3 Armies Enter, 1 Army Leaves

by Ishamael

Hey folks, I am still sitting here mulling over army lists that I would like to play with. Since I last posted, I have ruled out all the Marine books except for Dark Angels, Space Marines, and Grey Knights. I am tweaking the Thunderfire Cannons some more, and hope to gain some efficiency from that. At this time, I am gonna throw out the Ravenwing list I would play, and the Grey Knight list I have been working on for a couple weeks.

The Ravenwing is a link to YTTH.

Pre-game scouting with every unit I have, with almost every one of them being scoring, and able to deal with heavy vehicles, MCs, and even hordes? On just a few bikes? :3

This next one is a modification of a submission I made on min/maxing the Grey Knights codex, and I think this updated version is better overall than my first attempt:

Brotherhood Champion- psybolt ammo 105

5 Grey Knight Strike Squad- Psycannon, Razorback with psybolt ammo 160
5 Grey Knight Strike Squad- Psycannon, Razorback with psybolt ammo 160
5 Grey Knight Strike Squad- Psycannon, Razorback with psybolt ammo 160
5 Grey Knight Strike Squad- Psycannon, Razorback with psybolt ammo 160

5 Grey Knight Interceptor Squad- Psycannon 140
5 Grey Knight Interceptor Squad- Psycannon 140

Venerable Dreadnought- Autocannon, psybolt ammo 190
Venerable Dreadnought- Autocannon, psybolt ammo 190
Venerable Dreadnought- Autocannon, psybolt ammo 190

Dreadnought- 2x Autocannons, psybolt ammo 135
Dreadnought- 2x Autocannons, psybolt ammo 135
Dreadnought- 2x Autocannons, psybolt ammo 135

2000

And so my dilemma rears itself. In essence, which army's playstyle would I enjoy the most is the problem. Ravenwing, which is fast, elite, and has the tools to succeed in every squad, along with the fact that I will be competitive with the Dark Angels book. ;) The Grey Knights have the benefit of plenty of vehicle hulls, excellent support fire at most ranges, and even some minor cc ability with the Venerables,Strike Squads, and Interceptors, as well as the tarpitting ability of the Brotherhood Champion. When it comes to my Thunderfire list, I recently changed it to where I replaced the Master with a Librarian that has a combi-melta, Gateway, and Vortex. I also switched the Scout squad's melta bomb for a combi-melta. It gives me the ability to teleport my Scouts to an objective, as well as double-melta something.

I have priced the Ravenwing and Grey Knights so far, and they're actually quite similar in dollars, with only about 50 bucks in difference. The Space Marine list would be a bit cheaper to make, since there is always someone wanting to get rid of Marines. :)

I need to sit and stew some more on this decision. It will be in the fall that I will actually start going after whichever army list I want to make.

Thoughts?
Ishamael

Thunderfire Experimentation

by Ishamael

Hey folks, Ishamael here to bring entertainment and large explosions. Recently I have been looking into starting a Marine army, and have been considering my options. So far, I have no desire to play Wolves or Templar, but the other books hold something that I would like to play, whether it be Ravenwing or jumptastic sparklies. To this effect, I have been wondering on how to construct a list that uses Thunderfire Cannons. I like the model, and it's quite flexible on which kind of infantry you will be killing this particular turn, and it can be very annoying with the Tremor shot. So, here is a 2000 point list, with notes below it:

Master of the Forge- Conversion Beamer 120

4x Tactical Squads- meltagun, combi-melta, missile launcher, Rhino, hunter-killer 940
5 Scouts- cloaks, missile, melta-bomb 105

3x Riflemen Dreadnoughts- 375

3x1 Speeders- heavy flamer, multi-melta 180

3x Thunderfire Cannons- 300

Fairly simple. The Master deploys with the Scouts in a fortified building, giving everyone a great save, and they just shoot at heavy targets the whole game. Given how the Beamer works, in the back of one's deployment zone would work well. The cannons deploy to cover as much of the board as possible, taking cover saves and bolstering defenses where available. The Dreadnoughts hit light vehicles to de-mech enemies. The Tactical Marines combat squad up, with double meltas advancing in the Rhinos, and the missiles sitting back, hopefully in cover, adding support fire. The Landspeeders threaten heavy vehicles getting too close, or just fry something. This list works at a great number of ranges, and helps whittle away enemies as they get closer.

I'm going to stew on this list, because there aren't really any obvious threats apart from the Cannons. As such, I may need to go back to the drawing board to come up with something the opponent has to deal with (Shrike 'n Termies).

This is just one thing I'm considering doing with Marines. Grey Knights are very tempting and are on my list, yet I want to see what I can do with other books that are good and rarely done. Like Ravenwing, or a full-on Dreadnought army using the vanilla codex.

Yarp?
Ishamael

Inferring from Tournaments, Warmachine Style

by Ishamael

Time to look at Privateer Press' notion of how a tournament should be done. I cannot even begin to talk about Warmachine without talking about PP's statement of purpose, Page 5. There are a few guidelines here talking about how to play Warmachine, but it reduces to this: give as good as you get, be aggressive, don't whine, and don't be a douche using Page 5 as an excuse. As far as mission statements go, this one is pretty sweet, although I would prefer some statement about experienced players being required to bring newer guys up to their level, in painting and the game. So, here we have the ground project of Privateer Press' approach to everything. What about their tournament structure?

Showing here.

Let us begin from the top. So, we start here with just a little something about how players should come to the event with all their gear to play the game. Oddly, it lacks some sort of penalty for being forgetful, but some things are easily replaced if someone forgets, like stat cards. Next, everyone brings a couple printouts of their army lists, and may bring up to 2 armies, subject to the same points restrictions, and not using the same warcaster/warlock. From here I will combine modeling, painting, and converting. In all cases, you can only use PP models in tournaments. While painted models look better, you don't ever have to paint a single model to play in these tournaments. Finally, conversions must be easily recognizable, and you must use the appropriate weapons on jacks and beasts. As for sportsmanship, I love that the TO does have the basic right to kick people if they are being belligerent. They deserve this power.

What's that? I call bullshit on GW immediately, but skim over PP's stuff? :3

Well, allow me to methodically go over every point in the above paragraph.

Everybody loves it when one's opponent comes fully prepared. Sometimes we forget things, and hopefully people will be willing to help out, maybe even let someone else use one's dice or tape measure. From here comes a huge beef I have with Warmachine and Privateer Press, which is how we are allowed to come to a tournament with two lists made up. Sure, they have to be from the same faction, but what does this option say about the design philosophy of PP? Let us look at what stems from some examples of different casters meeting. I take the Khador caster Old Witch (all you need to know is that she makes warjack shooting awesome). I bring a balanced list consisting of answers for heavy/light jacks, mass infantry, multi-wound infantry, even incorporeal things. I walk up to the table, and see that my opponent is using the Epic version of Kaya the Moonhunter. Her army is almost nothing but Warbeasts. So, we set up, I move forward and get ready to pew pew. Kaya moves up with her beasts, and casts Shadow Pack, which gives all her beasts Stealth, which makes any ranged attack outside of 5 inches automatically miss. Wait. So every single shooting element of my army is virtually useless? Then how can I stop the enemy from reaching my lines and wiping the floor with me? Kaya's beasts are all melee-based, and are virtually immune to any form of shooting! How can I ignore Stealth? Blasts can't directly hit, so they're useless, and any spray attacks I have don't have the power to scratch the paint on some bipedal wolf's crotch protector, and the only way I could possibly get around Stealth in Khador is to bring at least one Spriggan, which has flares. Or a specific warcaster. Fuck me running, did I lose this game before we even set up, even with a balanced approach to list building? Depending on the scenario, I may be able to eke out a victory, but her beasts are going to get to my line virtually unscratched, so I'm up pooper creek without a paddle. Man, if only I knew that my enemy was using Kaya beforehand, then I could have brought a Spriggan with shooting elements, or an army of flying warjacks with heavy cavalry support so I can get the charge. This is my issue with Warmachine, and it is a fundamental one. I has been confirmed by my asking experienced players, and it's utter bullshit. This game is based on matchups. Caster X trumps Z, but Z fails against Y. Really? This random warlock walks up, and, just because she has ONE specific spell, just neuters my army? Something I did not mention earlier is that the players choose their lists secretly before their opponents see them. What's the advantage of bringing 2 lists then? Why are we allowed to bring 2 lists?

Fix your game system, and then require only ONE list. Man up.

Warmachine is so fundamentally flawed it cannot even function as a competitive gaming system, let alone as a successful tournament one. In 40k, you bring a balanced list to a tournament to handle as many foes as possible, and you don't get "trumped" because someone else brought a specific HQ with a random spell, or even a specific army. This is my main beef with Privateer Press, and I will come back to it later.

To begin with modelling, only Privateer Press models may be used. Period. Oh, you can convert something and make a model for something that is in an army book, yet does not yet exist as a model, but it's gotta me mostly Privateer Press bits! People gripe and complain about how GW is a giant money-grubbing machine, yet PP is right here, telling us that we cannot make completely new models from scratch, even if we have it on the right base and our opponents know what they are. Bullshit. This is little more than a statement telling the player base to buy only their product. This also disenfranchises folks that like a particular unit, yet hate the model for it. I've seen scratch-built models made of mostly green stuff that have been allowed into Warhammer tournaments, and they look great. Doesn't GW have a standing policy that we don't have to use precisely only their models? Aren't utter proxies allowed when easily identified? Now for their lack of painting as a priority.

It's easy to go out and buy models. It's bloody hard to get to painting all of them. While there exists something called a PP "Hardcore" tournament, in which everything must be painted, it's odd that their basic tournament structure doesn't entice anyone to paint a damn thing. What, is this so people just keep buying without ever worrying about finishing what they start? Isn't wargaming something called an avocation, one which entails painting? Does anyone want to be part of something that only marginally wants you to paint? Maybe, if you have absolutely no interest at all in painting. I paint so I can play, simple as that, yet this game system lacks any real motivation to even begin that arduous task.

Their conversion policy is OK. It's nice that everything needs to have its appropriate weapon on, otherwise someone's going to confuse an Ice Axe (ridiculously strong), for an Executioner's Axe (decently strong). It also lets me convert my Man-O-Wars into Bombardiers without much trouble. I should get ahold of some Guardsmen grenade launchers for laughs.

To move right along, it's nice that TOs need to have multiple copies of the scenario being played ready to hand out to players. Final standings in this are determined by wins, not points, and something called "strength of schedule." This is referred to when one has a tie, and the breaker goes to the guy that fought more guys with "wins" than his opponent. I really see no strong correlation between a win and opponent strength, but at least a tiebreaker exists. Admittedly, it's unclear to me exactly what these "control points" are, but I think it refers to something specific to each scenario that one controls.:P Another weakness of Warmachine is that, regardless of scenario, if you kill the enemy HQ, you win. If that were the case, I'd love to catch someone's HQ out in the open with a railgun. Punk!

I want to end this quick overview with a request to the community.

I have heard that bringing two lists to a Warmachine tournament is in the same vein as bringing a side deck for Magic the Gathering. Unfortunately, I cannot address this criticism, although I understand the rudiments of it. Some decks are simply more powerful and trump yours, so bring along cards that you can switch out in subsequent rounds to take care of that opponent. Funnily enough, Magic consists of multiple rounds against the same opponent, while Warmachine does not. Furthermore, since neither opponent knows his enemy's list beforehand, why are we able to bring multiple lists anyway? Game imbalance. What if someone walks around at the start of the tournament, and catalogues a bunch of peoples' lists, and brings his "better" list every time?

Something interesting that I have no experience with in Warmachine is their usage of a turn timer. In a 35 point game, they dictate that players only can have 10 minutes per turn, with a once-per-game extension of 5 minutes. This seems to favor smaller armies greatly, as a jack-heavy army will be easier to move and use than an infantry-based one. Never used it before in a game, but it helps guarantee that games end on time, and players get to have a minimum of so many turns, which is an issue in 40k games.

I want to end this with something I've been told, yet only realized while writing this. It has been claimed that people go to Warmachine because they dislike how GW approaches wargaming. GW wants pretty armies and favors a good time over a hard game, while PP wants no painting and encourages hard games. Go point by point, and PP just takes the opposite of GW. It really feels like this tournament system is tailored to appeal to people disenfranchised with GW.

Well, I have only one thing to say to people whom make the claim that Warmachine is superior:

Games Workshop has a flawed tournament system with a good game system that will only get better with their new approach. Privateer Press cannot even get the game system right, because their damn warcasters and warlocks vary greatly in power against one another. It's model euchre, and that's bad game design.

Playing both sides of the field,
Ishamael

In the Pipeline

Hey folks, Ishamael here with a small update on some things I am working on.

To continue my analysis of the tournament structures of GW and PP, expect the Warmachine bit this Friday. To hint at what'll be in there, all I'm going to say now is that Warmachine has fundamental problems on the gaming level before one can even get to a tournament.

I have wanted for some time to do a series of articles on Tau deployment, but I can't get VASSAL to work properly for me, so I'll be uploading pictures from a table here in the house. There'll be deployment thoughts, subsequent turns, and deploying for multiple gametypes.

Lastly, I've been wanting to write something on how gender is approached in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books. While many things are similar to own own cultures, the power structure of that world is such that it warrants a close look at the correlation on how saidin is tainted, and saidar safe to touch. It'll probably begin macroscopically, then microscopically.

Oh, and I need to be painting my damn Tau army. Nobody told me that 400 level classes are graduate-level work, and I'm taking 4!

pew pew,
Ishamael

Inferring from Tournaments

by Ishamael

Alright folks, today I am going to do a brief overview of the tournament systems in Warmachine/Hordes and Warhammer 40,000. What I mean by "tournament system" in this context refers to the type of tournament used by the parent company of these games. My goal is to show that both systems require an overhaul. After this, I will briefly touch on the relative balance of both games, regardless of tournament structure.

To begin, I want to link the documents used by Games Workshop to show how they do their tournaments. To begin, here is a link from the RTT Handbook from GW's own website.

link

I want to begin here with their Gamer's Bill of Rights. Read it. What does it say? Then ask yourself: what is a tournament? This is what a tournament is. The term originally refers to medieval war games, in which men would fight with blunted (or not) weapons in order to get some prize. I want to focus on one thing here with the definition. Etymologically, a tournament entails competition. Does this "Bill of Rights" include anything about my right to play against competent combatants that are out to kick my teeth in? No? So, right off the bat, the First Amendment of Games Workshop's "tournament" pack tells us that it has little to do with what a tournament is. Keep this thread in mind. What the Bill does tell us, however, is that you should come to a 'tournament' to meet new people (fine), to "battle against other painted armies" (I'll be the first to admit I don't enjoy painting, and what little hobby time I do have I would rather spend it...I dunno...playing the game?), get questions settled by impartial judges (whom may or may not actually know the rules, because I'm still waiting on a main rulebook FAQ that actually makes the Scout Move its own movement phase, instead of a half-assed inference from the BA FAQ), have the tournament finished in a timely manner (duh), and play in a comfortable environment. If I want to go to a tournament, I don't care if I'm ass-to-ass in a basement crammed with people, cause I'm havin' fun. :P So, this is the baseline of GW's format. For the purposes of this article, I wish to skip scenarios, and consider how they score rounds instead, and what we may learn from that.

From here I want to address their scoring system. To begin, there are different values given on the scoresheet and in the RTT guide, so let me set this up as I've seen it in RTTs I have been to. So, we're just going to use the link in this paragraph to analyze the manner in which games are scored. For a given game, with a particular victory condition, a victory is worth 17 points, a loss 3. These 'tournaments' consist of three rounds, with 20 points max for each round, then a possible 40 for painting, which I will attend to later. There are modifiers for these scores, ranging from killing certain enemy units, to losing certain things. So, your score can go up by 3 points. Initially, when I read this, I wondered "hey, where does this "table opponent, perfect score" stuff come from?" Got me, because it is not to be found on this sheet. However! Regardless of the scenario, if you kill the entirety of your opponent's army, you will get 20 points. You get the battle points because you have no opponent left, and you army is "free" to just pick up the objectives as needed. Your opponent gets 3, possibly 6. Ties give about 50/50 when it comes to the mission, then the +3 extra for Battle Points. Now, bring back in the point I made on the nature of tournaments. If I wish to excel and win in this environment, what is my goal? To score as many points as possible. How do I accomplish this? Well, I can play each scenario as stated for one, and work to come out with a major victory in each. OR, I can take the easy route, and just destroy every single model my opponent has to ensure victory. Furthermore, ask yourself this: does this tournament system reward close games, or ones in which one person will dominate? The answer is obvious. This is a tournament system in which dominating one's opponent is rewarded, while close games (y'know, the good ones?) are penalized. Blood and ashes, wasn't this supposed to be a friendly system, in which we get together to meet new people, see painted armies, and be civil to eachother? So, we take from their scoring system that players whom obliterate their opponents are greatly rewarded for doing so, and harm others' enjoyment of the game...so they are blatantly violating their own First Amendment. Moving on.

From here, let me just touch a tad on that "sportsmanship score" sheet. If they actually thought people would be civil to others and be good sports while kicking teeth in and having a close game, then they would not need such a thing. Yet they do, igitur they do not think that people will actually be civil to others. Modus tollens, learn to love it. Furthermore, this subjective sheet factors in to one's overall score, and it becomes so flaming easy to harm another's score just to advance one's own standing. So hey, be deceptively nice, then screw your opponent on his sportsmanship score! Because we're about civility and being nice!

At this point, what do we have?

The Bill of Rights that forms the basis of these events lacks any guarantee of a competitive event in which I am allowed to enjoy myself by playing and winning/losing by the width of a hair.

Their scoring system is such that it rewards dominating weaker players, harming others in their sportsmanship score due to subjective douchebaggery, and DOES NOT reward close games, which contradicts their "Bill" because people don't have fun when they get dominated. Simple enough.

I said I would get to painting earlier, so here we are. This. What do we know from this sheet? Well, it says "max 40" points, yet when one adds up that various factors that go in to finding the total paint score, there are actually 46 points possible. So, what score might an "average" painted army get? Well, let's assume it's fully painted, 3 colors, based, and the details are alright. Oh, and to that "painted uniformly, except where appropriate" point: fuck you! My Tau suits will each be a different Power Ranger, so stick it. So, from this, our theoretical player would get a 24/40 points. Let us compare this to someone that paints well, to such an extreme that he walks in, gets a 40 easily, even the extra points that would have given him a 46. So, we have a difference of 16 points between these two fighters. Let us leave the Sportsmanship score out. They are both decent persons. With the entirety of this format in mind, it is time for a thought experiment.

Let's assume that round one, the fellow with the perfect score tables, but the other guy ties, yet gets 3 battle points. Also, assume that ties in scenario X result in a 10/10 spread. So, at the end of round one it's 37 to 60. How can the lesser painter possibly catch up to the guy whom already has over a tabling above him? Well, by tabling his two next opponents, which would take him up to a 77. Unless the better painter drastically loses the next two rounds, he's still in the running. Assume two more ties for the greater painter, 10/10 spread, no bonus points. He's at 80. He still wins. Why? Because he had nearly a perfect score for a game round (16) above the guy that only had average painting abilities. So, guess what: the existence of this system further forces one to club weaker players to even have a chance at defeating the guy with 16 points on him before they even hit the tables! So hey, the guy with the 24 has to be a far better player than the painter to have a chance at winning, and if he even meets ONE worthy opponent, then he is out of the running.

So really, does anyone want to defend a 'tournament' system that entails dominating weaker players, and painting to a professional level lets anyone with either the skills or money to buy a painted army to walk in with an absurd lead on every player that has not done so? How is this about meeting people, seeing pretty armies, and being among civil people? All I see is an infrastructure that rewards abuse and winning without having to play well.

I ask you: will you have fun in this environment? I suck at painting, but I know how to play the game, yet I cannot possibly catch up to someone that is able to paint to get that score of 40. Hell, I would probably have less than that 24 were all my stuff painted.

Furthermore, does anyone believe at this point that these events, run by Geims Workshap, are actually built to be fun? So much involves not playing the game that these events are meaningless, and no test for someone who desires close games. No wonder these events appear to be dominated by excellent painters, yet are mediocre to terrible GAMERS.

The existence of a Win/Loss system, as opposed to this horrid seal-clubbing points-based abuse fest, takes care of many issues dealing with how events are won that I have posited, and it also becomes the case that close games are rewarded, not turning a new player off of the game because some asshat decided to table him. If painting is so important, then make it its own event. If you want to get players motivated to paint their armies fully (like me), then make it necessary to have a fully-painted, 3-color standard army to even sign up for the event. I did not even get to mission types that range from fun to horrid; this only deals with what occurs as the result of the games and painting.

Wait, wasn't I supposed to contrast this system with Privateer Press' tournament format? So, I am going to make this Part 1, and I'm going to further research the implications of Privateer Press' claim of competitiveness in Warmachine.

Rex belli,
Ishamael