WTF 'Ard Boyz

With all the NOVA prep stuff around the net and in my brain, it was easy to miss the fact that 'Ard Boyz is coming up next weekend.  I'm not planning on attending the semi finals even if I qualify for it, so I am putting much less pressure on myself.  Anyway, I realized that the list I want to play I don't even have all the models together for so I've been making progress today.  These definitely aren't modeled or painted up to my normal standards, but I suspect they will be Golden Daemon compared to what other people bring to 'Ard Boyz.  Sad.

Anyway, here is my WIP Templars.  Not pictures are Rhinos and Razors since my GK are current using their rides.  I'm guessing the GK will lend them the vehicles for next weekend, though...

Nothing puts me in the mood to model/paint like a lazy Saturday with baseball on TV...

40k-metrics: The Rhino Conundrum

A commenter in the BoLS thread had a criticism I felt was worth (crazy, huh?) addressing.  He said something like “the system doesn’t take into account the defensive and mobility bonuses that something like Rhinos give you.  We know Rhinos are good, but when you add them, they lower your scores.”

Rhinos ARE good, and we know it, you’re very right.  But there are diminishing returns with them.  You need enough Rhinos to move/protect your units and to provide armor saturation for the firepower vehicles in your list.  Once you have sufficient amounts of Rhinos to achieve that, adding more will indeed make your list worse. 

Regardless of whether you agree with my method of measuring it, firepower is what wins games of 5^th Edition 40k.  The ability to kill your opponent’s units is all important.  In terms of Rhinos specifically, I can think of dozens of hypothetical lists that don’t use transports and can still win games.  A 2k list with 50 Rhinos- and nothing else- wouldn’t win games. 

This brings me to the metric system and how people are using it incorrectly.  What you should NOT do is compare a mech-marine list to a Tyranid list and say “well my Marines score better than the Nids, therefore the list is better.”  Not necessarily.  While there are some objective truths that hold true across all codices and lists, for the most part you should be comparing like lists to like lists.

When preparing for a tournament with a mech-marine list, you shouldn’t concern yourself with how your mech-marine metric scores compare to a Tyranid list’s scores, or even a foot marine list.  You should be comparing your mech-marine list to the scores of other proven mech marine lists.  That’s the pudding where you’ll find the proof.  If you see that all the successful mech-marine lists score higher on shooting than you significantly, you are almost certainly not shooty enough and you need to figure out what the issue is.  As Lyracian showed in the Nid breakdowns, it IS most profitable to compare lists from the same codex to each other, especially when comparing something like Nids or Orks that are radically different in style from the other books.  A Black Templar list is close enough to any other marine list that comparisons are valid, but a Necrons to Sister’s Immolator Spam comparison isn’t going to tell you much about your list.

Bottom line: the metric system is best used for comparing a newly created list you just wrote to a similar style list of proven competitiveness.  It’s definitely possible to infer more information than that from it, but the further from that you get the more debatable your results will be.

40k-metrics: Frequently Asked Questions

Since I first started talking about my metric system, I’ve gotten a steady stream of people asking how to calculate various aspects.  I thought I explained that in the first post, but apparently not clearly enough.  So rather than answer questions forever, I thought I should make a quick and dirty guide to doing a breakdown. 

I’m honestly not going to teach you how to mathhammer, if you can’t calculate wounds on your own, you’re hopeless.  But I will go over the various assumptions I make and how to arrive at the same (or close enough) numbers that I use.

It's all about the numbers

First, to calculate BS4 shooting hits, I do not multiply by 2 and divide by 3.  For a plethora of reasons, I just multiply by 66%.  In fact, I do all my multiplications by the percentages rather than ratios because not only are they easier to do in the long run, but they give a consistency that you can’t get with ratios without doing a lot more work.  So a 2/3^rd chance = 66%, 1/3^rd chance = 33%.  Feel free to do ratios instead, but if you wonder why our numbers differ slightly, that’s why.

I assume 3 hits for small blasts, 5 hits for large blasts, and 5 hits for template weapons.  No matter what numbers I picked someone would disagree, so deal with it.

Armor saves, like shooting and close combat, I use percentages.  So when calculating how many marines pass their armor saves, I use 66% rather than 2/3^rd. 

Twin-linked and Preferred Enemy are other tricky topics for some folks.  I guess I will teach you how to mathhammer after all, since this was a big issue.  Figure out your initial hits and write that number down.  Take the amount of misses, and multiple those by the chance to hit and add the second group of hits to the original hits.  The same thing works for things that allow re-rolls to wound, like poison or lightning claws.

Remember for vehicles even though the statistic is “Dead Rhinos Per Game” it is actually measuring penetrating hits per game.  I explained this multiple times but people are still messing it up.

Close combat and vehicles.  Cap any single unit at 15.00 per game to keep the numbers sane, otherwise a unit like Nobz would have more penetrations than entire shooty armies.  Plus, it just makes more sense that way.  Also, be very conservative to which units you give CC hits against.  A unit of tactical marines should not be given hits against vehicles just because they have a powerfist and krak grenades.  I would only give the hits to a unit that is designed and relied upon to be a source of anti-mech for the list/army.  If the list doesn’t rely on that unit’s CC ability to kill mech, don’t include it.

I think that was all the FAQs, but if you can think of any more, post them in the comments and I’ll edit this post to include them.  Have a good weekend.

edit: all close combat anti-vehicle swings assume the vehicle moved at combat speed, and thus a 4+ to hit.

40k-metrics: Putting Crowe Through the Paces Redux

When I put my Crowe list through the metrics the first time I realized that I made some really bad math hammer errors.  I wasn’t drunk when I did it, but I was at work, which is more than enough to cloud my thinking and judgment. 

In addition to the mathhammer errors, I made some assumptions I’m not entirely happy with in retrospect.

So here is the updated breakdown.

Crowe 2.0	DMS	DMCC	DRPG	DLRPG	Notes
Crowe	0.28	3.86	0.00	0.00
10x Purifiers	4.52	8.99	4.36	6.40	2 D-Hams, 2 Psy, Rhino
10x Purifiers	4.52	8.99	4.36	6.40	2 D-Hams, 2 Psy, Rhino
10x Purifiers	4.52	8.99	4.36	6.40	2 D-Hams, 2 Psy, Rhino
5x Purifiers	2.08	4.40	4.36	1.45	2 Psycannons
5x Purifiers	2.08	4.40	4.36	1.45	2 Psycannons
Psybolterback	0.75	0.00	2.20	0.00
Psybolterback	0.75	0.00	2.20	0.00
3x Psyfleman	2.98	1.27	26.65	0.00
Totals:	22.48	40.90	52.85	22.10

The results aren’t significantly different.  The changes I made were...

1.  Corrected the mathhammer on the psybolterbacks.  I think I forgot to multiply by 5.

2.  Corrected the mathhammer of the psycannnons on the 5 man squads.

3.  Changed my assumption of 4 shots per turn from psycannons to 2.  I know I say all weapons should be done in this system under their most optimal conditions, but in the dozen or so games I’ve played with this army; I’ve fired a 4 shot volley… twice.  It’s one thing to assume a meltagun will always fire within 6” but it’s another thing to start my assumption based on a scenario that happens less than 1% of the time.  This obviously decreases the numbers, but presents something a lot closer to reality.

4.  I assumed close combat attacks against Land Raiders for the units with Hammers, but not against light mech.  Generally speaking, the list counts on those hammers to help with Land Raiders, so I included the attacks.  But the list does not count on the hammers to help pop light mech.  Something is going wrong if I’m popping Rhinos with Daemon Hammers.

The net results of all these changes are the list is a lot lighter on anti-light mech than previously, about 5 penetrations less per game.  This is a lot more realistic, but also conforms to my playtesting experiences.  I’ve stated that my goal is to go 4-4 at NOVA.  Anything better than that is a bonus for me.  Looking at the 4-0 lists, and then looking at the 0-4 lists, I’d say I’m pretty comfortable my prospects.

40k Theory: Making Rational Decisions

Thanks to evolution, our brains are hardwired to find the pain of loss more intensely than we feel the pleasure of gain.  There are very sound reasons that this is so, and people who have abnormalities in this area often become addicts or gamblers.

Additionally, humans for other various evolutionary reasons, generally think in the short term.  We are capable of long term thoughts and plannings, but when we are forced into making split second decisions, we tend to make choices based on short term thinking.

Hay guys, what's going on in this brain?

Couple these two concepts together and you can see the source of a lot of the irrational behavior in the world around you.  Have you ever seen a car swerve into on-coming traffic to avoid hitting a bird or squirrel or rabbit?  That is a perfect example of short term thinking fueled by loss aversion.  If you could slow down time and make a rational, calculated decision you would realize the pain of loss/guilt you would get from hitting the squirrel is nothing compared to the danger and potential loss of hitting another car head on!  

We can also see this thinking in the stock market or in casinos, termed 'chasing your losses.'  You take a poor position on a stock, and it drops heavily.  Rather than realizing its a disaster and cutting your losses, you either hold on, or double down.  This rarely ever pays off and, in the end you lose more/everything.  

_________________________________________________________

Warhammer rewards people who can shirk these aspects of human nature.  Think about the following...

1.  Offense is greater than defense.  Minis die by the bucketful.  Normal, loss averse human nature, would make people play defensively and try to minimize casualties.  Unfortunately, these is not the path to success.  You win in 40k by out-killing your opponent, not by competing to see who can absorb the most fire power.

2.  The goals/objectives of the game are known from the outset and we can/should begin planning for turn 5 before the game starts.  Since human nature encourages short term thinking, it is very easy for a player to get into a situation where they lose sight of long term goals and they react to their opponent on a turn by turn basis.

Think about new players.  They tend to have pet units that they are afraid to lose, and they generally play turn by turn.  It's much easier to beat a new player in an objective mission rather than a kill point mission by that very reason.  Most players, through simple experience, learn these lessons subconsciously and improve their play.  But if these lessons are learned subconsciously (rather than through a conscious effort to be rational and make long term, gain conscious decisions) the irrational thinking can creep back in and negatively impact your play.  A close game at the top table of a tournament can get the adrenaline pumping, and it's in situations like that which create the situations where you can fall back into the mistakes of human nature.  

End of the day, no matter how stressful your game of 40k is, don't play too quickly/reactive.  You should stop and refocus anytime you feel yourself slipping into irrational thinking.

How does this jive with my article about always trusting your gut?  At first it might seem contradictory, but the lesson to take is to become experienced enough so that your gut instincts ARE trustworthy.  Make your gut decisions also be rational decisions based on long term goals and gain-based choices and you're there. 

NOVA: Six Weeks To Go

Unlike most bloggers planning on attending NOVA, I'm not freaking out over the looming date.  My army is painted and based.  My list is set.  My travel and accommodation arrangements are... arranged for.

So what am I going to do these next six weeks if I'm not wringing my hands over my list, or burning the midnight oil painting, or frantically trying to get someone to let me sleep on their hotel room floor in exchange for booze?

Locked and loaded

1.  Playtesting.  I haven't attacked this tournament with the intent to win.  I didn't make a gauntlet and I didn't seek to get any special information about the metagame that would give me huge advantages.  Why?  For starters, time.  Time is money, and I just don't feel the need to put in hours (days?) of playtesting to improve my chances to win swag I don't really need and hearty congratulations I don't really want.  Secondly, my goal simply isn't to win NOVA.  I'm going there to have fun, throw dice, and meet many of you.  If I go 4-4 I'll be happy with my win/loss record.  I don't think I need to playtest scientifically to eek out a 4-4 record.

But I do want to playtest a few games in order to learn about my list.  My theory is you playtest scientifically to learn about other lists and the metagame in general.  But when you are playing a newer codex, like I am, playtesting teaches you about your own list.  Basically, I need to know when to zig and when to zag.  My list is pretty straight-forward and easy to play, so I don't expect I need 100 games to figure out the answer to easy questions, but I'd like to get enough games in so that I can be proactive.

2.  Display board.  I'm reasonably sure I don't have the means to transport a nicely done display board.  I have to figure something out.  This is a mystery to me right now.  How I'll solve this dilemma will be pretty interesting, I'm sure.

3.  Making fun plans?  Friday I won't be playing 40k since I'll have my fill Saturday and Sunday, and I have plans with my local friends that evening, but Thursday night open gaming is free.  I'm not famous enough to get a Whiskey Challenge so I'll be content to play a couple 2k games against whichever of you out there want to throw down. 

40k Theory: Offense and Defense

Offense vs. Defense is a topic I’ve wanted to touch on since I made the very controversial statement in my metric series that points correlate to Defense and not Offense. 

I’ll restate my theory now so we are all up to speed: In 40k, a unit’s points cost correlates more directly with its defensive capability than its offensive capability.  A unit pays through the nose for FNP, 3+ saves, etc.  Adding a Missile Launcher (or 4!) to a unit doesn’t really cost that much more considering the vast increase of firepower.

Offense always wins.

In 40k, defense is also multi-directional.  Units can be resilient due to increased individual toughness, or by multiplicity of bodies.  A unit of 30 Orks can take a lot of pounding before it dies, so even though each Ork isn’t so hard to kill, there are a lot of them to kill.  What this means is, we can make any army more resilient by purchasing more bodies.  This is a key bit of information.

Since any army can be made tougher by purchasing more bodies and vehicles to house the bodies, we will find that even at 2,500 points, we will run out of points before we run out of bodies to purchase if we are trying to make the toughest, most defensive army available.  Thus, the limiting factor of defense in 40k is points. 

Offense, on the other hand has other limitations.  Yes, points are a limitation to offense, especially at low point level games.  But once you hit 2k and above, points cease to be the primary limiter on how much offense you can pack into your list.  At 2k, your Force Allocation slots become your limiting factor for many 5^th Edition codices.  At 2,500, it is the limiting factor for all codices.  This is because units don’t gain offensive power by adding more bodies or more vehicles to existing units, but by adding more units with special/heavy weapons.   Playing a strict MSU list in order to absolutely maximize your firepower, you will fill you troops, elites, and heavy support before you run out of points.  Thus, the limiting factor of offense in 40k at higher point levels is Force Allocation slots.

But wait, there’s more.  Defense is, as I said, multi-directional.  More units ALSO makes the army more resilient/defensive.  This is a big validation for the MSU playstyle, because we can conclude that the “optimal” way to maximize your defensive ability is to add units before you add bodies.  Since adding units also maximizes your offense, adding units increases both at the same time, which is a far more efficient way to create a powerful list.

So did I really write 500 words to explain why MSU is the superior play style?  Basically so.  Aren’t you glad I’m here to repeat what you already knew?  Jokes aside, besides the MSU validation, it does support my thesis that defense is correlated to points to a much greater degree than offensive power. 

40k-metrics: Tau. Yes, Tau.

Special thanks to karib33 who did the math behind this since...

1.  I don't own the Tau codex and I don't feel like downloading it and

2.  It's faster to do when you don't have to look up what everything does all the time.

So karib33 was interesting in seeing how the Tau mono-build fares.  We know it's the 'one competitive Tau build' so it should have reasonable scores, right?

Right.  We can all assume what it will do: shoot the piss out of marines, light mech and heavy mech.  We can all assume it won't kill anybody in close combat.

pew pew fish mans

The build he used was Stelek's Best Of Tau.  I think most normal people would agree it is probably the best Tau list to use.

Reprinted here...

2000 Pts – Tau Empire Roster – Tau Best Of

1 Commander Shas’el @ 92 Pts
Hard-wired Target Lock; Missile Pod; Plasma Rifle; Multi-Tracker

3 Crisis Battlesuit @ 186 Pts
Missile Pod; Plasma Rifle; Multi-Tracker

3 Crisis Battlesuit @ 186 Pts

Missile Pod; Plasma Rifle; Multi-Tracker

3 Crisis Battlesuit @ 186 Pts
Missile Pod; Plasma Rifle; Multi-Tracker

10 Kroot Carnivore Squad @ 112 Pts
Add Kroot Hounds; Kroot Rifle (x10)
7 Kroot Hounds @ [42] Pts

10 Kroot Carnivore Squad @ 112 Pts
Add Kroot Hounds; Kroot Rifle (x10)
7 Kroot Hounds @ [42] Pts

6 Fire Warrior @ 60 Pts
Pulse Rifle (x6)

8 Pathfinder @ 216 Pts
Markerlight (x8); Pulse Carbine (x8)
1 Devilfish @ [120] Pts
Burst Cannon; Smart Missile System; Disruption Pod; Landing Gear; Marker Beacon; Multi-Tracker; Targeting Array

2 Piranha Light Skimmer @ 150 Pts
Fusion Blaster (x2); Gun Drones (x2); Disruption Pod (x1); Target Lock (x1); Targeting Array (x2)
2 Gun Drones @ [0] Pts
Twin Linked Pulse Carbines

2 Piranha Light Skimmer @ 150 Pts
Fusion Blaster (x2); Gun Drones (x2); Disruption Pod (x1); Target Lock (x1); Targeting Array (x2)
2 Gun Drones @ [0] Pts
Twin Linked Pulse Carbines

1 Hammerhead Gunship @ 175 Pts
Railgun; Smart Missile System; Disruption Pod; Landing Gear; Multi-Tracker; Targeting Array

1 Hammerhead Gunship @ 175 Pts
Railgun; Smart Missile System; Disruption Pod; Landing Gear; Multi-Tracker; Targeting Array

1 Broadside Battlesuit @ 200 Pts
Team Leader; Twin linked Railgun; Broadside Battlesuit; Smart Missile System; Hard-wired Drone Controller; Hard-wired Target Lock; Shield Drone; Advanced Stabilisation System
1 Broadside Battlesuit @ [80] Pts
Twin linked Railgun; Smart Missile System; Advanced Stabilisation System
2 Shield Drone @ [30] Pts
Shield Generator

Total Roster Cost: 2000

Pretty good.

So how does it score?

	# units	DMS	DMC	DRPG	DLRPG
Kroot	10.00	3.30	1.70	0.00	0.00
Kroot Hounds	7.00	0.00	1.54	0.00	0.00
Kroot	10.00	3.30	1.70	0.00	0.00
Kroot Hounds	7.00	0.00	1.54	0.00	0.00
Shas’el	1.00	0.83	0.44	2.96	0.00
Fire Warrior	6.00	4.02	0.36	0.00	0.00
Pathfinder	8.00	2.64	0.48	0.00	0.00
Devilfish w/SMS	1.00	0.58	0.00	0.00	0.00	Firing SMS and burst
Gun Drones	2.00	0.56	0.12	0.00	0.00
Crisis PR/MP/MT	3.00	6.00	2.64	22.50	0.00
Crisis PR/MP/MT	3.00	6.00	2.64	22.50	0.00
Crisis PR/MP/MT	3.00	6.00	2.64	22.50	0.00
Broadside	2.00	2.00	1.76	6.26	2.50
Shield Drone	2.00	0.00	0.12	0.00	0.00
Hammerhead MT/SMS/TA	2.00	6.44	0.00	5.56	2.22	Firing blast for DMS
Piranha	4.00	4.00	0.00	36.68	23.32
Gun Drones	8.00	2.24	0.48	0.00	0.00
Totals		47.91	18.16	118.96	28.04

Pretty much exactly how we thought.  I wasn't expecting any big revelations, and we didn't get any.

I don't have any super insight, except to say that it's clear how much of the list's killing power is tied up in Crisis suits.  If you can inflict casualties early and often against the Crisis suits you will go a long way towards winning.  Want anymore from Captain Obvious?  Keep those Suits bubble wrapped.

Anyone who doesn't think Tau have the tools to win in 5th are smoking it.

Have a nice weekend.