Back-to-Basics: Pre-measuring

One of the major changes with 6th edition is Pre-measuring. There is only one thing you need to take from this:

• there are zero excuses for not being in the correct range band in a given turn

There are still lots of little intricities you need to understand when moving and planning turns ahead but if you find yourself in range of an opponent you didn't think you were or out of range when you thought you were...well, you're doing it wrong.

Better Playtesting: Cross Training

Hello, Nikephoros here.  At least some of you are aware that I am a competitive cyclist and I train like a zombie.  As far hobbies go, bike racing is about as far from Warhammer 40,000 as you can conceivably get.  While they are very different activities from a physical and mental standpoint, a very lot of the lessons you learn from one can help you get better at the other.  I’d like to focus on some of those similarities today.  While your mileage may vary (pun!) I hope that some of the concepts resonate with you.

Tournaments: Why we play them...

Unfortunately, I do not have as much free time as I would like, so the majority of my 40k play comes from tournaments. Sure, I play the occasional casual game and enjoy it, but cramming 3, 4, or 5 games into a day in the tournament setting is a more efficient use of my time (even if it is a exhausting).

The tournament scene has exploded in recent years, especially here in the US, and I have been able to attend my fair share. I have my own reasons for playing in tournaments, which you will see below, but why do you play?

6th Edition 40K Crib-Sheets

6^th Edition 40K Crib-Sheets

Ever go to a tournament and wish you knew every important threat, armour value and save in the enemy army?

We’re coming to the end of 5^th Edition of 40k and I am happy to put my hand up and say that even now, and even as an avid tournament player who has won state and national championships, I don’t know every single special rule and all the ins and outs of every single codex off by heart - and I doubt I am alone in this!

Stick Or Twist: True Line Of Sight

 
There are several things in the 5th Edition ruleset that are good for the game, and some that are...not as good.  With us at the doorstep of 6th, basically killing time until it shatters our dreams of a balanced and fun tabletop wargame, let’s discuss some of the key aspects of 5e, and see if we can separate the wheat from the chaff, determining what we should keep and throw out.  

To open: True Line Of Sight.  

Discussion: Transition from 40k to Warmachine/Hordes

A lot of Warmachine/Hordes talk lately - you'll forgive us for this I hope considering several of us are now well into the game and we are in the doldrums of 5th edition 40k waiting for 6th... I will be trying to get as many of those Army Comparisons and the Eldar/IG reviews finished for you guys by the end of the month though. Then you can expect 40k out the wazoo as we officially look at 6th edition. There are still at least two if not more 5th edition tournaments coming up on my part so there will be that tricky phase as we transfer all our games to 6th edition (and Biomorph playtesting if it continues). Until then, well let's look at some more Warmachine & Hordes stuff!

There are two things I have come to realise in learning Warmachine & Hordes whilst playing both 40k and Warmachine & Hordes interchangeably. It would seem obvious but there needs to be a subtle yet major shift in philosophy in how you approach the game. Let's see what I mean.

The Deathclock and Sportsmanship

Now I know that many of you are expecting another article about the Old Witch of Khador but I thought I would throw something a bit random.

Deathclock is a timed turn variant for SteamRoller 2012 (the official competitive ruleset for Warmachine/Hordes), which has been gaining popularity in both local and national metas. Deathclock is the same as using a chessclock to keep track of time. At the end of each turn you hit the button and it swaps over to your opponents time; this is an advantage over regular timed turns since it keeps you from having to worry about how long things like your feat turn is going to go and if your opponent has to make tough checks or out of activation movements during your time. 

Post Tournament Wrap-up: Mech Blood Angels with Mephiston

So - looking back at the tournament how did the army fair and how did I fair? I think the army still has potential locked away inside it and I didn't bring it out to its fullest, especially against the Tau & Grey Knight armies. There were serious early game errors there which I didn't have to make and these generally revolved around two things I'll discuss shortly. That being said, I still came 7th overall and if I can remember the standings correctly, was tied 5th for battle (one 5-0 player, three 4-1s) out of 32ish players. So it wasn't all bad *shifty eyes* but certainly room for marked improvement.

Again, I think the list was fine though at 1500 three ACLC Preds was overkill in some games whilst needed in others. I think at 1750-2000 those would see more frequent use but also have more issue with LoS. The Flamerbacks did what they needed to generally though I never really needed the mass flame templates (even against Tau, combat was the better option against Kroot) to help clear infantry. The ACLC Preds provided the shooting I needed without being limited to S7 - important against those Stormravens and having four double melta teams ensured enemy vehicles got destroyed.

Nonconformity for Nonconformity's Sake

OR
"Don't listen to The Man, my conspiracy theory is much more plausible!"

The internet always attracts its share of weirdos, nutjobs, and crazies. We like to think our own circles are immune, but sooner or later we're confronted with the truth: that those very same googly-eyed madmen as just as much a part of what we do as anyone else's particular hobby.

In 40K this manifests in a variety of ways, but the most common is the Angry Noncomformist Rebel; this is the guy who will tell you black is white, up is down, and Legion of the Damned are awesome just because that's the opposite of what everyone else says.

Netlists and You

Something I've noticed a lot on the Internet is the disparaging remarks 'net-lists' get and specifically anyone who uses them is just being a douche-bag who wants to win no matter what. Whilst this of course is the crux of the ridiculus "how you should have fun" argument, something which is often lost is what the real purpose of most net-lists are and that's the optimisation of a list concept. This is where spamming and "how you should have fun" comes into things with lists such as RazorMarines, triple Fire Dragons/Long Fangs/Dreadnoughts/Ravagers/etc, Venom Spam, Immolator Spam, etc. etc. come into play. These lists are designed, generally, to be the most mathematically potent lists. This means, in theory, the list is good and it's maximised for potential on the tabletop to be able to give the controlling player the best chance at winning games against equally skilled opponents with good army lists.

Rock Lists and Tournaments

One thing I've touched on several times but never really gone into detail about is bringing a Rock list to a tournament. Now, when I say a "rock list," what I mean is any list that focuses on throwing a couple overwhelming threats in the enemy's face and relying on them to effectively pull the weight of the whole army. Double-Land Raider or Stormraven lists are the most commonly-seen version of this, but Nob Bikerz, Tyrantstar, Abby and Friends, Fatecrusher, and many others are all modeled on this same template. They have a small number of powerful threats and they hope to basically just beat your face in with them.

Why is that a bad thing? Well, it isn't always, but it has some troublesome implications, as we'll see.

Guys, Game Design is Hard

If you've ever looked around the various blogs, forums, and miscellaneous sights of the interwebs, you are probably familiar with the term "fandex." You are probably also familiar with the fact that most of them, objectively speaking, are absolutely terrible, usually in some combination of useless, underpriced, or bizarrely over-specific. (And sometimes, impressively, all three at once.) In fact, it's often a source of merriment to read through them and laugh at the hilarious attempts at writing a balanced book, as most of them are fantastic failures on that level. However, they aren't failures because their authors are stupid, or bad at the game, or because they didn't put work into them; most commonly, they are simple victims of the fact that game design is hard, and getting things right is no easy task.

It is a pathetically easy feat to look at a book well after it has come out, after thousands of people have analyzed and tested and examined it to find the best units and builds and point out what is wrong with it. It's so OBVIOUS that Purifiers are undercosted, only a big dumb idiot like Matt Ward could've thought otherwise! Of course Long Fangs and Grey Hunters are too good, how could they possibly be otherwise? Etc. But all of these accusations of incompetence on the part of the designers deny the fact that even very, very small changes to a game's (or army's) rules can have major, lasting consequences on how it functions.

Winning Doesn't Mean You Did Well; Losing Doesn't Mean You Did Badly

I've talked about fallacies, errors, mistakes, screw-ups and traps in the past, but there is one that is far and away the most common of them and probably the hardest to disabuse someone of as well. Anecdotal evidence, usually seen in the form of "Yeah you say Unit X is bad, but I once saw a squad kill thirty Space Marines and nine Rhinos and eleven Land Raiders and thirty-five Thunderhawks in a single game, so I KNOW they're good!" Or, similarly: "I don't care what you say or what your arguments are, I've won lots of games using my Chaos Spawn list."

Winning a game (or losing a game) once proves nothing. It's why internet grudge match challenges are stupid. It's why citing that one time a thing happens is meaningless. Certainly, results matter, but that should be looked at in terms of their place in an overall framework of events, not as just the immediate results of what happens.

40k Theory: The Razor's Edge

As some of you (translation: none of you) may be aware, I am a racing cyclist and something of a fitness/nutrition nut.  There is a concept I’ve been thinking about lately from the endurance sports world that crosses over to 40k list building, oddly enough. 

In endurance sports, there is a concept called “the razor’s edge.”  In short, the idea is that in running/cycling/triathlon etc. you want to weigh as little as possible and have the least body fat possible.  Mostly because the less you weigh, the faster you are, especially in areas with hills (or even mountains) because gravity is only second to wind resistance in forces to be overcome.  In the racing world, you measure your watts of power output divided by your weight in kilograms to get a good idea of your relative speed compared to other athletes. 

Warhammer 40,000 - Playing at different point levels

This stems from this thread where Raziel asked if we could put a further emphasis on 1750 point lists. This is a general reply to most of the comments regarding 1500. It is my general opinion that 40k works best between the point levels of 1750 and 2000. Whilst 40k may be play-tested at the 1500 level or not (or may even be designed for that), the greatest balance I find is between 1750-2000 points and I prefer to play my games in that range. I will address why I believe this is the case and some misconceptions about list building at 1500 and 2000. I will preface this by saying I’m not saying 1750-2000 points is the right and only way to play 40k – I just believe the system works more appropriately at this level (regardless of whether or not GW intended for this to be the case).

Tyranid Design Philosophies: What Needs to Change

It's no secret that I'm a very 'Niddy guy. I've written a lot about them in the past, I've argued for their viability to various degrees, I've struggled with alternate builds. But I don't write a lot about them anymore. Sometimes, but not often.

Partly it's no fault of their own- I've been playing the army for several years and wanted to start on a new one. I had a lot of fun with them and gotten a lot of mileage out of the codex and enjoyed converting up a lot of their units. I am not raging furious over them getting an update relatively early in 5th Edition.

At the same time, it very much is- I've gotten fed up with the limitations of the book and the repeated slaps in the face GW has given the faction. Especially looking at the other 5E releases, it's hard not to be unhappy with the results; until the recent Sisters of Battle debacle, no other current update had gone so wrong in terms of making the army viable, flexible, and fun at all levels of competition. While it's certainly better off than those books that have not yet gotten an update, like Eldar, Chaos Marines, etc, there is really no excuse for the mess that Cruddace made of it. Add in the kicks in the teeth from Grey Knights (and to a lesser degree Dark Eldar) and you have a pretty unhappy combination of factors.

Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition - Balance

The latest edition of Fantasy is a bit of an enigma. It comes across much better compared to previous editions and in most respects, plays a lot better. There are however a few things which stand out. One is the randomness of a lot of aspects within the rules, specifically terrain and charges. Whilst it's pretty easy to simply ignore the terrain rules we have to wonder what they were thinking in regards to having a random amount of terrain which have random effects. Terrain in 5th edition 40k, even though there are strict guidelines, are bad enough because so many people don't follow them. When you do follow them and specifically have line of sight blocking terrain, well 40k plays a lot better. With this in mind they had a good template on which to base things and threw all semblance of order out the window. Plain odd... Random charges also really hurts. Those double 1's or combination of low numbers do come up and whilst obviously getting as close as possible minimises this, having a unit which is in charge range of your opponent 95% of the time fail to charge, well that hurts. This is mildly comparable to difficult terrain tests in 40k but as many will point out, they don't like the randomness in that either.

And then we turn to magic - specifically the 'ultmiate' spells of many of the regular lores in the rulebook. The raw ability of these spells to simply devastate whole units in single turns is staggering and this is where a lot of 8th edition can come unstuck. Not that magic can decimate units but to the extent and ease that it can and if you cannot defend against this or do the same back to your opponent, you are very likely to lose. Consider what Nikephoros points out in this post - there is a semblance of balance in terms of army composition to 'address' the power of magic. This displays itself as follows:

Pre-game Mentality

I seem to be in a 40k philosophy theme lately. Rather than focusing on specific tactics I seem to be doing more general posts on gameplay and approaches to such. Interesting...

Moving right along, nothing is changing! Katie and I were talking (look at that name dropping) about the Ladder (which is moving along nicely) and it ended up sparking this article. One of the most important parts of any wargame is being able to look at the table you are playing on, the winning methods and the two (or more) armies opposing each other and from there. From there, you need to distil this knowledge to figure out what you need to do to win and what your opponent needs to do to win. By doing both of these at the same time, you can not only achieve your victory but blunt your opponent from doing so as well which will better enable your own plan to work. Remember as well, they are going to be trying to stop you. To do this you need to be able to think clearly, rationally and use the full might of your cognitive ability but things often get in the way of this.

Blaming it on the Dice: Or not

We play a game of dice - it's that simple. We can do everything perfectly. Have the best list. Do everything right in the game. Give ourselves as many chances as possible to win. Encourage the dice as much as possible to ensure this happen. Sometimes though, it simply doesn't. It doesn't matter if you do everything right if the dice just say no. Whether you can't roll to hit or wound to save yourself or your opponent just looks at your guys and they explode, hell sometimes it's both. Sometimes, you just don't have control over how the game goes.

Unfortunately people too often use this as an excuse. Sure if the game comes down to a single roll (i.e. you need to run 2" to get onto an objective and you roll a 1), it can be pretty obvious the dice 'lost you the game.' However, did you do everything in your power to ensure that die roll didn't even need to happen? Or that the game didn't hinge on that single die? Did the dice influence up to and including that roll? This is where I feel people fall back on the excuse of the dice. If for example you had moved that unit a turn earlier, would you have been relying on that single D6 at the end of the game to get you within 3" of an objective? More than likely not. There are other consequences of doing this of course but it's pointless to blame the dice unless you played an absolutely 100% perfect game.

Hauby Lauby - It's a Learning Process

One of these days I'm gonna have to get myself a standard blog greeting.  Something along the lines of what Brent does perhaps.  But for the time being, some light plagiarism:

Greetings, Unicrons of all ages and welcome to another installment of the Hauby Lauby! Oh god it's Brent.

See, Unicron.  Geddit?

I had a thought that I wanted to encapsulate in my introductory post, but I didn't quite have the evidence I needed to make the point I had in mind.  Thankfully, Hefe took my bait stepped up and bared his soul just a teeny bit.