| |
| by Danny Internets | January 14th, 2010 - 4:15 pm
|
|
Games Workshop, in its infinite wisdom, has decided not to release a Mycetic Spore model along with the new Tyranid codex despite obviously strong demand. The option to take this model as a delivery system is a no-brainer for certain units and represents a game-changing options for an army that has not traditionally been able to make good use of reserves. As such, not having an official model to represent the unit poses a problem.
Fortunately, Black Matt over at the Black Legion Blog provides a cheap and effective custom Mycetic Spore model. Standing 5.5″ tall, these models are approximately the same dimensions as the Space Marine drop pod. Each is hand-made and textured and, as I can attest to personally, looks great in person.
Be sure to click the pictures to get a better look and head on over to the Black Legion Blog to pick some up!
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | January 13th, 2010 - 8:50 am
|
|
On the eve of the 5th edition Tyranid codex release, it looks like GW is poised to drop their third top-notch quality codex in a row. While I don’t think the Tyranid book will throw them into the same competitive level as IG and Space Wolves, anything that improves upon the crapfest that is their current army is a giant leap in the right direction.
A few weeks ago, a scanned copy of the new codex leaked from stores in Germany and perhaps the first stand-out unit apparent to everyone was the Tervigon. In addition to being an affordable monstrous creature that can count as Troops and spawn new units, the Tervigon also serves as a potent force multiplier for all nearby Termagaunt units. With the appropriate loadout, these beasts are giving counter-attack, synapse, Ld10, furious charge, and poisoned attacks to an infinite number of critters, albeit within a small radius. Sounds good? Yes, it does. But that’s not the half of it.
Last week, GW released an extremely comprehensive FAQ for their last codex release, the Space Wolves. In it they included the following gem:
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | November 3rd, 2009 - 9:13 am
|
|
Luck
When at the top of their game, elitists take great pleasure at trumpeting their own prowess and claiming that luck has nothing to do with winning. When on the down-and-out, they will often (not so) humbly admit to being victims of the cruel dice gods. While it’s no coincidence that players stratify in mostly predictable patterns when subjected to repeated sorting (e.g., tournament rounds), it takes but a few ounces of common sense to recognize that luck also plays an important role in the 41st millennium.
Good strategy is based on good tactics. Good tactics require good rules knowledge. And practical application of rules knowledge needs an understanding of probabilities. Dedicating units to block an enemy’s retreat from assault is only a good idea if you stand a reasonably good chance of winning that assault, and if the enemy has a good chance of falling back as a result. Figuring out the right application of force likely to bring about a desired outcome is a critical part of 40k. Remember those 3rd grade lessons on fractions, boys and girls:! So-called “mathhammer” forms the hard core of Warhammer tactics.
Rudimentary statistical theory demonstrates that increasing sample size is a surefire way to ensure that actual outcomes approach predicted outcomes (based on probability). Those that have taken introductory statistics courses will recognize this as the basis of the chi-square test. Practically speaking, you’re much more likely to get all hits when rolling 3 dice than when rolling 30. Over the course of a game we roll hundreds of dice which will probably conform to our expectations when taken as a whole, however when we recognize that these many roll are split up into a large number of different types of rolls we begin to see how individual sample sizes are actually fairly small. Say you roll 180 dice over the course of you game but only 12 of them were for leadership tests. Perhaps you rolled exactly 30 6’s, which is expected, but 10 of them were rolled for leadership tests. Looking at the game as a whole one might conclude you were neither lucky nor unlucky, however you clearly got the wrong end of the leprechaun.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 30th, 2009 - 9:49 pm
|
|
In order to examine the differences between players concerned with winning and players concerned with competing it is necessary to take a look at the various paths towards victory in Warhammer 40,000. I categorize these methods into 6 inter-connected domains: (1) Strategy, (2) Tactics, (3) Match-up, (4) Mistakes, (5) Luck, and (6) Cheating. This article examines the first four.
Strategy
Strategy is your over-arching framework, your master plan from the point of conception of your army. Strategy begins with list building which in turn determines what assets your army will have at its disposal and, by extension, what you can or cannot hope to accomplish. Your choices will impact how you play 40k and they should always be made with fulfilling mission goals in mind. Each and every selection will affect the vital balancing act that is army composition.
Because mission goals are normally unknown at the outset of each match, whether rolled for randomly in a pickup game or kept secret prior to tournament rounds, strategy has a necessary fluid component. Based on the scenario presented to us we must be able to evaluate the abilities of our list, the abilities of the opposing list, and commit to a course of action that will lead to fulfillment of the victory conditions. This often involves identification and leverage of strengths, but can also include psychological elements, such as misdirection and surprise. Some strategies are geared towards combating a list and others towards combating an opponent—both are valid, effective, and can be employed concurrently.
An example of a employing a strategy would be building a mechanized, Chimera-based Imperial Guard list and pushing your tank line forward to establish a line of scrimmage on the enemy’s side of the board. In an objective-based mission this would ensure that you have control over the battlefield and, hopefully, the majority of the objectives. Leveraging your mechanized strengths (durability and volume) you can make it very difficult for the enemy to break through your line and reach objectives in later turns.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 23rd, 2009 - 9:22 pm
|
|
A Competitive Gamer is, obviously, one who is concerned with competition. But what exactly is competition? Competition is a struggle between two opposing entities for a mutually desired but not mutually attainable goal. Games in general are not categorically required to have a goal as we have already established that play is not a means to an end, but an end itself. This is evidenced by the many games that have no outcome, no winning or losing (tag, hide and seek, jumping rope, etc.). However, there is no shortage of games that do have specific goals and have both winners and losers.
Like play, the struggle is an end but not a means for the Competitive Gamer. The Competitive Gamer revels in an equally matched struggle and he is just as happy to loser a well-played game as he is to win one. The outcome is subordinate; it is relevant only to the extent that it is determined by skill. The fun derived from the game is sporting and cerebral, not egoistic.
Sportsmanship rarely crosses the mind of the Competitive Gamer because sportsmanship comes naturally by means of self-interest: to gain an advantage through any means other than the application of skill would compromise the authenticity of the competitive struggle and dilute the fun that can be derived from it. It’s Adam Smith’s self-regulating “invisible hand” theory in the 41st millennium. The Competitive Gamer is an athlete turned nerd with an uncompromising love and, more importantly, respect for the game, and for gaming in general.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 22nd, 2009 - 10:02 pm
|
|
(Prologue: read this first)
In the grim future of the 41st millennium there exists a false dichotomy. It’s a division conceived of by embittered gamers and perpetuated by lazy groupthink. I speak of the age-old “play for fun” versus “play to win” argument. This talking point will be familiar to anyone who has invested any significant portion of time or energy into the gaming community. A brief visit to any of the general discussion forums of the major online discussion boards of the 40k community (Dakka, Warseer, Bolter & Chainsword, BoLS) will usually yield at least one active thread directly related to the topic. The scripted arguments unfold predictably and the breadth of participants gradually narrows as snarky posters get bored and reasonable voices are shouted down, leaving a scant handful of internet personalities slinging insults and vying for who gets to be king for a day. Moderators inevitably lock the thread, rinse, and repeat.
Face to face discussions of the topic play out differently but are often equally worthless. Even within our small communities there exist factions that are easily discernable by veterans and anyone with a keen eye for social dynamics. Let’s face it, 40k is nerdy hobby and our circles tend to over-represent individuals who shy away from confrontation. Applied as a general rule, it should be no surprise that conversations on emotionally charged subjects, such as this, take place only in contexts where offense is least likely to be perceived. As a result, these conversations occur between like-minded individuals within the group, thus avoiding dissenting opinions and any worthwhile discussion. In the end it’s just a bunch of whiny twats complaining and patting each other on the back for preaching to the choir.
That last statement might seem at odds with my first. If there exists a real ideological split in the 40k community then how can I claim the dichotomy is false? It is important here to make a distinction between a true, fundamental dichotomy and the manifestations of a perceived dichotomy. Regardless of truth, a perceived mutual exclusivity between having fun and playing competitively always results itself in subpopulations of gamers who identify more with one side over the other. Subtle differences in opinion are enhanced through repeated confrontation with one another ultimately causing a clear stratification. Call them sides or camps or whatever label suits your group best.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 22nd, 2009 - 9:49 pm
|
|
My hiatus from the 40k community has left me mostly in the dark with regards to more recent developments (e.g., release of the Space Wolves codex) so I’d like to touch on something more generally applicable to the game, and to gaming in general. This is partially prompted by a post on Stelek’s blog, but these are feelings I’ve harbored for some time and which I have not been afraid to discuss on more than one occasion elsewhere.
The next post is the first installment of what started out as a simple rant but gradually morphed into what amounts to a series of essays on both Warhammer and competitive gaming in general. The full text is far too long for a single article, so I’ve decided to split it into several parts and milk it for all it’s worth. Feel free to read them at your leisure. Hopefully they’ll spark some interesting comments, though don’t be put off if I decline to chime in on some points because they may be addressed at length later on.
And now, on to the show…
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | August 23rd, 2009 - 8:56 pm
|
|
For the first time in my 40k history I find myself in the curious position of not only having interest in a newly (re-)released army, but also having the disposable income to buy a ticket to ride the bandwagon. $300 and several Bartertown trades later, I can now admit that I’ve gone and built a mechanized Imperial Guard army.
Why did I choose IG? Obviously it’s not for the models. The old school WW1 army men theme is fun, but not particularly interesting. Mostly it has to do with fielding lots of tanks and artillery. But that’s not the only reason.
When the IG book was released there was lots of rabble about how overpowered the army is, which is typical for any codex release, and then there were the contrarians who point out that everyone overestimates the potential of new armies which inevitably end up being balanced. I usually find myself arguing in defense of the latter, however I firmly believe that the IG codex is hard. Not just hard, not even just rock hard, but fucking titanium hard. This is one army that I don’t think is going to sink to the level of mediocrity. And it takes the mech metagame to a whole new level by scaling twice as well as any other army thanks to the copious vehicle squadron options.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | August 18th, 2009 - 9:35 pm
|
|
Been busy with lots of personal stuff lately, first and foremost being the purchase of my first home. Combined with the fact that the IT gestapo at my new job blocks just about every website under the virtual sun there’s unfortunately little time to finish up the half dozen article drafts I’ve got going.
Once things settle down I should have some interesting commentaries and battle reports to feature, including the unveiling of my mech IG army. Stay tuned.
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | July 23rd, 2009 - 2:00 pm
|
|
The question of whether or not Orks are a “top tier” army has been the subject of some debate amongst 40k players on the internet lately, particularly on Dakka (view the current thread here). The thread mostly consists of poster Frank Fugger offering an insightful analysis of the army while fighting off a horde of nerd-raging knuckle-draggers. There are a few exceptions however (Primarch and Mahu, most notably).
At the risk of coming late to the dead horse beatdown, I’ll throw in my two cents since both sides aren’t really debating the viability of Orks, but the competitive nature of 40k armies and the tournament scene. It should also be be noted that Stelek has chimed in on the issue, and in fact has been asserting that Orks are one of the least competitive armies in 5th edition 40k for quite some time (view article here). More recently, he has commented on the same Dakka thread, posting highlights of the conversation (link).
The release of the Ork codex represented a significant shift in game design from previous army releases in late 4th edition, most notably Chaos Space Marines. Prior to the Ork codex release, it was mostly trash with the exception of a few very specific builds that relied on favorable rock-paper-scissor matchmaking to perform well in a competitive setting. Afterwards, they managed to catch up with codex creep and perform on a level above pretty much everyone else.
Read the rest of this entry »
Danny Internets: I agree the Valkyrie rules could be clearer, but they do not have a 2D system. The line of sight...
crablezworth: The other issue is that a skimmer can’t have anything underneath it and the valk is massive. GW...
Kris: Well it doesnt matter now because the SW FaQ has been changed to take away furious charge working with counter...
Chaosgerbil: Gah, no offense but I am getting sick of seeing black matt’s giant avocados linked on every blog....
Jwolf: Danny, Saw the blurb and new exactly where you were going. I love that one lousy Space Wolves guy can gain...
xzandrate: I don’t know that I’d agree about the quality of the Space Wolves codex. While it is...
