Game Standards for Typical 40k

I think there is a divide in thought between the two main perceived groups of 40k players. In one camp, there seems to be the uber-casual players who do whatever they like and in the other there seems to be the hyper-competitive tournament scene players.

While I don't doubt that these are indeed two groups of people, I think there is a third group that many, if not most, gamers fall into and this is what I will call "typical" players. A typical player probably plays in a few tournaments or events here and there, might play at someone's house/garage/basement on occasion, but the bulk of their games are pick-up games in their local 40k community (whatever that may be).

Obviously, at a tournament or event, there are certain special rules and conditions placed on the players for whatever format is being used. But since, in my assessment, the bulk of a typical gamer's games will be pick-up ones, what is the baseline rules and conditions for those?

I would say that in my opinion, the majority of these pick-up games are standard missions out of the book, using the current edition's rules, and using units/books that are widely regarded as standard. These standards are usually pretty well aligned with the tournament scene for their area. I know that around here, we frequently will default to the way that Adepticon runs things. It isn't so much that it is important to have the absolute best rulings, or refuse to give up the right to decide for yourself, but it is important to have base-line components in the game already laid out for both players. It is this common ground that makes for a more enjoyable game. I don't know about you, but it feels off-putting to show up to a game in a place you aren't a regular to and then get into a conflict because of a local "house rule" or some other oddity that you weren't aware of because it is taken for granted by the usual players.

The point of me writing this is to try to illustrate a slightly different angle to some of the insanity that has been rocking the 40k blogosphere lately due to GW's release schedule. I think that what is at the heart of much of this chaos is that what was once "typical" 40k is much less concrete than it used to be. Obviously, tournaments can do what they like, as can players. But having standards that are widely accepted would be wonderful. And if people want to depart from those standards, at least both players are making a journey from the same starting position.

That is all.

New 40k Term: Revdar

Quick post today, I started seeing this term popping up and thought I would highlight it here. The word of course is "RevDar".

As far as I can tell, this is the term for an Eldar list that includes a Revenant Titan for games of 40k using the Escalation rules. Granted, at 900 points, this model does dominate what your list will look like. A Revenant and a few other things. Probably Jetbikes because they are cheap, fast, and Troops.

Oh Internet, you never cease to amuse me.

Tau data slate in review !

Hey all dreadbeard here with just a quick post. I bought the fire base cadre data sheet last night night and I gotta say it's got some interesting bits to it. Let's run the numbers!

1. When taking the firebase it is not part of your force org (wow ok)

2. You get P.E. Every loyalist in power armor 

3. They get hatred your stuff 

4. you get tank hunter 

5. All these extra special rules for what you might be taking anyway for free 

So in review you could now possibly take six riptides in a list (given enough points). they got more special rules for no points. Worth your $3.99, Hell yes!

Michigan GT Countdown: 4 Days to Target

At midnight tonight, it is only 96 hours until tourney day! My mission tonight is to get my Wave Serpent finished. I just have to tag a few little components, paint the jewels and canopy, attach the base nut, and high gloss the whole shebang. Should be totally doable. Next up will be making objective markers, which will probably be a goal for Wednesday.

Countdown to Michigan GT: 5 Days Remaining

I'm not counting the last hour or so of today, so we'll just count from tomorrow. 5 days left until the Michigan GT. This guy is pretty excited about attending. I love that there is a large tournament in my state now, so there's alot of positive mojo going towards it in the hopes it does well and returns bigger and better next year.
I am almost as ready as I am going to get for this. There are a few little paint touch ups that need to happen and I need to finish off my last proper Wave Serpent. Other than that, I just have to make up some of the mandatory objective markers.

Anyone have any neat/easy/cheap ideas for objective markers?

Path of the Autarch: Critical Mass 2.0 - Part 1

So, first of, thanks to all of you that have been participating in the discussion on the previous Critical Mass post. I have been analyzing and trying to get a more solid framework in which to house this, for me, elusive concept of Critical Mass in army lists.
We seemed to be a little fuzzy on a word definition for the phenomenon, prob
ably because it can take many forms. Basically, it is just that momentum that your list gains on the battlefield that propels you toward victory.
What ended up being a little easier to chew on, however, were key elements of a list that can result in gaining Critical Mass.
There were anecdotes and comments made that involve player skill, game philosophy, and other things but I am totally focused on the list, just letters and numbers on the paper kind of list. Player ability/temperment are a whole separate topic. Perhaps in a future post.
At this point of concept development, I have decided to evaluate Critical Mass potential based on three metrics, with the intention that a list which has high marks in all three will be able to get serious Critical Mass. The three metrics I have chosen are:

1) Offensive Capability

2) Resiliency

3) Viability

Now that opening statements are over, let's dive into part one, the first metric.

Offensive Capability

Abstract: The Offensive Capability metric involves not just units, weapons, and general firepower, but also the presence of delivery mechanisms (or lack thereof) to get list elements into proper position. Powerful weapons/units mean little if they are unable to be used effectively. And while each aspect needs to be looked at separately, they all feed into each other to produce a "score" for this metric.

 Aspect 1:

The first aspect of the Offensive Capability metric is the ability to do meaningful damage to the enemy.

By meaningful, I mean being able to remove the enemy's valuable units.

Whether a unit would be deemed "valuable" is completely subjective, but I define a unit as valuable if it can greatly benefit the controlling player over the course of a game because of either the mission, the terrain, or the matchup (i.e. what two armies are squaring off).

A part of doing meaningful damage also incorporates the need to produce wounds en masse should the situation require it. Either by sheer number of shots, special tricks, or truck loads of blast templates. Sometimes you just need to kill models, lots of them. Your list should be able to do and more. But perhaps I am getting ahead of myself.

For example, if I am running an infantry based list, am I able to remove the opponent's threatening anti-infantry units? Because those just became very valuable to the opponent. If the opponent is running many monstrous creatures, that makes them valuable to the opponent for a different reason, am I able to effectively remove these?

What is "valuable" can vary wildly. You are still going to want to kill things with "value" though.

Aspect 2:

The second aspect of the Offensive Capability metric is Versatile Firepower**.

I put asterisks next to Firepower because I wanted to refer to not only guns/ranged weapons but also special abilities, close combat prowess, basically whatever the list uses to make the opponent's models go away.

Having Versatile Firepower generally represents a lists ability to do damage at useful ranges, having the necessary weapon strengths, AP values and special abilities to engage the opponent throughout the battle regardless of the build that the opponent has. Versatile Firepower gives a list the ability to leverage its strengths on the opponent's weaknesses. Having a "firing solution" for most or any problem you encounter is a huge boon.

It is also worth noting at this point that having units or weapons that are dual purpose help increase this aspect as being able to satisfactorily engage a variety of targets builds in additional flexibility and versatility.

For example, if a list relies almost completely on a high volume of low strength, short ranged weapons, then it will struggle to engage targets that are far away or are hard to wound. Whereas a list that has all the major categories of attacks in its toolbox will be able to lay down fire where and at what it needs to in order to be the most efficient.

Aspect 3:

The third aspect of the Offensive Capability is Force Delivery.

Force Delivery is a critical part of a list. Having amazing weapons, special abilities and units are all well and good but they won't help you in the least if they cannot get where they need to be in order to engage the targets they are best at.

If your unit has a weapon that has a silly-long range, then delivering the firing model probably isn't too important, but ensuring it has proper lanes of fire is crucial to the model delivering its contribution to the war effort.

Transports, jump packs, movement special perks (looking at you, Fast Skimmers), lanes of fire, Deep Strike, Infiltrate, or anything else that can get your army into the fight are going to increase the list's value for this aspect.

An army that can't bring its forces to bear upon the enemy is at a RIDICULOUS disadvantage compared to one that can. Ever played a game where you just get mercilessly taken apart no matter what you do? You opponent's list probably scored high in this aspect whereas your score was likely abysmal.

**As a personal aside, I will tend to weight this aspect a little heavier than the others for my own lists because I like mobile armies. 

*************************************************************************************

Well, that does it for the basic framework of the first metric I propose for metering critical mass potential in lists 40K is a wargame, so offensive ability is generally going to be the foremost concern when really developing a list. It is the rock you anchor your victory to.

Do you have any changes you would make to this metric? I think I hit the main cornerstones for quality, quantity, flexibility, and usability.

Typhus Has a Force Weapon Too!

Well, Saturday's tournament was interesting. I went 2-1, unfortunately. Though, as a small consolation, the gentleman that bested me was the general that took first. So at least I lost to the day's finest player.
Also unfortunately, I repeated my mistake from the last tournament. This time I learned that Typhus has a Force Weapon. Poor Wraithknight. Though I did giggle when my Guardians took out a Heldrake in the assault. That's a first for me.
After I lost round one, I just started playing with experimental strategies as I would have no chance of placing because there really isn't any kind of variance built into the scoring system. You either get max points or min points 99% of the time.
I think there were more Heldrakes at that tournament than the last several tournaments combined. It was crazy, I'm not used to that many.

And I believe that tournament will be the last primer before the GT in twelve days. I still have some reservations about my list, even though I have a silly amount of games in with it. There's just some situations that are a coin flip between incredibly easy and straight impossible.

UCON Poster Design MKII

Well, this isn't technically about 40k, but it is about a flyer that is about a 40k event. SeerK needs a promotional piece for the Craftworld Open tourney at UCON this year and I'm helping him get that ball rolling. I figure I'll put the revised version up on here and hopefully get some artistic feedback. There are still things I want to do but won't be able to until the text is finalized. I want to put an effect over all of the letters so that the font has the same lighting effect as the Aquila on the screen, you know, to give it that "old timey" hologram look. Also, I am debating whether to crop out the bottom part of the console. Initially I liked it because it gave the viewing machine a little character, but now I'm wondering if it is worth the visual real estate. I don't know. What do you think?

As a side note, I have been working to compile the general consensus on Critical Mass in lists and will be publishing something soon once I get this iteration straight in my own head.

List Building: Critical Mass?

One of the online dictionary definitions for critical mass are as follows:
"an amount necessary or sufficient to have a significant effect or to achieve a result."

I've been thinking quite a bit about army lists. Much of it probably has to do with the amount of tournaments I have been to recently, the upcoming Michigan GT, and the not so distant one at U-Con.
I've been pondering today about"critical mass" in a list. The other day I was playing against one of SeerK's experimental builds. After the game, one of my criticisms of the list was that I felt like it was unable to attain "critical mass". Now, unfortunately, I haven't distilled exactly what I think gives this critical mass, what it actually is, or even if that is the best term to describe it. I can, however, notice when it isn't there. It's absence tends be most glaring when facing an opponent that has a list that just seems to be a bunch of units running around doing something rather than a cohesive force. There is some interplay I can't quite put my finger on between units doing useful damage, units taking/holding important ground, and a general momentum towards mission victory.

Part of the impetus for writing this post is to kind of think "out loud" and maybe get some feedback from you.
Perhaps the phenomenon that eludes me is based off of the general ability to reliably swing the battle in a positive manner. The force required to do this may be what I am meaning by critical mass, but also the ability to keep it from swinging back easily. Anyone can have a really good turn, but a good player with a good list will nearly always be doing well overall through both good turns and bad ones.

So let's look at the generalities that a good list can do reliably.

1. It can deal sufficient catastrophic damage to the things that can deal catastrophic damage to it.

**For example, a tank list that is adept at removing the enemies anti-tank assets.

2. It can run a quality damage surplus. In that it deals more quality damage than it receives.

* I would define quality damage as either succeeding against a target with the right weapons (Lascannons that actually kill a tank, Flamers on weak support troops in cover, etc.) or significant damage to very important units of the enemies (generally just making something roll a lot of saves and forcing wounds. While it lacks in efficiency, if every wound is particularly valuable, it's worth it).

3. Has enough resiliency built into the most important elements of the list as not to be crippled easily.

I think that a list that can reliably accomplish these three things should be able to attain a "critical mass".

What do you think? Am I close but missing it? Do you have a better term? General thoughts?

Awesome Exodite Army

I was hunting around for Eldar conversions and I stumbled unto a part of the BOLS lounge here.

There is some truly amazing stuff tucked away in the ten pages there. I love the style of this army, and the Autumnal color scheme is nearly unheard of in 40k, so it is visually refreshing in addition to being beautiful. I just thought I would share some pictures here, but there are many more on that thread.