Mathhammer: Percentages Lie

The most infuriating thing I hear when people talk about list building and wargear options is something like, “option a is 33% more effective than option b and costs only 5 more points!”  I call this the fallacy of using percentages in a nominal system.

This isn’t just a 40k problem, I see it in every sort of RPG, MMO, card game, etc where players have to pick from differing options using limited resources.  But since this is a 40k blog, my examples are going to be from 40k for the sake of being understood universally.

So what is the problem?  The problem is, you don’t build lists based on percentages, you build them based on points.  In the crudest terms, how many MEQ a gun kills per turn is worthless information.  If gun A kills 1 MEQ per turn and gun b kills 1.33, if you don’t then divide by the points cost, you aren’t actually making any sort of rational choice.  Since we are limited in points, any choice comes at the expense of another choice, and making efficient choices is how you win in the list building phase.  In a balanced game, there would never be a single weapon that was good against every type of army for an affordable amount of points ::cough::grav cannon::cough::.  However, even figuring out killing power divided by points isn’t the whole story.

You could build a list using killing power divided by points to only pick the most efficient choices, but you’d probably lose.  There are some armies that simply don’t have great options across the whole killing spectrum.  They might shred vehicles.  They might kill MEQ.  But they have to pay through the nose to kill hordes.  If you’re trying to field a balanced army you may have to bring inefficient choices in order to actually have a well rounded force.  For example, let’s say an army has a hyper efficient lascannon platform.  You could bring an army bristling with these lascannon platforms.  You might has 25% more lascannons than any other army could bring to the table for the same points.  

Is that even good?  I’d argue that those extra lascannons are not helping.  What you SHOULD do is economise by using your cheap lascannons to fill out your anti-vehicle slots, and then use the points savings to bring killy but points inefficient units that shred infantry.  This is an oversimplified example, ofcourse but it demonstrates that idea that simplying making a list of nothing but points efficient units won’t check all the boxes.  Unless, ofcourse, your codex is broke and simply better at every role than everyone else.

Another thing to consider is the value of nominalizing these numbers.  “33% better at killing MEQ!” sounds great.  How many extra MEQ dead per game is that?  Oh well Gun A kills .65 MEQ per turn and Gun B kills .87 MEQ per turn.  Cool, gun B MIGHT kill one extra marine per game, if you get perfect conditions every turn.  Is that really worth paying ANY extra points for? If we value a Marine at 13 points, you might argue that so long as the gun costs less than 13 points it is worth paying for.  We know, ofcourse, this is a nonsense way to look at list building.

Yes, I just “proved” that big percentages of small numbers is still small numbers.  Please deliver my nobel prize for mathematics any time now.  But that is important to consider!  When people use percentages, they are trying to confuse you!  One of the writers at 3plusplus made an awesome series of charts demonstrating the killing power of all the weapons for each faction.  This was great.  It showed how many wounds per turn a weapon would do against a variety of targets ranging from GEQ to Land Raiders.  Fantastically useful information… which people proceeded to draw insanely bad conclusions from because they put too much value in comparing percentages of small numbers and not enough on looking at the nominal amounts.  

In conclusion, beware percentages.  Big sounding percentages differences are often used to exaggerate what are actually small nominal differences on the table top especially in regards to higher variance, single shot weapons.  Efficiency in list building is extremely important but don’t let the desire to be hyper efficient cause you to make mistakes.

Stupidity on the Internet: BOLS Edition

OMG hi everyone.  I was roused out of my torpor by one of the dumbest articles I've read on the 40k blogosphere in ages.  While I don't play 40k anymore, I still do my best to keep up with it because who knows, something may happen that causes me to jump back into the hobby with a vengeance.  Once a competitive player, always a competitive player.

In ages past this segment was always one of my most popular but also got a lot of hate thrown my way.  The good news is now that I am not part of "the community" I don't care about the hate!  Today's subject is this abortion:  http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/40k-deep-thought-40k-7th-ed-less-competitive-40k-5th-ed.html

Not gonna lie, this article is atrociously written.  From the start it seems to fail to meet the same level of professionalism from most BOLS articles, which implies whatever that standard means to you.

The author of this piece seems to argue (because he isn't bold enough to actually come out and state his thesis directly) that 7th edition is just as competitive as 5th edition.  His arguments exclusively fall into the "back in my day" line of argumentation.  He cites the flavor of the month tournament lists from each previous edition as evidence that the game has always been poorly balanced.  Congrats dude.  You cited the names of lists.  I guess that about wraps up the debate!  

Me:  5th Edition was the most competitive edition of 40k

Him:  LOL LEAFBLOWER LOLZ

Me:  How can anyone argue with logic like that?!  I surrender!

Ummmmm no.  Sorry bro, that doesn't settle anything.  I don't care if vehicles were insanely overpowered in 3rd edition, that has no bearing on 5th edition.  Many a good tournament player from the 5th edition era will tell you that the original leafblower list wasn't all that good after the first few months in the metagame.  5th Edition was about mech and shooting, and that list was definitely that.  But it took advantage of players who hadn't fully adapted to the "mech and shooting" metagame of 5th edition.  Once the community adapted, by adding more anti-mech firepower and bringing "mech and shooting" lists of their own I would argue that the leafblower list wasn't even that good.  There were MANY lists I was much more afraid of running into at NOVA than mechguard,  

There were a couple traits that made 5th Edition the golden age of competitive 40k, traits that are missing now.

1.  Simplicity:  Stelek's 5x5 and the NOVA variation thereof created a very MOBA-like battlefield where everyone was on even ground.  There were no asymmetrical scenarios.  If I have to explain why asymmetrical scenarios are non-competitive in tournament play you should probably stop reading and attend to your head trauma.  Hell, even if you stuck to the 3 (yes 3) book scenarios the missions were at least relatively symmetrical.  No matter which side of the scenario you rolled you had a more or less equal chance of winning.  The same cannot be said of 7th edition.  In 7th the scenario you roll is very capable of determining the winner before the first bolter is fired in anger.  Sure TOs can ignore all that and run tournaments the way they were run in 5th edition, but they shouldn't have to.

2.  Variance.  Any game with as much dice rolling as WH40k has going to have lots and lots of variance.  In ANY game, the better players desire less variance and worse players desire more variance.  There is a healthy balance between luck vs skill.  A skillful player should be favored to beat a less skilled play in a healthy game.  But there should be enough variance so that a less skilled player can still pull off and upset some amount of time.  5th Edition struck a good balance between the two.  I've seen some savage losses to bad rolls, some close games that shouldn't have been close and some other games where the dice had very little say in the matter, the skill gap being that wide.  Quite frankly, all the RPG elements in 6th and 7th edition added too much variance.  Warlord traits being rolled adds stupid variance.  Random charge distance added stupid variance.  The scenarios (mentioned above) added too much variance.  Even worse: a lot of these things are rolled before the game even starts.  Having the outcome of the game tipped in one player's favor before the game starts based purely on luck is ridiculous.

3.  Balance.  Was 5th edition perfectly balanced?  Hell no.  There were plenty of armies that were at a distinct disadvantage ::cough:: Nids and Orks ::cough:: but the tiers were not NEARLY so pronounced as in 7th edition.  In 5th Edition I could play against a "tier 1 list" with my "tier 3" Black Templar army and get a close game.  It was not a forlorn conclusion.  I won several 5th edition tournaments with Black Templars, which were not considered an especially powerful army.  Sure this is anecdotal but everyone would agree that the distance between the best list in the worst book to the best list in the best book were significantly smaller than it is today.  This matters.  It matters a lot.  Saying "LOL Leafblower" is meaningless.  Leafblower wasn't anywhere near as dominant as Eldar or Tau are in 7th.  

So that's my case for 5th edition as a more competitive format: it had significantly better army balance, lower variance, and better scenario symmetry.  Now that I've made my case let's get into the fun...

"Balance – lol that one is a red herring. Most guys that want competitive tournaments actively try to break the game in the list building phase. The list building phase is the biggest factor in tournament gaming if you are playing to win – show up with a weak list and no matter how good you are you are going to be at a severe handicap."

Everyone tries to make the best list they can. Duh.  No one is arguing that 5th edition allowed people to play weak lists and be competitive.  In fact, that would be the sign of a non-competitive game.  5th Edition, as I said, had smaller space between the tiers and more codices had relevant tournament lists.

"Still others cite shoddy rules – but again the rules have always been complained about. Every edition there have been reams of threads about how crappy the rules are, but still tournament players were content with rolling until 6th."

The rules could always be improved regardless of the edition, no one is arguing that.  What you miss is the qualitative difference.  If the rules of 5th edition were bad and complaint-worthy, and 7th Edition is also bad and complaint-worthy that doesn't mean that 5th and 7th are equally bad.  One can be bad, but still vastly better by comparison.

"I think the biggest change that is commonly griped about are two fold:

1) allies
2) forge world"

These DO matter.  The option to include allies and OTT forgeworld bullshit means that any chance of balance between individual codices is ruined.  GW made the list-building so open-ended that there is no reasonable way to balance them competitively.

"In 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition there were usually three power builds that the vast majority of players took (i am speaking from heavy 3rd and 4th tournament experience and saw it in 5th after i had gotten out of tournament play)."

That's right folks:  you're being lectured on tournament balance between 5th and 7th edition by a guy who hasn't played in a tournament in a decade or more and hasn't played in a competitive tournament in either of the two editions he is talking about.

"Today you can face six or seven power lists and the listbuilding phase is much harder to win in."

This is where the author lets you know the reason people hate 7th edition is because there are TOO MANY good lists, rather than too few.  You see, us bad tournament players apparently like it when there are only a handful of lists to prepare for since our pea-brains can't handle anymore.  Once you introduce "six or seven" possible tournament armies our donkey brains can't cope and we just say the game is broken.  That's a weird conclusion to draw when I can argue (as someone who actually played 5th edition tournaments, as opposed to the BOLS writer) that were were many, many competitive lists in 5th edition, and based on everything I see now, there are far fewer good options in 7th.  

Well that's it.  I'm going to crawl back into my cave.

The 40k Community Has a Loser Mentality Part II

In my previous angry rant, I went off on some BoLS commentors who are clearly idiots.  It isn’t just that they have strong ideas about what the game should be, it’s that they feel that their ideas are superior to everyone else’s’ and consequently anything contrary is to be dismissed, and dismissed with maximum indignation.

WhenI talked about scrub mentality on 3++, I was NOT talking about them.  As I admitted in that article, I have my own self-imposed rules and limits about what kind of army I would play.  These rules do probably limit how competitive my armies could ever be, but there is always a chance that my rules would happen to coincide with what’s good, and I could end up playing a hyper competitive army.  But really, the point is, my rules are for me, not anyone else.

Unlike these BoLS commentors, I don’t think the type of lists I prefer should apply to everyone else.  I don’t think that the level of competitiveness I prefer to play at is the only level everyone else should play at.   I cannot fathom being under the delusion that my happy medium is what everyone else should be forced into. 

So this brings me to my conclusion.  The scrub mentality is completely different than the loser mentality. 

A scrub would say: I only enjoy playing foot lists, but I try to have the best foot lists possible and I love smashing people’s mech armies.

A loser would say:  Full mech armies are WAAC garbage and if I see my opponent put down 8 razorbacks I’ll pack my army up and leave.

I have no problem with the scrub mentality, and I’ll admit I have strong scrub tendencies as do most competitive players in the hobby, simply because aesthetic appeal of the armies and units is a strong reason to play a particular army.  Playing an army you hate aesthetically just to be as competitive as possible seems really rare in the 40k community. 

I have a big problem with the loser mentality.  Whether they use fluff, or “what the game designers intended,” or claim to not be competitive, they are similar to the scrub.  But the scrub holds only himself to these rules; the loser tries to hold everyone else to them.

The 40k community is, in fact, a community.  The key to being a member of a community is understanding that people can hold incompatible ideas to yours, but rather than “packing up your army and leaving” you learn to coexist.  If you don’t like playing against hyper-tuned competitive opposing lists: don’t play against them.  Find members of the community with a similar interest to you, and play against them.  There is nothing wrong with asking your opponent before the game whether he is bringing a tournament testing list or a fun list.  Packing up your stuff and leaving is a sign that you are not ready to be a member of the community, and it’s seems clear to me that if you’re that upset you should probably avoid playing publicly. 

Thoughts?  Comments?  Questions?

The 40k Community Has a Loser Mentality

Reference: This article.

No, not the article itself, but the comments.  The author of the article has a winner mentality, actually.  He, or his playgroup, found a cool and innovative combo that most people probably hadn’t discovered.  And being justifiably excited about this discovery, he posted it to share with the world.

And he got pilloried for it.  By a bunch of people who take being ‘scrubs’ to a new level.

Could you imagine this happening in another game with a different community?  Imagine a Magic player discovering a new combo that no one ever thought of, crafting a pretty cool deck out of it, and sharing it with the community.  He would be complimented, encouraged and would set off a chain reaction hundreds of other players rushing out to test it out themselves in order to tune and improve the new interaction further.  If the deck turned out to be really good, he would probably have it named after him, and would have a measure of immortality in the community.

Not in this community.  Nope!  All innovation is strictly punished by a bunch of fucking losers who hate the idea of progress, innovation or competition.  These are the types of players who want to play infinite games of their Space Marine battle company list against their buddy’s 180 Boyz Ork army until the end of time.  They interpret any sort of discovery of a clever rules interaction as ungentlemanly at best, and cheating at worst.  Fuck them.  They are holding this game back, and holding the rest of the community back.

And let’s be frank: this Daemon/Ork list probably isn’t even very good.  But it isn’t about whether it’s good or not.  It’s fucking creative and innovative.  It pushes the boundaries of what players consider possible further out.  That is good!  Even if the idea itself isn’t good, we should encourage this kind of experimentation and innovation and creativity.  That is what a winner mentality is.  If you’re not on board for it, you’re a fucking loser, so shut your mouth.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Questions?

Today in Awful Warseer Tactics Part 20

Hello and welcome to the 20th edition of my ongoing look into the abyss that are web forums for Warhammer. Two types of people post on these forums: complete newbs who are confused and in search of good advice to help them get better and then you have the man-babies who are completely awful at these games but get off on the power trip of being the 'smartest guy on the forum.'  Since they are usually terrible at the game, the advice they give is generally poor.  This series exists to spotlight the horrible answers to innocent questions.  

This particular article is based on a thread I've been monitoring for a while.  Teclis is the boogeyman of Warhammer Fantasy.  No other single model attracts more hate and fear than the High Elf Bad Boy, and with good reason: Teclis is more than capable of single-handedly destroying an unprepared opponent.  I've seen Teclis all by himself wipe out 2/3rds of the opposing army by the end of turn 2.  Scary stuff for a guy who costs under 500 points.  Unfortunately, being under 500 points means that you can play him in 2,000 point games.  This is 25% of your list, but is often worth it.  Unfortunately, a seasoned opponent who knows how to handle it (still tough to do, but definitely doable) will be able to take advantage of the fact that your army is much smaller than his.  If he is able to mitigate Teclis' damage for a turn or two, you can usually win.

So in this thread the OP asks how to beat Teclis with his VC army.  This is tough, because Teclis dropping Purple Suns or Dwellers can kill Undead faster than you can re-raise them.  And Undead are usually slow which means getting to Teclis' magic bunk can be problematic.  Beating Teclis with VC means bringing good units that are capable of getting across the board.  Luckily, VC have no shortage of flying units that can harass Teclis and also harass warmachines in other match ups.  Thus, the answer is as usual, "bring a balanced list with fast/flying units and/or scouts/vanguard units and/or outflanking troops."  This is good advice for all Fantasy players and very applicable here.  Unfortunately, this is not the advice he gets...

Madival: I have an opponent fielding teclis, 40 sword masters in horde with bsb , 20 seaguard and 25 seaguard with noble that makes all the 25 guys attacks magical. I am only worried about teclis as vampire counts. I am fielding a 30 man GG unit banner of barrows , 2x30 zombies, 30 skeletons, 2x5 dire wolves, hemmler, o2 necro with rod of flaming death, 2x5 hex wraiths and a black coach. What should I do ?

This set up is fairly good, you need to get across the board and kill Teclis in hand to hand with your fast units.  Also Hemmler is pretty bad, you need a better magic phase to compete.  But just heed my advice from above.

Look at this pimp, ruining British noobs fun since 8th Edition launched

Icedcrow:  I'm also a fan of dropping every cannonball and mortar shot and sniper shot at him. He's bound to fail a look out sir roll when you use weight of numbers. I'm not sure of your army but if you have access to any of the above, let er rip.

Yeah, because VC have tons of Cannons and mortars.  Goddamn I hate you.  Even if they DID have cannons and mortars you think that him failing a 6++ ward save is the best way to deal with him?  What horrible, horrible advice.

Frankly: Set up a some magic defence, look at all the anti magic items and get a few that either hurt him or shut down a spell or two.

Explain to me what magic defensive items exist that shut down a guy who gets irresistable force on his spells, and is immune to the miscast?  Because I'd love to know.  Do you even play this game or know what Teclis is?

BigbyWolf: One of my clubs has come up with a novel way of dealing with Teclis.

If anyone ends up playing against someone using Teclis, they themselves get a free Teclis to use for the game. We even have a club Teclis model for people to use should the situation arise.

Should the club Teclis already be in use and someone else puts out a Teclis army, they must then give their Teclis to the opposing army, and play the game without Teclis, and the opposing army uses that Teclis as a bonus Teclis.

Any further people trying to use Teclis on the same night are forced to sit in the corner holding up a sign with "I must learn to play tactically..." written on it.

They also aren't allowed any of the club donuts.

Most people tend to stop bringing him unless they have specifically agreed to use him with their prospective opponents the previous week.

Wow.  Let me add: wow.  This is an example of why American players believe that Brits are non-competitive players.  I know that stereotype isn't true, but this... just isn't good.  If all Brits think Americans are Stelek, this guy is what people here think of Brits.  Could you imagine moving to a town where these fucking jokes are the only people you have to play with?  I would be so sad if the only games I could get were against people like this, because I'd have to quit the game.  These are the people who love comped tournaments.  These are also people whose idea of cutting edge tactics is anything other than moving your army forward as quickly as possible.  This guy is officially the king of this thread.

Warplock:  I wouldnt play against him at 2000 points. Ask the opponent to desist.

I wouldn't want to play against you at any point level, just in case you were wondering.

In reply to BigbyWolf...

Graxy: thats possibly the greatest thing I ever heard

Morkash: I fully approve of this

I can't tell who is dumber, the original genius, or the borderline morons who agree with him?

Calnen:  Unless it's an agreed competitive game (conga lines etc included), then a gent just wouldn't take him. The rules for him are clearly not as intended.

More people who understand GW's 'intentions.'  GW did a couple of revisions of the High Elves FAQ since 8th Edition came out, if the rules were not operating as intended, they have had plenty of opportunity to rectify it.  But they didn't.  So even if I agree the unit is powerful, I have to disagree with you about GW's intentions.  

wbarobinson: High elves suck, Teclis is the only thing that makes them playable. Just fly a kitted ghoul king over and kill him. Or vargheists and kill him. Or a vargulf and kill him. Or a terrogheist and kill him.

Congrats on injecting sanity into this thread.  You seem to have a head on your shoulders.  That said, you need to get out of Warseer as quickly as possible before you get contaminated.

With that said, now I am the one who has to get out of this thread, before I'm becoming contaminated.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Concerns?

Today in Awful Wareer Tactics Part 19

It's been a while since I've done one of these and I know you guys enjoy them, so I sacrificed my own sanity to delve into the metaphorical muck of Warseer's forums to bring you another episode of people asking stupid questions, getting even stupider answers, and me making fun of them.  This entry deals with a guy who plays Dark Elves but loses all the time.  His spelling and grammar are atrocious, so perhaps it's an intelligence issue.  Or perhaps not.  Let's see, my comments are as always, in orange.

Bleekeboy: Hi guy's,


I playing dark elves, and need some help.
The most of the times i play agains is skaven and beastmen, but somehow i lose al the time.
i could use some nasty tactics to beat them .


I got alomst every model.

So the obvious thing to do is ask him what kinds of lists he runs.  Any major flaws (not enough magic, not enough Hydra, too many Executioners etc.) could be pointed out and we could send him on his way.  Let's see what we get from the scum of the internet...

Joeman169: What units are you taking? I like 30 or so executions with banner of the hag graef, and a 35+ horde of corsairs to match. 1 cauldron to give ward save where needed, little bit of magic, sprinkle in some repeating crossbows for added effect and you should more often than not vs those 2 arrmies.

Yes, he should definitely run 30 of a horrible unit lead by a horrible character, supported by a horrible core choice.  And good call advising someone playing one of the best magic armies in the game to bring "a little bit of magic."

Tamarichards: A Fire level 2, who can also carry your Dispel Scroll, will make fairly short work of abombs and will also add a good bit to all-round lists.

Really.  The best thing you can think to do to kill abominations is bringing a 170 point character who serves almost no other purpose?  And you claim that this kind of blatant tailoring qualifies as an "all-round" list choice?  For shame!

Oberst: for which size?? 3000 points? In 2000 I use to take 15 cold one with a noble an the banner of hydra and just a lvl 4 often shadow or black, sometimes death.

Thanks for telling us about your garbage Cold One Knight deathstar.

Symrivven: Dark riders are nice, but practically everything they can do shades can do better.

Yeah I love doing feigned retreats with my Shades completely cock blocking someone's deathstar.  dot dot dot.

Zabousta: I have to say I am surprised that everyone is suggesting Executioners for a fight against Skaven. Since his opponent till have little armor and T3 throughout most of his army, Witch Elves are a much better option.

Decent advice, except this is really taking list tailoring to a new level since Witch Elves aren't exactly awesome vs. all comers.  Wouldn't Corsairs be better?

Don Zeko: I wouldn't recommend taking assassins in a competitive list in 8th edition. They're far too expensive for what you get.

Finally someone posts something intelligent!  Thanks to you, I get to stop.

Well that challenged my sanity.  I hope you enjoyed, because I did not.

Editorial: The Awesomeness of Being Totally Wrong

I love, and I mean I absolutely love, when I am proven wrong about something in a competitive game.  Most people would think the opposite; that I would always want to be right, and get the validation of everyone telling me how right I am.  Maybe some folks do prefer that.  Personally, I love when I’m wrong about a conclusion. 

Why?  Simple really.  Let’s say I think a Unit A is great and Unit B sucks.  I play with A, and I win a lot simply because I’m a pretty good player.  Then one day I try using Unit B on a lark.  And I find out that not only does Unit B not suck, it is infinitely better than Unit A!  That’s the best feeling ever.  It’s akin to being one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, then having a coach ask you to change one small thing and after you do, you become an even better quarterback. 

It’s a total free-roll.  Playing with the house’s money at that point.  And I love it.

I bet by now that you are wondering what miraculous discovery I made that led me to make some sick brags about how I am so smart that on the rare times I’m wrong I impress myself.

So here it is, and it relates to Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Dark Elves.

I painted this, hence why it looks terrible.

The Cauldron of Blood is really good.  Especially in my chariot list.  The end.

…

Actually you deserve a bit more explanation for having put up with that lengthy preamble.

I was judging the CoB based on 7^th Edition ideas, quite honestly.  In 7^th Edition, Deathstars were godly for Dark Elves.  And the CoB made them even godlier.   So essentially, I was judging the CoB by the usefulness of the buffs it gives out.  And this was the correct evaluation, at the time.

However when 8^th Edition hit and the DE deathstars died, I was quick to notice that the buffs weren’t nearly as useful unless you’re running big hordes.   Unfortunately, big hordes of ranked infantry are only useful if your units are dirt cheap, which DE aren’t.  So I didn’t give it much thought anymore.

Once I started down the road of developing my chariot list, my initial goal was to pack as many chariots in as possible.  And that necessitated having my BSB ride a chariot.  Under normal circumstances, I would never put a BSB on a chariot, because it would be a fire magnet.  Generally a BSB has to sit in a unit to keep the heat off of him.

In the chariot list though, he is safer because there are 4 other chariots in front of him and two hydras nearby that are probably higher priority targets for the same types of things you’d shoot at the BSB with.  And it was fine.  I played many games with the list, and won many of them.  The BSB on a chariot was rarely a liability.

But I started to ask myself questions like, “since I rarely commit the BSB’s chariot to combat where he could be killed much easier, why am I spending 90 points on a chariot that is essentially an offensive upgrade weapon?”  As a quick aside, it is important, even when you’re ‘sure’ you have a finely tuned and optimal list to ask yourself critical questions about it.  You may have a great answer for those questions which is fine.  Or maybe you won’t have a good answer and you’ll find out some great new information.

The answer to my question was unsatisfactory.  The chariot was by and large a waste of points since I rarely risked putting him into close combat.  But what was the alternative?  A walking BSB needs a big unit, and the strength of the list is not having big dumb blocks.  A BSB on a Dark Steed was a thought, but I ruled it out because while the Sorceresses on Steeds can play line of sight cute tricks to not get killed, the BSB kinda has to be in the right place at the right time.

So I considered, “why not use a CoB as a BSB?”  My initial reply was, “because the buffs aren’t worth it.”  And I was right, the CoB buffs alone are not worth it.  But maybe it’s strengths as a BSB are worth it.  It’s a Toughness 10, 4++ ward, 13 attacks plus Hatred behemoth.  It really is exceptionally hard to kill, which is a huge asset in a game system where the guy who loses his BSB first is at a tremendous disadvantage.

If you evaluate it as a tough as hell to kill BSB first, and look at the unit buffing ability as a nice bonus, the value of the unit really jumps out at you.  If my unit buffs end up not doing much, I’m OK with that because I’m getting such great value out of a T10 4W battle standard bearer.  If the buffs do end up doing something valuable, that’s icing on the cake.

And I was right, the CoB is a most excellent upgrade in my Dark Elves chariot list.  My list is now much better (post on the updated list someday soon) and wins more games more easily. 

The conclusion here really isn’t specific to Dark Elves or even Fantasy; it’s broadly applicable to anything you’re competitive about or even life in general.  Don’t be afraid to ask yourself tough questions about closely held ideas and challenge your faith in everything you have faith in.  Socrates was fond of saying that the unexamined life isn’t worth living, and he was right.  Be introspective about everything, and your life will improve in meaningful ways.  Be introspective about your wargaming lists and strategies and your game play will improve in meaningful ways.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Questions?

Today in Awful Warseer Tactics Part 18

And we find ourselves back in Warseer land.  It's been a while, hasn't it?  Mostly because I haven't been bored enough, or brave enough, to venture into that cesspool.

Today's topic is about Dark Elf Executioners.  Simply put, the models are beautiful and awesome but the rules are garbage.  They are a really subpar unit.  They have great weapons but since they strike last and have minimal defenses you either have to bring tons of them (bad because they cost a lot)  or back them us with a Cauldron of Blood (bad because it costs a lot when you think of it and the Executioners as a single unit).  But since the models are so cool, hope springs eternal and every few weeks someone will pop into a forum and ask how they can make them work.  This is one of those stories.

Fenrisulfr: I really want to be convinced that I should take some. Please someone give me a reason to take them over more traditional choices! Specifically, why should i take executioners instead of more black guard? 

You shouldn't.  Take more Blackguard.  Want the best of both worlds?  Play your Executioners as counts-as Blackguard.  That's all the advice you need.

Theunwantedbeing: 1. They're not capped at 20 models per unit so you can horde them
2. Giant double handed Draich's are hella cool, seriously though st6 makes a mess of things in a way that st4 just can't manage

1.  Great!  You can buy more of the already too expensive shitty dudes.

2.  Thanks for proving Str 6 > Str 4.  Then again, Str 4 Armor Piercing at Init 6 > ASL Str 6.

decker_cky: You should take them because they're a pretty cheap horde of high WS, high strength troops with hatred, and they'll generally be stubborn without a character. Perfect for a big horde, and perfect to boost with the cauldron that'll always be nearby.

They are NOT cheap.  Gnoblars are cheap.  Night Goblins are cheap.  Dark Elf Executioners are insanely expensive to horde up.  Oh and that Cauldron that's hanging around is a cheap too, right?

Mars: there's a lot of discussion about Executioners vs Black Guard vs Witches, which to me suggests that they're all powerful enough to make for a competitive choice. That and I only have the Executioner models and face a lot of Dwarfs and Chaos, so I find them rather useful. 

That is horrible logic.  Just because some internet imbeciles think Witches and Executioners are in the same league as Blackguard doesn't mean they actually are.

popisdead: Executioners are like weaker Bestigors (loosing Hatred second round).

Note to my readers: he was saying this as a compliment.  Really.

The rest of the thread devolves into an argument about whether or not to bring a Cauldron, which is assinine, because it presupposes that you are bringing Executioners.  Sorta like saying, "OK I contracted HIV, but would getting herpes make that better or worse?"

Today in Awful Warseer Tactics: BoLS Lounge Edition

Before I start, I would like to reiterate that I say dumb stuff all the time.  It wouldn't be hard to scour my blog and find examples of me being 100% wrong about a topic.  So when I post these, I would like to reiterate that even if I call you "fucking retarded" I don't actual mean it personally.  It's just polemic.  That said, I don't want anyone who reads my blog to get mad when I criticize a post they make in one of these forums, OK?

So in this short thread, we have a guy who sounds pretty newbish mentioning that he is getting his ass kicked by his friend's IG army.  The GK list is super bad.  The IG list is bad but at least playable.  The newb asks what he can do to get to his 24" sweet spot when his opponent is blowing him up from range.

The right answer is...

1.  Get a list that doesn't waste 20% of it's points in two characters.  Drop the GM.  Use the points to buy another Dread and to get up to 10 terminators.

2.  Learn to choo choo train your Rhinos and make effective use of smoke launchers.

3.  Walk the Terminators up behind your Rhino wall, casting Shrouding.  If done properly, you will have 3+ cover saves all over the place and you can laugh at the IG shooting phase.

Unfortunately, he gets some rather bad advice out of the gate.  Let's go to the video tape!

Denied: So I have been playing the new GK codex for a while now designing the army list that fits my style of play.

Apparently not, since you're getting smashed and thus your style of play sucks?

The question I ask is what can I do against an army that has a ton of Str10 large blasts every where? I tried closing the field gap and even using cover and smoking he was able to easily pop all my Rhinos..... there has to be a tactic here I am just not getting and I would appreciate advice in this manner. I mean I had Alpha strike and everything it was just pure pain in the fight.

Yeah, I'd say.  Choo choo train Rhinos.  Smoke.  Shrouding.  Win.

 Dark Link: Rule #1. Spread the f*#! out.

I know you're talking about his disembarked infantry/terminators, but I just want to add that since the guy is clearly missing the idea of Rhino trains, spreading out isn't going to do much for him.  By then it's already too late.  Also, I fear that telling him to spread out will be misinterpreted as spreading out his vehicles.  This is turning out to be a pretty sad excuse for good advice...

Rule #2. Your GM grants the Scout rule. Take advantage of it, both to get to the midfield more quickly and to outflank a unit or two.

He should drop the GM from his list entirely, not scout up.  Outflanking with the terminators is cute, but guess what?  If your libby isn't with the terminators than where is he?  If he is with the terminators he isn't casting Shrouding turn 1.  Lose.

Iceman: So, I guess I don't have any great ideas other than going second.

You're an excellent contributor.  Please quit the game.

Darklink: you might just need to change up your list a bit. It's not exactly the best GKs can do against IG or really even in general.

And after a rough start, Dark Link recovers nicely with some actual good advice.

Sonicpara: Rethink the Halberds. IG are mostly I3 so you don't need to spend the points on the Halberds. Instead, save those points and buy incinerators, psycannons, or hammers when you can.

It's called not list tailoring, fuck face.  The guy didn't ask how to tailor his list to beat IG, because removing the Halberds would be pretty fucking obvious.  You have such minion level thinking.  Have fun picking your nose at your fast food job for the rest of your life.  

Denied: I see your point if I was tailoring a list specifically for IG, but in a tournament setting I need to still be versatile and the GM with psykotroke is a great tool to have against any CC army as he defend the line of Rhino's with squishy GKSS inside.

What the fuck?  You mean a 10 strong terminator squad with a Librarian isn't enough to defend your midfield against CC armies?  Those things are insufficient for the task, but add in a Grand Master and suddenly you stomp CC armies?  I'm fairly sure you need to listen when to Dark Link's (and my) advice to drop the GM.  Your heart is in the right place with not list tailoring, but you sound like an 11 year old and you have the mentality of one too.  If you want to play hero-hammer place Space Wolfs.  GK don't win by drop 500 points into characters in a 2k list.

Today in Awful Warseer Tactics Part 16: Bolter and Chainsword Edition

It is a commonly accepted truism (sorta like a fact, but not actually a fact) that Grey Knights beat Orks badly.  Their heavy weapons are exceptionally good at killing Ork vehicles, and their basic troops' guns are Ork killers.  Plus they have a commonly taken Elite unit that makes Orks cry.  Not to mention, it's a modern 5th Edition mech army which in general should defeat an average Ork army consistently.

So why did a B&C drone feel the need to ask for specific advice on how to tailor his list against Orks?  Really?  You have to tailor your list to beat Orks?  Fuck you.  I hope someone in the replies points out this absurdity.

                                                             

Cmd Shepard: I'm planning to play Grey Knights in a highly competitive 2000 points match against Orks and I need your help in finding the best tactics against them.

Translation: I need help tailoring my list to beat an Ork player who is probably way better at the game than I am.

I don't know what list my opponent will play but I know how Orks are generally played at my local store.
The main body of the army is usually selected among these options.

1. Thraka and huge hordes of Boyz.
2. Huge hordes of Boyz. Thraka with a unit of orks in mega Armour.

Nevermind that part about the Ork player being good.

 1. Purifiers seems mandatory against Orks.

They are great against Orks, but in an army when the basic troops shoot and hit in combat at Str 5, they are HARDLY mandatory.

. The tech-marine's Orbital Strike appears interesting but I'm unsure if its cost justifies its efficiency.

If you think one pie plate per turn is going to beat Orks, you're smoking it.

3. Since I'll invest most of the available points in anti-horde/infantry units I may lack of anti-thank fire if he deploys Killa cans and/or deff dreads. Vindicare should easily deal even with AV 14 battlewagons. Beside he can target models equiped with power fist like weapons inside hordes, removing saves from HQ, etc.

Yes, Vindicares can kill one vehicle per turn.  Assuming that you kill the KFF guy first.  Oh, you haven't even mentioned the KFF Mekboy yet.  Which is the most important part of any Ork list these days.

4. Vehicles. Are vehicles efficient against orks or should I invest points in infantry units?

Both?  You do play 40k right?

7. HQ choice. Crowe is instrumental in making purifiers troops. I tend to include often an Ordo Xeno Inquisitor with a collection of grenades but I find a Librarian very useful against orks? What do you suggest?

Which one allows you to play the list you want to play most effectively?

God, what a fucktard.  Let's hope the relies are intelligent...

Magicman: I don't know alot about the GK Dex... Ive found pinning weapons to be really useful against them, since they usually park themselves in the backfield and stay there in small numbers. Keep pinning them each turn or get them to run off the board. 

You don't know anything about the codex, and then offer useless advice.  You're great.  There is a total of one pinning weapon in the book.  That will definitely shut down 3 units of Lootas.

Spartan249: I don't recommend a purifier spam list for one reason: tailoring. Purifier lists are a hellish match-up for any horde army like orks and tyranids, but they also have the weakness of limited deployment options and inadequate deep strike defense. 

"Limited Deployment options"?  Are you going to deep strike them even if they had the option?  No deep strike defense?  Proper deployment is the best deep strike defense.  If you deploy like a silly ass, Warp Quake isn't going to save you, buddy.

Thankfully, though, you were the first person to say the right word: tailoring.  Except the whole thread is about tailoring.  And you don't call him out on it.

Magicman: I'd pass up intimate relations for a week if i could have strength 8 autocannons. 

Why do I get the feeling that wouldn't be much of any sacrifice?

DarkGuard: Are you footslogging the Purifiers as well? The other unit I ran across on "3++ is the new black" was 8 Purifiers, 4 force halberds, 2 daemon hammers, 2 psycannons and a Rhino. 15pts cheaper, and you lose your two psycannons and two bodies, but you're more mobile, and more protected thanks to the Rhino.

I don't yearn for them [Str8 Autocannons], went up against them and my S7 autocannons won.

OH SHIT!  Kirby's virus has spread to these minions now.  Also, if you don't know why Str8 is much, much better than Str 7, I don't think anyone will be able to explain it to you.

DarkGuard: If you take the Vindicare out I'd consider something that can slaughter Orks in combat and act as counter-assault, like an Eversor 

Lol what?  An Eversor will die a horrible, horrible death to Orks.  He charges in, kills 5 of them, and then gets smashed quickly back.  Maybe you should actually read the articles on 3++ rather than admiring the pretty pictures. 

 

Yeah, Go Ahead and Drink At Tournaments

Adam at Space Wolves has been posting some excellent bat reps from his strong finish at the UKGT this month, and I've been enjoying them.  He does a great job of making sense of the game via text, and the pictures are always helpful.  Along with Xaereth, I think he does the best bat reps on the blogosphere.

Anyway, in Round 4 he played against a Nid player named Tim King.  According to Adam, Tim had narrowly drawn with him at previous events, and he has beaten some of Adam's friends in previous events.  Plus, he was near the top tables at a major GT.

This time, though, Adam blew him out of the water.  It wasn't a close game.  How odd.  What happened?  Apparently, Tim showed up to the table blitzed drunk.  Good game.

Let's be clear, I drink alcohol.  I have a good time and I do like to get drunk occasionally.  It's all fun.  I get that tournaments are a good occasion to have a few drinks with friends from across the country you don't get to see a lot.  But really, have some respect for the game and your opponent and not drink DURING the freaking tournament.  Wait until the end of the day and hit up the bar with your buds, don't get wasted during the actual event.

It really does come down to a lack of respect for your opponent and the game.  People who attend tournaments like the UKGT run the gamut from competitive to hyper-casual, but I know that none of them enjoy playing against a guy who can barely stand and communicate.  It's frankly rather embarrassing.  

If I was a casual player, who is there to enjoy some fun games with nice people, the last thing I would want to do is waste one of my few matches on a dude who is totally obliterated.

From a competitive standpoint, when you're in round 4 at a major GT and near the top tables you expect to get a tough game against a good opponent.  How fair was it to everyone else that Adam essentially received a bye for the round?  I'm sure even Adam would have preferred to play a sober opponent, even if it meant that he would be jeopardizing his high finish.  I bet everyone who lost in the 4th round against a strong opponent was real excited to see a staggeringly drunk guy get blown out.

So the moral of the story is be responsible and respectful.  Have drinks and have fun, but don't let your drinking cross the line into ruining the fun for others.

Today in Awful Warseer Tactics Part 15

Here we are again.  How did we get here?  I must admit since I started doing this series, the bar has been raised in my mind for what I would regard as worthy of making a post about it.  So you can imagine that this one is pretty amazing.  It is a fairly short thread, by Warseer standards, but the original poster is so dumb and the responses so ridiculous that it has significant merit.

I also want to add, that I believe these are all adults.  It's possible the OP is an 11 year old, but I doubt it.  I have very little doubt that that he is at least 16.  Keep that in mind.

rcm2216: Has the meta game come down to who can kill the transports first and kick the troops out, then deal with the heavier armored vehicles later?  This is what it seems like to me.  The smart player probaly needs a list that is fast without transports and it wastes alot of anti tank firepower on small targets.

What say you?

I say you're as dumb as a sack of bricks.  For starters, the term "meta-game" doesn't mean what you think it means.  Yes, it is fairly safe to describe 5th Edition as a battle of mechanised forces, but that has nothing to do with any concept of "meta-game."

And guess what?  The smart player DOESN'T need such a list, because smart players know the list already.  You should have said that the dumb player needs it.  Also, I reject your proposition that a foot/hybrid based army has to be fast.  If you have reliable long range firepower you don't really need to be that fast.

Zealot!: fast w/o transports sounds like an elite list to me. less models = easier to get outplayed in the movement phase if you don't get a few choice transports open by turn 2.

More stupidity.  Fast without transports is an elite list?  Blood Angels 5 man Jumper units are elite?  You can have 6 units of 5 jumpers with melta/inferno for very few points.  Ironically, BA jumper lists tend to have more bodies than standard Marine mech lists.

Harrold: Wasted anti-tank fire can just as easily be directed at your high-value units. I'm just fine with turning a squad of lascannons on some tougher infantry if there's no armor on his side of the table.

Your 'shoot the lascannons at my 5 man combat squad' plan sounds like a real fucking winner.

Kelanen: Not most codexes, but all Imperial (and CSM) codexes.

Eldar, Tau, Necrons (Monolith is essentially a transport) have damn expensive transports.

Gee, what do those codices have in common?  They weren't written for 5th Edition!  How much do you suspect Devil Fish will cost in the next Tau book?  How much do you want to bet that Wave Serpents cost only slightly more than Razorbacks in the next Eldar book?

One Mean Duck:  this thread is the reason i think jumppack / shooty BA is one of the most powerfull armies out there.. Run assaults squads with jumppakcs and maybe vanguard with 2-3 rifleman dreads, some typhoons and such for opening tranpsots.

 You were so close.  Jumper/shooty BA is a powerful build.  Just not with the rifleman dreads and Typhoons.  Missile Devs with a priest bubble > Riflemen in the BA book.

Latro_:  I'm finding a good way to build a list is that its focus is to kill a11-12 dead with re-usability for big stuff, i'm loving multimeltas at the minute esp attack bikes.

So a good way to build a list is to start by acknowledging that you're playing 5th Edition.  Good start.

  

The Gribbly:  Its not so much the 'meta game' as it is just 5th edition. 

I love you.