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. 

Read More »

User Content Friday - Better Playtesting: Running The Gauntlet

Nikephoros has been dropping some excellent science about better playtesting over the last month.  In short - we're doing it wrong.  In any case, the HoP is proud to present the first in what will, hopefully, be a longer series over at Bringer of Victory.  Be sure to check out part 2 if you dug this.  Oh, and bonus 3++ linkage today so Kirby should be happy.

Like many 40k players, I used to be a competitive Magic the Gathering player, and for a short time I was on the Pro Tour circuit. I never won more money than I spent on the trips, so the whole thing was a losing proposition unless you think of traveling to exotic locations to play Magic as a real vacation. Some do, I don't. Tournaments I got eliminated on Day 1 were usually a blessing in disguise because it gave me a day to go out and sight see the place I spent so much money to travel to.

Pictured: early playtesting efforts

Regardless of my boring life story, there are so many valuable lessons I learned about competitive gaming that can carry over to 40k. The biggest lesson in my mind is playtesting. I've mentioned elsewhere that I seriously doubt anyone playtests enough to get useful quantifiable data to make the right decisions about their army composition. There are two problems that cause this.

1. The games take too long to play to play enough games to get lots of data.

Solution: Only play 3 turn games. Play a 4th and a 5th turn only if the game is close. If one player is clearly winning by turn 3, don't waste another 45 minutes finishing the game. Consider it a loss in the tally and move on to the next one. By using this method you can get double the amount of games in per time unit. Also consider playing speed rounds where a player turn can go no longer than 10 minutes. Yes, you will make mistakes. But much like playing Blitz Chess will make you sharper at normal Chess, speed rounds of 40k will make you better at normal 40k.

2. Difficult to find like minded competitive players with enough range of armies to playtest against.

Solution: Proxy proxy proxy. So what if they are Blood Angels, let them be Wolves for the purposes of playtesting. There is no reason to limit your playtesting due to a lack of armies. And while a playtest group of 4 is ideal, two people can garner useful results. Heck, if you have the minis, playing against yourself is not a totally worthless idea if you can maintain objectivity and avoid biasing the army you want to win.

So OK, you're on board with playtesting and have a group of 4 guys of like minds and roughly equal skill. Between the 4 of you, you can at least proxy every army. Great! Now that you have the hard part out of the way, you have to do the easy stuff: creating a playtest gauntlet.

The fatal flaw most people make when creating an initial gauntlet is making the initial gauntlet armies fully optimized. This is worthless. The goal in playtesting your tournament army is not to see how it will do against ultra specific army builds. It's to make sure it can handle all comers. This is the 'proof of concept' stage, not advanced tweaking.

You create major army templates you expect to encounter with simple, unoptimized lists. If your tournament army struggles to beat the simple gauntlet armies, there is no need to move that build forward against optimized lists. If I were creating a gauntlet today it would look like this...

1. Razorwolfs with 5 or 6 squads of grey hunters, 3 squads of Long fangs, Rune Priest, and a choppy HQ with some combat support Thunderwolves.
2. IG Chimera Spam list with lots of special weapons.
3. 4 Tervigon Nids
4. Daemons
5. 180 Boyz Orks

Like I said, these lists don't have to be optimized, they just have to be representative of the army types you'll face. They are varied enough to represent the range of opponents you'll face. You play test your tournament list against each of these 10 times. You want to average a 60% win ratio over the 50 games, and you want your worst match up to be no worse than 40%. A bad match up where you're winning less than 40% of the time means your list is flawed. Back to the drawing board, write a new list. Let's assume you have a proper all comers list that have a win ratio vs. the gauntlet of 65%. Great! The list has passed the proof of concept stage, it works and is ready to go.

Now comes the tricky part. You need to look at the data of your gauntlet against not only your list, but also the lists of your partners' armies and see which Gauntlet lists did the best. If there was a gauntlet list that stood out as very strong. Say, for example, that the 4 Tervigon nid list did especially well. You and your three buddies' tournament lists only managed 45% against it combined average. This is a sign that it's a very strong archetype, and an optimized version will likely show at the top tables. If the gauntlet version did exceptionally well, you should seriously consider using an optimized version as your tournament list.

So second level of playtesting begins. You take the top 3 performing gauntlet lists, and fully optimize them. These will likely be the sort of lists you will see at the top tables. You play 5 games against each list and note your win percentages. Make tweaks to compensate for any of the three lists you were weak against. Play another 5 games. Hopefully the tweaks improved your list vs it's weaknesses without hurting it against what it was beating more easily. Repeat this process until you do not have any bad match ups, only better match ups. By the end of this process your tournament list should be beating all 3 lists with a 60%+ win ratio. If your group is crushing any of the optimized lists in the gauntlet by over 75%, that list probably shouldn't be in your second level gauntlet as it is clearly too weak to be considered a legitimate tournament threat.

So. Much. Data.

So what happens once your tournament list is beating your second level optimized gauntlet lists by 60%? You're prepared to go compete to win the tournament with the knowledge that you play tested smarter than anyone else there (except your partners) and you've learned what is required to beat every major archetype. Can things still go wrong? Sure, you could get crushed unexpectedly by some random Necron list that happens to give you a bad match up. Or perhaps there was a major gauntlet archetype you didn't consider testing against that you should have. Nobody can playtest perfectly, but approaching it scientifically gives you an advantage over your opponents before the first dice is rolled.

Read More »

User Content Friday - Treating Your Army Like A Business Part 3: Project Management

Kennedy from 40k for the New Professional has slowly but surely been writing a top-notch series on a unique and very cool approach to army building.  Essentially, he's directly porting best business practices to virtually every aspect of building and playing an army.  While his focus is on 40k, the tennants of the 4 parts he's written so far apply to everything.  Today we're posting part 3 since it's my favorite as it totally saved my life or some shit.  Well, that's quite a bit of hyperbole, but it did give me a lot of help in dealing with my own mass of unpainted space doodz.  Be sure to check out Kennedy's other stuff as well as parts one, two and four of the series.

So, Project Management... What the hell is that? Well, I know that it can mean a lot of different thing in different contexts, but for me and for the purposes of this article, I'm talking about juggling the different tasks that are involved in moving towards a larger goal. Vague enough?

Ok, let's go to an example. Let's say you've split your army building into several stages of 500 points each so that you can get stuff assembled and painted for an escalation league or something. You've got some stuff done, some stuff is on the painting table, some stuff is still being assembled and some stuff is stiff on the sprue in a sealed box. Another example would be if you're building a Warmachine army, a 40k army and a Warhammer Fantasy army at the same time. The question, of course, becomes how do you manage a couple of different tasks at once?

Before I answer that, let me explain WHY you might want to do multiple projects (or multiple parts of a single project) at once. This has the benefit of giving you a break from certain activities (like if you prefer building to painting or vice versa). An additional benefit is that it gives you options (especially if you're working on a couple of different armies or systems at once). Occasionally, it can even increase your productivity by allowing you to get excited about different tasks and move directly to them instead of remaining stuck in a rut.

Here's where I step in as your guide. There are loads of ways you can go very right and many places you can go horribly wrong. I can't really come up with a good way to organize this other than just making a numbered list (ooh my favorite!), although the numbers (in this case) should not imply chronological order.

1. Don't bite off more than you can chew
Pretty simple, yeah? Well, I'm gonna go ahead and answer that question with a negative. Gauging what you can personally do accurately is something that everybody tends to do poorly. We always tend to think we move a hell of a lot more quickly than we do and we also tend to think we are gonna have more time than we usually do. Unfortunately, random setbacks and obstacles will cause you to move much slower than you'd like while time gets sucked into little things (those extra 5 minutes you spent in traffic, that 30 minute conversation with your mother that you didn't plan on, the extra 10 minutes you need to thaw out a particularly frozen targ steak).

There's really only one way to combat these things is to consciously adjust yourself to thinking you'll have much less time than you think and overestimating the amount of time that everything will take you. This has the added bonus that it will make you happy when you end up with a bit of extra time or when you get a lot more done than you had planned. However, it is pretty difficult to force yourself to be pessimistic in this way.

2. Incremental progress = win
In order for to make this process make any sense, you need to make sure you're always making progress. When you are doing multiple things at once, it's easy to get bogged down or feel like you're lagging behind. Thus, it is vitally important that you push forward with at least a small amount of progress each day. This kind of progress helps you to not fall as far behind. However, it's only a stopgap in the most extreme situations.

Part of the point of juggling different tasks is that it lets you take advantage of your own preferences and allows you to move several things at once. It also allows for flexibility because you can postpone one thing if you're making a lot of progress on something else. However, doing that means that while you get ahead on one thing, you're falling behind somewhere else. If you're going to go one thing at a time, you should do that instead of trying to do several things at once. The temptation will be to abandon your neglected projects.

3. Use project management to make your life easier, not harder
Don't use multiple projects in a way that's gonna make you frustrated or pile on an insurmountable amount of work. Use it in a way that it's a tool for you. Let me give you a good example and a bad example. Bad example first.

I started working on a Khorne Chaos Marines army. After I made a little progress, I decided I wanted to make 3 more CSM armies (one for each god). I built and did some of the painting for each army while playing mainly the Khornate CSM. As a result, I got sucked into a vortex of trying to build and paint way too much. This made sure that I never got any of the armies fully built or painted. Project management fail.

Right now, learning from my mistakes, I have a Tyranid army in the building stage, some Legion of Everblight stuff holding in the painting stage and some additional Marines (Space Cops!) and Dark Eldar in the planning phases. I have a manageable load, and when I want to work on one thing or another, I can switch gears and get some stuff done. I'm making progress in all arenas (although ever so slowly in the painting stages), and I'm not getting frustrated with stuff.

4. Don't use project management as an excuse
Above, I mentioned that many times some projects will get stuck in a limbo while you rapidly advance on others. Let me give you an example before I talk about how to avoid it.

You know Bobby. He's your local BAngels player. He's been working on a his BAngels army for quite a while now. He has a bunch of units built, some in a state of half-constructed and a very few that are painted. Bobby is slowly making progress on getting the rest of his guys done. However, the Dark Eldar have caught his eye. He buys up a bunch of minis and starts building them. All progress on his BAngels ceases...

We've all seen this trend, and it sucks to watch someone abandon an interesting army as the going gets tough. Sure, you might be tired of painting red power armor, but if you come to a complete stop, you'll never start up again. It's simple inertia. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. An object at rest tends to remain at rest. You want to keep all of your projects in motion.

What you don't want to do is answer the question of "Why haven't you made any progress on your ______?" with "Well, I just bought a whole bunch of other stuff and I'm working on it instead." You want to slow a little when you take on other projects. If you're gonna abandon something, don't try to hide behind a new project.

5. Give yourself rules
Just like in other applications of this principle, set yourself up for success by giving yourself conditions you have to meet. If you have something you don't want to do, incentivize yourself by setting up a reward for good behavior.

Example: If I paint 20 guardsmen, I can assemble my new Dark Eldar Raider!

By setting up this kind of conditional allowance, you can push progress along on two progress. It's really nice for when you have good willpower but really hard if you hate what you're trying to set yourself up for. You have to know yourself very well to pull this kind of trick off. If you really don't wanna paint 20 guardsmen, you may never get to that Dark Eldar Raider or you may just skip the guardsmen and move on.

Well... I'm sure I've missed some stuff. If you think I really screwed up, call me out. Otherwise, I'll have something new to pique your interest or offend your delicate sensibilities soon.

Read More »

User Content Friday - Battlewagon Tactics : Deployment

The Antipope has written an interesting 3 part series about how you Ork lovers can get the most out of your battlewagons.  Now, we're only posting the first part due to space constraints, but be sure to check out part 2 and part 3 over on 122nd Cadian.  Also, do yourself a favor and poke around the rest of the Antipope's archives - there's a lot of great stuff for all you servants of the Emprah as well.

One of my precious Battlewagons

So here is the list I'll be using for the upcoming Greek GT (unless I figure out something better or someone convinces me that it really sucks). But how am I going to use it and try winning some games? This is the ways I figured out how to play the army after a year of using similar lists.

For the deployment part, the principles are simple enough. If you win the dice roll at the beginning then give first turn to your opponent. On the other hand most people tend to go first so this works for you if you lose the dice roll. It might sound a bit suicidal but hear me out. This list is very good for flanking your enemy and directing the game on the side you want. So you must know where and how he sets up his forces. If you don't know where he is going to deploy his units then you totally lose that element and you are going to be in for  a few nasty surprises. You'll probably end up chasing fast skimmers across the board. After all you'll have 1/6 chance to go first after all.

The exception here is if you play in a Spearhead setup. In this case the deployment options are much more limited. Just stick your Battlewagons 12'' from the center and you know that the opponent is just going to be in the opposite side.

Try to deploy as far away as possible from his big guns. Put some terrain between your vehicles and his Railguns/Lascannons/Lances and maybe you'll deny him Line of Sight. Never deploy in the middle of the board since you'll probably get shot at the side armour from both sides this way. Stick to just one side for most of the time. Some of his guns maybe out of range and only one Battlewagon is really exposed.

Against outflanking units you'll feel like sitting between a rock and a hard place. I've played against outflanking Khan Space Marines and outflanking Vendettas and it's not a nice experience. Not knowing where he is going to come from leaves you unprepared and you can get shot in your exposed side and rear armour. One solution is to move all the Battlewagons in the middle of the board and then turn them sideways so their front side is facing at the short table edge with the fifth vehicle in the middle. This way the one in the middle will get 3+ cover and the other ones will probably get a 3+  cover save if they get shot in the rear armour. This is an example using Vassal:

 

Screening

The Battlewagons should be protected or else you won't be winning any games. It is obvious that if you take them away then the army loses it's mobility. No mobility means no objective contesting and not getting close to enemy units and killing them in close combat. Keep them safe at all costs even if you are putting other units in harms way.

Against Alpha Strike heavy armies this can be very difficult. If your opponent is bringing melta wielding Vets inside a Vendetta in your face on the fist turn or throwing two drop pods full of combi melta totting Vanguards in your rear armour then the chances for your Battlewagons to survive are slim.

A form of counter measure is to use the large boy mobs and create a wall around your vehicles. if placed properly they could even deny your opponent arriving within 12'' so he won't be able to use his melta guns. This is a rough example using Vassal:

 

 

Lets look at the following scenario. You are playing against Imperial Guard. The army includes three Vendettas that are carrying Veteran Squads with 3 meltaguns. Your opponent can move them using their scout ability 12'' away from your Battlewagons before the game starts. On his first turn he moves them another 6'',Veterans disembark withing 6'' of your vehicles and can now use 2 dice for their melta penetration rolls. You will now have to withstand 9 twin linked lascannon and 9 melta shots. Unless you are extremely lucky with your cover saves you might lose all five of them in a single round of shooting. Not good!

In order to prevent this you will deploy the boys outside their vehicles. 5'' away (so the Vendettas cannot fly over them and fit in the gap) from the hulls and 3 rows of boys with the maximum, 2'' for unit coherency. Now the Vendettas cannot go anywhere near the Battlewagons so meltaguns are going to be out of range.

Similar tactic can be used against a drop pod heavy army or a Jump Pack army (Blood Angels do this extremely well). Deploy your vehicles with their rear armour 3'' away from the long table edge and the boys surrounding them. Your enemy cannot even shoot at your rear armour now and the boys will keep the meltas 6'' away. Now he has only 1/9 chance to destroy or immobilise a Battlewagon.

And to end this with a cliche: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  Going to battle prepared can give you the edge but it certainly does not guarantee the win. Outside these guidlines there is a lot of improvisation in every game and also thinking on the spot.  For example I have yet to play against the new Nids so I will try to figure a plan there and then.

Read More »

User Content Friday - It’s Like Tactics: Interwebz R Wrong about Mechanized

Fluger posted this up on Blood of Kittens about 2 weeks ago.  I thought it was so good that it deserved a second go around.  Kinda like the Deathstar in a way...  I have two naive hopes for this:  1) a different cross-section of people will see this and 2) it will spark intelligent discussion.  In any case, food for thought and be sure to check out the comments section of the original posting.  There's some good stuff in there as well.

Get ready to post lots of angry comments! I’m about to challenge a notion so central to 5th edition that people take it like its obvious. The notion? Mechanized is almost infinitely better than basic infantry. Now, I’m not talking about things that even the most “competitive” of list builders gives a pass to: bikes, jump pack units with FnP, long fangs, etc…

I’m talking about honest to goodness infantry that walks everywhere and is usually equipped with basic weaponry. I’ll use this article by Kirby as an example of the mindset I’m arguing against: http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-mech-foot.html

Essentially, his argument boils down to these few points:

1. Mech is more survivable
2. Mech is faster

I think this quote encapsulates this mindset the best: “Foot is just too static and has to deal so much more damage to a Mech army in a mobile and defensive enviornment that they just can’t cope.”



First off, I want to talk about running counter-meta. I know that meta is a dirty word to some people, but if you don’t think there’s a trend in army building, you aren’t paying attention. Mech is the king of tournament army builds. Its, by far, the most common army type seen out there right now. And, let me be upfront about this, there IS a reason. I’m not trying to say mech is bad in this article, mearly that infantry are certainly useful even without their rides. They are ESPECIALLY useful when the majority of your opponent’s army is geared to beat mechanized armies. Take a peak at the armies advocated by Yes the Truth Hurts and 3++ is the New Black. They invariably include lots of Autocannon, Missile Launchers, and Meltaguns. Weapons designed to crack open transports and regular vehicles. What happens when that weaponry has to try and take out loads of infantry? Well, with the proliferation of cover saves in 5th edition, odds are they are going to have a hard time killing enough infantry to matter. If you have enough models out on the table, those weapon’s are going to suffer because they don’t have enough volume of fire to take out the models shooting back at them. If those infantry models can damage vehicles either in combat or with ranged shooting, then those vehicles are going to be in trouble.

Now, lets go after the two points above. First, lets look at survivability.

As an example, a lascannon fired by a BS 4 model has a ~15% chance of destroying a Rhino Chassis vehicle and a ~28% chance of killing an infantry model in cover. Yes, the vehicle is more survivable in terms of simply not dying, but the difference is that the vehicle can become useless with even just a glance. A vehicle that can’t fire or can’t move (depending on its role) is a useless vehicle, even if its just for a turn. When you factor in the odds of getting a result on the vehicle with the lascannon the odds jump to ~56% or ~28% if the vehicle is in cover. So yes, in terms of taking out the vehicle completely, vehicles are typically more resilient (as they essentially have a 3++ save against penetrating hits to live), but, as I’ve stated before, you don’t have to kill a vehicle to make it a non-factor.

Another factor on vehicles that make them less survivable as touted is melee. I’ve heard innumerable people claim that vehicles are simply immune to melee because: 1. the infantry will never get there and 2. bubblewrap and 3. vehicles that move over 6″ are hard to hit. Before I dive into those counter arguments, let me talk about damaging vehicles in combat. This was one of the places that the switch from 4th to 5th hurt vehicles as in 4th, vehicles took melee damage from whichever sides the attacks were coming from, but in 5th, all attacks go to the rear armor. Very few models in the game have rear armors that aren’t 10, and all the most popular vehicles do have AV10 in the back (Rhinos, Razorbacks, Chimeras, Chimera-chassis artillery, etc…). This means that they are fairly susceptible to assaults. The main reason for this is that vehicles don’t have WS and are hit based on how much they move. A stationary vehicle is auto-hit, and if you have enough attacks, that vehicle is going down. For instance, if your force has Krak Grenades, it should take only 10 grenades to take out most vehicle reliably, but only 2 to reliably get a result on the vehicle. Compare that with the lascannon shooting at the Rhino Chassis, which needs about 7 shots to take it out, and you can see how they are fairly comparable.

Now, the counter arguments: The first one I think I’ll save for the next section on mobility. The second one about bubblewrap I find interesting because it is using infantry to protect vehicles to protect infantry. A list-building strategy of mine for a long time has been, “instead of spending money on a unit to protect a unit, buy more of the original unit.” This isn’t always the case, but I think its odd to use infantry to protect vehicles when it should be the other way around. Now, bubblewrapping is a fine idea; but I think it suffers from allowing the assaulting player to sandbag assaults. What I mean by that is that if you can open up a hole in the bubblewrap (and, usually, bublewrapping units aren’t very tough) with some anti-infantry shooting, then you can assault the vehicle and the bubblewrap in such a way that you still do the damage you want to the vehicle, but are locked in combat in your opponent’s turn, meaning you can’t be shot. Essentially, you can plan ahead for bubblewrap units and deal with them before the critical assault or even at the same time. Also remember that you ignore the 1″ away from enemy models rule while assaulting, so unless your opponent has his models spaced <1″ apart, you can sneak through them to what you want to assault anyway. Not saying bubblewrap is worthless, just that you can also be smart and outmaneuver it if you are smart as well.

To the third point, now, obviously a vehicle that is moving around is harder to hit in melee and the numbers change, but that presents new issues for the vehicles; namely that the vehicle can now shoot less than it could before. Again, this depends on the vehicle, as fast vehicles can move quickly and still put out a lot of damage, but for the majority of vehicles, this isn’t the case. Also, the vehicles need a place to GO in order to be mobile. With a board full of terrain and lots of enemy bearing down on them, perhaps there aren’t as many good places to go.

Which kind of segues into my next section: mobility.

Now, at face value, there really is no question as to whether vehicles move faster than infantry. 12″ vs 6″ is case closed. However, there are other factors that need to be examined. First of all, unless the vehicle is fast, if it moves 12″, it won’t be able to fire its weapons; and regardless of type, if it moves over 6″, the models inside cannot fire either. So, if you are looking at mobility in terms of mobile firepower, you aren’t really gaining much by putting a unit in a vehicle other than what the vehicle brings to the table, and, in that case, what is the advantage of having the unit in the vehicle? Now, vehicles do offer the move up/jump out/shoot stuff ability that just walking wouldn’t allow; however, by doing so, you expose yourself to counter-attack and counter-fire, so you better be sure you kill all threats if you do that (or at least cripple them).

Another factor to consider is running. Now, I know that its random, and therefore you can’t always rely on it, but if you go by averages, an infantry unit that is running should move about 9.5″ a turn; or, in other words, 2.5″ less than a normal vehicle. In a 6 turn game, the vehicle can move 72″, and the running infantry should move about 57″ for a total difference of 15″ on average. What’s really important is that in terms of “crossing the gap” towards your opponent, you should reasonably be assured you can assault them if you’re on foot by turn 3 in most cases (we could get into blocking and stuff , but for now, just accept that the infantry should be able to assault then). Also, perhaps the infantry unit doesn’t have to move all the way to be effective. A common tactic with Marines is to move into the middle of the board with Tacticals in a Rhino and shoot out of it with a multimelta. You can accomplish something very similar with a tactical squad on foot by moving and running turn 1, and then shooting. Yes you are exposed to firepower, but you don’t run the risk of having the Rhino get glanced and not be able to shoot from inside (a very real possibility). Its important to note that a running unit and a unit in a vehicle moving that fast both will be unable to shoot.

However, the main thing about mobility is that its overrated. Unless you’re playing special missions, there are two goals in 40k: holding objectives and killing units. In the objective-based missions mobility is certainly important in going out and holding the objectives in the center of the board; but not as much as you’d think. As long as you deploy the objectives close to the potential deployment zones (basically about 12″ up and maybe 24″ in, then you can reasonably be assured that you don’t even HAVE to move to be holding the objectives. This goes even more so for the “roll dice and tie” mission (thanks to 11th Company for using the term and Dice Like Thunder for picking it up from them, I’m so proud!) where you just plop it in your deployment zone. Essentially, by doing this, you put the onus of movement on your opponent, not on yourself. A similar mindset evolves in a kill points mission. Unless your opponent has overwhelming firepower dedicated to killing infantry, odds are, they aren’t going to be able to kill enough of your models at range, especially if you are trading blows with them at range. The best way to clear out lots of infantry is in combat, and that requires your foe to come to you and assault you.

Essentially, if you design your list properly and use appropriate tactics, lack of mobility isn’t an issue at all, and the points you saved on not investing in it can go towards more stuff that can help you out. Now, I’m not saying you should eschew mobility completely, but you just don’t need it on everything.

Lastly, in terms of vehicles out-maneouvering infantry; if you are an assault based infantry force like Nids or Orks or even walking Space Wolves; you can easily use your army to sweep your opponent into a certain place and engage there. What I mean by that is that the board is limited in space and at a certain point, they can’t keep backing away from you and you can pin them into a corner (or two, if they split up). You can do this by having your force arrayed in basically a multi-pronged advance that will force your opponent to go where you dictate. At a certain point they will need to try and make a breakout to one point or another, and that’s when you pounce on them.

Here’s a few more thoughts to go with this. I like transports that you don’t lose infantry model count on when you buy them. For instance, I think Rhinos are great because you don’t have to take a smaller unit to use them. Essentially, adding a Rhino to a 10 man tac squad doesn’t change the unit in any way, just gives it more flexibility; but if you made the unit only 5 strong and put it in a Razorback, you lose out a lot on the utility of the unit itself. Chimeras are also good in this way as you only gain by adding a Chimera to the unit.

Large armies composed mostly of infantry require more precision and patience than vehicles by dint of the fact that you are going to be deploying and placing more models. You still have to deploy carefully and move carefully, but you have to do it like 10 times more than if the army was all mounted. In that regard, infantry-heavy forces require MORE tactical acumen in my opinion as you have more chances of making a mistake; and this is why I think that we don’t see as many of these armies making it, as it is easier to be precise with fewer models.

Another issue with mostly infantry is simply time. In a tournament setting, moving tons of little guys is a lot more time-consuming (especially if you are playing carefully), and you might end up not finishing your round in time, or getting rushed to move poorly. This is not to be taken lightly, as it is a valid concern; but the only way to beat it is practice with the army so you can move models with more confidence.

Finally, when you build forces that are without vehicles, I think the most successful units are going to be those that are resilient and have good firepower. They either gain that resilience through good armor/high toughness, or sheer numbers. Either way, you need units that can take punishment and deal it out as well. Best example I can think of is big, joined Guard units. 50 T3 models in cover is a tough nut to crack for almost anything, especially when they have 5 lascannnons in they’re taking out vehicles left and right. I also think Shoota boyz are great at this role, and termagants with devourers. I’m also thinking that FnP Kalabite Warriors are going to be able to do this as well.

Now, I want this to be perfectly clear. I am NOT saying that mechanized sucks or that mechanized is a weak way to play; it’s obviously successful, but I think a lot of that has to do with people playing lists that make sense to them and fit their game-style. I’m hoping people take to heart what Tasty was getting at with his most recent Dark Eldar article and look at ways to build lists that don’t require transport spam to win. It takes a paradigm shift, but I know its possible.

Read More »

40K basics: Are you using everything in your toolbox? By Sonsoftaurus

Today we're bringing you a nice, broad-spectrum tactics article/think piece from sonsoftaurus of Sons of Taurus.  Not only do we like that this article is well thought out and gives you some important food for thought, but also because it uses the word "tool" more than anything else read before it.  ~Dethtron

In 40K every unit in 40K has a variety of things it can do - some obvious, some not so obvious. Whether you're building a list or in the middle of a game, keeping the toolbox of options and abilities in your mind can help.

Most people have at least some idea of what they're going to use their units for when they build a list. This unit is to hold an objective, that one is to bust open tanks, that one is to assault stuff, and so on. But in many cases they're just looking at the top section of the toolbox, the commonly-used screwdrivers, pliers and the like. Pull that top section out and root around in the bottom and see what you might be able to do with the Allen wrenches or an angled nut driver.

Just flip through the rulebook and find a section to look over. Is there something there you may be able to make use of? Do you have a way to counter someone else doing so?

Take a few simple, but fundamental examples.

• Line of sight (LOS). If someone has something behind LOS blocking terrain that you have to take out, do you have a way to do so? Perhaps something fast enough to get to it quickly, a different deployment type like Deep Strike or Snikrot, or a way to hit them regardless like indirect fire? On the flip side, are you taking advantage of LOS, protecting your units where possible?
• Movement. While most things in 40K can move, many players only see movement as a means to one of their own ends - getting into range to shoot or assault, or getting to an objective. But it can also be used to deny the enemy from achieving their ends by doing things like blocking access to objectives or getting throwaway units in the way of desired assaults. Your units aren't just a collection of shooting and close combat attacks; they're also little bits of partially-impassible terrain that you can shuffle around the battlefield.

The toolbox is part of the reason why mechanized armies can be so powerful. They gain their player access to improved or extra tools (potentially faster movement, tank shock, mobile terrain) as well as rob their opponent of the use of their own tools (via inability to target transported models).

Everything is about either giving yourself a tool to take advantage of, or denying the enemy the use of theirs. You take units with good armor saves to give yourself the ability to ignore a lot of damage, but the tool of low AP or a power weapon can take that ability away from you, etc.

What tools do you find to be especially useful? Is there something you often take advantage of that others often overlook?

Read More »

Math- Can't Truss' It

You know an article is going to be awesome when the title contains a Public Enemy quote.  Those of you that have been following my work on Dick Move already know that I'm a sucker for math.  I enjoy a good round of mathhammer nearly as much as a game of Warhammer.   Statistics and probability are things that you really need to have a grasp on to elevate your game.  Knowing the odds of killing an enemy, surviving a reckless action, or passing a leadership test are invaluable in my own decision making process.  I won't lie and say that I always calculate the exact odds of accomplishing what I want, but I know that if I want to take down a Landraider with missile launchers, it's going to take more than just a handful of shots to do it. 

Don't fret if you're not math savvy.  Heresy Online has a good 40k combat calculator that can help you out of a jam. 

Having said that, I will also let you know that I am extremely mistrustful of the application of probability to a game of Warhammer.  Frankly, you are rarely going to be rolling enough dice at one time for the outcome to logically follow predicted outcomes.  Perhaps something like Khorne Berzerkers on the charge come close, but keep in mind that rolling 20 is less likely to behave as we would assume, but rolling 1,000 dice would probably yield pretty close to average results.  Rolling an infinite number of dice will yield average results. 

Here is a real life example based on a series of highly improbable events that happened to me recently.  It's centered around these assholes here:

Yeah, these assholes

This past weekend I got a chance to play my first game of Warhammer Fantasy 8th ed against my good buddy Hoagy.  He already went to the trouble of making up a battle report, so if you're interested in reading it or seeing more pretty pictures of mostly unpainted miniatures on my desert board you can read it here.  For me, the game was fraught with bad luck from the outset.  Turn 1 saw my cannon misfiring itself to death after my Lvl 4 Life Wizard miscast and killed 3 greatswords while resurrecting 3 crossbowmen- not a good trade off to say the least.  Over the course of the next few turns I lost both my other artillery pieces (a mortar and a Helstorm Rocket Battery) to misfires- it was a small game and I was more interested in trying out as many things as possible than having a cohesive army, so I didn't have a lot of artillery and didn't get to spam anything. 

Anyway, let's crunch the numbers on my suicide artillery.  I took a total of 5 shots over the course of the game.  3 of those were fatal misfires. 

• 1 result on the artillery die is a misfire, so the probability of rolling a misfire is 1/6
• 1 result on the misfire chart (a roll of 1) results in a wrecked piece, so the probability of being wrecked is 1/6

Noting the above, the probability of an artillery piece getting killing itself with a misfire on a single shot is 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36

This also means that the probability of not killing itself (inclusive of non-destructive misfires) is 1 - 1/36 = 35/36. 

Since in my particular case I got 2 shots off and died on 3 others the odds of that happening were:
(1/36)^3 * (35/36)^2=  1,225/60,466,176 = .00002026... or odds so low that my calculator just had to resort to scientific notation.

I stood a 0.00203% chance of exploding my 3 war engines over the course of 5 shots.  Ordinarily when you fire a cannon or what have you, you assume that you're going to the shot off.  Statistics even tell you that you have a 35/36 (97.2%) chance of at least not destroying yourself.  Seems like a pretty safe gamble.  Hell, I'd take odds like that in Vegas all day long.  Sadly, just because something is likely to happen doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to happen.  Despite the fact that there was nearly 100% certainty that I would not lose all of my own units to misfires, it happened.  Shit happens. 

And that my friends is the moral of the story.  Shit happens.  Despite your best efforts and confidence in  statistics, you can't expect all of your rolls to behave as predicted.  Even if you know that firing 10 lasgun shots at BS3 will yield 5 hits on average, it is still possible or even likely that you will get 4, 6, 10, etc hits when you roll.  At the same time, even though I know that shooting a single missile at a Landraider at BS4 only stands a 11.11% chance of glancing, so it's not worth the effort if there are other viable targets.  If anything is to be learned by this, it's that knowing your stats will help you to make logical decisions, but don't be surprised when things don't work out quite as you expected.

So there you have it.  Anybody else pulled off any ludicrous rolls?  Got advice for applying stats to your game?  Inevitable math errors to bitch about in my calculations?  Sound off in the comments section.

Read More »

Tactica: Warbuggy vs. Deffkopter

For the HOP staff, its not a question of whether or not Orks suck but rather a question of what color of green should you go with.   Mercer over at Imperius Dominatus also felt that the age old rivalry between dune buggy and personal helicopter also needed to be addressed - Ork Style!  As part of our continuing quest to promote the HOP network members, we bring you the entirety of Mercer's post on the subject with minimal edits.

Here's a article to possibly end the debate of which is better; Warbuggy or Deffkopter!

Warbuggy
Starting with the Warbuggy here; its got a Ork Trukk like profile so armor 10 all the way round open-topped and fast. That costs you 30 points base. You can add wargear onto the Buggy such as twin-linked rokkits, skorcha, red paint job, grot riggers, armor plates and upgrade to Wartrakk. For comparison purposes I'm looking at a single build for the Warbuggy; the Rokkit-Buggy.

Pros
The Warbuggy is fast which means it can move 18", though this isn't massively useful and I'll explain why in a minute. More importantly is can move 12". Throw in that 24" range rokkit and you've got a 36" tank busting unit.

It's very cheap on points costing 35 in total, which is half the price of a single Deffkopter.

You can upgrade to a Wartrakk which allows you to re-roll terrain tests, this makes the Warbuggy 40 points but is still a bargain buy.

Being a vehicle it can take advantage of a Big Meks kustom force field giving it a 4+ cover save, and who doesn't use one of those?

Unlike Deffkopters, Warbuggies don't take morale tests.

Cons
The Buggy is fast, no doubt about it, but moving 18" is partially wasted as the Buggy cannot fire and will be out of kustom force field range so no cover save, so part of that speed you're paying for you may not use.

Being armor 10 and having a rokkit strapped to it means this unit is a weak like paper and a high priority target. Even S4 weapons can wreck it if they manage to glance it and then roll a 6+ on the vehicle damage chart.

Unless upgraded to a Wartrakk the Warbuggy has the same chances of bogging down in terrain like any vehicle, while rolling two 1's in a row for terrain is bad, a Wartrakk can still fail and that Buggy is now hung out to dry.

With weak armor the Warbuggy can be easily be assaulted and taken out in assault without any real defense.

Tactics
You could run Warbuggies in squadrons of 2; these gives two rokkit shots per unit while still costing the same price for a single Deffkopter, so 2 Warbuggies for the price of one. However, remember the squadron rules which means any immobilized vehicle is wrecked. So take damage or even get stuck in terrain, then it's bye-bye Buggy making this weaker vehicles even weaker.

When deploying the Buggies always make sure they're in KFF range; this should be a no-brainer. If you're deploying first, put the Buggies up front of the rest of your lines so they can get closer to the targets because they are in KFF range. You'll get a cover save just in case your opponent does manage to seize the initiative. If you go second, hide them behind other units as the Buggies are a low profile model.  Even without a KFF, 50% of the front should be covered giving you a nice 4+ cover save too.

First turn zoom them out from behind your units (if you went second) or move them forward in tandem with other units. Battlewagons or even Trukks make great LOS blockers to these so shield them well but remember to change angle of your Battlewagon so it too can get a 3+ cover save from certain angles of attacks ;) . If you haven't got any mobile LOS blockers then use terrain with best effort to make sure the Warbuggies are covered or at least get a cover save.  Though, in theory, the Warbuggies should be in range by turn 1 anyway, besides in Dawn of War deployments.

With the Buggy being fast and having range you should be able to flank a tank's side armor, but keep away from it, you don't need to get close! Blast from afar and use two Warbuggies per tank to make sure the job is done. Even with twin-linked, Orks still aren't that good at shooting. Other targets are viable too, Warbuggies are excellent for knocking wounds off monstrous creatures (AP3). As with vehicles, keep your distance as you've got 24" range and a monstrous creature would make a mess of a Warbuggy in assault.

In objective games and providing you have any surviving Warbuggies, use them to contest objectives which you haven't claimed. Use them to do the job required (busting tanks and monstrous creatures) once done hide them away and use them as a counter unit, send them forward and get those objectives!

Deffkopter
The Deffkopter is pretty much the same as a Warbike except it has two wounds and is counted as a jetbike, which is pretty cool. As standard it costs 35 points and wargear options are twin-linked rokkits, kustom mega blasta, bigbomm and buzzsaw. There's only two I'm going to pay aby interest in; the rokkit and buzzsaw.  Though buzzsaw isn't essential, but it is a high priority purchase.

Pros
As a jetbike the Deffkopter can move 12" and still fire, it can turbo boost 24" and get a 3+ cover save. With rokkits that gives a nice 36" range.

A Deffkopter has scout rule which means it has the ability to first turn alpha strike and knock out high priority targets before the game starts, or outflank and tackle weak tank side or rear armor.

A Deffkopter can fight in assaults. Take a buzzsaw and you've got a S7 power fist on the charge. Excellent for tying up annoying units (i.e Zoanthropes) and increases your chances of taking out a enemy vehicle when doing a alpha strike.

It's got two wounds and T5 so small arms fire will have some work cut out. Throw in it's 4+ armor save too.

As a jetbike, it doesn't need to take terrain tests when moving over terrain.

It has hit and run so if you do manage to pass that initiative test you could charge back into the fight.

Cons
The T5 is only good against small arms fire, S8 weapons can instant death a Deffkopter.

It costs double the points of a Warbuggy if the 'Kopter has twin-linked rokkits and a buzzsaw; just a rokkit costs 10 points more.

Deffkopters can take morale tests and falling back 3D6" isn't cool.

You'll find even without a buzzsaw it will strike last in combat, so it can take a pounding against the wrong sort.

It the Kopter lands in terrain it's counted as dangerous terrain, roll a 1 and take a wound

Tactics
It's best to run Deffkopters in units of one, though for redundancy always take two units at least. The reason for single units is this makes you mostly immune to morale tests; kill 50% of the unit and the 'Kopter could flee and won't return as it's under 50%.

When deploying if you go first, put the Kopters at the front of your lines. Then use the scout move and turbo boost them towards high priority targets (remember in scout move you've got to stay 12" away).  If deploying second, either hold them in reserve for some outflanking fun or hide them. But remember, Orks don't have reserve bonus so they might not turn up until turn 4 which robs you of valuable anti tank and ranged fire power. Best bet is hide them out the way using other models to block LOS or terrain, then let the enemy come to you and once in range move 12" and blast those 24" range rokkits. If you do feel brave and daring maybe scout and get 3+ cover and weather the storm. Maybe. I have been in the situation before where I did this and the enemy concentrated all fire on my Kopters which left the remainder of my force without any damage, but 70 points per Kopter is a lot to throw away.

Depending if you take a buzzsaw or not, tactics may differ for how you use a Deffkopter. If you are taking just rokkits then use the same tactics as a Warbuggy, which is stay 24" away so you don't get assaulted and flank tanks side armour - you've got range and movement so use it. If you're taking a buzzsaw you want to move up, fire rokkits and then assault. Assault tanks or, as mentioned, tie up annoying units. If you are going to send Deffkopters into large-ish infantry - say Tactical Squad size - make sure you send two Deffkopters for the job as that's two separate units the attacks need to be split on, meaning less wounds per Kopter and you'll get to use those buzzsaws before your Kopters snuff it!

Like a Warbuggy Deffkopters are excellent for contesting objectives late game, but they are a bit better because they can turbo boost 24" and get a 3+ cover save which makes them more survivable. Once a Kopters job is done, hold them back and hide them. Then, for the last turn(s) of the game, turbo boost and contest objectives.

Summary
Both the Deffkopter and Warbuggy are a awesome piece of kit. Both do well for the right role. In this case, tank busting for the purposes of this discussion. Both have one more con than pro for each, though the Kopter has one more of each than the Warbuggy which still balances out. Both of them have weaknesses and strengths.

The main problem for me is the weakness of the Warbuggy, bolters can pop it. However, torrent a Deffkopter with a single Tactical Squad then they might get lucky. The Warbuggy can get cover if a KFF is range, though a Kopter can get a better cover save but that means no shooting (turbo boost).

While the Warbuggy is cheap and cheerful, the Deffkopter has a few more advantages - it doesn't take terrain tests (unless it has too) and can alpha strike taking out units before they even start - it has double chances of doing this because it can assault. But if a Warbuggy fires and misses, then tough luck!

Verdict
The Deffkopter appears to be the better choice of the two. The 'Kopter can absorb marginally more small arms fire but suffers the same weakness from high strength weapons as a Warbuggy. It's ability to alpha strike is the main card for the 'Kopter giving it two chances to wreck something rather than one. Though, the Warbuggy is still pretty cool and is a lot less points than the Deffkopter, just the 'Kopter has a few extra advantages.

Just as an added little bit to this - if anyone else has an article they think deserves wider recognition or even if you have a totally original piece, feel free to send it to us and we'll see about getting it posted up here.  Not everything will be accepted, but aside from the objections of the grammar police, we're pretty open to your ideas.  -Lauby

Read More »

Balanced Army Lists: The Truth (Part 2)

And now the much anticipated second part to Kirby's Balanced Army Lists: article from Monday:

Now that we’ve got an understanding of what a balanced list is and specifically what it is not, let’s debunk a few of the myths about a balanced list. The biggest one for me is they are “point and click” armies. This is a load of bollocks. Look through the blog archives of 3++, YTTH, Mind War FTW, 3+ save, Blackjack & Hookers, etc. How many tactical concepts are discussed/analyzed over these ‘point and click’ armies? A metaphorical ton. Whilst using a Mech IG or SM list might have similar premises in board control and will be easier to play than a 24” Eldar mech list or Foot BA list, they are by no means simple. If an army appears point and click and plays that way on the table the army is either a gimmick/rock army (I.e. Shrike termies, Lash Chaos, etc.) or is being run by a poor general. Look at Stelek’s ambush article. Point and click that thanks.



This is one of the biggest misunderstandings of balanced lists or 'net'-lists. Sure, you can go to the above blogs and grab a good list based on the blogs' reputation and know it does well in theory. This does not mean you will do well, even if you are a top-notch general. Practice and understanding the concepts behind the army are very important and cannot all be explained on paper. Whilst you can have a complete theoretical understanding of an army, nothing helps as much as practice. This is where the whole 'point and click' issue comes in as well. Individuals seem to operate under the pre-conception that using net-lists is simply taking an army someone else has made and it wins games automatically. Wrong. The list might be good; however, skill and understanding is still required to make the list work and by no means is it as simple as 'point and click.' As an aside, there is nothing wrong with using someone else's list from the internet. The internet is to share knowledge after all and as long as you don't try and claim you made it yourself...well, good on you for recognizing a good list when you see it. I'm sure most people don't cook from scratch either, you use recipes others have made?

In lieu of an interesting picture related to balance, please enjoy these rocks.

Another misunderstanding is that balanced lists (with the competitive understanding) aren’t fluffy. Once again, I call this complete bollocks. Although taking three similarly armed Dreadnoughts or having a pure-Veteran army, etc. may not combine perfectly with the fluff in the codex, the fluff can fit whatever army you want to create. Thanks, GW, for letting us make our own fluff within the boundaries of your IP. There are also instances where balanced lists fit the fluff mold perfectly. Vanilla Bikers and BA Jumpers are two prime examples which are both very fluffy and very balanced. Un-fluffy also does not mean a balanced list from the hobby perspective. Look at mixed legion Chaos which is generally un-fluffy but can be a terrible list. Remember, rules were written for the game, not the hobby. Both aspects (gaming and hobby) can be applied to 40k and Fantasy. They are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, spamming the good stuff =/= a competitively balanced list. Taking six squads of Plague Marines, for example, isn’t going to lead to a balanced list even though they are a decent, good Troop choice with some of the best anti-tank in meltaguns. You need to have an army concept in mind and, as mentioned above, be able to deal with every single phase of the game whilst operating with a cohesive list. A list needs to have good anti-infantry and anti-tank whilst also being mobile (or limited their opponent’s mobility) and having appropriate levels of shooting and must either be good in combat or be able to delay/block/ignore good combat units. Add in being competent in the magic phase for Fantasy lists and simply spamming units without thought isn’t going to lead to a balanced list. Spamming may be unpleasant in terms of diversity but also doesn't signify competitiveness.

A reiteration - balanced lists =/= auto win. We covered the point and click myth and I briefly mentioned this in the introduction but it needs to be said again. Whilst balanced lists promote (and are capable of) dealing with any list which is put down against them, this doesn’t mean they automatically win against non-balanced lists or un-optimized lists. Balanced lists are the pinnacle of army list creation in Fantasy and 40k but non-balanced lists are certainly capable of beating balanced lists when better tactics are used (or the dice gods cast their favor upon them). This is an important part of being a general, no matter what type of list you take, play what's on the table. It may be crap but you must ensure you understand what your opponent is using, how it operates and how you can defeat it. Without this understanding, a balanced list isn't going to help you (again, not point and click).

And finally, 40k and Fantasy are balanced systems in their new editions. I see a lot of people complaining neither is balanced and some armies are always going to over-powered compared to others (I.e. Skaven, IG, SW, etc.) and therefore asking what the point of a balanced list is. Although some older books sometimes have difficulties in adapting to the new rules, the new rule-set and army books released by GW have created a huge “logjam” in terms of the top army in either system and there are a lot of armies which can create top-notch competitive armies. This is capable thanks to GW producing externally & internally balanced army books and some of the older books transferring well to the new editions. It is important for the gaming system to be balanced as it currently is for balanced armies to be capable. If the rule-set has certain imbalances some books will be able to take advantage of this and exploit it. This does not exist currently in 40k or Fantasy as much as people would like to believe.

To summarize. 40k & Fantasy are currently balanced systems due to their new rule-sets and latest army book releases. This promotes and allows the use of a balanced list which is a "take all comers" list rather than cheesy/OP/WAAC/etc. A balanced list is competitive and doesn’t rely on gimmicks or rocks and is capable of defeating any army put down on the table-top. At the same time it’s not a point and click army and does require extensive thought to use but is capable of competing in all phases of their respective games either offensively or defensively. This is done through utilizing an army-wide concept and ensuring multiple units can fulfill multiple important roles. Whilst hobby players may be more inclined to call balanced lists armies which have a spread of unit choices, this is balanced only in terms of unit choices rather than army efficiency. Although this leans towards the competitive understanding of gaming I propose we make a concentrated effort to encourage the labeling of balanced lists as competitive lists with the properties explained above. I believe this is more effective for the community based on the definition of balance and how a competitively balanced list embraces this definition compared to a list with a balance of unit choices.

All right assorted fans of wargaming, this brings us to the end of our first guest article.   If you've never heard of Kirby's 3++ (and I highly doubt that you haven't), I highly suggest you check it out.  We hope to get more of these in the future, so keep your eyes peeled.   - Lauby

Read More »

Balanced Army Lists: The Truth (Part 1)

Hello people, Kirby here from 3++. To kick off HOP I thought I'd 'import' an article from 3++. This article looks at what a balanced army is as I often find a lot of people throw the balanced label at the wrong army lists. With HOP and tournaments like NOVA and Centurion (Australian NOVA-styled tournament) specifically catering to both hobbyists and competitive players I thought it was important to clarify what balance really is. For the sake of writing (and my sanity) I’ve split the gaming ‘preferences’ into competitive and hobby. I know a lot of us enjoy both aspects and may or may not lean a bit towards one over the other but for this article we’ll assume there is no middle ground on the perspectives and everyone is at one extreme or the other.

When this article came in, we thought it would be a great way to kick off the blog.  It sums up our feelings on the competitive, WAAC, fluff, et al. kerfuffle that has been raging since the dawn of gaming discussions on the Internet.  I would usually take this time to tell you to go and check out Kirby's blog, but Kirby being Kirby, he's already provided you with a handful of links.  Enjoy- Dethtron

It’s an elephant. It’s huge. And it’s in the room. Balanced armies, a word tossed around by pretty much everyone on the internet in relation to Fantasy and 40k and something that is rarely understood. From a gaming stand-point, balanced lists are the epitome of list building. They are balanced (shocking...) and can deal with anything and everything with reliable success. They have few weaknesses and don’t simply roll over against other lists of any type. From a less gaming and more hobby stand-point, balanced lists are the anathema to WAAC lists where fluff and gaming are brought together. Here’s where the real problem is though. What competitive gamers call balanced, others are going to call WAAC/cheese/OP/etc. and what hobby gamers call balanced are often un-optimised or poor lists. Both of these groups are right and wrong at the same time because of their different paradigms. So this article is looking to bring some similarity to the definitions of the term to both parties by showing what a balanced list is and how it differs from a rock list and why they are commonly mixed up. The article also looks at some of the Internet myths of a balanced list and tosses them in a black hole. It concludes by proposing ‘new’ terminology in an effort to bring the extremes of both groups onto a similar footing (less e-rage FTW).

Firstly, what is a balanced list? A balanced list is focused on its name-sake, balance. There is no rock-paper-scissors with balanced lists and although some balanced lists prefer certain match-ups, there are no “auto-win” or “auto-lose” games; just easier or harder games. What this then means is a balanced list must be capable of competing in all departments of the game. That’s movement, magic, shooting and assault. This does not mean the army needs to be able to do massive damage or rock face in each phase. It does mean the army needs to be able to minimise their opponent’s ability in those phases. For example, being mobile is essential to 5th edition 40k but being able to stop your opponent’s mobility either through blocking, shooting or assaulting is just as important. What use is you claiming an objective if your opponent can tank shock you off it? Also, being good at magic isn’t a necessity for a good 8th Fantasy list but being able to reliably counter your opponent’s magic is essential or be prepared to be royally screwed over.

One of the most important parts of a balanced list is its lack of inherent weaknesses. As said above, some balanced lists are going to prefer specific match-ups over others but the key point to a balanced list is it can deal with any other type of list to some degree reliably. Whether it’s fast, slow, shooty or assautly, explodey or implodey with mass MC, mech, infantry or any combination of unit types, a balanced list will be able to deal with it in some way. We’ll use an Immo Spam list as an example. In a normal Immo Spam (no IG for arguments sake) you’ve got a lot of anti-tank and anti-infantry through massed flamers and meltaguns. Let’s change the list just slightly and bring in Exorcists and Rhinos (so less Immolators but more S8 AP1). It’s still a list that wrecks the face of MC and mech styled lists but has huge troubles against hordes (hell even 30+ Marines if the Exorcists are disabled). Whilst this list might seem good on paper because it beats the common list of the day (metagaming/tailoring), it is inherently unbalanced because it cannot deal with a horde style list. Horde style lists may not be competitive but that doesn’t mean you can’t ignore them in your list building exercise. To reiterate: a balanced list can deal with any list reliably.

Furthermore, balanced lists do not focus on a lynch-pin (see this post on super units). Lynch-pins are the hall-mark of a ‘rock-styled’ list and once the rock is papered, the list generally falls apart. Balanced lists are not rock lists. They may have rock elements (i.e. TH/SS Terminators) but have support built around the rocks which if not dealt with, are still very dangerous. Compare a double Raider list to a Nob Biker list. The Double Raider list has support in terms of Dreads/Preds/Tacs/Speeders whilst the Nob Bikers are pretty much on their own. This leaves them subject to blocking, anti-super unit units/powers, etc as well as their inherent weaknesses against mech. There is a huge difference between having rocks in an army and running a rock list and that is highlighted by being able to suffer the loss of your rocks and still win games. In terms of game-play, a rock list has specific weaknesses and against armies which can exploit those weaknesses, will lose big. As explained above, a balanced list has no such glaring weaknesses and assuming equal generalship, always has a decent chance at winning the game. This brings us to a key point for any balanced list; every unit is expendable if it helps you win the game.

Rock lists are also similar to gimmick lists which rely upon a combo or ability to control the battlefield rather than fire suppression, mobility, etc. Gimmicks are defined by their general inability to be used against all lists. Chaos’ Lash of Submission for example is a terrible power against Mechanised armies or armies with psychic defenses. The Daemon Prince which wields the power doesn’t really have a good back-up power without becoming hugely expensive and is therefore far less effective against these type of lists. A balanced list doesn’t have such point-sinks or units which are only useful against a certain army style (I.e. duality). In the case of such units, they are generally very good at what they do and have some duality (I.e. Tau Broadsides) but the army can still operate without them (duplicity). A prime example of a 'gimmick' unit which can fit into a balanced army is the Imperial Guard Psyker Battle Squad. With the combination of a Ld lowering psychic power other abilities such as shooting, neural blaster, divine pronouncement, etc. become more effective but against Fearless/mech'd armies this power has far less of an impact. However, the PBS also has the power Soulstorm which is a potent large blast attack. This makes the PBS squad capable of 'gimmicks' in forcing off/killing units based on lowering their Ld but they still have a very solid role against most armies with the ability to chuck out a high strength, large blast template. Compared to Lash Princes the PBS is a very solid choice for an army as it has utility against some armies but is still usable against all armies. This is the hallmark of a balanced list.

And finally, a balanced list has in-built redundancy. Whilst this might come across as bland and boring in some lists (I.e. LasPlas & Immo spam), without multiple multi-purpose, anti-tank, anti-infantry, defensive and utility units, your army is easy to pick apart by your opponent. If for example you only have a couple of cavalry (Fantasy) or mech units (40k), your opponent can neutralise your mobility by focusing on those units early. This does not mean you have to run exact duplicates but when ensuring army unity, it is sometimes unavoidable (I.e. ASM in Blood Angel Jumper lists). This does NOT mean the army is cheesy/OP/WAAC/etc. but rather ensures a degree of reliability by having multiple units fulfilling the same role. This is called balanced. Again, it can be bland and boring at times but ensuring your army is capable of surviving contact with your opponent is part of a balanced army.

This I think is part of the biggest divergence between a gamer and hobbyists perspective of what balanced is. A hobbyist looks at a balanced list as having a spread of unit selections and not being top-notch competitive whilst a gamer considers redundancy an integral part of being balanced. I obviously lean towards to latter understanding and consider the “balance of unit selections” to be a 'rainbow' or 'battleforce' army. However, there are still some misconceptions about the competitive understanding of balanced lists in how they play on the table-top which I will consider Thursday. Remember, we’ve covered above the distinct differences between rock/gimmick lists and balanced lists.

Well, this looks like a solid place to stop for part 1.  Tune in this Thursday when we bring you part 2. In which kirby discusses how to use hypnosis to meet women, the dangers of heart-seeking stingrays and how he saved Christmas.  - Lauby

Read More »