Showing posts with label User Content Wednesday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label User Content Wednesday. Show all posts

User Content Wednesday - Welcome to Malifaux: A 40k defectors guide

A looooong time ago, 40k for the New Professional had a different URL.  There was lots of great content including a very cool series about the interchange of ideas between IRL and the games we play.  Then Google ate everything without any explanation and he was never able to retrieve it.   It was a pretty sad day.  The House of Paincakes flag was flown at half mast.  But not the US flag since that'd be a little extreme.

Anyway, as you can imagine the wind kind of left the Kennedy's sails even with the registration of a new domain and for a fresh start.  What follows was always one of my favorite posts that was miraculously saved by Google Reader.  I hope re-posting this article, in some small way, puts some of the aforementioned wind back in the aforementioned sails of the aforementioned Kennedy.

Note:  Kennedy, I have a ton of your old stuff bunged away, so let me klnow if you need it.

So, a comment by SinSynn really sparked the idea for this post. After reading his comment about how he might "defect" partially, I had the thought that there are probably loads of you out there who might really like some information about how to actually start up in Malifaux. There's some stuff about it out there, but nothing terribly cohesive. Thus, I have taken it upon myself to write up something that might approach a guide to Malifaux.

I'll be starting really basic and moving forward from there, so feel free to skip ahead when you read something you already know.

An obvious first place to start is the basic premise. Malifaux is set in a steam punk wild west horror setting. Yeah, sounds weird at first, but it all fits, bizarre as that sounds. The game uses cards instead of dice to determine the effects. Typically, you engage in duels, where one of your piece's characteristics + the value of a card flip is pitted against one of your opponent's piece's characteristics + the value of a card flip. The difference in the result determines your victory (and the degree of success).

So, an example: Your Death Marshall (a zombie hunting law enforcement officer) wants to shoot at a Rotten Belle (a zombie hooker). Your Death Marshall has a CB of 5 (it's basically your ballistic skill). He flips an 8. His total is 13 to hit. The Belle has a defense value of 3. The Belle flips a 9. Her total is a 12. Thus, the Death Marshall is currently hitting.

This is where the next big thing comes in. In most duels, you get a chance to Cheat Fate (play a card out of your hand to replace the one you flipped). So, in my example, if the player with the Belle had a high card in his hand, he could cheat it in so the Death Marshall wouldn't hit.

Those are the true basics. If anyone is really interested, I'll be more than glad to post more about how duels work, Twists of Fate and various other more complicated gameplay issues that can really become tactical issues. With what I just posted, I mainly wanted to show that the game isn't really that much different (in some ways) than other wargames you may have played.

Now, I'd like to embark on the actuall things you'll need for a game of Malifaux. First, you'll of course want some models, you'll also want the Rules Manual (which is a condensed version of the rules with recent FAQ and errata changes incorporated, it's $15), a deck (either a regular Malifaux deck that runs $7.50ish, the plastic Puppet Deck that is like $10ish or a cheapo pack of regular playing cards will work, although regular playing cards are going to require reference to a chart in the book, as Wyrd has changed the basic suits), something to keep track of how many Soulstones you have (dice or beads or any small thing will work) and some terrain. Most of that is self-explanatory. What is not self-explanatory is the factions and starter boxes. Thus, here is where I shall spend quite a bit of time.

There are 5 basic factions: Guild, Resurrectionists, Arcanists, Neverborn and Outcasts. In the Guild, Resurrectionists, Arcanists and Neverborn factions, most of the pieces play well together, and you can use basically anything you like together with more or less synergy. The Outcasts become a bit more complicated, but I'll save that for a moment.

When you play a game of Malifaux, you declare base faction first before deploying terrain and deciding on mission. It is only after that when you actually pick the pieces that will make up your crew. Thus, the game rewards you for having lots of pieces within one particular faction. That way, you can tailor your list to the task at hand. This was, for me, the biggest stumbling block coming from 40k. You typically cannot make a "take all comers" list and be done. You have to consider the impact each mission will have on your crew and whether or not you can complete it.

Now, much like Warmachine, the starter boxes are playable straight out of the box. Each starter box comes equiped with a Master (your leader, typically a powerful piece) and several minions that work fairly well with that Master. Boxes range from 4-7 miniatures and from 15 to 25ish points. Theoretically the "Starter box level" is 25 points, but several boxes are a few point shy of that. Regardless, for your first few games a starter box vs. another starter box is balanced enough.

If I were going to make a recommendation for those new to the game, I would say this: Pick a faction where you like the models for several of the different boxes and then buy one or two boxes. One box will get you started. Two boxes will let you expand a little past that and give you a few options. Either way, the initial buy in will be around $60-$80. Not bad, especially considering that you can realistically play at the 25 point level for quite a while.

[Note: To fully "flesh out" any particular crew will run you maybe $50-$75 more, depending on the crew. Some will be much more or much less. I will point out which crews are generally more expensive further on.]

Ok, so here's where I'll go through and explain each of the factions (basically) followed by a description of the Masters/Henchmen within that faction, the level of difficulty and expense of each.

The Guild: The law enforcement of Malifaux. Generally, they are the most straightforward faction. They tend to have Masters who are anti- one of the other forces in the game. Most of the pieces that work well with one Master will work just as well with another. You'll also find you need relatively fewer pieces to play compared to other factions. Generally, they like shooting.

Sonnia Criid: The anti-mage. She has lots of abilities geared towards screwing over magic users. However, she's also a capable mage herself. An easy to learn master where you'll only really "need" a few other pieces.

Lady Justice: Anti-undead. She has lots of abilities geared towards stopping Resurrectionists from making zombies. She's also a close combat monster. She's fully capable of destroying any piece in the game with only a few attacks. Again, she's easy to learn and doens't need very many additional pieces.

Perdita Ortega: The Neverborn hunter. She and her family are all about shooty. They are another quick to learn faction with relatively straightforward abilities. Again, cheap to use as you won't want that many additional pieces.

C. Hoffman: The Construct master. He needs additional pieces out of the box, as he only comes with 16 points worth :( In general, he's a bit trickier than some of the other Guild Masters. However, he's not so difficult that you couldn't start with him. Because of his low starting points total, he's a bit more expensive to play.

Lucius: The Henchman (Henchmen can lead their own crews or be added to a Master's crew). He's all about buffing the normal Guild pieces you can take, specifically Guardsmen and pieces that are part of the Elite Division. He's a bit trickier to learn and a bit more expensive (he wants lots of relatively cheap guys).

Resurrectionists: The first part of the horror element of Malifaux. Resurrectionists generally focus on... well... zombies (with some exception). Most Resurrectionists pieces work very well with each other, just like the Guild. Because some of the Masters can summon new pieces into the game, you may need extra models compared to some of the other factions. Close combat and spells are the order of the day here.

Seamus: The serial killer. Seamus is a survivable toolbox of a Master. He's the least capable summoner of the Resurrectionists, but he makes up for that with his variety of other skills. Seamus is decent at shooting, close combat and spell slinging. Where he really excells, however, is in making himself more Terrifying than he already is and scaring your opponents' models. Generally the cheapest Resurrectionist and a decently easy Master to learn.

McMourning: Dr. Frankenstein himself. While Seamus is the survivable combat Master, McMourning is very killy in combat and a decent summoner. He has a limited summoning palette to draw from, but he can pop up in your opponent's face, slicing and dicing before using pieces he's cut from other models to knit together a monstrous creation. A bit more expensive than Seamus but still relatively straightforward.

Nicodem: The Necromancer. Nicodem is physically weak, but he has spells and summoning to make up for it. He can summon just about any undead model in the game, so if you want to take advantage of that abiility you'll be spending a bit of money on him. He's of intermediate difficulty to learn due to a few tricks. Still, not a bad Master to start with.

Kirai: The Spirit master. Kirai is the only Resurrectionist who does not focus on Zombies. Instead, she uses Spirits. She's another summoning master, so again, she'll cost a bit. She's also a more difficult Master to learn. She has lots of tricks and nuance that can be lots of fun but also quite daunting for a new player. The other downside to Kirai is that her pieces don't work all that well with some of the others in the faction, so using her and another Resurrectionist can become quite expensive.

Molly: The Henchman... err... Henchwoman... Well, she's not out yet, so I have little to say here.

Arcanists: Organized crime in Malifaux, a loose syndicate of rogue mages. Generally, this faction feels a little more fractious than some of the others. The models have a disparate look, and it sometimes seems very obvious that certain pieces work best with certain Masters. Thus, while theorectically having a heavy magic focus (due to the theme), each Master plays quite differently.

Ramos: The Steampunk engineer. Ramos is another construct heavy Master (like C. Hoffman from the Guild). In fact the two can use some of each other's pieces. While Hoffman is more of a support Master, Ramos can create additional steampunk spiders on the battlefield and cast direct damage spells. Ramos isn't particularly complicated or expensive, making him a good first Master.

Marcus: The Beastmaster. Marcus can hire any beast from any faction, making him a slightly more expensive option. He likes to play a kind of hit and run guerilla warfare game with high speed minions who can't afford to be hit. He's widely considered to be quite underpowered compared to the rest of the field, so he's a little bit of a challenge to use effectively.

Rasputina: The Ice Witch. Rasuptina is the very definition of a spell slinger. She wants to hide out of sight and cast spells through her minions (think like Arc Nodes in Warmachine). She's not terribly complex, nor does she need that many pieces. However, she is one of the slowest Masters in the game. Thus, you should beware of that limitation (especially because many of the missions rely on mobility).

Colette: The Showgirl. Colette is a tricky, tricky Master. She has lots of rules and requires finesse to play correctly. She's all about movement and magic that creates movement. Not a lot of direct damage or even damage potential. That said, a full Colette crew is realistically very cheap, as you can almost actually assemble a "take all comers" list. I wouldn't recommend her to a beginner, but she's very good for a second Master.

Kaeris: The Henchwoman... who is also not out, so... Yeah.

Neverborn: The Monsters in Malifaux. The Neverborn are semi-fractious with plenty of pieces that work best with one Master or another, yet they also have enough pieces that are general purpose that they can be a relatively inexpensive faction to play. While some Neverborn like close combat, they have lots of tricks as well.

Lilith: The Mother of Monsters. A close combat expert to match Lady Justice from the Guild. Lilith is the most straightforward Neverborn Master. She like close combat and she likes other minions who like close combat. She has a few tricks, but they're all geared towards getting her and her minions into close combat. Sense a theme ;) ? She's a good place to start and not terribly expensive.

Pandora: Mistress of the Mind. Pandora doesn't really want to hurt you... she'd rather you hurt yourself! Pandora is all about mind tricks and using Willpower duels to debuff or destroy the enemy. She's one of the trickiest Masters in the game. She's also relatively cheap to run. She's not a bad pick for a secondary Master, but she's diffficult for beginners.

Zoraida: The Swamp Hag. Zoraida is a bizarre Master in some ways. She can recruit any model that has a Willpower of 4 or less. This allows her to have an enormous crew selection. Thus, she can be expensive. She doesn't have to be, however. Zoraida doesn't depend on her crew, and typically will be off on her own while her crew is elsewhere. She's a spellcaster, but it's hard to pin down a style for her. She's of intermediate difficulty to learn.

The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits: The child master of Nightmares and his Nightmare companion. One of the more insular Masters. He wants only Nightmare-type minions in his crew so he can play the game of hiding them off the table and them making them pop up in your line. He plays like 40k Daemons wish they could. Unfortunately, he's quite complicated. He's easily one of the most complex Masters in the game. Not terribly expensive, however.

Collodi: The Pupeteer. The Neverborn Henchman (Henchmen can lead their own crews or be added to a Master's crew). He is yet another complicated but cheap choice. He wants only Dolls (thus limiting your selection), but he requires much nuance to play. He focuses on using his dolls to pull him across the board (via the strings on his Marionettes) while he buffs the dolls so they can kill the hell out of you.

The Outcasts: The Outcasts aren't a cohesive faction. Instead, I've been told to think of them as 4 disparate smaller factions. This makes them make so much more sense. Each of those smaller factions has its own special hiring restrictions, which can make them daunting at first. Let's dive in.

The Mercenaries

The Viktorias: The Mercenary women. They like to smash things. Hard. They're good at close combat and that's what they do. They're not terribly difficult to learn. However, you will want to buy additions to the starter box almost immediately. Once you buy some of those things, tou aren't buying much else. The Viks like to have an "Elite" force with a very few, very good models.

Von Schill: The Mercenary Captain. A Henchman (Henchmen can lead their own crews or be added to a Master's crew). Von Schill is an action hero. He's the only model in the game that can lead a crew but has no spells. He's good at ranged and close combat, plus he brings with him his Friekorps, good Mercenary troopers. He works well on his own or with the Viks.

The Desolate and Soulless

Leveticus: One of the most complicated and expensive Masters in the game. Leveticus can use any Undead or Constructs from any faction. That's a lot of models. Leveticus focuses on making things dead, including himself. However, Leveticus will resurrect himself every turn, unlike your opponent's models. Very powerful but very, very difficult to learn.

The Plagued

Hamelin the Plagued: The control master. If you've ever played Magic, I'd equate Hamelin to a Blue deck. Hamelin is all about making your opponent's models unable to target him. At all. Then, he swarms you with rats. He's got a very limited crew selection (so cheapish), but a very steep learning curve.

The Bayou Gremlins

Som'er Teeth Jones: The Gremlin Master. Slightly tricky. He likes to let his cheap minions do the fighting and the dying. He'll hide out until an opportunity presents itself for him to pop out and do massive damage. In general, he's a bit trickier of a Master. Gremlins are like 40k Orks that doen't suck with a good dose of hillbilly tossed in.

Ophelia: The Gremlin Henchwoman (Henchmen can lead their own crews or be added to a Master's crew). She and her family are a parody of Perdita Ortega and the Ortega family. Thus, she's very shooty. Again, she's a Gremlin, so... think Ork level insanity. She's much easier to start with than Som'er, so she's a good introduction to Gremlins.

Alright, that was long. Very long. I'll try to simplify things a bit. In Malifaux you have 4 types of Masters (generally): Close combat Masters, Ranged combat Masters, Support casting Masters and Combat casting Masters.
Close combat Masters: Lady J, Seamus (somewhat), McMorning, Lilith, Lord Chompy Bits, the Viks, Von Schill
Ranged combat Masters: Perdita, Ophelia
Support casting Masters: C. Hoffman, Lucius, Seamus (somewhat), Nicodem, Kirai, Ramos, Marcus, Colette, the Dreamer, Collodi
Combat casting Masters: Sonnia Criid, Rasputina, Pandora, Leveticus, Hamelin, Som'er Teeth

Now, hopefully that was helpful. If not, it was just long ;) Of course, some of this (or all of this) could be wrong. But, hopefully it'll be helpful to someone.

User Content Wednesday - Lorin Alpha

Hey all!  Since HoP Idol has been running, the User Content Wednesday feature has been suspiciously missing.  Well, the contest is in it's final leg and there's nothing quite like general dumb-assery to get things rolling again.

Waaaaay back in June, a man who goes by Lorenzen realized (like many) that the House of Paincakes was indeed the coolest shit ever.  He shot us a request to join and we were all like "YAY!".  But we just plain forgot to add him to the rolls... for five goddamn and/or fucking months.  The guy even won the essay contest for that week!  What he hell is wrong with us?!  You would have though that the least we could do was add him to a blog list.  Apparently, we could do quite a bit less than that. 


Which brings us to today.  We fucked up and we have 5 months to make up for.  So here's just a taste of what we hid from you.  Enjoy these excerpts and make sure to click on the links for extra juice:

I cant think of anything to call this post so im going with "Kholek to the face"

"Throughout my hobbying days i've attempted to improve my painting techniques and for the most part i have succeeded except for one major factor.. i cannot be arsed.
its a defining part of my painting now and one of the reasons i have started sharing my own brand of laziness and word vomit with the interweb, im trying atm to make a full company of marines.. but painting the same scheme 100+ times is killing me, i can barely be bothered to finish more than 2 marines usually because once ive done one "properly" i start going "man i hate highlighting it takes too long, i also hate basing.. why the fuck do i have to paint sand?" and such things go on in my mind until im thinking about paying some small albino child from the 3rd world to paint my army and if he gets anything wrong ill beat him to death with a bath mat.

then i get onto a new model.. something ive not painted before or a special character, and i start to have fun and go "hey this schemes pretty cool, i really should do that tactical squad whilst im in the mood" and the whole cycle repeats itself and im left with a half done character and a tactical squad who have roughly blocked in colours and dust on them from where theyve sat in a cabinet pointing at me with their powerfist and bolters and judging me through unpainted helmet lenses."

Khiros: Guardian of the flame


...Khiros is a bad mofo from the original training cadre of the fire angels who bit the bullet in a joint campaign with their parent chapter.. who gave over the contemptor as an honour to khiros's sacrifice and general badassery.. 

Wanna see more pics of this cool thing and it's sweet ass weapons?  Click this LINK!

The Morning After 

"So.. i did the whole gamesday thing yesterday and thought id post my opinion on it all.

1st things first.. Wards hat was fucking stupid, he looked like he wanted to be in some jazz musical or something, full on twat.

got a small bit of time to talk with Phil Kelly, told him his dex's rocked and made my demands that he writes the black templar codex and no one else."

When in doubt, shout, be bald and carry a weapon the length of a small car

 
And, finally some words that sum up exactly how I feel about a certain open source photo editor:

...in closing, photoshop is your friend, i missed it when having to work with gimp (which has a suitable name for something which is pretty much wank) and am glad its back on my pc..

User Content Friday - A Long Diatribe and one Little Tip

Since the Top X was short, I thought I'd increase you;re Friday enjoyment with a brief return of User Content to Fridays.  This time 'round we've got a lovely (yes, lovely) post from a new member blog called Hive Zero.


So, I'm finally recovered from Adepticon. 
Well, that's a bit of a misleading statement. The day after Adepticon ended, I began a new job. As an old dude, I can tell you that even good changes are difficult. For the past ten years, I flew out on Mondays and flew home on Thursday nights. Ten years. There were pockets of time when I would be at home for months at a time as well. Both extremes are extremely difficult on the partner or spouse, and I need to acknowledge and marvel at my wife's infinite patience and ability to shoulder seemingly-insurmountable burdens while maintaining her own identity. And she tolerates, nay, encourages, my addiction to plastic and pewter.

 But I'm getting off track here. This new job is much more "normal." Out the door at 6:30am, on the train by 7:00am, and in the loop by 8:00am. Reverse the process at 5:00pm, and I'm wrangling the offspring by 6:45. The main difference from my previous job is that when I leave the office, I am done for the day. When you are a traveling consultant, you are basically on 24 hours a day whether the client expects it or not. To stray from this is dangerous in many ways. So I'm much more psychologically healthy in this new gig.

So to start over, I am finally recovered from Adepticon AND I am getting used to my new job as a senior UX architect for a major effing retailer. I have finally, thank goodness, sold out to the Man, and I couldn't be happier.

Back to Adepticon. I didn't play this year, but I had a great time. There were a lot of changes this year, and FoW had grown to the point where they were no longer in the same room as WFB. Every vendor had sold out of PAGK boxes by Saturday evening, which was probably good for me...I still have three armies to finish.

When good enough is, well, good enough. 


So one of the big additions to Adepticon this year was the CMON sponsored painting contest. There have been paint competitions in the past, but not with 15,000 dollars in prizes. I know the competition would be steep, so I really scrutinized the miniatures.

You can see the winners at CMON...their photographer was quite good. What you see here are my paltry attempts at recording some of the incredible talent.

So anyway, as I was looking at the incredible wet blending, NMM, OSL, and conversions, I had an epiphany. Well, maybe "epiphany" is a bit strong of a word. I realized that the 80/20 rule applies to miniatures.


For those of you who have non-consulting jobs (ie have a life), the 80/20 rule can be stated this way: in any endeavor, eighty percent of the effort will be expended to acheive the final twenty percent of the feature set. This could not be more applicable to painting our little soldiers, that's obvious enough. But here's why it mattered to me.

When I stepped about three feet away from these exquisitely painted models, they looked...like the models everyone behind me was playing with. You see, the main concept that the 80/20 rule is trying to communicate is that one must recognize when further effort is not worth the return - when good enough is just that.

And that was the enlightenment (how's that for hyperbole?): I had been beating myself up for not getting every lens highlighted, every carapace blended just so, and every highlight perfect, but if I'm going to be honest with myself, my Nid swarm looks pretty damn good on the table. From an arm's length away, my Angels Sanguine's halved color scheme looks striking and disturbing...you can't tell that some of the halves are actually closer to 48/52 (My CSM's, though, look like junk from any distance...back to the Simple Green, Noise Marines!).

Anyway, if you're like me, you would love to paint like Les Bursley, Dave Taylor, and all the rest, but you have to keep in mind that you are most likely painting miniatures to use them in a game. Don't kill yourself comparing your work to CMON. From a reasonable distance, "good enough" and "awesome" are the same. And heck, no one is going to stop you from revisiting the models and adding detail later.

OK, time to whip out the large dry brush and shade 20 remaining gaunts!

Miracle Gum 
OK, so like the title says, I'd like to provide a small, useful tip. There is a product called Blu Tak , Paper Tak, and various other trademarks that all involve the misspelling of the word "tack" that is used to mmount posters to the wall without leaving any marks or damage (yeah, right), It has the consistency of old, chewed gum. I use it all the time to temporarily mount a model into the top of an empty paint jar for painting. And I also use it to dry fit converted models. But my favorite use for it is this:


 The picture is a bit dark. You'll have to click on it to see the Blu Tak, I'd guess. When there is a model that is going to be hard to paint when assembled, I prime it with the glue points masked. It is very accurate in terms of coverage, and it's immediately removable.


Once you remove the Blu Tak, you can simple knead it, and the paint will flake off, ready for the next application. It may discolor a bit, but it shouldn't affect the next masking job.


OK, back to the grind!

User Content Wesnesday - Tales from the Jungle: Unit Fillers: Practical or the Cheap Way Out?”

We've been holding off on the User Content Wednesdays a bit to give HoP Idol some breathing room.  Sadly, a death in the family and some delays with the Quick Fire challenge have cropped up, so we're probably going to be behind by a week (but NOT cancelled).  In the meantime, I found this near little post over on Jungles of Lustria and had intended that it be in a Top X.  Which didnt happen, so here we are.  I think the title of this post is a contender for "most actually necessary colons in a blog title".

One of the things that I tend to notice about WHFB is the many growing trends that have taken place over the last several years. You may know that I’ve been playing for 11 years now and have seen some cool things along the way. Some of the latest trends that I’ve seen are the use of a display board for showing off your army at tournaments, Homemade Wound and Tick Markers, Spell Cards, and Homemade Turn Markers. Many of these things go above and beyond the normal requirement of just having a fully painted army. Some of the best converted models I’ve ever seen have nothing to do with the army at all but are instead just a placeholder to serve as a centerpiece… If you’ve read my blog lately, you’ll know that I recently created a Unit Filler for my Saurus Warriors. This is now the 3rd Unit Filler that I have in my army and it is by far the biggest one. It is on a chariot sized base and therefore “counts as” 8 models. Unit Fillers have become a huge trend in Warhammer and one that I don’t believe is going to go away. The most current edition of Warhammer focuses more on large blocks of infantry and many of us felt that when we switched from 7th edition to the 8th. It caused us to upgrade our units to include more troops than we were normally accustomed to. With that, came the inclusion of Unit Fillers. I myself had to upgrade units of 20 Saurus Warriors to 30 and 36, which is not cheap in this hobby. So I’ve heard people talk about unit fillers and their role in the Warhammer world… Some say they are nice addition to the unit, if done correctly, and really make the entire unit stand out. Others say that it’s a cheap way to get out of buying new models and a way to save yourself some money so that you don’t have to go buy that $35 box of 10 (plastic) models… To me, it’s a little bit of both.


There are many opportunities to make a cool Unit Filler in your army. Some of the best things I’ve seen are the Orc Boys squabbling, showing their animosity to each other and are fighting within the ranks instead of readying themselves for battle. I’ve seen Beastmen emerging from the forests, ready to defend their lands and attack any that come to trespass. And I’ve also seen Dwarf Miners appear as though they are breaking through the ground to come up from beneath the enemy, showing their skills as Miners and catching them unannounced. All you have to do is figure out what your unit does best, or where they come from, or what they are trying to achieve, and you can bring it to life on a Unit Filler base. To me, seeing Unit Fillers (of any kind) is an awesome way to draw my attention to that unit. I instantly see a bigger base that stands out and makes me look at it. When converted / painted well, it stands out even more and makes the whole unit act as a centerpiece. So imagine if you have 4 units and all of them have a unit filler of some sort! It helps to tie in the entire army as a whole and shows some “uniqueness” as well as uniformity to the army.

 The other side of the coin to this debate is to try to save yourself some time and money by creating a Unit Filler on a much bigger base, setting it in the middle of a unit, and calling it good. I have absolutely no problems with this. I think that some people see the downside in it because there are only a 1-2 models on the base when it is going to “count as” four models. Some people will look at it and think you are just getting out of painting and don’t want to put forth the time and effort to make your army look well. I believe that these people are in the minority (though I could be wrong) and either don’t like the Unit Filler creation altogether or some other crazy reason that I don’t know about…


As I said earlier, I’ve noticed a HUGE growing trend with Unit Fillers and it’s almost becoming commonplace on the table top. I was at a tournament back in January where your army was in the minority if you DIDN’T have a Unit Filler somewhere in your army! So I think they are here to stay and the more and more people come to realize that you can actually make a small diorama out of your unit fillers will eventually make them even more appealing. You can scroll down a bit to see my latest Unit Filler and see how actually big it is. In essence, I gained 8 models by adding this to my unit so now it’s 28 strong instead of 20… and I only painted 1 Saurus Warrior… So where do you stand on this debate? Do you see anything wrong with Unit Fillers? And is this the wave of future in Warhammer or is it a fad that will come and go eventually? As always, thanks for reading.

User Content Wednesday - Importance of Terrain in Skirmish Games


This post tickles me to no end.  Not only because it's good as hell AND solved an information need of my own, but because of the way I found it.  I was Googling around the internet looking for Malifaux terrain examples and came across the post in the wilds of the internet rather than via our own rolls.  I was all like "fuck yeah!"  and such.  Imay have fist pumped as well.  Very few of you out there are running a blog network so the particular kind of joy I got from seeing our logo on something I had found by chance will be slightly lost to you.  So that's why this story is tacked on in front of a sweet-ass post on terrain from Tabletop HellEnjoy!




pewpewpew


What usually makes skirmish games different from other miniature tabletop games is your ability to interact with the environment. By the environment I mean terrain pieces on your gaming board. Those that have some experience with skirmish games know that terrain is a big part of game itself. Different levels and places to hide are very important and they have that realistic feeling. Like in real life, you are likely to get behind something when they start to shoot at you.

Depending on your gaming surface and terrain pieces available, you are supposed to think of appropriate strategy for your game. If you want just to roll dice or flip cards then you don’t have to put any terrain just play on a plain table. You will agree that it is not that interesting and what you need is some challenge during your game.




Good gaming boards are what makes as love skirmish games
Different terrain elevations play big part of your strategy. It is well known that those that have higher ground are in better position than those under them. It is same in skirmish games. It may be a bit tricky and some might think a waste of time to climb your models to the highest point, however, it has its own purpose. Of course, you are not going to put a melee fighter on a building roof, but rather a ranged unit that can shoot at someone. Higher ground allows your units to see entire gaming surface, that is if you play a skirmish game that uses a true line of sight. In some games there are penalties that are applied if shooting at the enemy who is higher than yourself. Not only that, but some soft covers like short walls of different obstacles apply no more as soft cover, as you are looking at the enemy unit from above, and can see it almost entirely.




It is to hide in places like this
No matter in what kind of environment your game it taking place you should always look for some cover. For example, if you are playing on city streets you should behind corners or dumpsters. Point of hiding your miniature is not to avoid the enemy but rather to get some sort of protection. Most games have different rules about different covers that different materials provide. When I play skirmish game I always look for some cover. If you can, it is better to get yourself into cover then to move your full movement ant to stay out in the open. It is always better to survive then to rush things and get yourself killed without a reason.




Walls are great cover against the approaching enemy
There is also one thing that I like to do in skirmish games. If you have some sort of rooms or houses on your gaming board I always tend to get inside. There are few reasons. First of all you can shoot throughout the windows and house itself will provide you with cover. Another reason is that if your opponent is to naïve to enter, you can always make an ambush. Close Combat in tiny spaces was always my favorite. Even if you get into trouble you may always run out or even deeper into the rooms.

It is hard to explain different strategies and tactics that may be used in skirmish games as every gaming board is different. I tried to explain some of the most used tricks that people use just to make you aware and not let yourself fall into a trap.

User Content Wednesday - The Two Skills of 40K

3++ is the New Black is a pretty amazing blog.  Good writers, a good vibe and a deep archive perfect for mining User Content Wednesadays from.  While Kirby is the front man and absolutely bends over backwards to make sure that the it's 2 in the pink and none in the stink, he also has a pretty good team of writers to help him out with that.  This post by AbusePuppy is a perfect example of the all pinkness, non-stinkness that hangs around 3++ in almost the same way as thinly veiled allusions to the shocker hang around hastily written intros.

There are a lot of big names in the 40K internet scene- I'm not going to even try go to into naming them all, because I will inevitably leave someone out and there will be hurt feelings and crying and internet rage and a great and bloody war will start and the streets will echo with the cries of lamenting women and dying men and quite frankly I don't want to have to worry about all that when I go out to do my laundry.






This brings up an interesting question, though: what does "being good at" 40K mean? I posit that it essentially breaks down into two very separate skills that tend to get clumped together, resulting in much of the internet arguments that abound.

Those of you who have played other games, especially Magic: the Gathering (which, yes, I will continue to mention in my articles because it is an excellent example of a "mature" competitive game system, both in terms of design and of player base) you may recognize this division, and I think it exists in many games where there is a major element of customizing a (list, army, deck, etc) from a range of available choices. Essentially, there are two kinds of "good" players- list-writers and generals; being a good general will help somewhat with list-writing, but not a lot, and vice versa. Many people are good at both to varying degrees, and the very best of players have to master not only each of the skills, but how to intertwine them. However, for a majority of players, we can differentiate them as two distinct abilities.

Generalship is the common perception of someone who is "good" at the game; we could further break it down into an incredible number of sub-skills, such as distance estimation, feinting, reading, general strategic awareness, etc, but for our purposes this single class alone is sufficient. It is the ability of a player to effectively utilize a list on the tabletop and bring it to victory, even in the face of poor odds, awkward dice rolls, poorly-placed terrain, unfamiliar missions, etc. it covers not only familiarity of one's own list and the minutia of its capacities but also the enemy general's and how best to defeat it.

A good general has a feel for how and when to move his units, and how to position members of the squads; of how far he can expect to move and thus how close he needs to be for various gambits; the rough probabilities of various rolls and how likely things are to go awry as a result of poor luck and thus what kind of risks any given move should entail; a thorough knowledge of the rules and how best to use them to his advantage in a legal manner; and many, many more. Generalship is an active skill, one gained mainly through play experience- all the internet talk in the world won't make you any better at playing the game. It comes from layers upon layers of intuitive understanding built up over previous games such that the player does not have to consciously think about many of the details of what he is doing, greatly freeing their mind to consider more long-range implications or details.

To contrast, the skill of list-building has absolutely nothing to do with experience on the tabletop. (That's a bit of a lie- there are limits to list-building skill born out of generalship because if you don't know what works, you can't build a good list. Still.) List-building is the other half of the game of 40K: creating effective armies from the options available in the various codices. Whereas generalship is an open-ended skill entailing vast numbers of interrelated choices, list-building is much more finite, but also much more precise; the addition or removal of a single Meltagun is a much more important decision when it is multiplied over the course of every game in a tournament.

List-building is a skill of interactions of a list of elements: do I have enough anti-tank to serve my purposes? Can I expect to move quickly enough to get to objectives? How do I deal with each of the major army archetypes in the game? (Metagame is a factor in list-building, but not to the degree that many people seem to think. You want to avoid being grossly disadvantaged against common foes, but building to beat them is just folly.) Do I have a sufficient selection of tools to allow me many solutions to different problems? Am I sufficiently resilient that my army will still be functional after a round of bad luck? Notice the repeat of the word "sufficient" above: wringing every last drop of efficiency out of a list is the goal of list-building, and that always involves making choices of balance of the different elements. There are no "perfect units" that do everything we need without weaknesses for minimal price; there are always tradeoffs to be made. Whether these trades are worth it or not is largely the determiner of whether a unit is good or not (in a particular list.)

Good list-building is born more out of theory than generalship is, although it still involves plenty of experience, albeit of a different type. Like generalship, it comes from extensive practice writing various kinds of lists and assessing their success on various fronts. Skill at list-building does not come without some testing, as it is important to determine what works and what doesn't, but it is not particularly dependent on the actual quality of play involved. (Always remember: winning a game doesn't mean you played well, and losing doesn't mean you played poorly.)

Is list-building really a different skill than generalship? Yes, it is. You can have a strong sense of how elements interact with each other and how the game functions without having the presence of mind and intuitive knowledge to be a good general. Likewise, one can have acute strategic instincts and an exhaustive list of strategies to use without really understanding the numerics of how different units compare in terms of efficiency. Of course, in the real world you will virtually never find someone who is extremely good at one without at least some skill in the other, but in theory it is possible- more commonly, there will be varying degrees of imbalance between the two. A good general with poor list-building (and that refuses to use other people's lists) will consistently win with subpar armies; a good list-builder with poor generalship will do mediocrely with good armies- undoubtedly most tournament players have met one of these people at some point.

So how does all of this result in internet arguments? In my eyes, it all comes back to the "I won therefore I'm right" fallacy, or in more general terms, "Army XX has done well therefore that proves it's awesome." Good generals can take poor (or, more commonly, mediocre) armies to victories, thus "proving" that they're good. I have long said that I don't accept the validity of individual results without a good structure of theory to explain them- this is why, despite CSM, Orks, and Daemons having taken many victories at top tournaments, I do not believe they are good armies. It's not simply a matter of "It shouldn't be good in theory therefore I must invent a new theory"- I am well aware that the factors that make for a good army are varied and complex; what is worthless in one codex may be gold in another, and what appears terrible may actually be quite useful. However, all too often these explanations boil down to "you just don't understand my army," with no further description of how these factors work- and I am a firm believer that if you can't explain how something works, you're not making a convincing argument about it and very well may not fully understand it yourself.

(And just to make things clear: this article is not intended to be an offhanded jab at Fluger, Jarelli, or any of the other people I have argued with recently or in the past. I am not trying to imply that they are bad at one or more of the above and thus, by elimination, that I am right. While I may consider myself to be a pretty reasonable list-writer, I am by no means the best and there are still many, many things I am trying to wrap my head around. I am wrong just as often as anyone else and my words should no more be taken as gospel than anyone else's.)

User Content Wednesday - Learning to Love Losing

The King Elessar was one of the first bloggers I started following on a regular basis once I figured out that forumitis was a communicable disease.  He probably also had a psychic hand in my subconscious when it came time to pick an army that would take me two years to paint.  As useful as his Eldar specific advice was to me, I was always a bigger fan of his general gaming philosophy.  This little bit on losing is one of the treasured and rare rants on the internet with a focus and actually makes a point. 

TKE is currently in posting hibernation, but hopefully some renewed interest in Mindwar FTW will get him to at least forage for berries more often.  


Notes:  I've added pictures to liven things up. Oh, and because he'll mention it, Kirby posted this once as well.

In order to be a Competitive Player of this game, this is a skill you require.
In order to be a non-Competitive player of this game, this is a skill you require.
In order, basically, to not be a dickhead - this is a skill you require.

No-one LIKES losing, in of itself, of course.  It's ingrained in our genes - feeling like a failure isn't something any of us set out with the ambition to do, and it hurts.

However, losing is simply the best way to learn.  If you steamroll all your opponents with your list, then find better opponents, or tweak your list slightly.  Maybe they are intimidated by your army/reputation? Swap armies.  Mix it up.  Hell, buy a new army, whatever.

If you never find yourself taxed in games then you will not only never improve, you will probably stagnate and get worse.  When a player eventually DOES come along who is better than you (and it will happen eventually, unless you quit first) you will be the one getting rolled...and you will almost certainly be a bad loser from your lack of familiarity with it.




Often in my articles, I have a thought and segue off into a tangent loosely connected to something I just said.  I'm trying to cut down on that rambling a bit, but this must be said - a LOT of Comp-based environments stem from this sort of thing.  People who think they are awesome get a harsh slap of reality in the face, and react in the wrong way.

If you lose, the first thing you must look to blame isn't the dice, isn't the system, isn't the opponent, isn't their 'cheesy' army, the weather, the alignment of the stars, or even your horror over the worst song ever [thanks a LOT Rebecca Black, I will never get those 3 minutes back...]

Blame YOURSELF.

And then, be a fucking adult, and deal with it.

Sure, any or all of those could be factors in your defeat.

However, the list one is also YOUR fault, not theirs.  If someone takes a more competitive list than you, and you don't think that is 'fair' somehow, then you should have revised your expectations at the outset of the game.  Even if, in your arrogance, you didn't bother to read their list before the game began, you should have THOUGHT at Deployment.

If it's a friendly game, no-one is forcing you to play if you KNOW your list isn't able to compete, and you can't stand losing.  In a Tournament game? Man the fuck up, dicksack.  If you're playing a sub-par list in a Tourny, then you shouldn't expect to win every game.  I'm not slabbering, but Stelek of YTTH, more than most players, likes to say he's very good at the game - but does he then take a sub-par list to Tournies to further prove his leetness?  No, he fucking does not. [Note - Stelek VERY clearly IS a very good player. No drama here!]

Ahem.

There are a number of excellent articles on places in my BlogRoll about managing your expectations before the game, so I'm not going into that in any detail - but it IS vital.  Know what you want from a game before it starts, and ASK YOUR OPPONENT what they want if unsure.

If you want a tight, hard-fought, challenging Competitive game, then go for it.  That's what I enjoy.  Sure, everyone likes to table the guy who always moves too far and is 'hazy' on rules, years into the Edition - but that's a very temporary pleasure, that mostly comes after, not during, the game.

If you want to tell a tale of derring-do and gallantry and stuff...play WFB.  :p
Nah, but if you want an Epic Story of a game, make that clear, and be aware it requires BOTH players deliberately sacrificing tactical ability in the name of 'fun' - something that is entirely subjective, and can still be readily ruined by the dice.  If you want an EPIC FIGHT between Logan and Draigo, but can only reach to charge that Halberd-armed GK between you and DRAAAAAAIIIIIIIGGGOOOOOOOOO, then get splatted by the Force Weapon? Suck it up.  Yes, it ruins the spectacle, but don't be a dick by saying so.


Does that cover it?

Are we clear?

If you don't want to play Competitively, it is your choice, and you should learn to expect losses against those who do, and should roll with them.  It IS just a game after all, as Srs Bsnus as Warhams is, you have to go with it, and not be That Guy...or you create a system that punishes players who have a different mentality, group together with like-minded individuals, and enforce this way of playing on half a continent.  Who's the bad guy again?

If you DO want to play Competitively, then relish losses more than wins.  People judge you on how well you take losses, especially when they know you were aiming for a competitive battle - and it doesn't matter if you got trashed.  In fact, if you thought you had a decent list, and got trashed by an inferior list, then you SHOULD take yourself off for 10-15 mins after the game.  Have a coffee, smoke, beer, whatevs.  Have a bun or cookie, treat yourself.

While you're off chilling, get a pen and paper, or a dictaphone if you're snazzy like that, and record EVERY single thing you think you did wrong.  After that, find your opponent, and ask for their opinion on what you could have done better.  Compare these notes, either with them, or later if your pride prevents this (get over it) and build on these flaws in your game.  Strength Through Adversity.

If you win, it is a LOT harder to notice mistakes, and even HARDER to be sure of them.  Knowing you didn't play perfectly in a win is easy, but pin-pointing it takes a laser-sharp focus that most people aren't capable of. I can do it sometimes, but I don't mean that in a boastful way - I've had a LOT of practice trying to do it.  Even then, often as not I find myself unable to be sure...or, worse, unconcerned.

Learn to Love Losing, because Without Losing, Learning is Limited.

User Content Wednesday - 40k Theory: It's All About The Numbers

Nikephoros has absolutely been blowing people's faces clean off with math over on Bringer of Victory lately.  Many of you have probably already seen some of this, but clearly not enough of you.  The dude deserves more than the 93 followers he has at the moment.  So check the inaugural post of the 40k Metrics series out, then go to Bringer of Victory and see some actual science.

Actually, between this and Monday's calendar essay, I think I could have done another theme week... 

Note to GMort:  Create time machine and then go back in time to tell yourself to write a post on some math related topic. 

What is ballistic skill?

I mean, what does it really mean in terms of winning and losing on the table top?

Absolutely nothing. Quantity of fire in Warhammer 40k is usually far superior to quality. At very least it's equal. So what am I getting at? There is no correlation between winning and ballistic skill. The army with the superior average ballistic skill shouldn’t (assuming the game is properly balanced) have any advantage over one with a lower average ballistic skill.

This is the inherent problem I've been wrestling with mentally. When players compare units/armies/lists they are, generally speaking, comparing irrelevant metrics. So what that Khorne Berserkers have 3 attacks each? So do Orks, and you can get 4 Orks for the same price as one Berserker.

Not a single stat on the units' stat lines give you the faintest hint of if it will make your army win or lose more games by using it. Even when you factor in points, it's mostly irrelevant. As I said in the moneyball article, none of the "stats" in a unit's stat line are correlated with wins on the tabletop. So we really can't use those stats as a metric for measuring a unit's effectiveness.

Warning: numbers ahead

So what is correlated with wins on the table top? Ability to kill infantry through shooting and close combat; and the ability to kill light mech and heavy mech through shooting. Those are what matters. Got a unit that can't do any of those things well? You have a useless unit that is losing you games, regardless of the points. Got a unit that does all of them well? Awesome! How many points does it cost? Too many probably. The key is tempering the usefulness of the units with the cost.

OK, so how do we measure "effectiveness?" Remember when all the rage was posting an army list and then totaling up all the heavy/special weapons it had to demonstrate its firepower? That was a step in the proper direction. But it was dumb. OK, your list has 12 missiles and 6 lascannons. What does that mean? Is that better than 11 missiles and 7 lascannons? Is it better than 36 heavy bolters and nothing else? What I’m getting at was those lists were meaningless without a benchmark.

My solution, and I stress again that this is crude and has plenty of room to be improved upon, is to breakdown four relevant statistics...

Dead MEQ from all out shooting (DMS): Assuming that you are firing all your guns at optimal range with max firepower. Rapid firing at 12" with heavy/special weapons getting to shoot. How many MEQ does mathhammer say you kill on average per turn? For flamer templates, assume 4 hits. Small blasts, 3 hits. This metric measures a unit's ability to kill infantry with shooting. Are there other factors? Sure. Conditions won't always be optimal. Some units do better in suboptimal positions than others. Combi-weapons present a unique problem. Assume that combi-weapons do not get to fire for these purposes.

Dead MEQ on the charge (DMCC): Assuming you get the charge off, how many MEQ does your unit kill per turn? Pretty easy, and the best way to measure a unit's close combat prowess. I know that it favors power weapons and makes certain units super strong vs MEQ that are bad against Orks. I'll address the special issue of power weapons later. But as a baseline statistic, this is the simplest way to create a relevant close combat measuring stick.

Dead Rhinos Per Game (DRPG): Not strictly correct according to the name. What we are measuring here, assuming the unit fires at non-covered Rhinos for 5 turns at optimal distance, is how many penetrating hits will it score against against AV11 in a single game. Remember, optimal distance can be 48" or it can be 6" depending on the unit.

Normally, this is a shooting only category. However, certain melee units are geared in such a way that they are incredibly dangerous to rear armored AV10 vehicles. A wolf lord with thunderhammer on a thunderwolf mount will kill vehicles. A Carnifex with the right mods laughs at Land Raiders. A unit of Nobs with Power Klaws kill vehicles short of Land Raiders with ease. I would consider a Deff Roller in this category, too. If a melee unit is commonly used for anti-vehicle melee attacks, I include their assault potential in this section. This is somewhat controversial, but some armies (Orks, Nids) count on their ability to kill vehicles in melee, and it would only be fair to include their stats. However, to keep the numbers relevant, I've limited the CC to 15 "dead rhinos per game" to 15, as they will only be able to affect at most 5 vehicles per game, and it takes 3 penetrating hits to wreck one. So if you mega-nobz could do 85 penetrating hits per game against Rhinos, in reality you will kill 5 Rhinos at most, hence a score of 15.

Dead Land Raiders Per Game (DLRPG): Same as above, but for AV14.

Let's take a common unit, 6x Long Fangs with 5x Missile Launchers. Its stats would be...

DMS: 2.48
DMCC: 1.48
DRPG: 8.25
DLRPG: 0

Compare it to a 5x Space Marine Devastator Squad with 4x Missile Launchers

DMS: 1.98
DMCC: 0.91
DRPG: 6.6
DLRPG: 0

So the Long Fangs are significantly better at killing light mech, slightly better at shooting MEQ, and better on the charge. And they are cheaper in points. Clearly, this system is decent at measuring the effectiveness at unit superiority in this case.

Let's compare two units that fulfill central for their armies but look quite different...

5x Grey Hunters with meltagun and WG with combi-melta

DMS: 1.65
DMCC: 1.42
DRPG: 3.73
DLRPG: 2.38

5x Fire Dragons

DMS: 2.8
DMCC: 0.54
DRPG: 15.51
DLRPG: 9.90

Is it surprising to anyone why every Eldar list runs 3 units of Fire Dragons now? We understood before that FD are good. Now you can see that they are very good, in black and white. Grey Hunters are described as jack of all trades units that go anywhere, do anything. These stats bear that out. They have decent game in all 4 criteria we care about. Not bad for a troop choice! Let's see how they stack up to a "bad" troop choice, Dire Avengers. We will assume the DA Bladestorm every turn they can, and thus only shoot 1/2 of the turns.

10x Dire Avengers with Bladestorm

DMS: 1.64
DMCC: 1.09
DRPG: 0
DLRPG: 0

Yeah, DA suck. We knew that. These stats bear it out pretty well. Make Grey Hunters look pretty good, eh? At this point I'm reasonably happy that we can at least crude measure the effectiveness of unit's offensive capability. This is a good start.
__________________________________________________
Potential criticisms/flaws and how I address them...

Defensive ability: This system doesn't measure a unit's defensive abilities. I don't care. Defense doesn't win 40k, offense does. Upon looking deeper into the game design mechanics, the points cost of units are very strongly correlated to defensive ability and not correlated very precisely to offensive capability. English translation: we pay extra points for defensive ability, not so much for offense. Therefore, we don't need to take defensive capability into account, because as you'll see later we will take points cost into account. And since points cost is positively correlated with defensive ability, by taking points cost into account we are taking defensive ability into account.

Close combat metric favors power weapon units. Yup. A 5 man MEQ unit with power weapons will kill a couple MEQ on the charge. They will also kill a couple of Orks. Good against marines, not good against Orks. As far as I'm concerned, the only proper way to address it would be to add a "dead Orks per turn" metric, which is ridiculous. Beating up Orks in close combat says very little about an army's ability to win games. Beating MEQ in close combat does.

Lascannons are better than Missiles: We know that on a 1:1 basis, Lascannons are superior. 20 Lascannons will have higher DRPG and DLRPG than 20 Missiles. But when you factor in the points, as described below, you'll see how the stats change. This system is adequate to explain the superiority of missiles. Plus, you'll see how much more effective missile are at shooting MEQ outside of their transports and begin to see that versatility matters, and is adequately accounted for in this system.

MSU are favored by this system: No, MSU are favored by the 40k ruleset. This system just proves it, and expresses why in hard numbers. Who is surprised that 2 units of 5 with 2x meltaguns are better than 1 unit of 10 with 2x meltaguns? Are you really going to argue that?

Mobility isn't factored in: Yes it is. Mobility, like defensive ability, is strongly correlated with points. Rhinos are a mobility provider, defensive provider that add almost no offense. Their points cost is thus completely correlated with mobility and defensive ability. Razorbacks/Wave Serpents are similar, except you can precisely see how much extra you're paying for offense. The offensive ability of Jump Pack Assault Marines is the same the same Assault Marines on foot without jump packs. The price difference is what you pay for mobility. So when we discuss points below, you'll see that mobility is accounted for in this system.

Points: Yes, Grey Hunters are better than DA. But what about when you take points into consideration? How does this system address points? Easy. Choose a point level. Buy as many of those units as you can for that points level. Compare the aggregate score. It takes more than 3 Dire Avengers to kill as much in close combat as 1 Grey Hunter. If you can't buy 3 DA for the same points as 1 GH, it's fair to say that point for point GH are better at close combat. Shooting it’s a bit closer, but the advantage is still squarely with Grey Hunters. This is, incidentally, where we see that horde armies are or not balanced against msu/elite armies. It will also show why 30 Orks will kill a lot more than 5 GH in this metric, but you will also note that the 30 Orks are twice as many points as 5 GH.

Foot lists: Yes, you can design foot lists that “beat” this system by having more heavy/special weapons due to saving points on transports. However, until a foot list wins a competitive format GT there is no benchmark for what aggregate scores a competitive foot list has. When a competitive footlist wins a GT, we’ll have a stick to measure all other foot lists against. Suffice to say for now, that a footlist has to exceed a mech list in all categories by a good amount in order to be competitive. If you have a foot list that has lower aggregate scores than a GT winning mech list, you can bet that your foot list won’t be winning any GTs. Please note, I don’t count tyranids as a foot list, because they were designed to be competitive with mech lists, and their aggregate scores should be similar.
___________________________________________________

Now let's talk whole armies, which is what this is all about. You can add up the aggregate score for the four categories of the two armies and compare them, like I said. This is useful. But we need to set some benchmarks for what a “good score” is. What I would like to do is take the top 4 armies at last year's NOVA and create the aggregate scores under this system, and see how they stack up. And then we would have a benchmark of proven winners in an indisputably competitive GT setting that we can use to benchmark any 2k list against. We will see if there are any lessons we can learn, by comparing what ratios favor winners, what ratio leads to losers.

We can use that info to do some data-mining that competitive 40k hasn't seen ever before. We can for the first time see, in accurate precise numbers, how much melta you really need to bring to kill enough Land Raiders to win. How many Rhinos do you need to be able to penetrate per turn to win a GT? Right now, players bring as much or as little as they feel comfortable with based on experience and "feel." We'll know the precise answer to that, in numbers. This level of precision, even under my crude measuring stick, is entirely new to 40k analysis.

My hypothesis is that winning armies will share common traits and be very balanced. My other hypothesis is that losing lists will be very imbalanced and also share some common traits, or lack thereof. Time will tell whether I'm right or wrong, but I am excited to have the answer.

Let’s break down 4 of the undefeated NOVA lists.  My Excel sheet is here if you want to see my raw data.  Like I said above, I had to make a lot of assumptions and your assumptions may differ slightly.  My mathhammer may have some errors, but they should be the all wrong in the same direction, so if there are mistakes they will cancel out in the end and our conclusions can remain solid.  Let’s see the aggregate numbers for the armies…

Tony Kopach (Space Wolves)

DMS: 19.28
DMCC: 28.29
DRPG: 59.18
DLRPG: 17.04

Andrew “Stelek” Sutton (Space Wolves)

DMS: 25.05
DMCC: 24.82
DRPG: 64.80
DLRPG: 19.27

Justin “Dashofpepper” Hildebrandt (Orks)

DMS: 18.90
DMCC: 45.75
DRPG: 80.00
DLRPG: 31.04

Mark Ferrik (Blood Angels)

DMS: 22.21
DMCC: 15.15
DRPG: 82.35
DLRPG: 33.74

What do these numbers tell us, especially in light of knowing how they performed. We can see how similar Tony and Stelek’s armies were in scores, as you’d expect. Stelek’s list was very MSU based as he is wont to do. As a result, his shooting scores are generally better than Tony who adopted a hybrid approach between MSU and maxed out units. Tony’s list has a better close combat score, but not hugely so. Basically, Stelek traded away CC ability for more vehicles and better shooting. Tony sacrificed shooting ability for close combat punch. But the armies ended up with scores that were close enough to demonstrate that it came down to generalship and luck to determine the winner.

The mech Blood Angels list is interesting. Because it spent a lot of its points on vehicles, it has low close combat ability, compared to the two Wolf lists, despite Mephiston. However, it sacrificed that for more anti-tank ability. It has a very lot of melta weapons and its vehicles provide excellent anti-light mech capability. Comparing the army’s scores to the others, we would predict that it would do well against mech heavy opponents, and perhaps struggle to kill large infantry units or deal with strong CC units. The results bore out that hypothesis. In his only loss of the tournament the BA list was “too aggressive” and “got too close” to the enemy and was beaten in close combat. This is an inherent weakness in the list. Its main anti-tank has a 6” effective range, but it doesn’t have exceptional close combat ability. We can figure, the shorter range your anti-tank weaponry is, the better at CC you should probably be in order to deal with that inevitability.

Dash’s Orks present something much different than the rest of these lists. While there are two small Loota units, almost all of the anti-mech ability comes in close combat in the form of Power Klaws, Burnas, and Deff Rollas. This is obviously a liability against an opponent who has fast vehicles, but a skilled general can deploy and move in such a way as to keep that from being used against him. Also, the key to his entire anti-tank strategy are the Battlewagons. If you don't stop his battlewagons by his second turn, he is going to destroy all your vehicles quit quickly. You can also see that if the Battlewagons are gone before he takes his second turn, his anti-tank potential is gone, because not only does he lose the Deff Rollas, but his Nobs and Ghaz lose their ability to get to the tanks to do their damage. So why do Dash's Orks win, despite Orks being "bad?" His army can kill infantry in close combat by the handful and assuming he gets the first turn, he has almost no problems killing vehicles. The only real weakness is shooting MEQ, and the dependency on his battlewagons to 'turn on' this strategy. All in all, his numbers aren't far outside of what we would consider normal, at least in this sample of clearly good lists.

What I'd like to do next is compare the scores in these lists to lists that went 0-4. It would be very valuable to get that information for comparative purposes. I believe MVB will be getting that to me, and I'll post it up.

So if you made it this far, congrats. Comments? I'm sure there will be some.

edit: army lists are found here.  Thanks to Danny Internets for publishing them. 

User Content Wednesday - Are You In an Abusive Relationship?

The House of Paincakes is coming dangerously close to having 300 blogs on the rolls.  As you can well imagine, finding posts to promote and figuring out how to give everyone a chance at some fame is an increasingly hard task.  Thankfully, our long standing policy of "the squeaky anus wheel gets the grease" has served us well once again.  Frontline Gamer recently joined us and recently squeaked a bit.  I think the article we're posting is one of my new favorites.  It's a poke at GW, but the exact kind of poke that we like at the HoP - intelligent and funny. 

Over the last 5 or so years I've slowly watched all of my fellow gaming buddies become steadily disenfranchised or disillusioned with the hobby... no sorry lets clarify, the Games Workshop. I watched Chris 'the cursed' Tapper go away time and time again to Warhammer Fantasy Tournaments and come back saying he had a good time, only then for him to tell me what happened and him realize he was only enjoying the beers on the nights out after the gaming. I've watched others grow tired of the price gouging and the annual price hike. I've watched as people realize that the tactics in 40k pretty much stop at army building, I've seen gamers grimace while reading the Dark Elves or Space Wolves army books. I've watched as the Games Workshop have systematically trashed their two core systems and pissed gamers off...


Willow Road, off of Lenton Lane Nottingham



So why am I telling you this? Well I'm telling it you because as an outsider, or someone who played games by other companies I've always felt that the Games Workshop games were something I was choosing to do myself and that therefore my views of these screw ups Games Workshop keep making are quite different. You see I found them funny and tragic at the same time, I've never really had a hatred or anger that some have felt, sure I was pissed off that Matt 'minimum wage' Ward, who must be paid in peanuts so gloriously screwed up Fantasy, but to me it was the final confirmation that the Games Workshop no longer wanted me as a customer. They don't want affluent geeks because we're hard to please and they know they can't do it. Others though saw it as a personal slight or attack; Why? Well its partly to do with something that does annoy me about wargaming here in the UK, I say UK because I'm not sure its the same for the rest of the world... its a phrase, 'alternative wargamming'.

Mark Wells, CEO Game Workshop

Let me explain, you see whenever I mention other companies product people say 'oh you mean alternative wargamming' hell even a manager at the Maelstrom once used the phrase to describe everybody else's products to me as did a Bagttlefront sales rep!!! That very phrase is psychologically interesting because it supposes that the Games Workshop IS wargaming and that everything else is somehow either not wargaming or different, niche or some how 'less' even 'inferior'  or a copy of the original. Its obviously utter bollocks but it does show the state of mind that most hobbyists find themselves in here in the UK. Well I say the use of the phrase 'alternative wargaming' should stop right now!!! There is Games Workshop wargaming and then there is wargaming in general, there is nothing 'alternative' about me playing Infinity or Warmachine, nothing at all; hell Warmachine is over a decade old now, its established and will no doubt soon become part of the establishment itself.

So what the hell am I rambling on about? Well I've been seen as either a herald of doom or a prophet of wisdom locally depending on how you look at it, because I've evangelized about Infinity, Warmachine or lately Spartan Games products. To Games Workshop zealots I'm an evil demon (notice there's no 'A' in the spelling of that word!) sent to tempt them with lies and falsehoods to turn them from virtuous gaming. Then there are those whose faith is faltering and who are no longer willing to sacrifice their hard earned cash at the Games Workshop alter (the till), to them I've been a bit of a hobby saviour. I'll admit at first I was doing it for purely selfish reasons, I wanted more victi... sorry opponents to play, however slowly that changed. Last night I realised that actually its no longer about getting 'fresh meat' into other games its now about helping people get their love of the hobby back.

I went to Warlords of Walsall gaming club, its not the biggest, but it is well attended, by decent gamers. I went to promote Dystopian Wars, Firestorm Armada and Uncharted Seas. What I was met with is what I've been met with before, people not enjoying their hobby. People playing 40k and Fantasy and both players on both sides of the table looking glum and miserable. I asked a few whether they were enjoying their games and the question itself seemed to flumox a few, but those who did answer me in something other than a grunt said 'no'. So I asked 'so why are you playing something you don't enjoy?', this question is one I've often employed, its a similar question to one used by counselors to try and break into the mind of somebody in an abusive relationship... because that's what the Games Workshop hobby has become for many. Think about it, they treat you like shit, take all your money and give you very little in return and then because you don't do anything about it, next year it escalates and they do more of the same to you, just worse and if you complain the staff say its your fault you're doing things wrong its not them!!! If that's not an abusive relationship I don't know what is!!!


Thing is the analogy doesn't stop there, oh no. The response of these hobbyists are quite eerily reminiscent of those who are in abusive relationships as well:

  • I love the hobby (I love them)
  • There's nothing else out there (I've got no one to turn to)
  • What about all the money I've spent on my armies? (What about the kids?)
  • Other games / models aren't as good as Games Workshops (He's nice when he's not beating me)
There are other answers, but they're pretty much normally along those lines IF the person isn't enjoying the hobby. People are basically scared of buying into a game that might not be supported, or played by others. They also believe the crap the Games Workshop staff peddle about their miniatures being the best and their games being the best, the other part of the abusive relationship, mental torture and brainwashing.

So I'm here to help, I'll only help those who clearly want help though. So what happened last night? I watched a room full of gamers get their interest in the hobby back, I watched them look at miniatures from the Infinity range and gasp as they said 'they're better than Games Workshop models' and a saw people confused by the detail on the surface of Dystopian Wars boats and utter the words 'this is resin? Its not like Finecast *pause* I like it'. I watched people who were refusing to spend money on their hobby talk about buying fleets and starter sets and discuss how they were going to do awesome colour schemes. I saw them play these games and enjoy themselves, I heard phrases like 'this is fun', 'its actually got tactics', 'they're that cheap!!!' and 'they give the rules away for free?'. Yep it gives you a warm glow when you help good gamers break the cycle of that abusive relationship, its good to help gamers get their hobby back and its great to see them enthused and happy about toy soldiers again.

So this is my plea to fellow wargamers out there who know of wargamings wider patchwork of great games and awesome hobby options, get out there and help a fellow gamer out. Look if those panda's can help each other out so can we!!! We've all been there, we've all felt violated as we hand cash over to receive an expensive pile of crap we didn't really want. We've all sat playing games wandering why am I so bored, why is this game so lame, is there something wrong with me? Well we can help other gamers realise its not them, we can show them that there are options out there if you're willing to break that abusive cycle. We owe it to our fellow gamer to help them get their love back for the hobby and besides, there's always a need for new opponents. Peace out!

User Content Wednesday - 40k for Dummies: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

Hey guys, sorry for the delay in today's User Content Wednesday.  It's been a busy week at work and all the time I set aside for 'professional development' has been eaten up by a massive project.  With the excuses out of the way, we'll move on to the good stuff.  Today's post comes from a series that's been running over at Gone to GroundDave has been creating some pretty nice little primers for the new guys.  Be sure to check out the whole series after you enjoy this one:


I know it's been awhile since I've written a 40k for dummies post, but I read a post over on GDNMW's blog that got me to thinking.   I think one of the biggest new player mistakes might come in the false understanding that a solid or powerful army list will win games.  This is purely a falacy.  While creating a solid army with no apparent weaknesses helps out a whole lot, an inexperienced player or an inept player will still lose.  Like the title insinuates, your list doesn't win the game for you, you do.

Because real life responsibilities and demands cut into my gaming time, I do a lot of my 40k playing on Vassal.  I have found that Vassal is a hot bed for new players wanting to learn the rules and try out wacky lists without the consequences of throwing down large quantities of cash only to not have their investments pay off.




In my experience, the patented interwebs lists that appear on Vassal are almost always played by new players who don't understand the nuances of strategy or do not have a complete rules knowledge.  In the end, I come away feeling like I just gave a wedgie to the nerdy kid and then took his milk money.  The point being, in most cases, these players lose because they don't know how to use their armies. 

Even a sub-optimal army can be used effectively.  A good player that knows the rules and how to use them to put together a cohesive strategy will more often than not win.

So, if you are new and you have bought the latest toys for your army and you are still losing, answer these questions:

1) Do I know the general rules for 40k well?
2) Do I know my army's rules well?
3) Do I know common methods for stopping my army, unit, vehicle, etc.?
4) Does my army have any apparent weaknesses? 
5) Can I stop my opponent from exploiting my weaknesses?
6) Do I see how the individual pieces of my army work together to build synergy?
7) Is there a single unit in my army that I can't afford to lose?  What happens if I lose that unit?
8) Can I readily identify my opponents' weaknesses?
9) Can I put together a strategy to take advantage of my opponents' weaknesses?
10) Can I adapt my strategy when things are not going my way?

These are just 10 questions that it would behoove a new player to consider during a game.  Notice, almost all of them connect directly to strategy and tactics.  Notice, that none of them refer to list building concepts like force org charts, points allotments, etc. 

If you take away one things from this post, it is that you need to know your rules.  Know them so well, that you can quote them.  Tab pages for rules to make them easier to find.  Read codexes for other armies as well.  Once you know the rules and how the game works, the tactics come fairly readily.  Thanks for reading.  Let me know if I missed something.