Just finished reading and analysing the new Blood Angel codex in White Dwarf and I’m now ready to give my toughts on it. I want to start with the army list itself before talking about the actual idea of the codex in White Dwarf.
The good
-Black rage: I think there’s an improvement here even if not all BA players I know agree with me here. For one thing it removes the randomness factor of it and it allows you to know exactly what you are getting. And the combat bonuses are very good. Also, it will prevent the cheesy BA armies that I’ve seen some player use where the goal was to have the biggest, meanest Death company possible. I do however admit they lose the very fun and characterful part of rolling to see who goes mad…
-Death company: It’s free, fearless, got 2 base attacks, completely enraged and they have rending attacks! The death company is now officialy one of the deadliest units this game has ever seen and its free… best of all you know exactly how many you will get and can even get them a transport. Free space marines with rending attacks… *drools* (well not exactly free.. see later).
-Supercharged engines : They are now reliable and that extra 6’’ should allow BA to get close enough to dismount and charge a turn earlier. And it costs nothing.
The bad
-5/10 man squads: It sucks.. I got the same with my Dark Angels and so far it caused me more trouble than it helped. And unless I’m mistaken BA can’t even split them up like the Dark Angels.. In short it’s a constraint to army composition and it’s a mean one.
-Increased cost on space marines : Not only do you buy them in 5 or 10 squads but you pay extra for that Death company member. My advice would be to buy 5 man squads to get more death company for the same price.
The ugly
-Special characters: BA special characters feels more like premade commanders than ever. I suppose in order to save space they forgot to include backgrounds or interesting special rules. Very disapointed with those characters who used to be so cool.
-Background : Simply put there is none or at least not enough to be worthwhile. For me this is a capital sin.
The 9th layer of Hell
For some dark reason GW decided that the codex would be released in a) White Dward , b) over two issues. I don’t know if it’s because they want to increase WD sales, faze out slowly the Blood Angels or whatever else they where thinking. I don’t know what the BA players did to deserve such a cruel punishement. I’m not even a BA player and it makes me angry so I can imagine how pissed off the BA community is. Why can’t they have a real codex? Not a piece of rushed junk that you need 2 white dwarf to refer to. It has been a long time since GW made such a major blunder and I hope no one else gets this treatment.
Wraping up
Speaking strickly about the codex I do think it’s an improvement over the last one(rule wise). It follows the tread of cleaner, simpler and removes randomness wich makes it more solid. The deathwing is so sweet it’s almost too much. As for the rest of the list I know that when people get used to it they will find strengths in it. It will require a bit of adjustment but speaking from experience with my Dark Angels in the end it’s worth it.
vendredi 29 juin 2007
mercredi 27 juin 2007
Battle plans
No battle plan survives contact with the enemy
-Helmuth von Moltke
This maxim is one of the one well known of any strategy enthusiast. It’s taught in every military school around the world and even if von Moltke was the first to write it, the principle has been around for millenia. So of course I’m going to resolve the whole issue in this blog! Seriously, I want to talk about a few ways to help your plan survive and make sure the enemy plan doesn’t survive your contact.
1- Have a plan!
Sounds like common sense but you have no idea how many people start a game/build an army without any idea of how it will operate on the battlefield. When I was working at a gaming store I gave ‘’Strategy Saturdays’’, wich basically where introductions to the game for younger players along with a painting session to teach basics. The first thing I would always ask is ‘’How do you win with your army ?’’. You have no idea of the number of blank stares I got or answers like ‘’well.. my knights will kill them...’’. This simply does not work. When your building your army try to envision how it will operate on the battlefield and how it will win… you’ll be surprised at how much this helps having a cohesive army.
2-Make a flexible plan
Make your plan a general one without going in specifics. This way you will be able to adapt it to the enemy/scenario you are facing.
3- Tailor the plan and stick to it.
Making plans is no use if you don’t use it when your on the battlefield. Don’t get afraid of the enemy and what you think he will do to you. Adapt the plan to the scenario/enemy and then execute it. Also, don’t give up the second something goes wrong, hang in there. If you idea is a sound one you’ll pull through most of the time.
4-Break the opponent plan before he breaks yours.
Just like the maxim says your plan won’t survive contact and neither will your opponent plan. Who wins is often determined by wich plan breaks first. If you stick to your idea you will be able to enforce your game on the enemy.
Of course this is all easier said than done. But at least aiming for this will help you improve a lot over games. A final tip, being able to enforce a plan often comes down to army composition supporting your plan. Choose units who are the best at executing your plan and more often than not you’ll be the one dictating the pace of the game.
-Helmuth von Moltke
This maxim is one of the one well known of any strategy enthusiast. It’s taught in every military school around the world and even if von Moltke was the first to write it, the principle has been around for millenia. So of course I’m going to resolve the whole issue in this blog! Seriously, I want to talk about a few ways to help your plan survive and make sure the enemy plan doesn’t survive your contact.
1- Have a plan!
Sounds like common sense but you have no idea how many people start a game/build an army without any idea of how it will operate on the battlefield. When I was working at a gaming store I gave ‘’Strategy Saturdays’’, wich basically where introductions to the game for younger players along with a painting session to teach basics. The first thing I would always ask is ‘’How do you win with your army ?’’. You have no idea of the number of blank stares I got or answers like ‘’well.. my knights will kill them...’’. This simply does not work. When your building your army try to envision how it will operate on the battlefield and how it will win… you’ll be surprised at how much this helps having a cohesive army.
2-Make a flexible plan
Make your plan a general one without going in specifics. This way you will be able to adapt it to the enemy/scenario you are facing.
3- Tailor the plan and stick to it.
Making plans is no use if you don’t use it when your on the battlefield. Don’t get afraid of the enemy and what you think he will do to you. Adapt the plan to the scenario/enemy and then execute it. Also, don’t give up the second something goes wrong, hang in there. If you idea is a sound one you’ll pull through most of the time.
4-Break the opponent plan before he breaks yours.
Just like the maxim says your plan won’t survive contact and neither will your opponent plan. Who wins is often determined by wich plan breaks first. If you stick to your idea you will be able to enforce your game on the enemy.
Of course this is all easier said than done. But at least aiming for this will help you improve a lot over games. A final tip, being able to enforce a plan often comes down to army composition supporting your plan. Choose units who are the best at executing your plan and more often than not you’ll be the one dictating the pace of the game.
mardi 26 juin 2007
Back from the dead
Yeah it`s me and no I’m not dead. Thruth is last week I was on vacation and to be honest I completly disconnected. Every year I plan a ton of things for my vacation and end up doing none of them and this year was no different. I really wanted to finish those ravenwing bikers that have been sitting on my painting table for a while now and I ended up not doing anything warhammer. Anyway, I`m now rested and ready to get going again !
Real Value ?
How do you measure how efficient a unit truly is ? How do you calculate if that unit of ogres really paid for itself ? Most new players simply count how much carnage the unit inflicts. While this method does have some merit to it, after all how many models you kill does indicate that your unit is doing something, a 700 points lord will mow down skavenslaves for a whole game and end up being wasted even if he killed over 80 rats.
When a player realize this he will often starts to count how much points his unit kills. In the example above the lord would need to kill 700 points to pay for itself and more to make a difference on who wins the game. This method is the one I see the most often used when people talk about their army efficiency and in fact a lot of players I know stop there. And it`s a dangerous way to calculate efficiency. A lot of units in the game are worth way more than their point value not because of how much they kill but because of what they do or make the enemy do on the battlefield.
Here’s an easy example, in 40k a lot of armies have access to snipers units. Often, those have a high cost, low armor, and only manage to kill one or 2 models a turn. More often than not the same point value can get you a tank, heavy weapons, etc… who have a much higher kill ratio. Why take snipers then ? Because they can pin enemy units. If you manage to pin an ork warboss and his retinue for example not only have you killed one or two models but you have also stopped one of the deadliest units of the game from acting for a full turn. The scouts may not have killed their point cost but they have given you a huge tactictal advantage.
More subtle examples are ‘’Fluffy’’ like I discussed in my previous post or my dire wolves in my vampire counts army. I think so far my dire wolves must have killed 2 models in all all my games but they have deflected countless charges, have soaked up deadly waywatcher fire and drawn out a ton of fanatics. So while they have never killed their point value they have allowed me to control vital parts of the game and led me to victory more so than my super grave guards.
If you want to find out the real value of one your units consider not how much they kill stuff but how much of an impact they have on the battlefield.
jeudi 14 juin 2007
Terror Tactics
We’ve all seen it and felt it. You set up your army and right in front of you there’s a big nasty monster. It might be a bloodthirster, a carnifex, Malekith on his dragon or any of the big monsters of the warhammer universe but the fact is that there is something in front of you that can probably annihilate almost anything in your army. And you need to deal with it.
Most players have over the years developed tactics to fight those abominations. For most people this means including strong units or weapons that can take down a monster. A giant isn’t so scary when you fire 2 cannonballs a turn at it and a carnifex can only survive so many lascannon hits before it dies. Other go sneaky and use magic items/wargear or dedicated anti-monster units. For example, the warhammer40k force weapon is a classic example of a weapon that isn’t that great agaisnt normal troops but can take down a monster really quick.
In fact people are becoming so good at dealing with these that I see a lot of players shun those high points units, afraid they are going to end up splattered and losing the game.
I think they are missing the real usefulness of these monsters. I’ll take the example of ‘’fluffy’’ my carnifex. Fluffy is a close combat armed carnifex designed to be able to take down multiple models down each turn. He’s equiped with claws and scything talons giving him 1d6+1 strenght 10 attacks. He’s also tusked to give him +2 attacks on the charge, tail sythe for more attacks agaisnt large squads and has +1T and +1W when I can afford it. With a toughness of 7 it means strenght 3 opponents cant even wound him. Fluffy costs around 200 points.
I’ve played around 10 games with fluffy and so far. Quick chart of his efficiency :
-got in close combat : 6/10 (60%)
-got shot to death : 2/10 (20%)
-killed his own point worth : 1/10 (10%)
-killed a major character/general : 1/10(10%)
-tanks destroyed : 2
Yes, it doesn’t look very good for such a high point investment. Only once I got his points back in killing and about half the time he doesn’t even get in combat and when he does it’s usually late in the game. I think Fluffy was the game winning model only once due to a particulary lucky rampage spree. So why waste points on him ? Why not put more lictors/ raveners/ gaunts/ etc… ?
Because the real value of fluffy is not what he does but what he makes my opponent does. When Fluffy is on the table my opponent is faced with a simple choice. Either he deals with Fluffy before he reaches his lines or he doesn’t and runs the chance of a healty Fluffy reaching him and rampaging his army. If he wants to deals with Fluffy in close combat he will have to use his super close combat units. So by putting Fluffy on the table I can already begin to tell my oponent plan and dictate the pace of the game. Fluffy might not kill 200 points of troops each game but if he ties up my enemy heavy weapon shooting(and normal too sometimes) for 2 or 3 turns then it means the rest of my army will reach the enemy relativly intact. Priceless for a Tyranid. If I can draw the terminators/generals and close combat specialist toward him then they won’t be hitting the rest of my army.
Fluffy like most of the monsters of warhammer player is a great terror weapon. And there’s no better way to win a game than making your opponent play to your tune.
We’ve all seen it and felt it. You set up your army and right in front of you there’s a big nasty monster. It might be a bloodthirster, a carnifex, Malekith on his dragon or any of the big monsters of the warhammer universe but the fact is that there is something in front of you that can probably annihilate almost anything in your army. And you need to deal with it.
Most players have over the years developed tactics to fight those abominations. For most people this means including strong units or weapons that can take down a monster. A giant isn’t so scary when you fire 2 cannonballs a turn at it and a carnifex can only survive so many lascannon hits before it dies. Other go sneaky and use magic items/wargear or dedicated anti-monster units. For example, the warhammer40k force weapon is a classic example of a weapon that isn’t that great agaisnt normal troops but can take down a monster really quick.
In fact people are becoming so good at dealing with these that I see a lot of players shun those high points units, afraid they are going to end up splattered and losing the game.
I think they are missing the real usefulness of these monsters. I’ll take the example of ‘’fluffy’’ my carnifex. Fluffy is a close combat armed carnifex designed to be able to take down multiple models down each turn. He’s equiped with claws and scything talons giving him 1d6+1 strenght 10 attacks. He’s also tusked to give him +2 attacks on the charge, tail sythe for more attacks agaisnt large squads and has +1T and +1W when I can afford it. With a toughness of 7 it means strenght 3 opponents cant even wound him. Fluffy costs around 200 points.
I’ve played around 10 games with fluffy and so far. Quick chart of his efficiency :
-got in close combat : 6/10 (60%)
-got shot to death : 2/10 (20%)
-killed his own point worth : 1/10 (10%)
-killed a major character/general : 1/10(10%)
-tanks destroyed : 2
Yes, it doesn’t look very good for such a high point investment. Only once I got his points back in killing and about half the time he doesn’t even get in combat and when he does it’s usually late in the game. I think Fluffy was the game winning model only once due to a particulary lucky rampage spree. So why waste points on him ? Why not put more lictors/ raveners/ gaunts/ etc… ?
Because the real value of fluffy is not what he does but what he makes my opponent does. When Fluffy is on the table my opponent is faced with a simple choice. Either he deals with Fluffy before he reaches his lines or he doesn’t and runs the chance of a healty Fluffy reaching him and rampaging his army. If he wants to deals with Fluffy in close combat he will have to use his super close combat units. So by putting Fluffy on the table I can already begin to tell my oponent plan and dictate the pace of the game. Fluffy might not kill 200 points of troops each game but if he ties up my enemy heavy weapon shooting(and normal too sometimes) for 2 or 3 turns then it means the rest of my army will reach the enemy relativly intact. Priceless for a Tyranid. If I can draw the terminators/generals and close combat specialist toward him then they won’t be hitting the rest of my army.
Fluffy like most of the monsters of warhammer player is a great terror weapon. And there’s no better way to win a game than making your opponent play to your tune.
mardi 12 juin 2007
Toothless army
I’ve always been a fan of the undead. I love the idea of the dead rising up from their graves, of screeching spirits who can rob a man of it’s soul, of creatures so dark and evil that their names are not spoken. So it’s not wonder that a last year I started building a vampire counts army. Now a year later the army has grown to a respectable size and I’ve started playing a few games only to find out what I was suspecting when I was reading the army book, the vampire counts army has no teeth !!!
Sounds weird saying that about an army where you general might actually have some of the meanest teeth of all the game (with the exception of a few chaos generals maybe) but what I’m saying is that vampire counts have no punch, no uber units that can smash aside all oposition. I’ll get to characters later but if you look at the other units you can see that they are inferior or equal to mostly everything else in the game. Zombies and skeletons ain’t good for much, dire wolves turns to dust at the slightest gust of wind and the wights (Black knights and grave guard) are only a real threat to other ‘’normal units’’ and will get butchered by any kind of elite units. Sure they cause fear… but compared to their actual combat prowess and the fact that fear doesn’t have the same impact in the game anymore than it used to have, you can’t count on them to accomplish much on their own.
Put characters in your units!!! I hear you say. After all the army was designed with this set-up in mind after all. Even the strategy section at the end of the book says so. And I did have characters in most of my games so why am I strugling ? I think I’ve finaly found the answer in the way I tend to use characters. Normally when I play I use characters as a way to tip a few critical battles my way. They stay a bit at the back and join in whatever fight I need to win or they go to plug a hole in my lines or stop a unit from breaking through.
Now this works really well with armies where the units can fend for themselves a few turns if need be and where they don’t need a character to accomplish something. With VC that ain’t the case and I need to learn to use my characters foward and to actualy win the battle with some backing of my units, not the other way around. So anyone has experience with this kind of setup that can give me a few pointers ?
I’ve always been a fan of the undead. I love the idea of the dead rising up from their graves, of screeching spirits who can rob a man of it’s soul, of creatures so dark and evil that their names are not spoken. So it’s not wonder that a last year I started building a vampire counts army. Now a year later the army has grown to a respectable size and I’ve started playing a few games only to find out what I was suspecting when I was reading the army book, the vampire counts army has no teeth !!!
Sounds weird saying that about an army where you general might actually have some of the meanest teeth of all the game (with the exception of a few chaos generals maybe) but what I’m saying is that vampire counts have no punch, no uber units that can smash aside all oposition. I’ll get to characters later but if you look at the other units you can see that they are inferior or equal to mostly everything else in the game. Zombies and skeletons ain’t good for much, dire wolves turns to dust at the slightest gust of wind and the wights (Black knights and grave guard) are only a real threat to other ‘’normal units’’ and will get butchered by any kind of elite units. Sure they cause fear… but compared to their actual combat prowess and the fact that fear doesn’t have the same impact in the game anymore than it used to have, you can’t count on them to accomplish much on their own.
Put characters in your units!!! I hear you say. After all the army was designed with this set-up in mind after all. Even the strategy section at the end of the book says so. And I did have characters in most of my games so why am I strugling ? I think I’ve finaly found the answer in the way I tend to use characters. Normally when I play I use characters as a way to tip a few critical battles my way. They stay a bit at the back and join in whatever fight I need to win or they go to plug a hole in my lines or stop a unit from breaking through.
Now this works really well with armies where the units can fend for themselves a few turns if need be and where they don’t need a character to accomplish something. With VC that ain’t the case and I need to learn to use my characters foward and to actualy win the battle with some backing of my units, not the other way around. So anyone has experience with this kind of setup that can give me a few pointers ?
lundi 11 juin 2007
Lono's art of Warhammer
Welcome everyone to my new blog ! I love warhammer , both 40k and fantasy and I especially love the tactics/strategy aspect of the game. I’ve read a lot of warhammer forums and websites but found too few that talked about the strategy aspect of the game. So I’m starting this blog with the idea of talking about strategy, game related topics and also whatever crosses my mind. I’ll try to keep it game related.
Who am I?
Like I said in my introduction I’ve been playing warhammer since 1999. I originally started with a skaven army for fantasy but soon started playing 40k as all my friends where getting into it. My first ‘’real’’ army was a Dark Angel army that I still play to this day and that remains in a way my main army. Since I started playing I’ve been playing in numerous tournaments(both locals and rogue traders) and I even worked as an employee in a gaming shop(kinda like a GW store). For me the strategy/tactics aspect of this game is what keeps me going and I love nothing more than to discuss tactics with other players. And for those wondering I’m from Québec, Canada.
Are you a gaming mathematician?
Talking with a friend of mine the other day about his army composition and why he was struggling I started to explain to him that his army lacked enough low AP weapons and had not enough transports for his troops. As we talked I realized something. I was explaining to him that Howling Banshees, with their high armor save are very vulnerable to shooting, especially from dedicated anti-infantry weapons. I was giving him examples telling him how on average banshees on foot would be assaulting on the third turn and how much he could loose based on his opponent dices. I would say that a predator destructor would kill about 4 to 5 banshees a turn wich meant they would probably all get killed. Hence the need for a wave serpent wich would protect them from small arms fire and would require heavy anti-tank weapons plus would expose them only to fire for a turn, less if he kept them longer in the transport.
I was explaining all this and I realised that he wasn't seeing his banshees in terms of numbers and oposing army. For him banshees are elite warriors who can slice and dice their way through an entire army and wouldn't even take a hit because of their superb agility. Where I was considering the army thinking about numbers he was thinking of fluff.
I realized with this that there's is two opposite way of thinking when building an army. First you can think in numbers and mathematics, consider that unit X when in situation Y will have a Z perfomance ratio. On the other hand you can say that a Leman Russ is the best tank in the galaxy and whoever says otherwise gets a shell in the head. Of course the first approach tends to yield better results in the long term. Heck, you need to at least consider it when you build a serious army. Going only with fluff reasons is more often than not a sure road to defeat. But at the same time I've experience countless times where a unit chosen for fluff outperforms it fellows and in the end is the game winner piece. How's that possible?
Mathematicians will tell you that since it's a dice based game any model has the potential, no matter how slim, to win the game by itself based on pure randomness. Even had a psychology student tell me that because we focused on a particular element we uncounsciously put him in position to perform and that we saw in a better ligh its contributions to winning while ignoring the other models contributions. I suppose they can both be right.
For my part I'm much closer to the mathematician approach to strategy than the ''fluff'' approach. I can tell you for sure that deploying 1'' from the starting line is a good idea to get out of the 24'' reach. I can tell you that 10 bolters rapidfiring on space marines results in a 2 death average. And this approach made me win more game than loose them. By constantly looking at success chances and so forth I can recover better when I hit a string of badluck.
On the other hand I've always had a soft spot for the Deathwing and I cannot count the number of times they survived against impossible odds when I send them charging alone... makes me wonder if pure maths are the way to go.
Welcome everyone to my new blog ! I love warhammer , both 40k and fantasy and I especially love the tactics/strategy aspect of the game. I’ve read a lot of warhammer forums and websites but found too few that talked about the strategy aspect of the game. So I’m starting this blog with the idea of talking about strategy, game related topics and also whatever crosses my mind. I’ll try to keep it game related.
Who am I?
Like I said in my introduction I’ve been playing warhammer since 1999. I originally started with a skaven army for fantasy but soon started playing 40k as all my friends where getting into it. My first ‘’real’’ army was a Dark Angel army that I still play to this day and that remains in a way my main army. Since I started playing I’ve been playing in numerous tournaments(both locals and rogue traders) and I even worked as an employee in a gaming shop(kinda like a GW store). For me the strategy/tactics aspect of this game is what keeps me going and I love nothing more than to discuss tactics with other players. And for those wondering I’m from Québec, Canada.
Are you a gaming mathematician?
Talking with a friend of mine the other day about his army composition and why he was struggling I started to explain to him that his army lacked enough low AP weapons and had not enough transports for his troops. As we talked I realized something. I was explaining to him that Howling Banshees, with their high armor save are very vulnerable to shooting, especially from dedicated anti-infantry weapons. I was giving him examples telling him how on average banshees on foot would be assaulting on the third turn and how much he could loose based on his opponent dices. I would say that a predator destructor would kill about 4 to 5 banshees a turn wich meant they would probably all get killed. Hence the need for a wave serpent wich would protect them from small arms fire and would require heavy anti-tank weapons plus would expose them only to fire for a turn, less if he kept them longer in the transport.
I was explaining all this and I realised that he wasn't seeing his banshees in terms of numbers and oposing army. For him banshees are elite warriors who can slice and dice their way through an entire army and wouldn't even take a hit because of their superb agility. Where I was considering the army thinking about numbers he was thinking of fluff.
I realized with this that there's is two opposite way of thinking when building an army. First you can think in numbers and mathematics, consider that unit X when in situation Y will have a Z perfomance ratio. On the other hand you can say that a Leman Russ is the best tank in the galaxy and whoever says otherwise gets a shell in the head. Of course the first approach tends to yield better results in the long term. Heck, you need to at least consider it when you build a serious army. Going only with fluff reasons is more often than not a sure road to defeat. But at the same time I've experience countless times where a unit chosen for fluff outperforms it fellows and in the end is the game winner piece. How's that possible?
Mathematicians will tell you that since it's a dice based game any model has the potential, no matter how slim, to win the game by itself based on pure randomness. Even had a psychology student tell me that because we focused on a particular element we uncounsciously put him in position to perform and that we saw in a better ligh its contributions to winning while ignoring the other models contributions. I suppose they can both be right.
For my part I'm much closer to the mathematician approach to strategy than the ''fluff'' approach. I can tell you for sure that deploying 1'' from the starting line is a good idea to get out of the 24'' reach. I can tell you that 10 bolters rapidfiring on space marines results in a 2 death average. And this approach made me win more game than loose them. By constantly looking at success chances and so forth I can recover better when I hit a string of badluck.
On the other hand I've always had a soft spot for the Deathwing and I cannot count the number of times they survived against impossible odds when I send them charging alone... makes me wonder if pure maths are the way to go.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)