Top 10 likes/dislikes about Skaven

Monthly Review: February 2014

Gaming Theory: Threat Analysis

This is going to be an article dedicated to discussing some gaming theory ideas between various wargaming systems. The main two topics are threat analysis and some talk about "dicing out" games. So threat analysis is going to simply refer to what kind of things I consider when I'm playing different wargames (what is a threat, how do I threaten them, what do I need to avoid, etc.). "Dicing out" is a term that I've heard used a lot in the warmachine community. Unlike warhammer, there usually aren't rolls made for saves during an opponents turn. Similarly, I think there's usually a focus on removing key models and carrying out a plan to scalpel out parts of the enemies army. "Dicing out" seems to encapsulate two key principles. The first is taking lots of tough troops, which are the one kind of save in warmachine. On a 5 or 6 the troop model isn't destroyed. These troops are usually taken in large numbers, which equates to a wave of bodies and many dice rolls. All these dice rolls mean, as the second portion of "dicing out", that your turns will usually run the time length in competitive play. This means that rather than rely on a decisive victory you can rely on the game being ended by time rather than scenario. So you're relying on rolling lots of dice and averages to expand your model's lifespan and then for said rolling to take up as much time as possible. 

To start with, I'm going to continue the trend of talking about warmachine. Below you'll find a diagram I'm going to be referring to. There's a key at the bottom to help you identity what the scribbles mean. I'm going to start discussing these diagrams from the left and move to the right. So positioning is a big part of warmachine, as is protecting your caster. That's why you'll notice the ranged units might try to get around the warbeast and shoot at the caster. The warbeast could move up and engage some of them to attempt to prevent it or the caster could retreat into the woods to block line of sight. You'll also notice the infantry on the right side could be blocking the advance the of the warbeasts as well as preventing each other from running past. While there's a range of possibility that exceeds what this drawing can express, it's basically here to show that each model has a purpose and the positioning of them can be used to tie up enemy models even if they aren't out to destroy them. There's also a lot of interaction between models and terrain. The end goal is to tie up enemy models, try to get to their caster, and prevent your models from ending up exposed or in unfavorable matchups. The best way to prevent a bad matchup is to compare either the accuracy of the enemy with your defense or their power with your armor. The larger the difference, the less likely you are to take damage. Terrain can be used to modify this, as can spells. However, there are no saves. This means if a model ends up in a bad position, there's nothing to keep the enemy from punishing you quite handily for it.

This diagram is for warhammer 40k. The first thing I think you'll notice is the much larger scale of the drawing. Eighteen inches is a rather long threat range in warmachine but a relatively short threat range in 40k. In this system the way I analyze a board has a lot more to do with the longer ranges of pieces. You can look for locations where you either can'e be seen (the black dot on the left) or recieve cover (dot 3, behind the hill). You also have to consider the range of your guns. In essence, I think 40k is all about balancing the number of models you can shoot, the saves you will get, and the number of models that can shoot back. Let's take a second to break that down mathematically. If I can put a model where it can see 100% of the enemies models, that's a pretty good position but that likely means it can be shot back. You'll notice how many of the black dots are moving towards an area where they are in the minimal number of ranges of the red dots. Let's say however, that dot 2 is a unit of terminators with storm shields. They now have either a 2+ or 3+ save against any shooting attacks. This means they have to be much less concerned about removing themselves from danger, especially since they need to be as close as possible to attack the enemy. Unlike warmachine, I think an abundance of saves can often replace the need for exact positioning. While there are "bad matchups" for units with 2+ or 3+ saves, these units can shrug off an immense amount of punishment before they die.

Finally, we have Warhammer Fantasy. In this system, combat is done by units in bock formations. Redirecting is also a much larger deal. Unlike in warmachine and 40k, you can choose to block the charges of units or flee from battles you would rather not fight. This can also mean forcing enemy units to take charges that put them in a compromising position . You'll notice how many of the charges either player might attempt in this one contradict the charges or movements of the other. The smaller units are probably either going to flee or get in the way rather than simply charge in. Also, the building on the right blocks movement, this means that while the two right most units might want to charge one another, they simply can't. In warmachine single models can be used to stop advances however, in this system units are more commonly used. The addition of re directors to force your enemy to expose a flank and fleeing units to entice them to purse means that you have the chance to actively lure your opponent out, rather than place models as scapegoats as you might in the other systems. You'll also notice that models for blocks and aren't spread out. This means they can't move between each other freely and instead form battlelines. If a unit is in a bad place, it  can be very difficult to extricate it because of the other large formations around it. 

In summary, it seems to me like there are few concepts that dictate how engagements are handled across these systems. Warmachine is about positioning my models where they need to be, preventing them from being exposed, and killing key models of my opponents. The goal is not to have to sacrifice my models in order to gain a tactical advantage. In 40k, the goal is to avoid the range of weapons that I don't feel like my saves can accommodate for, and bring my own weapons into range. Some units I can expose and some I need to simply avoid the range of my opponents guns with. In Fantasy it is all about getting my combat units into units I want to fight by fleeing with others or forcing my opponent to charge less optimal targets. In particular, this system has a very intricate, moving pieces kind of feel where units can flee at any time. I think one of the most interesting concepts of all this is the way units being threatened is conceived of. In warmachine it is very bad for a unit to be threatened. The goal is to avoid allowing your models to be put in a position where they can be threatened because once they are there your opponent can punish them with usually little retaliation. In 40k however, some units don't mind being put into the cross hairs depending on their saves. The extreme ranges also make it difficult to simply remove models from threatening situations. In fantasy, some models or units are intentionally put into harms way. This is because they are either expendable or they will be able to flee and escape danger. 

So what does this have to do with dice? Well in Warmachine, models that are put into danger don't get saves, all they can do is rely on your opponent to roll well below average to save them. The exception to this is when you put a model with high defense or armor in a position where only units with low accuracy or power can attack it. This means that on average they will be unable to harm it very much. In 40k however, you may choose to put units into harms way not because your opponents units are incapable of dealing with them, but because their rate of "saving" wounds done to them is high enough that they have little to fear. I think this concept is fundamentally different. You aren't relying on the ineptitude of your opponents models, but the power and averages of a dice roll to save yours. The likely hood and/or ability of your opponent to do something about it is slightly different. I think the second can be much harder to mitigate and much more frustrating. Here are two statements

"You need to roll a 7 or better on two dice to me and then a 10 or higher to damage me" (essentially a 1/2 change and a 1/3 chance, together that becomes a 1/6 chance of success)

Now compare this to the following:

"Ok, you've hit and damaged my model, if I roll a 2 or better it doesn't take any damage" (a 1/6 chance)

The second seems much more frustrating an unfair. It sounds as though I am negating your success. In the first example you can make your attempt and if you succeed that is the end of it. In the second you have almost succeeded at something but I am preventing it. This can be even more frustrating if there is not a system like Fantasy's flee/redirect where I can attempt to control where the engagement happens. In sort, I think there is a continuum of strategy and averages. In some gaming systems you want to take advantage, while in others you want to attempt to simply avoid engagement. I think the strategy aspect is a much harder art to master than "dicing out" an opponent. One last example to illustrate this. If I can avoid situations where saves are needed or I can be hit, the rate at which I do so is a sort of success rate. If you are simply unable to fight or shoot something due to certain restrictions though, it is safe and only a fault in my planning or execution will result in it being otherwise. If I am relying on being able to roll a 2 or better however, one sixth of the time that will fail. I think some game systems allow for more of one than the other and I don't think either is inherently better, just different. In any case I do think the method by which we perceive threats and avoid them is a vast, illusive, and divisive topic in wargaming. Before you judge a game as being unfair or having bad mechanics, take some time to compare it to other systems and see what they do that you like more or less. I think being able to conceptualize and articulate the differences between game mechanics is will make you a better player and will help you to dig deeper into why you love the game. 

Blood, Sweat, and Tiers

The rallying cry of gamers everywhere "that's so over powered" or "that's broken and you know it you filthy cheese head". As someone who plays a variety of gaming systems I'd like to take a minute to talk about how I view the ideas of power-gaming and gaming meta. I think Fantasy is probably the system where I'm the most familiar/the most prominent discussion of tiers tends to go on. A lot of people throw around lists that look something like this:


Top
Dark Elves
Skaven
Ogres

Empire


Upper Middle
Daemons
High Elves
Vampire Counts
Warriors of Chaos

Lower Middle
Brettonians
Dwarfs
Lizardmen
Orcs
Tomb Kings

Lowest
Beastmen
Wood Elves


While I don't completely agree with the list, I think the ideas present in it are pretty solid. Up top we have some armies that do a multitude of things very well and also have something they do very very well. For example, Skaven have shooty elements, solid magic, some movement shenanigans, and some half decent combaty units. What they excel in is bringing the most bodies to any given game along side some really power single models like hellpits and doomwheels. Middle tier armies have something they do well, but aren't as well rounded. Warriors of Chaos are probably the best melee oriented army in Fantasy, but when it comes to shooting they're virtually non-existent. Lower tiers struggle to do one thing well. While Wood Elves may be centered around shooting, one could easily argue that Empire has a better shooting phase.


Having played Skaven for a long time I understand some of the reasons why playing against them can be frustrating or seem unfair. I also play Beastmen a good bit of the time and I think the challenge to play against higher tier armies is sort of fun. In a way limiting your tool box to only the essentials (or even less than that) really challenges you to learn how to maximize your strategic decisions. Beastmen are an army that need their general to make lots of smart decisions and have a few moments of sheer luck. On the other hand, I would argue that anyone could learn to play Skaven in a few minutes. They are very forgiving and can easily compensate for bad strategy with the armies natural strengths.


I think this idea of tiers is present in other game systems and from now on we'll be talking more exclusively about what is good and what is not. Recently I played in the Finals for the Alabama Cage Match, a 40k tournament. I brought a list that was Dark Eldar Primary with Eldar (and Coteaz) Allies. While I think the list I brought was fairly strong, I don't think in terms of overall crunch that it's comparable to lists like Ovesa star with 4 riptides, the Ravenwing banner spam, or Flying Circus. This is to say that we don't see a lot of Dark Eldar Primaries finishing in top spots in tournaments like NOVA or the Las Vegas Open (where seer council with 4 waveserpents won). Sure some armies have elements of Dark Eldar in them but I think on the whole its safe to say that other armies are "Stronger". I played against a ravenwing list and won, necron air and won, but lost to the Daemons flying Circus. Some of this is just due to not having tools to deal with it. It's also due to luck and the fact that I played some very competent opponents. I think it indicates that if you bring an army that isn't top table, while you may win some games, you might not have the tools to deal with every opponent that you play.


To jump to one final game system, I also play Warmachine Hordes. I'm very conflicted about what to play in Hordes. I started off as a Skorne player and I still own the most models for them, as well as probably spending the most time playing with them. I do own just enough Legion of Everblight to have 2 50 point lists and one small 35 point (with some re-usage of models). I picked up a single caster and battlebox to paint because I thought they looked cool. After playing a few games I was instantly hooked on their play-style. In place of a grinding, militaristic game plan like I used with my Skorne, here was an army that rewards brutal alpha strikes and some cunning manipulation of special rules. On paper, a comparison between a faction built around solid stat-lines and some synergy against one wrought with special rules and game altering special abilities seems unfair. I think the common opinion is that Legion is a much more powerful faction that Skorne, but I don't think I agree with that. I think Skorne is a faction that is as much about overcoming one's self as it is the enemy. Sure the fluff supports such a distinction, but I think in terms of overall game-play Skorne requires a player to not only be methodical in their dealing with the enemy, but with their own units.


I think in the ideal world all game systems would be balanced and there wouldn't be contest between factions in terms of which is the "most powerful". Everyone wants to see the models they spent money on and time to paint do well. Nobody I know write a losing narrative for their armies while dreaming about how cool a "real" battle between them and their nondescript enemies would be. Sure some people like to play the Underdog army, but I think its more than that. I think some people come to the table with the mentality that they are going to try and play a better game than they did last year. Perhaps even more far-fetched is the person who comes to the gaming table knowing they they could have bought a new army, a better army, but instead they chose to play with models they love and have shown love to. Even in a tournament setting I think there is room for someone to make the best of what they can and realize that while it may not win tournaments, it may not even win games, playing the best game you can and hoping for that little bit of luck goes a long way. I've made the conscious effort to attempt to be a better general, a better sport, and to realize that the person with the overpowered army might just love their models for fluff, for their looks, and for things other than the deep seated rage they make me feel about game balance and I hope you will too.

Judging an Event

So this past weekend, the Alabama CAGE Match was held at the Crimson Castle. Lots of fun things happened, lots of games of 40k, lots of cool armies and models, and of course lots of players. I get a slightly different view of things, being the head judge.

I like to think I look this regal.

I really enjoy serving in this position, but it is very different than being an attendee. Being a judge consists of making a lot of tough calls, mainly because things come from unexpected quarters. You are expected to know all the rules, and you make people angry. You will be accused of being biased, openly or not. But all of that is just a minor portion. Rules are easily dealt with by using rulebooks and common sense. It is also critical to have a viewpoint of how things should go, or at least a theory of how you think 40k should be played. This helps inform your decisions when faced with uncovered rules questions, which are inevitable in this game. 

About as inevitable as the nerd rage.

But still more important than this, is that the judge is a key contributor in ensuring the happiness of the attendees. While every person is ultimately responsible for themselves, proper judging techniques can go a long way toward helping with enjoyment. Monitoring players throughout their games for their moods and behaviors. Many players exhibit their frustration long before it spills over, and the presence of a judge either nearby or directly at the table can mitigate poor behavior. Judges can also check in verbally to help decide on player attitudes and possibly provide uplifting comments. I find this helps the most when a less experienced player gets beat squarely by a seasoned veteran. Pointing out the veterans past achievements can usually help the newer player put his loss in context. Finally, making it clear that your decisions are final, while providing room for explanation and conversation on the rule. Most people at least want to be heard, so take the time to listen. After listening, make the call, and only consider additional discussion if new information is provided. Once this is done, I like to immediately walk away from the table, as this makes it clear that my decision is final. I will swoop back by that table to check in with the players again within five minutes or so. People get angry about rules, so checking back in is necessary, but they often need time to calm back down after a ruling.

Knowing your army

I am not talking about just knowing your codex. I meaning actually knowing your army.

For me, I love the background of Warhammer 40,000 a lot. I used to do a lot of narrative campaigns with my friends, but time changed that. I don't feel like I know my Eldar as well as I did my Orkz or Space Wolves. It is through those really fun narrative games that you play with your friends that you get to know your army. It is like you know what your commanders have been through in addition to any backstory you may have given them. I believe it is a very important aspect of the game. It makes those made up campaigns more memorable, and even makes your commanders more fun to play with as well. For me, my warlord is myself embodied in a miniature. It is who I see myself as in that particular army.

I really believe this is why I struggle with my Eldar and almost lost interest in them. I do not yet have that connection to my Farseer yet. Yes, he is named, but he hasn't made a name for himself. For example, the very first game I played with my Orkz, my warboss was in close combat with my friend's Necron lord. He looked as if he was reaching for the resurrection orb. From then on, he became known as Grazdreg the Shinysnatcha' after beating down that Necron. My whole theme for my Ork army came from that one memorable moment. Or that one Blood Claw that killed a Carnifex on his own and eventually became my Wolf Lord through what he did on the tabletop.

Maybe it was because I was in such a rush to prepare a list worthy of CAGE that I missed on the opportunity to develop the background needed for me to really enjoy my Eldar. With another year to prepare for CAGE, my goal now is to make memories with my Eldar and make sure to give my Tau that chance right from the beginning.

Competition and Community

A pretty smart man (Samuel Johnson) once defined competition as 'the action of endeavoring to gain what another endeavors to gain at the same time.' When players enter a Warhammer 40k tournament, they're all trying to win, to gain 1st place, or perhaps 2nd or 3rd. This is how tournaments usually dole out prize support: Best Overall, Best General, Best Appearance, Best in Faction. There are titles and prizes for each 'Best' that players compete to get.

What I don't get is why anyone would want to attend a tournament if they don't think they'll be the 'Best' in one of those categories.  A tournament is a competition, right? The point of a competition is to win, plain and simple. If you don't think you'll win, you're only there to be beaten, to pay an entry fee which goes to fill the winner's pockets. Sounds like a ton of fun. A small handful of players can actually expect to wrangle for the top spots in each 'Best' category. The rest of us are like Sisyphus, pushing the heavy rock of hope up a hill, only to have it come rolling back down on top of us.

All of the above is a pretty silly way to define a 40k tournament.

A good 40k event is one where everyone can have fun, from the guy who wins Best General and has a 5-0 record, to the guy who comes in last place and gets tabled in every one of his games. Yes, it's a great thing that we reward the 'Best' players in different categories: generalship, painting, sportsmanship, etc. We reward the 'Best' so we can give everyone ideals to strive for in the hobby. But if the only thing that makes a tournament enjoyable is the competition, the chance to be that 'Best' in whatever, a lot of people are going to walk away from an event quite unhappy. Every event has far more losers than winners.

You might object that I'm defining 'competition' too narrowly.  After all, can't competition be about having close, hard-fought games of 40k, where the winner and loser are often determined by a single die roll or risky tactical decision on the last turn? Why does it matter who wins or loses, as long as each player is striving to do their own best at the hobby and having a blast doing it? That's healthy competition, right?

Sure, we use the word competition to describe that kind of atmosphere: close-knit, friendly gamers that challenge each other to do better. But I think we're using the wrong word when we call that competition. A competition is a struggle to determine who is stronger, smarter, better. Personally, I don't care so much about finding out who the 'Best' is: I'm interested in the struggle itself, the drive to improve myself in tactics, list-building, and painting, and the ways I can encourage others to do the same. That's not competition, that's community! Being the best doesn't matter, becoming better does.

From my perspective, that's what CAGE is all about: building community. Sure, there are prizes to be won by performing the 'Best' in different categories, but that's not the point of holding an Alabama 40k tournament, it's just a side effect. The point is to have fun, to become better as a community at the game of 40k, and to celebrate the hobby we've all invested so much time, money, and imagination in.

Only one person can win a competition, but the entire community can enjoy the game.

~Wraithdrad~