, 5 units of dryads, 2 units of archers, warhawk riders, a bsb, 2 mages and a branch wraith.
I kind of knew what was going to be the problem for tom his screening units of drayds couldn’t stand up to my knights and his archers weren’t going to be able to punch through them.
Tom made the mistake of firing at my knights first turn which gave my marauder horse one turn of not being fired at and allowed them to charge one unit and kill it, whilst the knights took care of the other. The BSB’s unit (with +1 attack) ploughed through the dryads and over ran into the treeman, he made the Ferris error of throwing the wardancers into the knights and ended up losing his flank as a result.
He had a massive combat in the middle where the dryads hit my marauders front whilst an eagle and warhawks hit the rear. He won the first turn by one, I held and then broke them the two turns later. After that it was a bit of mop up. Tom had taken enough off me to prevent the 20-0 though.
Result: 19-1
Game 4: Chris Ball (VC)
I had a bit of a spit before this game when I found out that the game was decided only by table quarters nothing else (the players pack I read on the net was, lets say, light on for detail and as such did not talk about this hence a rude shock that we would play a 40k scenario at a WHFB tournament).
I was playing against a VC army with 9 pd and a dragon, essentially without copious amounts of luck, a great game by me and a few errors from Chris the best I should be able to do was a draw given that he can raise units in every quarter and is unbreakable.
To me this scenario had no place in WHFB it is a 40k scenario that just straight up does not work in WHFB. It was far and away in my top 2 worst scenarios I’ve ever played. [side note: the other being where the centre of the battlefield had a mystical crevasse and when you went near it you had to roll on a table and anything could happen to you from being attacked by 4 vampires to auto destroying all units with 2D6 inches that was tops.]
Chris had a lord on dragon, two other vamps, one with +1 level, 1 a BSB, 2 units of zombies, a unit of skellies, a unit of black knights, one large unit of wolves, wraiths, varghulf and some bats.
The game basically went:
Step 1: got some good luck Chris’s dragon went stupid two turns in a row so couldn’t cast and I rolled up two pandemoniums for spells which meant he kept miscasting and I kept altering his miscasts to get rid of his best spells and magic levels. With me holding sway over magic it was tough for Chris.
Step 2: Chris made a mistake of drawing the battle line inside his two table quarters allowing me to meet him there and control all 5 (there was an objective in the centre that counted as a “quarter”) when he should instead pushed to get across the middle and force me to fight my way into his half. He probably did this because at the start of the game he had a bazillion options for getting each quarter that the strategy wasn’t needed
Step 3: Fired up by the stupid scenario, plus being hangover free, I played tactically my best game of the weekend coming up with a plan and executing it perfectly
End result: 15-5 (55/75)
Game 5: Darren Donaldson (Khorne warriors)
Darren had an uber combat army with 4 units of Khorne knights (eep), 3 or 4 units of dogs for screening, 2 units of khornate marauders with great weapons, a unit of khornate warriors with GW, 2 level 1s with 4 scrolls and a lord on jugger with the demon sword and some ridiculous negative on his save.
On an open table he would have been able to hem me in and control the game but our table had a diagonal river through it splitting it in two and on one side a Forrest splitting it into three.
I deployed the fast cav on the open side of the river knowing they had the move to redeploy across if he weighted that flank, and kept the knights close by with the hope of neutralising one unit of knights on the far side of the forest and hopefully redirecting and punching through the other three with my diverters and two units of knights.
The game went pretty much to plan Darren made two rules based errors that essentially cost him the game:
1. one with where my chargers were going to end up after his hounds fled. He thought they go straight ahead not centre to centre following the hounds, this meant that instead of my unit being in no-mans land it hit the flank of one unit of knights carved it and then over ran into the flank of his marauder block supporting the two units of knights over the river. Which allowed my BSB’s unit to charge another unit knights and pursue them into the unit behind. This was pretty much the game.
2. the other mistake, though less costly, was he brought up the general in a unit of hounds but positioned him so I could avoid him with the hell cannon (as the dwarfs can’t reach they go to the back) meaning I broke him and at least got rid of his frenzy and immunity to psychology and many panic tests ensued (though none failed).
Taking those units out meant I could focus all of my magic on his one remaining unit of knights that was bottled up behind the forest eventually whittling them down to two and forcing them to charge my generals bunker.
End result: 20-0 (75/95)
Well second tournament with these guys so have to be happy to pull in a second place behind the immortal Jeff Traish. I must admit I’m enjoying having tactical options after the beastmen and the O&G generally being forced to concede certain elements of the game.
Breakdown
Things I did wrong over the weekend that I and hopefully others may learn from.
- Kept forgetting my bound spell and using that at the end, rather than trying to drag dice with it at the start. Rookie error.
- Have to think of blot throwers as a ranked up unit when in my flank, never present the knights flank to the bolties; or
- Screen the freaking flanks of the knights for Christ’s sake Brad (seriously how many shots to my flank will it take before I learn)
- black tongue was nice but I could think of more effective uses of the 50 points.
- Hellcannon is over rated and I was still uncertain how to use him. However my opponents very much over rate it which gives it a fear factor (that ironically by writing this I’m helping to dispel – so ignore that point)
- Marauder horsemen are shite with flails, may as well throw some axes on them.
Some feedback on the tourney: Positives, now these far outweighed the negatives: Played in excellent spirits, great to see so many young WHFB guys play in the open rather than the junior. Clearly the CTA guys are doing a great job of encouraging young fantasy players. Quality of game play was actually well above what I expected.
The negatives were firstly that transparency was very low I still don’t know how the sports and comp scoring actually worked including what mark I gave my opponents? I’d normally expect to know what the score I gave was. The scenarios, okay capture the flag and kill the general, a couple of hundred points at most here and there is fine, it skews the game a little but not disastrously so. The take and hold style scenario was in my view an utter diaster that completely destroys any balance in the game,.
Army List
My list was very similar to the list for dog con minus the useless unit of marauders.
Characters:
Level 4 MOT – collar of khorne, enchanted shield, black tounge, demon steed
BSB MOT – favour of the gods, armour of damnation
Lvl 2 MOT – puppet
Core
2 x 5 hounds
2 x 5 marauder horsemen with shield flails and MOS
20 Marauders – MOT LA/SHLD
Special
2 x 6 Knights – MON, one with War banner other banner of wrath
Rare:
Warshrine (mos)
Hellcannon
Game 1: Louis Samuels (Dwarfs)
First game up against an unknown young guy with dwarves. Great a 15-5 at worst and a good start to the tourney unfortunately it became the old age lesson of never underestimate your opponent.
Louis had a moderate dwarf army with 2 bolties, a cannon, a unit of thunderers, 2 units of quarrellers, a unit of hammerers, a unit of clansmen, 2 rune smiths, 2 units of ogres, a BSB and a lord. Magic items were heavily weighted towards defence.
Louis made only one mistake in deployment putting a unit of thunderers, with rune smith on the extreme flank that best case could only claim a unit of horsemen. His placement of artillery thought was perfect, aligning them so there was no way for me not to offer a flank on both of my knights when I pushed forward.
I on the other hand screwed my deployment and first turn something fierce. I didn’t screen the flanks of my knights from the bolties (idiot) and for some reason spent a runt dicking around rather than pressing forward. That one turn cost me my knights and saved his clansmen (with rune smith) from a 6 knight + BSB charge (all with +1 attack from the shrine).
In the end his shooting took care of the knights and the hell cannon (well his engineer in combat killed the hell cannon but hey...)
End result: 8-12 loss and me left wondering about my case of muppetitis.
Game 2: Joel Espinosa High Elves
Joel is a former club mate of mine but we had only really played once, thanks to my sporadic attendance, in that game Joel made a couple of deployment errors that cost him.
In this one he had a rock hard He army with the obligatory two units of sword masters, dragon princes, 2 mages, phoenix guard, two min units of sea guard, 2 eagles, 2 bolties and of course the obligatory lord on star dragon (seriously they should rename it COTD clash of the dragons).
Game was kind of decided turn 2 when Joel brought his star dragon and lord out from behind cover hoping to get him in combat ASAP to stop gateways being opened up left right and centre. So I got one turn to shoot at it with the Hell cannon, after a perfect guess the cannon hit killing the lord.
Next turn he threw the dragon into the flank of my unit of knights which had the Stubborn 4+ ward gift bestowed on it by the warshirne along with banner, BSB, warbanner. Knowing he would otherwise lose combat he threw the phoenix guard into the front of the same unit. Over the course of the next 4 turns it went back and forth him beating me, me passing the stubborn, me beating him, him holding until eventually both units broke. I didn’t get the dragon but got half points.
Across the rest of the battlefield my magic held sway (after black tongue killed his best wizard), still Joel was able to eventually shoot down my knights and do enough to keep the result close.
Result: 13-7 (21/40 points)
Game 3: Tom Goldie (Wood Elves)
Tom had a relatively typical wood elf army – 2 units of war dancers, a treeman, an eagle, wild riders, 5 units of dryads, 2 units of archers, warhawk riders, a bsb, 2 mages and a branch wraith.
I kind of knew what was going to be the problem for tom his screening units of drayds couldn’t stand up to my knights and his archers weren’t going to be able to punch through them.
Tom made the mistake of firing at my knights first turn which gave my marauder horse one turn of not being fired at and allowed them to charge one unit and kill it, whilst the knights took care of the other. The BSB’s unit (with +1 attack) ploughed through the dryads and over ran into the treeman, he made the Ferris error of throwing the wardancers into the knights and ended up losing his flank as a result.
He had a massive combat in the middle where the dryads hit my marauders front whilst an eagle and warhawks hit the rear. He won the first turn by one, I held and then broke them the two turns later. After that it was a bit of mop up. Tom had taken enough off me to prevent the 20-0 though.
Result: 19-1
Game 4: Chris Ball (VC)
I had a bit of a spit before this game when I found out that the game was decided only by table quarters nothing else (the players pack I read on the net was, lets say, light on for detail and as such did not talk about this hence a rude shock that we would play a 40k scenario at a WHFB tournament).
I was playing against a VC army with 9 pd and a dragon, essentially without copious amounts of luck, a great game by me and a few errors from Chris the best I should be able to do was a draw given that he can raise units in every quarter and is unbreakable.
To me this scenario had no place in WHFB it is a 40k scenario that just straight up does not work in WHFB. It was far and away in my top 2 worst scenarios I’ve ever played. [side note: the other being where the centre of the battlefield had a mystical crevasse and when you went near it you had to roll on a table and anything could happen to you from being attacked by 4 vampires to auto destroying all units with 2D6 inches that was tops.]
Chris had a lord on dragon, two other vamps, one with +1 level, 1 a BSB, 2 units of zombies, a unit of skellies, a unit of black knights, one large unit of wolves, wraiths, varghulf and some bats.
The game basically went:
Step 1: got some good luck Chris’s dragon went stupid two turns in a row so couldn’t cast and I rolled up two pandemoniums for spells which meant he kept miscasting and I kept altering his miscasts to get rid of his best spells and magic levels. With me holding sway over magic it was tough for Chris.
Step 2: Chris made a mistake of drawing the battle line inside his two table quarters allowing me to meet him there and control all 5 (there was an objective in the centre that counted as a “quarter”) when he should instead pushed to get across the middle and force me to fight my way into his half. He probably did this because at the start of the game he had a bazillion options for getting each quarter that the strategy wasn’t needed
Step 3: Fired up by the stupid scenario, plus being hangover free, I played tactically my best game of the weekend coming up with a plan and executing it perfectly
End result: 15-5 (55/75)
Game 5: Darren Donaldson (Khorne warriors)
Darren had an uber combat army with 4 units of Khorne knights (eep), 3 or 4 units of dogs for screening, 2 units of khornate marauders with great weapons, a unit of khornate warriors with GW, 2 level 1s with 4 scrolls and a lord on jugger with the demon sword and some ridiculous negative on his save.
On an open table he would have been able to hem me in and control the game but our table had a diagonal river through it splitting it in two and on one side a Forrest splitting it into three.
I deployed the fast cav on the open side of the river knowing they had the move to redeploy across if he weighted that flank, and kept the knights close by with the hope of neutralising one unit of knights on the far side of the forest and hopefully redirecting and punching through the other three with my diverters and two units of knights.
The game went pretty much to plan Darren made two rules based errors that essentially cost him the game:
1. one with where my chargers were going to end up after his hounds fled. He thought they go straight ahead not centre to centre following the hounds, this meant that instead of my unit being in no-mans land it hit the flank of one unit of knights carved it and then over ran into the flank of his marauder block supporting the two units of knights over the river. Which allowed my BSB’s unit to charge another unit knights and pursue them into the unit behind. This was pretty much the game.
2. the other mistake, though less costly, was he brought up the general in a unit of hounds but positioned him so I could avoid him with the hell cannon (as the dwarfs can’t reach they go to the back) meaning I broke him and at least got rid of his frenzy and immunity to psychology and many panic tests ensued (though none failed).
Taking those units out meant I could focus all of my magic on his one remaining unit of knights that was bottled up behind the forest eventually whittling them down to two and forcing them to charge my generals bunker.
End result: 20-0 (75/95)
Well second tournament with these guys so have to be happy to pull in a second place behind the immortal Jeff Traish. I must admit I’m enjoying having tactical options after the beastmen and the O&G generally being forced to concede certain elements of the game.
Breakdown
Things I did wrong over the weekend that I and hopefully others may learn from.
- Kept forgetting my bound spell and using that at the end, rather than trying to drag dice with it at the start. Rookie error.
- Have to think of blot throwers as a ranked up unit when in my flank, never present the knights flank to the bolties; or
- Screen the freaking flanks of the knights for Christ’s sake Brad (seriously how many shots to my flank will it take before I learn)
- black tongue was nice but I could think of more effective uses of the 50 points.
- Hellcannon is over rated and I was still uncertain how to use him. However my opponents very much over rate it which gives it a fear factor (that ironically by writing this I’m helping to dispel – so ignore that point)
- Marauder horsemen are shite with flails, may as well throw some axes on them.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Baby with the bathwater?
So here we stand at the window with our baby bath full of dirty tiered composition water and question do we just chuck it out the window? So I think it maybe time to consider checking if it is absolutely necessary for the panel comp baby to take the four story drop with the second hand suds?
Now on the tier comp side I think it was a worthwhile experiment half bringing the objective and subjective comp guys together. [side note: We kind of already knew it wouldn’t work at dogcon given it didn’t work at masters, but despite this its failure at DC seemed to catch people off guard. I personally went in expecting a 6 point range]
There were several problems and many can be argued over and over from both sides but the central problem I think is it combined the “non-core” attributes of both the objective and subjective approaches.
From an objective system stand point it didn’t take into account what was in the army just what book and from a subjective view it constrained the reviewer and prevented them from assessing the army against the rest of the field.
Now the first question I have from here is can it be salvaged or is the combination a fatal flaw. I think it may be possible to get the train back on track.
Some potential changes that I think may give both more freedom and direction and hence better results:
- The tiers need to not be hard tiers that appear to cap and floor an army’s score. Rather I’d prefer to see what score we expect the average army for any book to achieve. Don’t then have a restriction on the pluses and minuses just say score this army out of 5, 7, 10 or what ever keeping in mind average army for this type is (for example) a 2 out of 5. This way the panel can mark not only in regards to that army book but also against the field as a whole.
- We need for each book a sample “average” list for each tourney. Happy to admit I WAS WRONG in opposing this earlier. I have finally come round to this after being an opponent of it as I thought people would try and loophole the standard list or take something different and cry like roger federer when they get a comp hit “what do you mean my regenerating grave guard bunker is significantly harder than the two units of zombies in the standard list? Lets have a 37 page thread on how unfairly I was treated”. But heres the thing people will cry over those four or five points either way, so if clarity will produce more consistent results and make people feel more aware of their score I’m all for it.
With those two changes I think we get a system that is more flexible and consistent. The flexibility, I believe, is the most important thing. Speaking from professional experience, as soon as you overlay multiple static rule sets you can loophole them.
[side note: it is interesting that people can consider that objective comp will eventually be the answer when if you say look at another system of overlaid complex rules tax and ask how have governments around the world started to cut down on tax structuring and arbitrage? By putting place subjective tests because people consistently found the new loopholes with every change in the traditional objective tests. But hey I’m sure we are better at designing an objective system to overlay than every tax lawyer engaged by the governments around the world who only live and breath those systems and specialised in them academically.]
But the next question is: are tiered and panel comp inextricably linked? Can you only have one if you have the other? This appears to be the argument conveniently being pressed home with vim and vigour by the formula composition guys. [Side note: I was taught this as a negotiation technique: link two elements together then argue against one and effectively get them both conceded.]
I personally thought panel comp was working pretty well prior to the introduction of the tiers and that whilst there was the occasional outlier whose results weren’t justified but we sure abandoned the approach very early given how well it seemed to go. Sure army bias was exaggerated but I think tiering in conjunction with it only compounded that bias.
One other thing I would like to encourage is for panel members to look through their results and test to see if the “average” they’ve given for each race is appropriate. Any panel I’m a member of I do this and if I vary too much for one race or seem to be displaying bias I look through again and try to form arguments against my initial feelings. This isn’t to say that I always change them just that if I’m not giving an average mark for the race then I want to be certain it isn’t because I’ve misread the “hardness” of the tournament or because of unreasonable bias.
So I guess what I’m suggesting for the way forward is, for at least larger tourneys, revert to straight panel composition, preferably with the guidance for average scores for each army provided.
The next few months will be an interesting time in Australian warhammer, I get the feeling that the ETC (a system that I actually agree with in the environment it is intended for – a battle points only tourney bringing many different tourney scenes together) is being used to shoe horn comp formulas into Australian tourneys which will be primarily for the benefit of the elite players.
Now on the tier comp side I think it was a worthwhile experiment half bringing the objective and subjective comp guys together. [side note: We kind of already knew it wouldn’t work at dogcon given it didn’t work at masters, but despite this its failure at DC seemed to catch people off guard. I personally went in expecting a 6 point range]
There were several problems and many can be argued over and over from both sides but the central problem I think is it combined the “non-core” attributes of both the objective and subjective approaches.
From an objective system stand point it didn’t take into account what was in the army just what book and from a subjective view it constrained the reviewer and prevented them from assessing the army against the rest of the field.
Now the first question I have from here is can it be salvaged or is the combination a fatal flaw. I think it may be possible to get the train back on track.
Some potential changes that I think may give both more freedom and direction and hence better results:
- The tiers need to not be hard tiers that appear to cap and floor an army’s score. Rather I’d prefer to see what score we expect the average army for any book to achieve. Don’t then have a restriction on the pluses and minuses just say score this army out of 5, 7, 10 or what ever keeping in mind average army for this type is (for example) a 2 out of 5. This way the panel can mark not only in regards to that army book but also against the field as a whole.
- We need for each book a sample “average” list for each tourney. Happy to admit I WAS WRONG in opposing this earlier. I have finally come round to this after being an opponent of it as I thought people would try and loophole the standard list or take something different and cry like roger federer when they get a comp hit “what do you mean my regenerating grave guard bunker is significantly harder than the two units of zombies in the standard list? Lets have a 37 page thread on how unfairly I was treated”. But heres the thing people will cry over those four or five points either way, so if clarity will produce more consistent results and make people feel more aware of their score I’m all for it.
With those two changes I think we get a system that is more flexible and consistent. The flexibility, I believe, is the most important thing. Speaking from professional experience, as soon as you overlay multiple static rule sets you can loophole them.
[side note: it is interesting that people can consider that objective comp will eventually be the answer when if you say look at another system of overlaid complex rules tax and ask how have governments around the world started to cut down on tax structuring and arbitrage? By putting place subjective tests because people consistently found the new loopholes with every change in the traditional objective tests. But hey I’m sure we are better at designing an objective system to overlay than every tax lawyer engaged by the governments around the world who only live and breath those systems and specialised in them academically.]
But the next question is: are tiered and panel comp inextricably linked? Can you only have one if you have the other? This appears to be the argument conveniently being pressed home with vim and vigour by the formula composition guys. [Side note: I was taught this as a negotiation technique: link two elements together then argue against one and effectively get them both conceded.]
I personally thought panel comp was working pretty well prior to the introduction of the tiers and that whilst there was the occasional outlier whose results weren’t justified but we sure abandoned the approach very early given how well it seemed to go. Sure army bias was exaggerated but I think tiering in conjunction with it only compounded that bias.
One other thing I would like to encourage is for panel members to look through their results and test to see if the “average” they’ve given for each race is appropriate. Any panel I’m a member of I do this and if I vary too much for one race or seem to be displaying bias I look through again and try to form arguments against my initial feelings. This isn’t to say that I always change them just that if I’m not giving an average mark for the race then I want to be certain it isn’t because I’ve misread the “hardness” of the tournament or because of unreasonable bias.
So I guess what I’m suggesting for the way forward is, for at least larger tourneys, revert to straight panel composition, preferably with the guidance for average scores for each army provided.
The next few months will be an interesting time in Australian warhammer, I get the feeling that the ETC (a system that I actually agree with in the environment it is intended for – a battle points only tourney bringing many different tourney scenes together) is being used to shoe horn comp formulas into Australian tourneys which will be primarily for the benefit of the elite players.
Monday, January 26, 2009
7th Place not a bad start
Well never having played the list I was very glad I was able to get the teams event in prior to the main tourney because I didn’t know the rules for my army very well at all and subsequently got things wrong a lot, going both ways though admittedly more going my way than the other [he says embarrassingly as he looks at the ground and shuffles his feet], over the course of the team event. Also it meant I got an understanding of what the units could do.
Rather than a battle report I thought I’d give a run down on what I think performed well and what needs adjusting or dropping for future tourneys.
The results were very good for the weekend kicking off with 3 wins in the team tourney from the number 2 slot whilst team muppet road head long for victory.
A quick run down of the main event games:
Game 1. Sean Myles (savage orcs). 17-3. Got the vast majority of the points after my chaos knights luckily broke through his savage orc biguns in the final turn.
Game 2: Trevor Cowper (ogre kingdoms). 12-8. It all looked bleak when my knights got beaten by his iron guts (WTF!) but brought it all back with the miscast result on the hell cannon misfire killing off the butcher.
Game 3: Matt Willis (dark elves).16-4. It was a cut and thrust game where a failed stubborn role for matt took the game.
Game 4: Andrew Galea (dark elves). 4 – 16. Both of us had a lot of luck – Andrew’s got him more points (1400 from two big roles versus my 800 odd) and from there he used his 2 to 1 advantage against me too well. Strange game.
Game 5: Luke van Kyke (dwarfs) 18-2. In what should have been a tough match up for my knights, Luke instead had a brain explosion with deployment that took his war machines out of the game. Thanks Lukey much appreciated.
Game 6: Ken Ferris (woodies) 16 -4: In what Ken confidently called the Karma match up he got a shot at retribution for my recent cracks at his decision making responsibilities. Unfortunately the forces of the universe obviously agree with me and ken struggled to get much to go his way and didn’t add to it with a foolish charge.
Overall I came 7th which I’m happy with. Puts me off to a good start for the year and with a little more practice with the list hopefully I can improve on that start.
But anyway back to discussing what did and didn’t work, let’s start with the characters.
The level 4 and level 2 in the bunker of marauders were very effective. The only game I lost was the game where I unnecessarily put it in a 1/100 risk when keeping them alive would have allowed me magic superiority for 4 more turns (only 2DD left). My only thought is I might look at a way of getting the black tongue on one of these guys to put a little fear of god in people during their own magic phase.
The infernal muthafarking gate way basically means your opponent lets through your other spells, whilst I didn’t get the gateway off a few times nothing got “sucked in” but the 1/12 risk is just too great to let through.
The BSB with favour of the gods and armour of damnation was nothing short of sensational, in most games his ability to buff up a unit of chaos knights made it into a killing machine. Plus the armour of damnation allowed me to neutralise a fair few attacks that saved the knights skin when ever it got in a little trouble.
I don’t think I’m going to make a lot of changes here. As I said maybe the black tongue for against other magic heavy armies and also the demon steed could use a review after it chipped in for a total of zero wounds caused for the tournament.
The Impact Boys:
The 2 units of knights performance was quite mixed, in the end they have limited static res which means they are at the whim of the dice. Still they are a very reliable and effective hammer and will undoubtedly stay in the list.
The Hell Cannon:
I’m still undecided on this bad boy, he was very tough and every opponent seemed in awe of it. Sure in a few games the miscast result on the misfire chart bailed me out, but I just don’t remember any games where it shot well.
Typically he just filled the role of an anvil unit and provided a ranged threat that rarely (2 hits all weekend) came into play.
Is the threat of the cannon blast enough that it doesn’t need to hit? Maybe.
Is 205 points a good investment for a tough to kill anvil unit? Once again maybe.
Is it worth trying something else out to see if it works better? Probably.
The war shrine
Gold, absolute gold this little beauty definitely helped out the chaos knights enough to essentially win two games.
The diverters
Well surprisingly I don’t think the little unit of 10 really performed a 54 point role and will be left behind with more time to paint a better alternative [really who would of thought that!!]
But some discussion here with other players was that whilst they did perform a role they were essentially points given straight over to your opponent, meaning I was starting off giving over 270 odd points. Would it be better off to instead just take a few things that didn’t really need diverters?
What now?
So in standard post tourney mode I am currently playing around with a couple of different things and I’m entertaining running a “different” list switching out the marauder cav and hellcannon for a unit of warriors and unit of khornate marauders.
Of course this would involve me painting more little plastic guys which may or may not ever happen.
Rather than a battle report I thought I’d give a run down on what I think performed well and what needs adjusting or dropping for future tourneys.
The results were very good for the weekend kicking off with 3 wins in the team tourney from the number 2 slot whilst team muppet road head long for victory.
A quick run down of the main event games:
Game 1. Sean Myles (savage orcs). 17-3. Got the vast majority of the points after my chaos knights luckily broke through his savage orc biguns in the final turn.
Game 2: Trevor Cowper (ogre kingdoms). 12-8. It all looked bleak when my knights got beaten by his iron guts (WTF!) but brought it all back with the miscast result on the hell cannon misfire killing off the butcher.
Game 3: Matt Willis (dark elves).16-4. It was a cut and thrust game where a failed stubborn role for matt took the game.
Game 4: Andrew Galea (dark elves). 4 – 16. Both of us had a lot of luck – Andrew’s got him more points (1400 from two big roles versus my 800 odd) and from there he used his 2 to 1 advantage against me too well. Strange game.
Game 5: Luke van Kyke (dwarfs) 18-2. In what should have been a tough match up for my knights, Luke instead had a brain explosion with deployment that took his war machines out of the game. Thanks Lukey much appreciated.
Game 6: Ken Ferris (woodies) 16 -4: In what Ken confidently called the Karma match up he got a shot at retribution for my recent cracks at his decision making responsibilities. Unfortunately the forces of the universe obviously agree with me and ken struggled to get much to go his way and didn’t add to it with a foolish charge.
Overall I came 7th which I’m happy with. Puts me off to a good start for the year and with a little more practice with the list hopefully I can improve on that start.
But anyway back to discussing what did and didn’t work, let’s start with the characters.
The level 4 and level 2 in the bunker of marauders were very effective. The only game I lost was the game where I unnecessarily put it in a 1/100 risk when keeping them alive would have allowed me magic superiority for 4 more turns (only 2DD left). My only thought is I might look at a way of getting the black tongue on one of these guys to put a little fear of god in people during their own magic phase.
The infernal muthafarking gate way basically means your opponent lets through your other spells, whilst I didn’t get the gateway off a few times nothing got “sucked in” but the 1/12 risk is just too great to let through.
The BSB with favour of the gods and armour of damnation was nothing short of sensational, in most games his ability to buff up a unit of chaos knights made it into a killing machine. Plus the armour of damnation allowed me to neutralise a fair few attacks that saved the knights skin when ever it got in a little trouble.
I don’t think I’m going to make a lot of changes here. As I said maybe the black tongue for against other magic heavy armies and also the demon steed could use a review after it chipped in for a total of zero wounds caused for the tournament.
The Impact Boys:
The 2 units of knights performance was quite mixed, in the end they have limited static res which means they are at the whim of the dice. Still they are a very reliable and effective hammer and will undoubtedly stay in the list.
The Hell Cannon:
I’m still undecided on this bad boy, he was very tough and every opponent seemed in awe of it. Sure in a few games the miscast result on the misfire chart bailed me out, but I just don’t remember any games where it shot well.
Typically he just filled the role of an anvil unit and provided a ranged threat that rarely (2 hits all weekend) came into play.
Is the threat of the cannon blast enough that it doesn’t need to hit? Maybe.
Is 205 points a good investment for a tough to kill anvil unit? Once again maybe.
Is it worth trying something else out to see if it works better? Probably.
The war shrine
Gold, absolute gold this little beauty definitely helped out the chaos knights enough to essentially win two games.
The diverters
Well surprisingly I don’t think the little unit of 10 really performed a 54 point role and will be left behind with more time to paint a better alternative [really who would of thought that!!]
But some discussion here with other players was that whilst they did perform a role they were essentially points given straight over to your opponent, meaning I was starting off giving over 270 odd points. Would it be better off to instead just take a few things that didn’t really need diverters?
What now?
So in standard post tourney mode I am currently playing around with a couple of different things and I’m entertaining running a “different” list switching out the marauder cav and hellcannon for a unit of warriors and unit of khornate marauders.
Of course this would involve me painting more little plastic guys which may or may not ever happen.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The composition campaigners
This is a little vent post (I promise not to count it towards my resolution) about what I believe to be one of the blights on warhammer in Australia that is unfortunately the by product of a positive part of the hobby, composition campaigning.
Effectively it is getting your opponent to focus almost exclusively on the strong choices you haven’t taken rather than on the strong choices you have made with the likely outcomes, if successful, being that you get a better comp score than you otherwise would have.
Over the past few years some people have been very adept at it, some have been far too obvious and some have suffered, unfairly, from not practicing it. It is unfortunately a practice that I view pretty much tantamount to cheating your fellow tourney goers and at the very least an affront to the intent of the system.
It pops up in many forms the on the day chat the opponent is one that is only useful for peer game by game marked composition. For the more seasoned there is the planned campaign, usually wagered via their blogs or internet forum/s whilst posting up lists or, for the exceptionally crafty, simply whilst giving advice on others army lists.
Perhaps my worst first hand experience was when I saw a young player look at his opponents list and was horrified, but then I watched on from the next table as he was slowly talked around by his opponent to giving a good composition score has he had it explaining what hadn’t been taken and that his troops could “only” do this and that.
It is probably because of the prevalence of this that I speak out so often about VC and daemon lists, the major proponents of the comp campaigns at the moment. [Note this doesn’t mean every, or even a majority of, daemon/vc players are comp campaigners treat each case on it’s merits].
I’ve know people who previously agreed with my views on the under costing of VC/daemons but have now, having bought one of those armies, have coincidentally changed their views? Hmmm…
I know it’s a draconian solution but I’ve gotten to the point now that from here on out – you talk to me in a favourable manner about why your army deserves a certain comp score and you’ll getting marked down. Sure it isn’t the intent of the system but neither was cheating the rest of the field by attempting to unfairly influencing you soft score.
Vote no to the composition campaigner
Effectively it is getting your opponent to focus almost exclusively on the strong choices you haven’t taken rather than on the strong choices you have made with the likely outcomes, if successful, being that you get a better comp score than you otherwise would have.
Over the past few years some people have been very adept at it, some have been far too obvious and some have suffered, unfairly, from not practicing it. It is unfortunately a practice that I view pretty much tantamount to cheating your fellow tourney goers and at the very least an affront to the intent of the system.
It pops up in many forms the on the day chat the opponent is one that is only useful for peer game by game marked composition. For the more seasoned there is the planned campaign, usually wagered via their blogs or internet forum/s whilst posting up lists or, for the exceptionally crafty, simply whilst giving advice on others army lists.
Perhaps my worst first hand experience was when I saw a young player look at his opponents list and was horrified, but then I watched on from the next table as he was slowly talked around by his opponent to giving a good composition score has he had it explaining what hadn’t been taken and that his troops could “only” do this and that.
It is probably because of the prevalence of this that I speak out so often about VC and daemon lists, the major proponents of the comp campaigns at the moment. [Note this doesn’t mean every, or even a majority of, daemon/vc players are comp campaigners treat each case on it’s merits].
I’ve know people who previously agreed with my views on the under costing of VC/daemons but have now, having bought one of those armies, have coincidentally changed their views? Hmmm…
I know it’s a draconian solution but I’ve gotten to the point now that from here on out – you talk to me in a favourable manner about why your army deserves a certain comp score and you’ll getting marked down. Sure it isn’t the intent of the system but neither was cheating the rest of the field by attempting to unfairly influencing you soft score.
Vote no to the composition campaigner
Monday, January 5, 2009
New Year - New Article
Wow it’s been a while long enough to almost forget my long in to this little collection of ramblings.
Anyway I figured my new year’s resolution will be to try and average at least one meaningful post a month. You will be pleased to hear I wrote a real humdinger on how I compared units to put together my new WOC force for Dogcon. It was superb top shelf warhammer journalism at its best.
However, obviously these are secrets I am not allowed to share with the rest of the world as the blue screen of death descended to destroy all remnants of my 2009 Pulitzer prize winning article and the accompanying spreadsheets which had taken many many hours to build. So instead you get this hastily assembled shell of an article, please enjoy.
Well as is my way new year, new army. Despite having learnt time and time again that trying out your new army at a large tourney is difficult at best every year I forge on occasionally with a game or two under my belt but more often than not just my theory hammer list and zero game time. At least this year I will play the teams event the day before and hopeful identify the parts of my list that don’t work and the various traps and tricks I can employ.
So in order to replace my epic master piece my plan of attack here is to first give a run down on what I have selected and why and then post event (perhaps even mid event) say what worked as planned, what hidden gems were uncovered and what was horribly ineffective. [and thus knock over January and February in the process –sneaky hey]
The General Theme
Now when I say theme, I’m not referring to Tzalthar, formerly Patrick Vangellud, a once promising acolyte of the college of light who was manipulated by the lord of change as he sought to gain a position of power within the college, but rather the theme of the game play i.e. the strategy behind the army. I know I personally couldn’t care less about the d grade fiction people write about their army and so will attempt not to inflict the same upon you.
Now given that dogcon was going to have compressed short end to the battle points I thought that the kind of force I wanted was one which could go for the smaller wins, especially against the higher tier armies to do that I needed to be able to bunker down and conserve points whilst causing some damage from a distance or if the match up was favourable press home for the big wins needed. [As a side note I actually find with a new army that pressing for the big wins is easier to do but a quick trap to fall into. I find it tougher to go into my shell and eek out the margin victory when I’m less familiar with my list]
So the elements I was going to REQUIRE were
- Ability to hit from distance
- A bunker unit
- At least two impact units
- diverters
Elements that I was going to WANT were:
- combat character
- some multi role diverters/impact units
Choices
I always tend to start with character set-up. The rationale behind this is that, typically, it is your highest concentration of points and also will often guide how your army plays.
For my general I decided to take a level 4 mage given I wanted the ability to break off engagement and still cause damage. This is typically not my style of play so I was also keen to have a tourney where I could mix up the game play and set myself a challenge.
After weighing up the different mark choices I went for Tzeentch. This choice was made for three reasons, the +1 to cast, the +1 ward meaning an item like the collar of khorne becomes a cheap effective defensive item and finally the couple of game winning spells that whilst not always effective put the fear of god into your opponent forcing them to let other attrition based spells through. I chose to kit this guy out with an enchanted shield, dark puppet, collar of khorne, sword of might and a demon steed.
Why the demon steed? Normally I would spurn such an expensive choice but in this case I had already started painting the model (and I hate painting so didn’t want to waste the effort) and I figured this gives my general a more than respectable five S5 attacks enabling him to support the unit in combat. Also with the eye of god rules I wanted to give him a punchers chance when forced him into a challenge.
To support the level 4 in the magic phase I threw in a fellow level 2 Tzeentch boy on chaos steed with a power familiar and dispel scroll. One of my biggest fears with the list 5DD and 1 scroll is hardly shutting down the phase but I’ve survived with less so I should probably just harden up.
Finally I decided to take a third character that could aid in taking the fight to the opponent by grabbing a mounted Tzeentch BSB with flail, shield, armour of damnation and the Favour of the Gods. I used to be very anti BSB’s finding them a very defensive choice but with the newer books allowing them to be armed however you like I enjoy being able to take what is at worst another war banner and at best a great defensive tool and war banner.
The Impact
Well I analysed three choices, frenzied marauder horsemen with flails (low cost, good impact, no survivability), Chaos Knights with mark of nurgle (good impact, great survivability, high cost) and Dragon ogres (see knights). After looking through the guys who proved out to be the most reliable were the chaos knights. So in go two units of six one with the war banner both with muso and standard.
I think this twin linked knight choice is going to become more common than primary schools seeking restraining orders for Trent Denison.
The Bunker
Now I’ll hold up my hand here. I’m not a huge fan of the bunker simply because it is a negative use of points. To do the job really well you need to put some points in there and well I can be a little tight when it comes to spending points on purely defensive elements.
So whilst a lot of players have gone down the route of the chaos warrior unit for protecting their lord choice I’ve stuck with the swordsmenesque marauders with LA, Shield and mark of slannesh. These guys come in relatively cheap yet (I hope) still get the job done when the majority of their front rank is taken up with characters anyway.
Also from a composition perspective I wanted to spurn the more effective choice of the warriors and whilst I’m not prepared to start making wholesale concessions with a list that is expensive and lacks the flexibility of other new lists, you still need to every now and again make people think at least that isn’t a unit of X and give them some hope of taking your critical unit.
Diverters
I remember a time when chaos hounds were reviled around the gaming community too cheap, too effective at their role, more than three units and you were about to see tattooed knuckles of love and hate appear over your shoulder when you went for a quick toilet break..
Now with the new panic rules and almost every army seemingly getting some sort of cheap flyer the poor chaos hound has almost been discarded to the RSPCA.
All joking aside this is perhaps the glaring weakness of the WOC list the lack of skirmishing diverters/fliers to act as diverters, stalemate others fliers and hunt war machines. But alas in the list if you want diverters then, point for point, it is definitely tough to go past the hounds. So two units of these boys get thrown in.
Fleshing the List Out
So with the must haves filled out how do I fill out the list to best support the elements I already have. With this section I typically try to pick something that either accentuates my existing choices or fills a role that the core list can’t.
First off I added the hell cannon. Now I’m not really bringing this in as a sit back and blast war machine more the idea is for it to fill a role of flank blocker that can prevent elite elements swinging down the flank of my bunker whilst also posing a question of the opposing general as to how they keep their flying critter or expensive unit out of the line of fire. So this selection really fills two roles that the rest of the army isn’t capable of fulfilling. [and so it should at over 200 points!]
Next in were the ever dependable marauder horsemen originally with flails, light armour, mark of slannesh, standard and musician. But as with many things when it came to cutting into the peripheral points some of these bells and whistles started to be removed. First the standard went, then the MoS was discarded and finally they left the light armour at home making them cheapish diverters with the ability to inflict a little bit of pain on the charge at WS4 S5.
These guys filled one of the multi purpose roles I’ve talked about previously where they are tougher to compare the value of because you are paying for them to do more than one thing. The horsemen give me the option of additional diverters, helping out the knights if the hounds need to be sacrificed early, whilst also being able to threaten the flank of any units engaging the bunker.
The third “optional” unit I was tossing up between a ranked up unit of marauders with great weapons and mark of khorne or a warshrine plus another small throw away unit. The marauders would hopefully fulfil a threatening role keeping the bunker unit safe when I disengage or alternatively helping with the offensive when I press forward. In the end though the warshrine won out predominantly because of the more direct influence if could provide to my lynch pin units making it at first glance a better “support choice”.
This left a few points which I wasted away on 10 marauders with great weapons to keep fulfilling that cheap deployment, flank threatening role. Ideally I would normally look to reconstruct some of the core choices to use the points but time constraints on painting meant these guys got the call up.
The Plan
Predominantly the plan will be for the hell cannon to control a flank through its’ monster and handler skirmishing ability whilst also giving a pretty impressive field of fire (being a large target). Meanwhile the fast moving elements (depending on the opponent) will work in concert to bait and redirect enabling the knights to get into combat and out of the open field whilst the marauder units hold down the fort, pushing forward if the opportunity presents itself. All the while I’m hopefully forcing the issue with a solid offensive magic phase.
Still the most critical part of the plan is me getting these bad boys painted. I’d say I’m about two thirds of the way there with all base colours on and some of the shading/highlighting completed. Still I need bases, movement trays and detail on every figure so she could be pressed.
Anyway I’m hoping the next article will have a little more insight after the tourney to go through why things did and didn’t work.
Anyway I figured my new year’s resolution will be to try and average at least one meaningful post a month. You will be pleased to hear I wrote a real humdinger on how I compared units to put together my new WOC force for Dogcon. It was superb top shelf warhammer journalism at its best.
However, obviously these are secrets I am not allowed to share with the rest of the world as the blue screen of death descended to destroy all remnants of my 2009 Pulitzer prize winning article and the accompanying spreadsheets which had taken many many hours to build. So instead you get this hastily assembled shell of an article, please enjoy.
Well as is my way new year, new army. Despite having learnt time and time again that trying out your new army at a large tourney is difficult at best every year I forge on occasionally with a game or two under my belt but more often than not just my theory hammer list and zero game time. At least this year I will play the teams event the day before and hopeful identify the parts of my list that don’t work and the various traps and tricks I can employ.
So in order to replace my epic master piece my plan of attack here is to first give a run down on what I have selected and why and then post event (perhaps even mid event) say what worked as planned, what hidden gems were uncovered and what was horribly ineffective. [and thus knock over January and February in the process –sneaky hey]
The General Theme
Now when I say theme, I’m not referring to Tzalthar, formerly Patrick Vangellud, a once promising acolyte of the college of light who was manipulated by the lord of change as he sought to gain a position of power within the college, but rather the theme of the game play i.e. the strategy behind the army. I know I personally couldn’t care less about the d grade fiction people write about their army and so will attempt not to inflict the same upon you.
Now given that dogcon was going to have compressed short end to the battle points I thought that the kind of force I wanted was one which could go for the smaller wins, especially against the higher tier armies to do that I needed to be able to bunker down and conserve points whilst causing some damage from a distance or if the match up was favourable press home for the big wins needed. [As a side note I actually find with a new army that pressing for the big wins is easier to do but a quick trap to fall into. I find it tougher to go into my shell and eek out the margin victory when I’m less familiar with my list]
So the elements I was going to REQUIRE were
- Ability to hit from distance
- A bunker unit
- At least two impact units
- diverters
Elements that I was going to WANT were:
- combat character
- some multi role diverters/impact units
Choices
I always tend to start with character set-up. The rationale behind this is that, typically, it is your highest concentration of points and also will often guide how your army plays.
For my general I decided to take a level 4 mage given I wanted the ability to break off engagement and still cause damage. This is typically not my style of play so I was also keen to have a tourney where I could mix up the game play and set myself a challenge.
After weighing up the different mark choices I went for Tzeentch. This choice was made for three reasons, the +1 to cast, the +1 ward meaning an item like the collar of khorne becomes a cheap effective defensive item and finally the couple of game winning spells that whilst not always effective put the fear of god into your opponent forcing them to let other attrition based spells through. I chose to kit this guy out with an enchanted shield, dark puppet, collar of khorne, sword of might and a demon steed.
Why the demon steed? Normally I would spurn such an expensive choice but in this case I had already started painting the model (and I hate painting so didn’t want to waste the effort) and I figured this gives my general a more than respectable five S5 attacks enabling him to support the unit in combat. Also with the eye of god rules I wanted to give him a punchers chance when forced him into a challenge.
To support the level 4 in the magic phase I threw in a fellow level 2 Tzeentch boy on chaos steed with a power familiar and dispel scroll. One of my biggest fears with the list 5DD and 1 scroll is hardly shutting down the phase but I’ve survived with less so I should probably just harden up.
Finally I decided to take a third character that could aid in taking the fight to the opponent by grabbing a mounted Tzeentch BSB with flail, shield, armour of damnation and the Favour of the Gods. I used to be very anti BSB’s finding them a very defensive choice but with the newer books allowing them to be armed however you like I enjoy being able to take what is at worst another war banner and at best a great defensive tool and war banner.
The Impact
Well I analysed three choices, frenzied marauder horsemen with flails (low cost, good impact, no survivability), Chaos Knights with mark of nurgle (good impact, great survivability, high cost) and Dragon ogres (see knights). After looking through the guys who proved out to be the most reliable were the chaos knights. So in go two units of six one with the war banner both with muso and standard.
I think this twin linked knight choice is going to become more common than primary schools seeking restraining orders for Trent Denison.
The Bunker
Now I’ll hold up my hand here. I’m not a huge fan of the bunker simply because it is a negative use of points. To do the job really well you need to put some points in there and well I can be a little tight when it comes to spending points on purely defensive elements.
So whilst a lot of players have gone down the route of the chaos warrior unit for protecting their lord choice I’ve stuck with the swordsmenesque marauders with LA, Shield and mark of slannesh. These guys come in relatively cheap yet (I hope) still get the job done when the majority of their front rank is taken up with characters anyway.
Also from a composition perspective I wanted to spurn the more effective choice of the warriors and whilst I’m not prepared to start making wholesale concessions with a list that is expensive and lacks the flexibility of other new lists, you still need to every now and again make people think at least that isn’t a unit of X and give them some hope of taking your critical unit.
Diverters
I remember a time when chaos hounds were reviled around the gaming community too cheap, too effective at their role, more than three units and you were about to see tattooed knuckles of love and hate appear over your shoulder when you went for a quick toilet break..
Now with the new panic rules and almost every army seemingly getting some sort of cheap flyer the poor chaos hound has almost been discarded to the RSPCA.
All joking aside this is perhaps the glaring weakness of the WOC list the lack of skirmishing diverters/fliers to act as diverters, stalemate others fliers and hunt war machines. But alas in the list if you want diverters then, point for point, it is definitely tough to go past the hounds. So two units of these boys get thrown in.
Fleshing the List Out
So with the must haves filled out how do I fill out the list to best support the elements I already have. With this section I typically try to pick something that either accentuates my existing choices or fills a role that the core list can’t.
First off I added the hell cannon. Now I’m not really bringing this in as a sit back and blast war machine more the idea is for it to fill a role of flank blocker that can prevent elite elements swinging down the flank of my bunker whilst also posing a question of the opposing general as to how they keep their flying critter or expensive unit out of the line of fire. So this selection really fills two roles that the rest of the army isn’t capable of fulfilling. [and so it should at over 200 points!]
Next in were the ever dependable marauder horsemen originally with flails, light armour, mark of slannesh, standard and musician. But as with many things when it came to cutting into the peripheral points some of these bells and whistles started to be removed. First the standard went, then the MoS was discarded and finally they left the light armour at home making them cheapish diverters with the ability to inflict a little bit of pain on the charge at WS4 S5.
These guys filled one of the multi purpose roles I’ve talked about previously where they are tougher to compare the value of because you are paying for them to do more than one thing. The horsemen give me the option of additional diverters, helping out the knights if the hounds need to be sacrificed early, whilst also being able to threaten the flank of any units engaging the bunker.
The third “optional” unit I was tossing up between a ranked up unit of marauders with great weapons and mark of khorne or a warshrine plus another small throw away unit. The marauders would hopefully fulfil a threatening role keeping the bunker unit safe when I disengage or alternatively helping with the offensive when I press forward. In the end though the warshrine won out predominantly because of the more direct influence if could provide to my lynch pin units making it at first glance a better “support choice”.
This left a few points which I wasted away on 10 marauders with great weapons to keep fulfilling that cheap deployment, flank threatening role. Ideally I would normally look to reconstruct some of the core choices to use the points but time constraints on painting meant these guys got the call up.
The Plan
Predominantly the plan will be for the hell cannon to control a flank through its’ monster and handler skirmishing ability whilst also giving a pretty impressive field of fire (being a large target). Meanwhile the fast moving elements (depending on the opponent) will work in concert to bait and redirect enabling the knights to get into combat and out of the open field whilst the marauder units hold down the fort, pushing forward if the opportunity presents itself. All the while I’m hopefully forcing the issue with a solid offensive magic phase.
Still the most critical part of the plan is me getting these bad boys painted. I’d say I’m about two thirds of the way there with all base colours on and some of the shading/highlighting completed. Still I need bases, movement trays and detail on every figure so she could be pressed.
Anyway I’m hoping the next article will have a little more insight after the tourney to go through why things did and didn’t work.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Ode to Daremons and VC
I started playing way back before 1992
routing units and electing to pursue
If I won by 13 I actually had a shot at breaking through.
Oh-a oh
They went and gave them all immune to psychology
then made them combat monstrosities,
Went and gave them rengen and unbreakable for free.
Oh-a oh
I met the moron
Oh-a oh
who wrote these rules and
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
free wards came and broke our heart.
Oh-a-a-a oh
And now we play on the tables way down low.
Army balance seems so fictional and long ago.
those twin terror causers put on quite a show.
Oh-a oh
VC were the first one.
Oh-a oh
Daemons the last one.
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
I’ll take my dice and hit the bar, we can't FAQ we've gone to far
Oh-a-aho oh, Oh-a-aho oh
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
I’ll take my dice and hit the bar, we can't FAQ we've gone to far
free wards came and broke our heart, blame these design team “stars”.
You are a demonic star.
You are a VC star.
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
routing units and electing to pursue
If I won by 13 I actually had a shot at breaking through.
Oh-a oh
They went and gave them all immune to psychology
then made them combat monstrosities,
Went and gave them rengen and unbreakable for free.
Oh-a oh
I met the moron
Oh-a oh
who wrote these rules and
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
free wards came and broke our heart.
Oh-a-a-a oh
And now we play on the tables way down low.
Army balance seems so fictional and long ago.
those twin terror causers put on quite a show.
Oh-a oh
VC were the first one.
Oh-a oh
Daemons the last one.
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
I’ll take my dice and hit the bar, we can't FAQ we've gone to far
Oh-a-aho oh, Oh-a-aho oh
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
I’ll take my dice and hit the bar, we can't FAQ we've gone to far
free wards came and broke our heart, blame these design team “stars”.
You are a demonic star.
You are a VC star.
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
Demons killed war ham-mar
VC killed war ham-mar.
Monday, October 13, 2008
A year with the little ones
Well four tourneys into the season and I’ve gotten a feel for how my O&G list performs and the strategies to use and to avoid if you’re going to eek out a good result.
Leviathan:
This was the opening run for the little guys and because of this my results were fairly mixed as a results with 3 wins from 5 games and about 60% of the total possible battle score.
What this tourney taught me was that you just can’t play in the current environment with leadership 8 non-immune to psych troops. With the plethora of terror causers running around it is near impossible to keep your battle line in tact with a worse than ¾ chance of things sticking around.
It also taught me that the army had a truck load of potential but also a truck load of variability, from the hoppers movement, to stupidity, to animosity to the nets. There was a large amount of potential for a “can go wrong” turn and when these turns happened it was difficult to rebound.
Fortunes:
Another average tourney this time 3 wins, 2 draws and a loss (cumulative 6-2-3). Taking the lessons learnt regarding variability I got rid of the trolls and the hoppers and dropped one of my wizards for a unit of biguns with the spirit totem.
From game to game Is till struggled to get largish wins as the cavalry almost always dies and I had limited means to appropriately release my fanatics. Of course not packing my full army and playing a unit short all weekend probably didn’t help….
So I left another average performance with some new lesson, devise some method of controlling the fanatics release and remember to bring your entire army.
Pilgrimage:
Finally a quality result. This time I chose to go down the route of dropping all the cavalry and instead using two units of short bowmen to screen the army. Their purpose was two fold – one give me a few shots to force maybe a panic check or two on the fast moving fanatic bait and also give me a sturdy front line to launch fanatics through.
The tactic worked well and with animosity not being a massive hindrance in critical moments the boys performed well pulling in 5 wins and a narrow loss (11-2-4) and grabbing a podium slot.
The main thing this taught me was that if animosity didn’t kill you and you could control your fanatic release then you had a shot.
Moab
The anti-pilgrimage. Unfortunately the “if animosity didn’t kill you” problem raised it’s head leaving a fair few points on the table it was frustrating to say the least (I’d hazard a guess at around 20 “easily attainable” points with potential for more). But in the two losses animosity didn’t play a part just poor play from me against match ups I couldn’t afford to play poorly against.
Added to that I found the little fellas struggle from a slight match up problem against armies with cheap skirmishers. These guys get rid of the fanatics and then are in amongst the war machines very quickly.
Still the results sheet looking back was relatively good with 4 wins 2 draws and 2 losses the problem only being that in my wins many points were left waiting in front of units suffering animosity.
I was very disappointed with my comp score for this one. I had deliberately left many things in the box effectiveness wise and yet I got a below average mark from half the judges. My guess is that none of these guys have ever played with an O&G army at a tourney and probably felt my leadership 9 was unfair with goblins.
Overall
The results weren’t too bad, I still won more than my fair share of games with 60% and only lost 24%. If you play enough tourneys you’ll get the four quality results for your ranking as the good animosity tourneys will offset the bad ones.
Also it taught me a lot more patience and defensive style of play than I am accustomed to, plus how to guess ranges with the rock lobber (easily my biggest impact weapon).
Still as far as tourney armies go whilst potentially strong its game to game variability makes it a difficult prospect under it’s current guise.
Leviathan:
This was the opening run for the little guys and because of this my results were fairly mixed as a results with 3 wins from 5 games and about 60% of the total possible battle score.
What this tourney taught me was that you just can’t play in the current environment with leadership 8 non-immune to psych troops. With the plethora of terror causers running around it is near impossible to keep your battle line in tact with a worse than ¾ chance of things sticking around.
It also taught me that the army had a truck load of potential but also a truck load of variability, from the hoppers movement, to stupidity, to animosity to the nets. There was a large amount of potential for a “can go wrong” turn and when these turns happened it was difficult to rebound.
Fortunes:
Another average tourney this time 3 wins, 2 draws and a loss (cumulative 6-2-3). Taking the lessons learnt regarding variability I got rid of the trolls and the hoppers and dropped one of my wizards for a unit of biguns with the spirit totem.
From game to game Is till struggled to get largish wins as the cavalry almost always dies and I had limited means to appropriately release my fanatics. Of course not packing my full army and playing a unit short all weekend probably didn’t help….
So I left another average performance with some new lesson, devise some method of controlling the fanatics release and remember to bring your entire army.
Pilgrimage:
Finally a quality result. This time I chose to go down the route of dropping all the cavalry and instead using two units of short bowmen to screen the army. Their purpose was two fold – one give me a few shots to force maybe a panic check or two on the fast moving fanatic bait and also give me a sturdy front line to launch fanatics through.
The tactic worked well and with animosity not being a massive hindrance in critical moments the boys performed well pulling in 5 wins and a narrow loss (11-2-4) and grabbing a podium slot.
The main thing this taught me was that if animosity didn’t kill you and you could control your fanatic release then you had a shot.
Moab
The anti-pilgrimage. Unfortunately the “if animosity didn’t kill you” problem raised it’s head leaving a fair few points on the table it was frustrating to say the least (I’d hazard a guess at around 20 “easily attainable” points with potential for more). But in the two losses animosity didn’t play a part just poor play from me against match ups I couldn’t afford to play poorly against.
Added to that I found the little fellas struggle from a slight match up problem against armies with cheap skirmishers. These guys get rid of the fanatics and then are in amongst the war machines very quickly.
Still the results sheet looking back was relatively good with 4 wins 2 draws and 2 losses the problem only being that in my wins many points were left waiting in front of units suffering animosity.
I was very disappointed with my comp score for this one. I had deliberately left many things in the box effectiveness wise and yet I got a below average mark from half the judges. My guess is that none of these guys have ever played with an O&G army at a tourney and probably felt my leadership 9 was unfair with goblins.
Overall
The results weren’t too bad, I still won more than my fair share of games with 60% and only lost 24%. If you play enough tourneys you’ll get the four quality results for your ranking as the good animosity tourneys will offset the bad ones.
Also it taught me a lot more patience and defensive style of play than I am accustomed to, plus how to guess ranges with the rock lobber (easily my biggest impact weapon).
Still as far as tourney armies go whilst potentially strong its game to game variability makes it a difficult prospect under it’s current guise.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Why I'm against objective comp systems
This issue comes up almost as often as the general attack on composition, a lot the subjective composition system (tiering, panels, peer marked) and their inevitable level of inaccuracy versus the known outcome of objective composition systems (rewards/penalties for certain elements or a yes/no exclusion style rule).
I’ve certainly made it known where my preferences lie and that is with the subjective system. This is not because I think this because the subjective system is always perfect it is because I know that the objective system is fundamentally flawed.
The reason that composition is there is because there is a view that the game lacks balance in a tournament setting. The objectives of the composition system are in my view; stop abusive armies attending, and add some measure of balance to the game. The idea of “balanced” or “hard but fair” composition is a concept that is dependent on combinations within the entire army and the gaming environment it is to use the cliché many shades of grey rather than black and white.
On the most part the people that play at tournaments have a level of competitiveness in their nature. Evidence of this is borne out in the fact that we actually care what we score and that we care wether or not we get the right composition. If people truly weren’t competitive then they wouldn’t even look twice at their score.
It is because of these two factors that I believe and objective composition system is not only flawed but counter productive.
An objective system that simply draws a line in the sand views everything in black and white it is utterly incapable of shades of grey, hence it can only ever accurately apply to something that fits into the black or the white category (which you’d want to think subjective composition systems would be able to also judge effectively).
Then layer on top of that the system is based either on the points costs or the classifications (core/special/rare etc) of the models. This in particular I find perplexing given that the system is there because we don’t think these classifications or points costs lead to balanced armies.
This black versus white when combined with competitiveness then inevitably leads to exploitation. Having played under these systems it quickly becomes evident that people begin to push towards the optimal build or the build which some how side steps the restrictions and allows them to field an army which is substantially more competitive than many of your opponents. This will inevitably lead to an arms race as people who showed restraint, and lost, will now emulate this behaviour (game theory anyone?).
What is more concerning is that those that are most likely to have been the culprits which the fielded abusive or unbalanced lists that lead to the creation of composition systems are those that are the and most likely to exploit the new objective system and are probably going to be the most adept at it.
So in introducing this system rather than taking away an advantage and creating a level playing field it actually adds a layer of constraint onto those who did not need a composition system to keep them in check whilst providing an advantage to the players most likely to abuse it.
I believe that the sustained use of an objective composition system in the Australian scene would be a sizable regression to the current soft score influences and drive us towards a more competitive UK model. I believe this because that is where we have come from and I certainly hope that none of these systems get enough traction to send us back there.
I’ve certainly made it known where my preferences lie and that is with the subjective system. This is not because I think this because the subjective system is always perfect it is because I know that the objective system is fundamentally flawed.
The reason that composition is there is because there is a view that the game lacks balance in a tournament setting. The objectives of the composition system are in my view; stop abusive armies attending, and add some measure of balance to the game. The idea of “balanced” or “hard but fair” composition is a concept that is dependent on combinations within the entire army and the gaming environment it is to use the cliché many shades of grey rather than black and white.
On the most part the people that play at tournaments have a level of competitiveness in their nature. Evidence of this is borne out in the fact that we actually care what we score and that we care wether or not we get the right composition. If people truly weren’t competitive then they wouldn’t even look twice at their score.
It is because of these two factors that I believe and objective composition system is not only flawed but counter productive.
An objective system that simply draws a line in the sand views everything in black and white it is utterly incapable of shades of grey, hence it can only ever accurately apply to something that fits into the black or the white category (which you’d want to think subjective composition systems would be able to also judge effectively).
Then layer on top of that the system is based either on the points costs or the classifications (core/special/rare etc) of the models. This in particular I find perplexing given that the system is there because we don’t think these classifications or points costs lead to balanced armies.
This black versus white when combined with competitiveness then inevitably leads to exploitation. Having played under these systems it quickly becomes evident that people begin to push towards the optimal build or the build which some how side steps the restrictions and allows them to field an army which is substantially more competitive than many of your opponents. This will inevitably lead to an arms race as people who showed restraint, and lost, will now emulate this behaviour (game theory anyone?).
What is more concerning is that those that are most likely to have been the culprits which the fielded abusive or unbalanced lists that lead to the creation of composition systems are those that are the and most likely to exploit the new objective system and are probably going to be the most adept at it.
So in introducing this system rather than taking away an advantage and creating a level playing field it actually adds a layer of constraint onto those who did not need a composition system to keep them in check whilst providing an advantage to the players most likely to abuse it.
I believe that the sustained use of an objective composition system in the Australian scene would be a sizable regression to the current soft score influences and drive us towards a more competitive UK model. I believe this because that is where we have come from and I certainly hope that none of these systems get enough traction to send us back there.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Why I don’t think sizable increases in effectiveness are good business?
Why I don’t think sizable increases in effectiveness are good business?
First let me say this is all my views from the sidelines. It has been a while since I read an equity analyst reports on GW as I completely lost faith in Kirby and didn’t trust the LoTR decision so stopped entertaining investing in the company. I have no access to customer demographic data or management accounts that actually give you an idea of what is happening (their full year accounts are Investor Relations spin 101).
From my perspective it seemed like the biggest problem with GW’s recent abysmal performance was the balance in their customer base got significantly distorted. Their growth from the late 80’s was based on the platform supplied by a group of customers who were:
- brand loyal and hence limited threat of substitution
- advocates of the product and hence a free sales force
- relatively price inelastic and hence able to rise prices out of line with inflation
Then as the company sought growth it started to add this core base (strangely enough when Kirby had venture capitalist partners come in) a level of “churn” customer’s who were:
- relatively new games so interested in generic start up sets
- not brand loyal and hence open to substitutes (wether that be other miniatures or other hobbies)
- not the key decision maker for spending and hence more elastic level of demand
As they started to penetrate this significantly larger, but substantially less brand loyal and more price sensitive, segment sales started to grow significantly.
Now this isn’t a bad model. Most businesses run on having a stable core customer base with limited capacity for growth and augment that with a less “sticky” customer base which offers them opportunities to grow revenue.
The challenge however is to find the right balance for your objectives, the more you focus on the churn business the more volatile your cash flows, the more you focus on the brand loyal the lower your growth opportunities.
Now in the Kirby LoTR blunder he significantly increased the number of churn customers and got a short term shot in the arm from growth however this churn increase was always going to be temporary so the strategy should have been focused on growing the core customer base in order to keep the balance between stability and growth. Unfortunately the agreement GW entered into actually did the opposite.
Now with the current power sprint you have a strategy being employed where by the idea is to get army upscalling and generate churn but this time they are trying to get it from their existing customers. Now this is fantastic if you can keep it going however miniatures aren’t exactly fast moving consumer goods like razors or batteries it is difficult to up sell you core customer base continually when you are talking a grand or so every time.
So they are assuming they can ramp up the level of spend from the core customer base, that is a relatively stable purchaser during what the UK chancellor describes as the worst economic conditions for 60 years. To me that seems like an exceptionally risky ploy that could potential damage and erode the one attribute that the past three of four years have shown that you need to foster, brand loyalty.
Of course it is always possible (perhaps probable) that in the same vein as the child like FAQs and rules sets that another strategy was intended but was simply executed poorly.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years as much of this design strategy is likely to be from the Kirby School of Business (from the course of how to fail in a discretionary consumer spending sector during an unprecedented economic golden age). I look forward to seeing what Wells does in the CEO seat once he moves pas the restructuring focus.
First let me say this is all my views from the sidelines. It has been a while since I read an equity analyst reports on GW as I completely lost faith in Kirby and didn’t trust the LoTR decision so stopped entertaining investing in the company. I have no access to customer demographic data or management accounts that actually give you an idea of what is happening (their full year accounts are Investor Relations spin 101).
From my perspective it seemed like the biggest problem with GW’s recent abysmal performance was the balance in their customer base got significantly distorted. Their growth from the late 80’s was based on the platform supplied by a group of customers who were:
- brand loyal and hence limited threat of substitution
- advocates of the product and hence a free sales force
- relatively price inelastic and hence able to rise prices out of line with inflation
Then as the company sought growth it started to add this core base (strangely enough when Kirby had venture capitalist partners come in) a level of “churn” customer’s who were:
- relatively new games so interested in generic start up sets
- not brand loyal and hence open to substitutes (wether that be other miniatures or other hobbies)
- not the key decision maker for spending and hence more elastic level of demand
As they started to penetrate this significantly larger, but substantially less brand loyal and more price sensitive, segment sales started to grow significantly.
Now this isn’t a bad model. Most businesses run on having a stable core customer base with limited capacity for growth and augment that with a less “sticky” customer base which offers them opportunities to grow revenue.
The challenge however is to find the right balance for your objectives, the more you focus on the churn business the more volatile your cash flows, the more you focus on the brand loyal the lower your growth opportunities.
Now in the Kirby LoTR blunder he significantly increased the number of churn customers and got a short term shot in the arm from growth however this churn increase was always going to be temporary so the strategy should have been focused on growing the core customer base in order to keep the balance between stability and growth. Unfortunately the agreement GW entered into actually did the opposite.
Now with the current power sprint you have a strategy being employed where by the idea is to get army upscalling and generate churn but this time they are trying to get it from their existing customers. Now this is fantastic if you can keep it going however miniatures aren’t exactly fast moving consumer goods like razors or batteries it is difficult to up sell you core customer base continually when you are talking a grand or so every time.
So they are assuming they can ramp up the level of spend from the core customer base, that is a relatively stable purchaser during what the UK chancellor describes as the worst economic conditions for 60 years. To me that seems like an exceptionally risky ploy that could potential damage and erode the one attribute that the past three of four years have shown that you need to foster, brand loyalty.
Of course it is always possible (perhaps probable) that in the same vein as the child like FAQs and rules sets that another strategy was intended but was simply executed poorly.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years as much of this design strategy is likely to be from the Kirby School of Business (from the course of how to fail in a discretionary consumer spending sector during an unprecedented economic golden age). I look forward to seeing what Wells does in the CEO seat once he moves pas the restructuring focus.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Oh so effectiveness isn't factored into army book design Mr Thorpe?
Gav Thorpe’s recent Q&A suggested that the fluff guided them in determining the rules of a new army and that pricing the effectiveness was something done well after all of this and more just to keep the game friendly rather than balance it.
From what I could glean this is apparently done because that is what non-tourney gamers want an experience in command the army of that race and that the outcome of the game is really secondary to that.
To this I say bull@$%t. Utter implausible bull#$%t
To accept this reasoning is to accept that power creep is just an absolute freak occurrence that it is purely coincidence that with startling regularity more recently released books tend to be more effective point for point. How can rewrites of books consistently make armies more cost effective when they were both written to the same feel and fluff?
As the head of that area for considerable time he was a knowing and willing supporter of power creep in army design. The reasoning behind this can only be that GW feels that enough of their customers view competitiveness as a differentiating feature when choosing whether or not to start a new army that giving an efficiency boost is worth any potential ill will from customers who disapprove. Which means they specifically cater to competitive types when designing armies?
Though given Gav Thorpe’s credibility this kind of deliberate act of deceit isn’t exactly a shock.
From what I could glean this is apparently done because that is what non-tourney gamers want an experience in command the army of that race and that the outcome of the game is really secondary to that.
To this I say bull@$%t. Utter implausible bull#$%t
To accept this reasoning is to accept that power creep is just an absolute freak occurrence that it is purely coincidence that with startling regularity more recently released books tend to be more effective point for point. How can rewrites of books consistently make armies more cost effective when they were both written to the same feel and fluff?
As the head of that area for considerable time he was a knowing and willing supporter of power creep in army design. The reasoning behind this can only be that GW feels that enough of their customers view competitiveness as a differentiating feature when choosing whether or not to start a new army that giving an efficiency boost is worth any potential ill will from customers who disapprove. Which means they specifically cater to competitive types when designing armies?
Though given Gav Thorpe’s credibility this kind of deliberate act of deceit isn’t exactly a shock.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Comparing Apples ($1.04/kg) and Oranges ($1.57/kg)
OK this is partially a vent and partially constructive.
I honestly don’t understand how a person can say you can’t compare two or more units. Unless you are constructing your list via a series of completely random events you are comparing units. By simply looking at something and saying it is too expensive or that looks good you are in some way comparing it to a benchmark you have ingrained wether you know it or not.
These same people are normally those who say you can’t compare apples and oranges, well I hate to tell you, you can. You can compare which ones are tastier by trying them and making a choice, you can compare their appearance by looking at them, you can compare which ones are more valuable by finding out how much they cost and you can compare popularity by looking at sales data. All you need is a common reference point.
Whether people want to admit it or not they make a judgement on comparative value when determining which units they are putting in their list they are making a choice of how to maximise the value they can get our of a finite resource (points). The trick comes in where it is what people “value”. Some value the appearance of units, some just want a dragon, some want flexibly, some want it to perform a specific function that improves the rest of the army.
So how do you make that comparison?
Mathhammer it?
It is one way, very clumsy but a good “reality check” to see if you are on the right track.
You can do it across a range of situations i.e. both on and receiving the charge (after being shot at for two or three turns for your crack elites) versus 20 swordsmen, 6 light cavalry, 4 minotaurs with great weapons and 6 heavy cav. Or you can do it against a “benchmark” unit of that type. For example I compared my dark elf RXBs to wood elf archers and my spearmen to swordsmen to get an idea of where they stood against basic benchmark troops for their roles.
Special rules?
A very imperfect way but you should be assigning value you believe each special rule contributes to that units role in your general strategy. How valuable is frenzy on your troops versus elite warrior status? How important is it for me that this unit is survivable? What does hatred get me on my RXB?
Cheapest troop for the role?
If you want diverters then your starting benchmark would be the lowest cost fast paced unit? You want a CR fillers to hold impact units at bay then your cheapest infantry. From there you look at what roles secondary roles other more expensive units can fill and assign value to them. Normally you’d only do this for “support units” as the “main” units in your army should define the rest of the armies role.
Anecdotal evidence?
Both the best and worst way. People have a tendency to only pay attention to the anecdotal evidence that supports their preconceived ideas.
However given that the game is played on the table top and not on a paper you need to get a feel for how your troops work in unison by playing them or using prior experiences against them, or prior experience with similar troops.
If you are using this in the early going I recommend actually thinking about the game afterwards and just look at what each unit do. Did it perform better or worse than expectations, did you get lucky/unlucky? Unfortunately this requires a level of honesty many aren’t capable of.
This is no way intended to be a good guide as to how to perform such
I honestly don’t understand how a person can say you can’t compare two or more units. Unless you are constructing your list via a series of completely random events you are comparing units. By simply looking at something and saying it is too expensive or that looks good you are in some way comparing it to a benchmark you have ingrained wether you know it or not.
These same people are normally those who say you can’t compare apples and oranges, well I hate to tell you, you can. You can compare which ones are tastier by trying them and making a choice, you can compare their appearance by looking at them, you can compare which ones are more valuable by finding out how much they cost and you can compare popularity by looking at sales data. All you need is a common reference point.
Whether people want to admit it or not they make a judgement on comparative value when determining which units they are putting in their list they are making a choice of how to maximise the value they can get our of a finite resource (points). The trick comes in where it is what people “value”. Some value the appearance of units, some just want a dragon, some want flexibly, some want it to perform a specific function that improves the rest of the army.
So how do you make that comparison?
Mathhammer it?
It is one way, very clumsy but a good “reality check” to see if you are on the right track.
You can do it across a range of situations i.e. both on and receiving the charge (after being shot at for two or three turns for your crack elites) versus 20 swordsmen, 6 light cavalry, 4 minotaurs with great weapons and 6 heavy cav. Or you can do it against a “benchmark” unit of that type. For example I compared my dark elf RXBs to wood elf archers and my spearmen to swordsmen to get an idea of where they stood against basic benchmark troops for their roles.
Special rules?
A very imperfect way but you should be assigning value you believe each special rule contributes to that units role in your general strategy. How valuable is frenzy on your troops versus elite warrior status? How important is it for me that this unit is survivable? What does hatred get me on my RXB?
Cheapest troop for the role?
If you want diverters then your starting benchmark would be the lowest cost fast paced unit? You want a CR fillers to hold impact units at bay then your cheapest infantry. From there you look at what roles secondary roles other more expensive units can fill and assign value to them. Normally you’d only do this for “support units” as the “main” units in your army should define the rest of the armies role.
Anecdotal evidence?
Both the best and worst way. People have a tendency to only pay attention to the anecdotal evidence that supports their preconceived ideas.
However given that the game is played on the table top and not on a paper you need to get a feel for how your troops work in unison by playing them or using prior experiences against them, or prior experience with similar troops.
If you are using this in the early going I recommend actually thinking about the game afterwards and just look at what each unit do. Did it perform better or worse than expectations, did you get lucky/unlucky? Unfortunately this requires a level of honesty many aren’t capable of.
This is no way intended to be a good guide as to how to perform such
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Follow up thoughts
Well after three games with or against the DE here are some updated thoughts:
Their shooting phase whilst quite nice was not where these guys got it done, that was in combat where they were pretty devastating, fair enough the games I’ve been involved in were against lower WS troops but the theme was pretty clear (and the odds relatively similar when the fight equal WS) they do a lot of damage first round.
Shooting was good though there is merit in perhaps dropping the reapers for more combat orientated troops as this seems to be “their phase”. I’m thinking that the shooting will be woodelfesque, enough to force you to come to me but not enough to wipe you off the table (that’s what the troops are for)
The witches were pretty effective with the rune of khaine on the champ their low cost and presence of other threats meant they weren’t targeted by shooting. I believe locky’s words were “what do you mean now for the normal guys – what were all those dice you just rolled?” after I got 7 attacks from the champ, so a lot of poisoned attacks with hatred looks quite scary.
The ring is fantastic but against the single d6 spell armies will limit what you can do. Though for some, such as undead, you will be throwing guys over your shoulders in the first turn of combat and should do a fair chunk of damage.
Locky’s assassin did well and converted a standard unit of spear elves into a very strong combat proposition with high static res and really high number of attacks. However it did ramp the points up to mid to high 300s so it would want to be good.
My initial thoughts on the assassin were – to vulnerable and where do I find the points? But after seeing one in action and how many other threats you have for shooting and magic an assassin might find it’s way into my list.
Black Guard, at least 15 of these should be a near mandatory choice- absolutely phenomenal. Obviously there will be troops they struggle against but the captain ASF plus hitting 8/9 times at S6 is pretty imposing.
Their shooting phase whilst quite nice was not where these guys got it done, that was in combat where they were pretty devastating, fair enough the games I’ve been involved in were against lower WS troops but the theme was pretty clear (and the odds relatively similar when the fight equal WS) they do a lot of damage first round.
Shooting was good though there is merit in perhaps dropping the reapers for more combat orientated troops as this seems to be “their phase”. I’m thinking that the shooting will be woodelfesque, enough to force you to come to me but not enough to wipe you off the table (that’s what the troops are for)
The witches were pretty effective with the rune of khaine on the champ their low cost and presence of other threats meant they weren’t targeted by shooting. I believe locky’s words were “what do you mean now for the normal guys – what were all those dice you just rolled?” after I got 7 attacks from the champ, so a lot of poisoned attacks with hatred looks quite scary.
The ring is fantastic but against the single d6 spell armies will limit what you can do. Though for some, such as undead, you will be throwing guys over your shoulders in the first turn of combat and should do a fair chunk of damage.
Locky’s assassin did well and converted a standard unit of spear elves into a very strong combat proposition with high static res and really high number of attacks. However it did ramp the points up to mid to high 300s so it would want to be good.
My initial thoughts on the assassin were – to vulnerable and where do I find the points? But after seeing one in action and how many other threats you have for shooting and magic an assassin might find it’s way into my list.
Black Guard, at least 15 of these should be a near mandatory choice- absolutely phenomenal. Obviously there will be troops they struggle against but the captain ASF plus hitting 8/9 times at S6 is pretty imposing.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Dark Elves - my thoughts
Well following on from my posts on WAU here is my break down (in full) of the De book with my own build in mind.
CHARACTERS
The Death master
For mine the best choice just because of the flexibility of items and ability to cause damage from the back of a big nasty. Both the manticore and the dragon are viable mounts, the loss of a hero slot isn’t too concerning, given how expensive everything is anyway filling all 4 slots would severely deplete your actual army. With the hatred rule this guy on the back of a monster is one of the more reliable strike weapons in the game and with the large target rule probably the least concerned about hatred pulling him out of position as you should be able to plan ahead pretty well.
Personally I would have him on the back of a flying terror causer kit him out with the hideously underpriced ward save, the moderately under priced regen armour and then you’ve got the option of life taker, killing blow lance, armour piercing great weapon or if you prefer magic protection a null stone plus the armour piercing GW…
Supreme sorceress
Whilst the range of arcane items allow you to put together a flexible magic phase, particularly the casting from a point 6” away and the sacrificial dagger one, for mine no access to an item which mitigates miscasts makes her too unreliable for the points you are shelling out. Putting her on a big nasty gives her dual roles but then you kind of have to throw her into the middle of things to get your points back.
Master
Standard hero but the variety of items allows you to use one or two of these to support the entire list. Whilst they can have a manticore mount (note please don’t take the manticore/dragon, two manticore list especially with hydra support) personally I’m thinking they are best served as a BSB with the 1+ armour save and then either the ring of hotek or the armour piercing GW. I am personally leaning now to the ring of hotek and the armour after initially thinking of the great weapon.
Sorceress
You could get two or three of these and have a very sharp magic phase, problem is you still need to do it from a position which is up close and personal. Sure you could protect them with an assassin but that’s a lot of points to keep you level 2 mage alive. I think the range of some of the spells hinders how reliable this set up can be. With the ring of hotek and null shards basically giving you very cheap ways to shut down the magic phase I think a caddy will be all you see from me.
Hag
I just don’t see it with this choice. The Cauldron looks at first glance great but then you add in the hags points and how static it is and you really rip the heart out of the manoeuvrable feel to the army. On their own I once again am a little apprehensive I think the strength of the master characters is in how they can help the entire army whilst the hag really can only effect what is right in front of her. Plus like her minions she suffers from meat puppetitis.
Assassins
These guys seem very cool but at the points and their limited influence on the battle field I think they are better left at home. At 121 points for 5 to 7 attacks they could be useful in an infantry based force but generally I think they are too expensive.
Two Mounts:
The dragon v manitcore debate will take some time to settle. I think the 120 point difference is about right. With the Manticore is giving up 1 point across the board on stats and being less resilient to shooting I’m favouring the dragon at this point but play testing will get a clearer picture.
Opinions of items these are based on my low magic build.
The Nice ones
- The ring of hotek: 25 all doubles are a miscast for spells cast from within 12” or targeted at a unit within 12”. This will shut down magic phases as 3d6 spells have a 44% chance of miscasting and 2d6 spells a 17%. Once you get in to close quarters it will also limit the amount of support magic your opponent can throw. Very effective item for 25 points.
- Regen armour: 35 points heavy armour and gives regeneration, moderately under priced but when you can combine it with the item below makes a character close to unkillable
- the hideously under costed ward save (the Huck Wuss): 35 points and a strength test against the attack to “ward save” so for a S3 attack a 3 or under (4+ equiv.). Easily the best ward save item in the game. Looks like a major stuff up in the costing of this, I’d pay north of 50 points and consider it a bargain.
- The S based ward save, ring of hotek and the regen armour I’ve already covered so here are some additional ones:
- 1+ Armour save: 25 points doesn’t include a shield. A great option for the BSB or as it leaves enough room for a magical great weapon like…
- Armour Piercing Great weapon: 15 points. For me a no brainer if they are in the ASF unit, you get the great weapon, combined with a biting blade giving a magical attack option at high strength
- S5 Scourge: 25 points. Fits well onto a black guard champ giving him 3s5 armour piercing attacks
- Rune of Khaine: 25 points +D3 attacks are mandatory for any one that can take it.
- Seal of ghrond: 30 points +1 dispel dice the 30 point cost though reduces my love for it
- Null stone: +1 MR. If you are going purely magic defence and are not taking the caddy a sprinkling of these through the army will make it tough.
Good but not great:
-Blood armour: 15 points must cause the casualties in combat to get additional armour save but still a decent option if you want a stronger weapon
-Life taker: 30 points more shots at S4 always hitting on a 2+
-Hydras teeth – seem great mage hunters but at 40 points they are a tough fit as you ideally want this on a guy who can fly and then you can’t protect him.
- Manbane: 25 points, the fact it gets rid of the normal poisoned attacks for me reduces it’s effectiveness, often the little assassin will be hitting out at low T troops for combat res and now loses the poison benefit
- 50 point no armour save sword. Meh standard kit these days and much better options that have been under costed.
Arcane (thrown in for completeness)
Good
- Sacrificial dagger, getting to roll after using your dice means you can go for the IF and avoid miscasts more easily
- Familiar – 25 points pick a point 6” and that is where the caster counts as casting from. Means you can hide them and still use magic missiles. Perhaps can even get them out of the range of the ring of hotek – but this is up for debate.
The verdict:
My build I’m tossing up between Dragon or manticore mounted death master with Huck Wuss, regen, armour piercing GW, null stone, with a caddie, BSB with 1+ armour and ring of hotek. I can’t see myself fielding the as
CORE
Most of the core choices are actually pretty good value so despite my strong leaning I think we will see some different builds.SpearmenWell really they are 7 points as you have to buy the shield. With the points falling off a cliff these guys become a viable bunker though at 155 for the 20+FC this isn’t cheap cheap. Throwing an assassin in makes them pretty solid though once again the cost of the assassin puts them into the sphere of expensive for what they do.RXBIn an army where everything else seems to fit a specific role at 11 points with WS4, and 4+ AS these bad boys can fill a variety of roles from infantry block, flanker, wizard bunker or just be one of the better archery units in the game. Should form the backbone of many lists.CorsairsThey are mismatch of special rules and stats for mine, their resilience against shooting is great but why would your opponent be targeting them over another unit when they offer no greater threat than a spearman? The 2 S3 attacks don’t get it done in combat and the hand bows mean walking into charge range to be effective.Dark RidersStill fill a valuable role as harasser/flanker. Not sold on the RBT at 5 points but can see the benefit. If you have the points may be worth fielding with standards to keep the comp Nazis at bay.HarpiesBeing able to use the general’s leadership is great, as is the ability to take multiple units. Will fill the role of furies from the demon list but be slightly less effective due to the propensity to panic at the first sign of danger. Still at 55 points for a single unit you can throw them forward to distract or divert with little consequence. Will be a regular fixture in most armies if for nothing else but how cheap they are.
SPECIAL
The bit that grabs the imagination in this book is the special section. This is based on no CoB as I think it is too expensive for what it does (after the hag is added in) and can be neutralised by engaging multiple elite units forcing you to pick which unit to support.
Shades:
I think these boys are the goods. BS5 WS5, 2 attacks (with add HW) sure they are fragile and expensive at 85 points for a 5 man unit but their multiple attacks and high weapon skill allows them to harass and suppress enemy war machines if your harpies are neutralised. I think the dual roles makes them a strong proposition if you have a flier in the army. Plus 10 BS 4 shots (after the -1) will support an already strong shooting phase.
Witch elves:
These guys conceptually make more sense as skirmishers where they could get a better shot at guaranteeing the charge. As a ranked unit I’m not sold, WS4 is really the new WS3 in today’s age of power sprint so whilst 3 re-rollable attacks are nice they aren’t high strength and basically require the armour piercing banner and then you factor in that you’re a T3 unarmoured meat puppet and things get very difficult. Only saving grace is the champion which can get the +d3 attacks, still not entirely helpful with a lance through the chest.
Executioners:
These poor little tackers also suffer from meat puppetitis, with ASF they’d be viable but as they are a single S6 attack marks these guys for the highly limited in their effective use pile. At 12 points a pop that’s a bad pile to be in. The special champion is a waste for a fellow meat puppet. Plus being khainite means you can’t throw a master with magic items into the unit to bolster them, only a hag (also a meat puppet)
Cold one knights:
The “cold blooded” banner at 15 points gives them some additional reliability but it is for only one turn and it takes away their access to a war banner or the +d3 CR on the charge making the unit over priced for what it will deliver.
Cold one Chariots:
Suffer form the same fate as the knights. At 100 points a little to expensive for what they are delivering. I’d only really use them, if at all, as a BSB mount. On the bright side they aren’t meat puppets?
Black Guard:
Start on a good note, finish on a good note. The 2 attacks, warrior elite, WS5, immune to pysch, S4 with halberd, access to the ASF banner and the ability to give the champion a 25 point item (I’m thinking the S5 armour piercing beast masters scourge). These guys are then a viable proposition as an anvil unit. Plus not being khainite means you can actually put a character in there (imagine that characters IN rather than watching your elite unit)
My verdict:
So in my current hypothesised army build I’ll have a unit of 15 Black guards with ASF banner and at least one unit of 5 shades maybe two.
Banners:I think the BSB is better taking other items so the only banners of real consequence are the 50 and below.Dread Banner: 40 points? Cause fear, not entirely sure this is that great given DE are unlikely to be on the right side of the numbers score line.ASF: 35 points. For elite infantry a great banner as it brings them in line with the HE elite whilst having the additional edge of hatred. Pity the Executioners can’t get this.+d3 CR on the charge: 35 points a good idea and ideally put on the Cold one knights, but then how do you keep them in line with stupidity. On infantry the ASF is probably going to come in handy more often Armour Piercing: 25 points Good for the WE as gives them some punch, doesn’t overcome their fragility though. A 5+ ward save style thing would have been betterFrenzy: 25 points Corsairs only, makes them into weaker (no poison) but more resilient with elves so this is the only way I see them being a viable choice over other options.Cold Blooded: 15 points. For one turn you take LD tests on 3D6 like lizard men. Really there for the cold ones to give them one turn of reliability, still you can fail that test.
RARE:
An easy section given only two rare c
Hydra: 175 pointsTerror causer, S5 breath weapon, regen, scaly skin, can’t attack handlers in combat if in contact with hydra. In what I think is an error (just like the ward save) the handlers have 2A base but also have a hand weapon plus a scourge (also a hand weapon) giving them 3 Attacks (2 armour piercing). So 13 attacks, with hatred, 7 at S5. this thing will monster no +5 static units in the first turn.
Reaper: 100 points
Given every man and his dog had one before and there is no change I expect many people and canines to be fielding them again.
Verdict:
Look for 2 reapers and 1 hydra to be the standard kit
Overall
The power sprint continues as these guys got increases in effectiveness for reduction of costs so clearly they are miles better than before and moved from Tier 3 to Tier 1 along side their HE brethren but still a notch below the two.
Their shooting phase can be better than a WE one at a cheaper cost, always a good sign for the darkies and with the items you can make a range of builds.
Still many of their “elite” troops have fatal flaws which limit their scope. Many suffer from meat puppetitis which reduces their ability to engage in protracted combat whilst their cavalry still suffers from stupidity.
Overall though a massive improvement in effectiveness.
CHARACTERS
The Death master
For mine the best choice just because of the flexibility of items and ability to cause damage from the back of a big nasty. Both the manticore and the dragon are viable mounts, the loss of a hero slot isn’t too concerning, given how expensive everything is anyway filling all 4 slots would severely deplete your actual army. With the hatred rule this guy on the back of a monster is one of the more reliable strike weapons in the game and with the large target rule probably the least concerned about hatred pulling him out of position as you should be able to plan ahead pretty well.
Personally I would have him on the back of a flying terror causer kit him out with the hideously underpriced ward save, the moderately under priced regen armour and then you’ve got the option of life taker, killing blow lance, armour piercing great weapon or if you prefer magic protection a null stone plus the armour piercing GW…
Supreme sorceress
Whilst the range of arcane items allow you to put together a flexible magic phase, particularly the casting from a point 6” away and the sacrificial dagger one, for mine no access to an item which mitigates miscasts makes her too unreliable for the points you are shelling out. Putting her on a big nasty gives her dual roles but then you kind of have to throw her into the middle of things to get your points back.
Master
Standard hero but the variety of items allows you to use one or two of these to support the entire list. Whilst they can have a manticore mount (note please don’t take the manticore/dragon, two manticore list especially with hydra support) personally I’m thinking they are best served as a BSB with the 1+ armour save and then either the ring of hotek or the armour piercing GW. I am personally leaning now to the ring of hotek and the armour after initially thinking of the great weapon.
Sorceress
You could get two or three of these and have a very sharp magic phase, problem is you still need to do it from a position which is up close and personal. Sure you could protect them with an assassin but that’s a lot of points to keep you level 2 mage alive. I think the range of some of the spells hinders how reliable this set up can be. With the ring of hotek and null shards basically giving you very cheap ways to shut down the magic phase I think a caddy will be all you see from me.
Hag
I just don’t see it with this choice. The Cauldron looks at first glance great but then you add in the hags points and how static it is and you really rip the heart out of the manoeuvrable feel to the army. On their own I once again am a little apprehensive I think the strength of the master characters is in how they can help the entire army whilst the hag really can only effect what is right in front of her. Plus like her minions she suffers from meat puppetitis.
Assassins
These guys seem very cool but at the points and their limited influence on the battle field I think they are better left at home. At 121 points for 5 to 7 attacks they could be useful in an infantry based force but generally I think they are too expensive.
Two Mounts:
The dragon v manitcore debate will take some time to settle. I think the 120 point difference is about right. With the Manticore is giving up 1 point across the board on stats and being less resilient to shooting I’m favouring the dragon at this point but play testing will get a clearer picture.
Opinions of items these are based on my low magic build.
The Nice ones
- The ring of hotek: 25 all doubles are a miscast for spells cast from within 12” or targeted at a unit within 12”. This will shut down magic phases as 3d6 spells have a 44% chance of miscasting and 2d6 spells a 17%. Once you get in to close quarters it will also limit the amount of support magic your opponent can throw. Very effective item for 25 points.
- Regen armour: 35 points heavy armour and gives regeneration, moderately under priced but when you can combine it with the item below makes a character close to unkillable
- the hideously under costed ward save (the Huck Wuss): 35 points and a strength test against the attack to “ward save” so for a S3 attack a 3 or under (4+ equiv.). Easily the best ward save item in the game. Looks like a major stuff up in the costing of this, I’d pay north of 50 points and consider it a bargain.
- The S based ward save, ring of hotek and the regen armour I’ve already covered so here are some additional ones:
- 1+ Armour save: 25 points doesn’t include a shield. A great option for the BSB or as it leaves enough room for a magical great weapon like…
- Armour Piercing Great weapon: 15 points. For me a no brainer if they are in the ASF unit, you get the great weapon, combined with a biting blade giving a magical attack option at high strength
- S5 Scourge: 25 points. Fits well onto a black guard champ giving him 3s5 armour piercing attacks
- Rune of Khaine: 25 points +D3 attacks are mandatory for any one that can take it.
- Seal of ghrond: 30 points +1 dispel dice the 30 point cost though reduces my love for it
- Null stone: +1 MR. If you are going purely magic defence and are not taking the caddy a sprinkling of these through the army will make it tough.
Good but not great:
-Blood armour: 15 points must cause the casualties in combat to get additional armour save but still a decent option if you want a stronger weapon
-Life taker: 30 points more shots at S4 always hitting on a 2+
-Hydras teeth – seem great mage hunters but at 40 points they are a tough fit as you ideally want this on a guy who can fly and then you can’t protect him.
- Manbane: 25 points, the fact it gets rid of the normal poisoned attacks for me reduces it’s effectiveness, often the little assassin will be hitting out at low T troops for combat res and now loses the poison benefit
- 50 point no armour save sword. Meh standard kit these days and much better options that have been under costed.
Arcane (thrown in for completeness)
Good
- Sacrificial dagger, getting to roll after using your dice means you can go for the IF and avoid miscasts more easily
- Familiar – 25 points pick a point 6” and that is where the caster counts as casting from. Means you can hide them and still use magic missiles. Perhaps can even get them out of the range of the ring of hotek – but this is up for debate.
The verdict:
My build I’m tossing up between Dragon or manticore mounted death master with Huck Wuss, regen, armour piercing GW, null stone, with a caddie, BSB with 1+ armour and ring of hotek. I can’t see myself fielding the as
CORE
Most of the core choices are actually pretty good value so despite my strong leaning I think we will see some different builds.SpearmenWell really they are 7 points as you have to buy the shield. With the points falling off a cliff these guys become a viable bunker though at 155 for the 20+FC this isn’t cheap cheap. Throwing an assassin in makes them pretty solid though once again the cost of the assassin puts them into the sphere of expensive for what they do.RXBIn an army where everything else seems to fit a specific role at 11 points with WS4, and 4+ AS these bad boys can fill a variety of roles from infantry block, flanker, wizard bunker or just be one of the better archery units in the game. Should form the backbone of many lists.CorsairsThey are mismatch of special rules and stats for mine, their resilience against shooting is great but why would your opponent be targeting them over another unit when they offer no greater threat than a spearman? The 2 S3 attacks don’t get it done in combat and the hand bows mean walking into charge range to be effective.Dark RidersStill fill a valuable role as harasser/flanker. Not sold on the RBT at 5 points but can see the benefit. If you have the points may be worth fielding with standards to keep the comp Nazis at bay.HarpiesBeing able to use the general’s leadership is great, as is the ability to take multiple units. Will fill the role of furies from the demon list but be slightly less effective due to the propensity to panic at the first sign of danger. Still at 55 points for a single unit you can throw them forward to distract or divert with little consequence. Will be a regular fixture in most armies if for nothing else but how cheap they are.
SPECIAL
The bit that grabs the imagination in this book is the special section. This is based on no CoB as I think it is too expensive for what it does (after the hag is added in) and can be neutralised by engaging multiple elite units forcing you to pick which unit to support.
Shades:
I think these boys are the goods. BS5 WS5, 2 attacks (with add HW) sure they are fragile and expensive at 85 points for a 5 man unit but their multiple attacks and high weapon skill allows them to harass and suppress enemy war machines if your harpies are neutralised. I think the dual roles makes them a strong proposition if you have a flier in the army. Plus 10 BS 4 shots (after the -1) will support an already strong shooting phase.
Witch elves:
These guys conceptually make more sense as skirmishers where they could get a better shot at guaranteeing the charge. As a ranked unit I’m not sold, WS4 is really the new WS3 in today’s age of power sprint so whilst 3 re-rollable attacks are nice they aren’t high strength and basically require the armour piercing banner and then you factor in that you’re a T3 unarmoured meat puppet and things get very difficult. Only saving grace is the champion which can get the +d3 attacks, still not entirely helpful with a lance through the chest.
Executioners:
These poor little tackers also suffer from meat puppetitis, with ASF they’d be viable but as they are a single S6 attack marks these guys for the highly limited in their effective use pile. At 12 points a pop that’s a bad pile to be in. The special champion is a waste for a fellow meat puppet. Plus being khainite means you can’t throw a master with magic items into the unit to bolster them, only a hag (also a meat puppet)
Cold one knights:
The “cold blooded” banner at 15 points gives them some additional reliability but it is for only one turn and it takes away their access to a war banner or the +d3 CR on the charge making the unit over priced for what it will deliver.
Cold one Chariots:
Suffer form the same fate as the knights. At 100 points a little to expensive for what they are delivering. I’d only really use them, if at all, as a BSB mount. On the bright side they aren’t meat puppets?
Black Guard:
Start on a good note, finish on a good note. The 2 attacks, warrior elite, WS5, immune to pysch, S4 with halberd, access to the ASF banner and the ability to give the champion a 25 point item (I’m thinking the S5 armour piercing beast masters scourge). These guys are then a viable proposition as an anvil unit. Plus not being khainite means you can actually put a character in there (imagine that characters IN rather than watching your elite unit)
My verdict:
So in my current hypothesised army build I’ll have a unit of 15 Black guards with ASF banner and at least one unit of 5 shades maybe two.
Banners:I think the BSB is better taking other items so the only banners of real consequence are the 50 and below.Dread Banner: 40 points? Cause fear, not entirely sure this is that great given DE are unlikely to be on the right side of the numbers score line.ASF: 35 points. For elite infantry a great banner as it brings them in line with the HE elite whilst having the additional edge of hatred. Pity the Executioners can’t get this.+d3 CR on the charge: 35 points a good idea and ideally put on the Cold one knights, but then how do you keep them in line with stupidity. On infantry the ASF is probably going to come in handy more often Armour Piercing: 25 points Good for the WE as gives them some punch, doesn’t overcome their fragility though. A 5+ ward save style thing would have been betterFrenzy: 25 points Corsairs only, makes them into weaker (no poison) but more resilient with elves so this is the only way I see them being a viable choice over other options.Cold Blooded: 15 points. For one turn you take LD tests on 3D6 like lizard men. Really there for the cold ones to give them one turn of reliability, still you can fail that test.
RARE:
An easy section given only two rare c
Hydra: 175 pointsTerror causer, S5 breath weapon, regen, scaly skin, can’t attack handlers in combat if in contact with hydra. In what I think is an error (just like the ward save) the handlers have 2A base but also have a hand weapon plus a scourge (also a hand weapon) giving them 3 Attacks (2 armour piercing). So 13 attacks, with hatred, 7 at S5. this thing will monster no +5 static units in the first turn.
Reaper: 100 points
Given every man and his dog had one before and there is no change I expect many people and canines to be fielding them again.
Verdict:
Look for 2 reapers and 1 hydra to be the standard kit
Overall
The power sprint continues as these guys got increases in effectiveness for reduction of costs so clearly they are miles better than before and moved from Tier 3 to Tier 1 along side their HE brethren but still a notch below the two.
Their shooting phase can be better than a WE one at a cheaper cost, always a good sign for the darkies and with the items you can make a range of builds.
Still many of their “elite” troops have fatal flaws which limit their scope. Many suffer from meat puppetitis which reduces their ability to engage in protracted combat whilst their cavalry still suffers from stupidity.
Overall though a massive improvement in effectiveness.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Mathhammer - boo hiss
Ah the reviled mathhammer hated by some and misused by many. The main point which many of the critics of mathhammer raise again and again is “if mathhammer is so good why is it then used by so many bunnies and so few of the top generals?”
Well two reasons, for starters mathhammer is not a path to tactical genius, it is simply providing more information to make a more informed choice. It won’t stop you making bone head moves and it doesn’t construct a diagram of how the game is going to play out under 6 different scenarios. Some of the more experienced players that don’t use mathhammer have actually just seen the scenarios enough times to know the probable out come anyway through trial and error.
The other reason is people misinterpret the information which leads them to make worse decisions. My personal favourite is “I should on average win that combat”, this is then closely followed by recognition that you only on average are winning by 1 or 2, (meaning there is still very strong chance you lose or that your opponent holds), that you have a small number of dice (meaning the result is more variable) and that it is a general on dragon (worth many points) against non descript vanilla infantry (worth very few points). So essentially our mathhammer guru has pitting his 700 points against 100 with around an even money chance of breaking them?
There are four things I always consider when using mathhammer [please note the % chance of victory is HIGHLY variable depending on number of dice and kills required]
How much do I win by on “average?”
If it is a small amount (+1/2 CR) then really you aren’t “that” favoured to win the combat and even if you do whoopee they are testing at 1 or 2 down.
Will I break them / How many turns am I likely to be in combat
If I think I’m winning 70% of the time but I’m fighting a stubborn or unbreakable unit this means that 51% of the time I will lose one of the two turns and are therefore at greater risk of losing points than my opponent
How dice reliant is my CR?
Two things come out this one is that the only combat res you can guarantee is static combat res the rest is in the lap of dice gods. The second is that you are more likely to get an “average” roll with more dice. For example how often have you got less than 3 hits with your saurus old blood? Or rolled 2 or 3 ones on 3 hits? These outcomes are not bad luck they are reasonable probabilities that you should plan for.
How many points am I putting at risk and how many do I have to gain?
This is the big one. Add up how many points you’re putting at risk versus how many you stand to gain, yes this includes standards, then times that by your estimated probability of winning and if the amount doesn’t exceed the points you’re putting at risk then you’re in trouble.
If you have a 400 point unit attacking a 100 point unit you had better have either an 80%+ chance of coming up with the goods or the move better be setting up something else that will offset the difference. The other outcome of looking at this is knowing when to take a chance and throw that piddly little 75 point unit into 1/3 chance against the 300 point unit
Now due to the sheer amount of dice involved in a game the probability for victory for each situation is pretty variable meaning that the guestimates you make based on your CR differential is imperfect information [side note: I once built a chart using the “small roller” but alas that was on a work computer at a former employer and took me a while to put it together – much productivity lost]. Given this the information should still be used as a rough guide only which is the whole point anyway.
Well two reasons, for starters mathhammer is not a path to tactical genius, it is simply providing more information to make a more informed choice. It won’t stop you making bone head moves and it doesn’t construct a diagram of how the game is going to play out under 6 different scenarios. Some of the more experienced players that don’t use mathhammer have actually just seen the scenarios enough times to know the probable out come anyway through trial and error.
The other reason is people misinterpret the information which leads them to make worse decisions. My personal favourite is “I should on average win that combat”, this is then closely followed by recognition that you only on average are winning by 1 or 2, (meaning there is still very strong chance you lose or that your opponent holds), that you have a small number of dice (meaning the result is more variable) and that it is a general on dragon (worth many points) against non descript vanilla infantry (worth very few points). So essentially our mathhammer guru has pitting his 700 points against 100 with around an even money chance of breaking them?
There are four things I always consider when using mathhammer [please note the % chance of victory is HIGHLY variable depending on number of dice and kills required]
How much do I win by on “average?”
If it is a small amount (+1/2 CR) then really you aren’t “that” favoured to win the combat and even if you do whoopee they are testing at 1 or 2 down.
Will I break them / How many turns am I likely to be in combat
If I think I’m winning 70% of the time but I’m fighting a stubborn or unbreakable unit this means that 51% of the time I will lose one of the two turns and are therefore at greater risk of losing points than my opponent
How dice reliant is my CR?
Two things come out this one is that the only combat res you can guarantee is static combat res the rest is in the lap of dice gods. The second is that you are more likely to get an “average” roll with more dice. For example how often have you got less than 3 hits with your saurus old blood? Or rolled 2 or 3 ones on 3 hits? These outcomes are not bad luck they are reasonable probabilities that you should plan for.
How many points am I putting at risk and how many do I have to gain?
This is the big one. Add up how many points you’re putting at risk versus how many you stand to gain, yes this includes standards, then times that by your estimated probability of winning and if the amount doesn’t exceed the points you’re putting at risk then you’re in trouble.
If you have a 400 point unit attacking a 100 point unit you had better have either an 80%+ chance of coming up with the goods or the move better be setting up something else that will offset the difference. The other outcome of looking at this is knowing when to take a chance and throw that piddly little 75 point unit into 1/3 chance against the 300 point unit
Now due to the sheer amount of dice involved in a game the probability for victory for each situation is pretty variable meaning that the guestimates you make based on your CR differential is imperfect information [side note: I once built a chart using the “small roller” but alas that was on a work computer at a former employer and took me a while to put it together – much productivity lost]. Given this the information should still be used as a rough guide only which is the whole point anyway.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Why do I think magic has "increasing returns"
I often refer to the increasing rate of return for points spent on magic which seems to baffle some people. [RANT] As some people seem utterly incapable of using the search function on various forums and demand to be spoon fed information I thought I’d put it up here.[/RANT]
It is a bastardisation of a business/micro-economic term and technically isn’t 100% correct as at the 13+ mark you start to get less effective spells off (except tzeentch which can get access cheaper to PD).
Essentially the hypothesis is that up to a point, every dice you have in excess of your opponents dispel dice is more valuable than the last (i.e. 2 dice does more than double the damage of 1 dice).
Now when doing the analysis I varied the assumptions for the cost of each dice (points paid) and the return (expected average effect for each spell) just to test if it was the numbers I was using and obviously while increasing the cost of each dice and decreasing the spell effect I got a lower % return the basic principle that you get a higher expected return than your points spent when you escalate past the 10+ dice held firm. I used a dispel pool of 5 as the “standard” pool obviously as it is highly reliant on the gap between dispel and casting pools the variation of this varies the results.
But many would ask why does this happen? Well it is relatively simple. If you think of spells as being in tiers of 1 (minor effect, an attrition style spell), 2 (reasonable effect and on average will dent a elite unit) and 3 (major effect and capable of wiping out unit/s through either). How each spell achieves this is different, maybe by adding/restricting movement, or a lowering a stat line or by out and out damage etc.
Then think when your opponent only has say one or two more dice than you, more than likely you are going to be shutting down his tier 2 and (if he has them) tier 3 spells and allowing him to get off the tier 1 spell which ahs a reduced effect. But as the gap between your DD and his PD increases not only does his “free” dice increase but his options on what to use those free dice on increases as his selection of spells increases. Meaning that at say 3 dice he is getting off a tier 2 routinely and move further away to 4 dice two tier 2 spells every second turn. Get to five dice and you are probably seeing a game changing spell raining down on you every turn.
So in a nutshell as the disparity grows your opponents ability to get off spells off spells which change the game also grows which in turn increases the % return you get for your points invested.
Off course this doesn’t take into account game play (tactics, rational selection of targets, rational order of casting spells etc) but one thing to remember is that as the gap between points invested and expected return grow the more units (points) that player can sacrifice or hold in reserve to keep his mages alive and/or the spells at maximum effect.
It is a bastardisation of a business/micro-economic term and technically isn’t 100% correct as at the 13+ mark you start to get less effective spells off (except tzeentch which can get access cheaper to PD).
Essentially the hypothesis is that up to a point, every dice you have in excess of your opponents dispel dice is more valuable than the last (i.e. 2 dice does more than double the damage of 1 dice).
Now when doing the analysis I varied the assumptions for the cost of each dice (points paid) and the return (expected average effect for each spell) just to test if it was the numbers I was using and obviously while increasing the cost of each dice and decreasing the spell effect I got a lower % return the basic principle that you get a higher expected return than your points spent when you escalate past the 10+ dice held firm. I used a dispel pool of 5 as the “standard” pool obviously as it is highly reliant on the gap between dispel and casting pools the variation of this varies the results.
But many would ask why does this happen? Well it is relatively simple. If you think of spells as being in tiers of 1 (minor effect, an attrition style spell), 2 (reasonable effect and on average will dent a elite unit) and 3 (major effect and capable of wiping out unit/s through either). How each spell achieves this is different, maybe by adding/restricting movement, or a lowering a stat line or by out and out damage etc.
Then think when your opponent only has say one or two more dice than you, more than likely you are going to be shutting down his tier 2 and (if he has them) tier 3 spells and allowing him to get off the tier 1 spell which ahs a reduced effect. But as the gap between your DD and his PD increases not only does his “free” dice increase but his options on what to use those free dice on increases as his selection of spells increases. Meaning that at say 3 dice he is getting off a tier 2 routinely and move further away to 4 dice two tier 2 spells every second turn. Get to five dice and you are probably seeing a game changing spell raining down on you every turn.
So in a nutshell as the disparity grows your opponents ability to get off spells off spells which change the game also grows which in turn increases the % return you get for your points invested.
Off course this doesn’t take into account game play (tactics, rational selection of targets, rational order of casting spells etc) but one thing to remember is that as the gap between points invested and expected return grow the more units (points) that player can sacrifice or hold in reserve to keep his mages alive and/or the spells at maximum effect.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Is this the WHFB apocolypse
Well I’d like to think I’m reasonably objective about GW and their decision making having been both a vocal critic and advocate of their past decisions.
As a commercially minded person I’ve supported the price rises and down sizing of the product range, hell I even supported the lack of support of sideline games that I thoroughly enjoyed knowing it makes zero sense to throw resources behind a game with very low revenue opportunities.
I’ve also panned their CEO for failing to have a clear cut strategy on how to turn 10% to 20% of their young burn and churn players into long term customers and the outright idiotic decision to purchase the LOTR rights because “we couldn’t afford someone else to”. [Tip for young players – never pay above the value you think you can derive for an asset this is called stupidity, clearly someone failed their LD check at the start of negotiations.]
So now I’m stuck here at a cross roads which GW has forced upon me. Warhammer Fantasy battles, the hobby I’ve enjoyed sine I was 12 years old and have toiled at through 4 editions is standing on the precipice of moving from a hobby to simply another board game.
GW’s costing of the past two army books have in my view dramatically unbalanced the game and as a result is forcing it away from being a viable system in which to have genuine competition.
In my 17 years of gaming the VC book is by far and away the most poorly constructed rule set I have seen produced, and there have been some humdingers in that time. Either the rule makers lack the basic understanding of how much regeneration, unbreakable, immune to pysch, fear causing, terror, efficient magic and weapon skill impact the game or they have applied, at best, arbitrary values to these.
Sure it is natural that just after a book is released to hear the tales of anguish about how much GW has gotten it wrong, but the more time goes on the more my, and others, opinions grow that they have flat out gotten this wrong.
I would like to think it was simple aberration the part shot of incompetence from the designer in question but alas GW followed it up with the Demon army which is once again substantially more efficient than the pre VC armies.
Incorporating the discussions with experienced players who have/do play VC/Demons have lead to me forming the conclusion that VC is probably costed at about a discount of 10% to 20%. A wide range to be sure, and prone to both exaggeration or conservatism depending on which side of the fence you lie, but either way a significant pick up in “true points”.
So where has this arisen from? I’d say the most obvious elements that have been under costed are the immune to pysch, unbreakable, cause fear and survivability of the units. The elements ensure that the units are exceptionally reliable and can overcome what was supposed to be the best offensive in warhammer, a well executed charge.
So why do I care and why don’t I just change armies? Well there are two reasons.
The first is the long term survivability of the game. GW is already a company which has been poorly performing during the strongest economic boom in living memory and now faces a more uncertain trading environment.
Now they’ve introduce an escalated army race of army books. Whilst this may increase the churn and burn revenue generation of casual gamers who have smaller armies or move to the next big thing, it only further alienates the loyal customer base that previous management ignored. If you have a product where loyal customers are relatively inelastic due to sunk costs and a “unique” system then wouldn’t a major strategic concern be maximising the amount of those customers?
There are better strategies for turning over books than ones which, almost deliberately, force existing customers to chose between buy this now or leave. [Second tip for young players: there are two choices in an ultimatum when issuing one you’d better be able to live with both]
The second being that I just I love the tournament scene. Whilst I have many hobbies it is the one I spend the most time and money on. The scene has gone form strength to strength over the past two decades and it has been a great hobby to be involved in. Sure the game has always been the victim of a moderate level of power creep but I think Australia’s composition systems have generally kept this in check and the imbalance was never this exaggerated.
I strongly fear that going forward the top half of tourney fields will be dominated by a select few armies. I’ve always believed that whilst this has always been the perception it has seldom been the reality (when you look at the results) but going forward I do believe that unless players simply stop playing them (I’m not suggesting that by the way) VC and demon armies will be dominant as they are simply too poorly costed to be adjusted by composition.
This in turn I believe will drive less variety on the tournament scene, and for this gamer at least, dramatically decrease the enjoyment of attending tourneys.
Is it the VC or demon players’ fault? No, they are simply playing the list they were given, rather I feel it is either a lack of diligence in the design process or disgraceful strategy intentionally implemented by GW that has driven this change.
As a commercially minded person I’ve supported the price rises and down sizing of the product range, hell I even supported the lack of support of sideline games that I thoroughly enjoyed knowing it makes zero sense to throw resources behind a game with very low revenue opportunities.
I’ve also panned their CEO for failing to have a clear cut strategy on how to turn 10% to 20% of their young burn and churn players into long term customers and the outright idiotic decision to purchase the LOTR rights because “we couldn’t afford someone else to”. [Tip for young players – never pay above the value you think you can derive for an asset this is called stupidity, clearly someone failed their LD check at the start of negotiations.]
So now I’m stuck here at a cross roads which GW has forced upon me. Warhammer Fantasy battles, the hobby I’ve enjoyed sine I was 12 years old and have toiled at through 4 editions is standing on the precipice of moving from a hobby to simply another board game.
GW’s costing of the past two army books have in my view dramatically unbalanced the game and as a result is forcing it away from being a viable system in which to have genuine competition.
In my 17 years of gaming the VC book is by far and away the most poorly constructed rule set I have seen produced, and there have been some humdingers in that time. Either the rule makers lack the basic understanding of how much regeneration, unbreakable, immune to pysch, fear causing, terror, efficient magic and weapon skill impact the game or they have applied, at best, arbitrary values to these.
Sure it is natural that just after a book is released to hear the tales of anguish about how much GW has gotten it wrong, but the more time goes on the more my, and others, opinions grow that they have flat out gotten this wrong.
I would like to think it was simple aberration the part shot of incompetence from the designer in question but alas GW followed it up with the Demon army which is once again substantially more efficient than the pre VC armies.
Incorporating the discussions with experienced players who have/do play VC/Demons have lead to me forming the conclusion that VC is probably costed at about a discount of 10% to 20%. A wide range to be sure, and prone to both exaggeration or conservatism depending on which side of the fence you lie, but either way a significant pick up in “true points”.
So where has this arisen from? I’d say the most obvious elements that have been under costed are the immune to pysch, unbreakable, cause fear and survivability of the units. The elements ensure that the units are exceptionally reliable and can overcome what was supposed to be the best offensive in warhammer, a well executed charge.
So why do I care and why don’t I just change armies? Well there are two reasons.
The first is the long term survivability of the game. GW is already a company which has been poorly performing during the strongest economic boom in living memory and now faces a more uncertain trading environment.
Now they’ve introduce an escalated army race of army books. Whilst this may increase the churn and burn revenue generation of casual gamers who have smaller armies or move to the next big thing, it only further alienates the loyal customer base that previous management ignored. If you have a product where loyal customers are relatively inelastic due to sunk costs and a “unique” system then wouldn’t a major strategic concern be maximising the amount of those customers?
There are better strategies for turning over books than ones which, almost deliberately, force existing customers to chose between buy this now or leave. [Second tip for young players: there are two choices in an ultimatum when issuing one you’d better be able to live with both]
The second being that I just I love the tournament scene. Whilst I have many hobbies it is the one I spend the most time and money on. The scene has gone form strength to strength over the past two decades and it has been a great hobby to be involved in. Sure the game has always been the victim of a moderate level of power creep but I think Australia’s composition systems have generally kept this in check and the imbalance was never this exaggerated.
I strongly fear that going forward the top half of tourney fields will be dominated by a select few armies. I’ve always believed that whilst this has always been the perception it has seldom been the reality (when you look at the results) but going forward I do believe that unless players simply stop playing them (I’m not suggesting that by the way) VC and demon armies will be dominant as they are simply too poorly costed to be adjusted by composition.
This in turn I believe will drive less variety on the tournament scene, and for this gamer at least, dramatically decrease the enjoyment of attending tourneys.
Is it the VC or demon players’ fault? No, they are simply playing the list they were given, rather I feel it is either a lack of diligence in the design process or disgraceful strategy intentionally implemented by GW that has driven this change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)