Ok, well, hi.
It's sort of been a while, but there's a very good reason for that.
The last two weeks at my job have been incredibly stressful because they've been the last two weeks at my job. I work in software development and I've been going crazy trying to get everything finished up and/or getting everyone trained to take over my projects.
It's a happy last two weeks since I'm moving to a better job*, but it has still been stressful. It's left me with very little energy to do much of anything after getting home from work, and that's where I've been all this time.
I've been trying to keep up to some degree with the blogosphere in comments and such, but a combination of the previously described issue and the fact that everyone seems to be moving to Word Press which is very difficult to read from my computer at work and actually impossible to comment on, means that I've only barely been able to do that.
I've got some old (incredibly old, at this point) backlogged posts that I've written but not published that I could have gotten on here to schedule, but I just haven't had the motivation. That and I would have felt bad scheduling posts knowing that I wasn't actually here just to make it look like I was.
I'm still feeling fairly burnt out at this point, but my last day is tomorrow (Tuesday) and my first day is next Monday, so hopefully the extra-long weekend will revitalize me. Anyone have any advice on getting back in the saddle after so long?
============================================
* - Perhaps "better" isn't the best word. My old job is quite good, the new one is just a better opportunity for me and pays better. Wouldn't say either is "better" at this point.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Just A Quickie
I enjoy trueborn very much. This squad:
4Trueborn - 4 Blasters - Venom + Splinter Cannon (173pts)
is awesome. Fragile, perhaps, but I like it.
They have a tiny problem, though. It isn't a huge deal, but I think it makes them appear much better on paper than they actually are. Or rather, I think it could make people who bring them like this more likely to make poor choices elsewhere in their list.
They can't split fire.
Bring 3 squads like this and it looks like your list has 12 S8 AP2 shots; or bring 2 even and you've got 8 S8 AP2 shots. We just covered half our anti-armour needs right there. Except, those 12 S8 shots can only hit 3 targets. Granted, those are likely to be 3 dead targets, but still we can't look at these units like we just put 12 anti-armour shots into the list. We have to look at it like 3 really good anti-armour shots. (or 2, if we bring 2 units of them, which to be perfectly honest is what I would prefer)
with that in mind, do we really need 4? I mean, more is always better but if we can't split fire, how dead does something really need to be? Let's find out.
As usual, 'x' represents the chance to immobilize, wreck, or explode. DE will be as much about landing useful stun results as they will outright destroying mech, but still this is just what I like to look at when I do these sorts of things.
So, it looks like that single extra shot adds about a 10% chance to down something. Not bad. Worth it for 27 points? Maybe. I don't know that the added durability of a single body does a whole lot. 4 guys with DE statlines die just as quickly as 3, and they both require 1 wound to morale test. I have no misconceptions about the frailty of this unit.
I think this might be a good place to shave off some points though, if I need them. For example, I'm playing with a list right now in which by removing a TB from each of my 2 squads of them, I can have just enough points to buy a blaster for each of my 4 warrior squads. Trading 2 bodies for 2 additional blasters that I can hit other targets with seems like a pretty good deal to me.
4Trueborn - 4 Blasters - Venom + Splinter Cannon (173pts)
is awesome. Fragile, perhaps, but I like it.
They have a tiny problem, though. It isn't a huge deal, but I think it makes them appear much better on paper than they actually are. Or rather, I think it could make people who bring them like this more likely to make poor choices elsewhere in their list.
They can't split fire.
Bring 3 squads like this and it looks like your list has 12 S8 AP2 shots; or bring 2 even and you've got 8 S8 AP2 shots. We just covered half our anti-armour needs right there. Except, those 12 S8 shots can only hit 3 targets. Granted, those are likely to be 3 dead targets, but still we can't look at these units like we just put 12 anti-armour shots into the list. We have to look at it like 3 really good anti-armour shots. (or 2, if we bring 2 units of them, which to be perfectly honest is what I would prefer)
with that in mind, do we really need 4? I mean, more is always better but if we can't split fire, how dead does something really need to be? Let's find out.
| Chance to Affect Armour | |||
| 3 S8 AP2 | 4 S8 AP2 | ||
| AV10 | AV10 | ||
| x | 0.562 | 0.667 | |
| AV11 | AV11 | ||
| x | 0.459 | 0.559 | |
| AV12-13-14 | AV12-13-14 | ||
| x | 0.340 | 0.426 | |
As usual, 'x' represents the chance to immobilize, wreck, or explode. DE will be as much about landing useful stun results as they will outright destroying mech, but still this is just what I like to look at when I do these sorts of things.
So, it looks like that single extra shot adds about a 10% chance to down something. Not bad. Worth it for 27 points? Maybe. I don't know that the added durability of a single body does a whole lot. 4 guys with DE statlines die just as quickly as 3, and they both require 1 wound to morale test. I have no misconceptions about the frailty of this unit.
I think this might be a good place to shave off some points though, if I need them. For example, I'm playing with a list right now in which by removing a TB from each of my 2 squads of them, I can have just enough points to buy a blaster for each of my 4 warrior squads. Trading 2 bodies for 2 additional blasters that I can hit other targets with seems like a pretty good deal to me.
DE's Odd FoC
The DE book has some weird FoC choices. I don't know if they did it on purpose, but it strikes me as odd that there are 2 units that require FoC changing characters to make useful.
Why would you ever use Wracks or Hellions outside of the troops slot?
Wracks are pretty durable, but they don't actually do anything. Anyone ever taking them in the elite slot is wasting points. Imagine Plaguebearers that couldn't score and that's pretty much what Wracks would be without a Haemonculus. Maybe if you had 30 spare points, and an empty elite slot, they could be a token battery for an HQ. I can't imagine that ever being the case though.
Hellions aren't quite as bad as Wracks, but I just don't see the point in taking them outside of the troops slot. They aren't so bad that you wouldn't be hurting yourself too much by taking them in some sort of themed list, but in general any of the other FA options would likely be better. Even as troops they are still fairly lackluster, in my opinion, if they aren't accompanied by the Baron, but then they are scoring ASMEq's which is at least better than non-scoring ASMEq's.
It's just odd that they would put these units in the book in FoC slots that nobody should ever use them in. I mean, I sort of get it, I guess. If you just make Wracks troops, then it frees up 50+ points and an HQ slot, and the same can be said for Hellions. (although, I'd say the Baron is a bit more useful an HQ not counting the free token... ok, he's an actually killy HQ, let's put it that way) It's a balance issue (which is actually pretty refreshing to think that GW went to that extent) and for the most part, I guess it makes sense. It still just seems weird to me.
Why would you ever use Wracks or Hellions outside of the troops slot?
Wracks are pretty durable, but they don't actually do anything. Anyone ever taking them in the elite slot is wasting points. Imagine Plaguebearers that couldn't score and that's pretty much what Wracks would be without a Haemonculus. Maybe if you had 30 spare points, and an empty elite slot, they could be a token battery for an HQ. I can't imagine that ever being the case though.
Hellions aren't quite as bad as Wracks, but I just don't see the point in taking them outside of the troops slot. They aren't so bad that you wouldn't be hurting yourself too much by taking them in some sort of themed list, but in general any of the other FA options would likely be better. Even as troops they are still fairly lackluster, in my opinion, if they aren't accompanied by the Baron, but then they are scoring ASMEq's which is at least better than non-scoring ASMEq's.
It's just odd that they would put these units in the book in FoC slots that nobody should ever use them in. I mean, I sort of get it, I guess. If you just make Wracks troops, then it frees up 50+ points and an HQ slot, and the same can be said for Hellions. (although, I'd say the Baron is a bit more useful an HQ not counting the free token... ok, he's an actually killy HQ, let's put it that way) It's a balance issue (which is actually pretty refreshing to think that GW went to that extent) and for the most part, I guess it makes sense. It still just seems weird to me.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
But My Theme Is Competitive...
I read something over at Claws & Fists today that got me thinking about "fun" and list building.
Simo put up an article titled There is no such thing as right or wrong there is either fun or boring! in which he briefly talked about deciding how competitive you want a list to be before building it, and then he went on to talk about a Space Wolves list he would make. I don't know that he did it on purpose (the title is actually quite apt, so he may have) but he sort of indirectly touched on something quite interesting.
I'll probably stumble all over this without ever actually being able to put anything concisely into words, but here goes nothing I suppose.
The list he put together, while maybe not 100% perfectly optimized, is still a pretty competitive list.
HQ
Rune Priest
Thunderwolf Lord
ELT
Some Number of WG
TRP
4x10GH in Rhinos w/ MotW and standard
(giver or take a squad)
FST
Some Number of TWC
HVY
2x5LF w/ 4ML
Flavor the rest to taste, and that's basically his proposed list. Now, the interesting part is that it's the most competitive list he could make out of the things that he likes. He didn't say (to us, his readers, at least) "I want unit X because it can handle unit Y and Z, and because it also offers this tactical option, etc..." it was more like "Hey, I like TWC because they're awesome and happen to be strong, I'm going to bring some." This is the thing that I'm going to try to talk about.
Why do "fun", "thematic", "fluffy", or whatever other lists that people propose have to be weak or made up of bad units?
I can imagine Simo bringing this list somewhere, giving it to an opponent, and having them respond with something about WAAC cheese. Why? Because it has TWC? Because it has 2x5 long fangs with missile launchers? Because it doesn't use blood claws? The list is strong, no doubt about that, but Razorwolves it is not. He simply created the best thing he could out of the units he liked the most.
Often on the internet, I see people talking about competitive gamers ruining the game and not playing for fun. This isn't new and the compeitive community has sort of turned the other cheek about it by now. (at the very least, there isn't quite as much drama about it as there was even just a couple of months ago) Along with this, I often see people scolding folks for taking strong units or lists that aren't "fun", "thematic", "fluffy", or whatever else and at the same time commending people for taking units or lists that are less often used. In all cases, there is little or no regard for people that create thematic, fun, fluffy lists that just so happen to be competitive, and the people getting commended are almost always doing so because of some crappy units they brought.
It seems to me as if the only way to be given any credit for making a fun, fluffy, or thematic list is to make it out of terrible units.
This hits home with me especially, because it is exactly how I am. I identify with competitive gamers, but winning is not a priority over playing with a fun list.
I would never play Razorwolves because I hate the rhino chasis. Loganwing, though, is something I legitimately enjoy as far as fun, fluff, and theme is concerned so I would really like running that style of list. Going one step further, I love wolf guard with storm bolters. I will absolutely build the strongest, most missile-spamming, storm bolter-spamming, foot Loganwing list that I possibly can with TWC (because they really are awesome) and long fangs and everything, and it would be my fun list.
I legitimately am in love with the shooty Tyranid list; hive guard, t-fexxen, tervigons, harpies are all my favorite units in the codex. Why don't I use genestealers? Because I don't like them that's why. They don't fit into the fun, fluff, or theme of my army list. The fact that they aren't very good doesn't come into it at all (I mean, if I liked them and they had their current rules, I would use them, but I don't so I don't... the same can be said that if they were amazing game-winning units, I still wouldn't use them because I don't like them) it just happens to be the case.
My DE list is basically a warrior kabal with a few beasts thrown in and will likely be fairly competitive. I am at a point with it where I really like the level of fun, fluff, and theme that it has, but I think it will also be quite strong. Lots of S8, lots of SX, lots of skimmer platforms, lots of bodies, it's going to be good but it also has all of the units that I really like. (well, except for scourge and harlies I guess, I just couldn't fit them in; I can only take so many points, after all...and to be fair, incubi are pretty awesome too)
My point is, these lists are my fun, fluffy, themed lists. They are also my competitive lists. They are very obviously not optimized or WAAC, but they are still the strongest I could make them while still taking all the units I like and nothing I don't like. Will I ever get anything other than snide remarks from certain people about not being fun? Not likely. But why? Because I use a special character? Because it looks like a netlist? Because I have a lot of spam? Because it can actually handle itself in a tough spot? Because I put thought into it at all when I put it together? Because it isn't what they think of as being fun, fluffy, or thematic?
Why do fun, fluffy, or thematic lists all have to be about blood claws, or genestealers, or thousand sons, or Necrons, or Chaos spawn? Why do strong units automatically negate any level of fun, fluff, or theme a list has?
Your idea of fun, fluffy, and thematic is an all Blood Claw army led by Wolf Priests, mine is an IG armoured company. You get to be right and I wrong just because I can win and you don't get to? Well, I've got news for you: there is no such thing as right or wrong, only fun and boring!*
============================================
* - See what I did there? Yeah. I'm pretty proud of that.
Simo put up an article titled There is no such thing as right or wrong there is either fun or boring! in which he briefly talked about deciding how competitive you want a list to be before building it, and then he went on to talk about a Space Wolves list he would make. I don't know that he did it on purpose (the title is actually quite apt, so he may have) but he sort of indirectly touched on something quite interesting.
I'll probably stumble all over this without ever actually being able to put anything concisely into words, but here goes nothing I suppose.
The list he put together, while maybe not 100% perfectly optimized, is still a pretty competitive list.
HQ
Rune Priest
Thunderwolf Lord
ELT
Some Number of WG
TRP
4x10GH in Rhinos w/ MotW and standard
(giver or take a squad)
FST
Some Number of TWC
HVY
2x5LF w/ 4ML
Flavor the rest to taste, and that's basically his proposed list. Now, the interesting part is that it's the most competitive list he could make out of the things that he likes. He didn't say (to us, his readers, at least) "I want unit X because it can handle unit Y and Z, and because it also offers this tactical option, etc..." it was more like "Hey, I like TWC because they're awesome and happen to be strong, I'm going to bring some." This is the thing that I'm going to try to talk about.
Why do "fun", "thematic", "fluffy", or whatever other lists that people propose have to be weak or made up of bad units?
I can imagine Simo bringing this list somewhere, giving it to an opponent, and having them respond with something about WAAC cheese. Why? Because it has TWC? Because it has 2x5 long fangs with missile launchers? Because it doesn't use blood claws? The list is strong, no doubt about that, but Razorwolves it is not. He simply created the best thing he could out of the units he liked the most.
Often on the internet, I see people talking about competitive gamers ruining the game and not playing for fun. This isn't new and the compeitive community has sort of turned the other cheek about it by now. (at the very least, there isn't quite as much drama about it as there was even just a couple of months ago) Along with this, I often see people scolding folks for taking strong units or lists that aren't "fun", "thematic", "fluffy", or whatever else and at the same time commending people for taking units or lists that are less often used. In all cases, there is little or no regard for people that create thematic, fun, fluffy lists that just so happen to be competitive, and the people getting commended are almost always doing so because of some crappy units they brought.
It seems to me as if the only way to be given any credit for making a fun, fluffy, or thematic list is to make it out of terrible units.
This hits home with me especially, because it is exactly how I am. I identify with competitive gamers, but winning is not a priority over playing with a fun list.
I would never play Razorwolves because I hate the rhino chasis. Loganwing, though, is something I legitimately enjoy as far as fun, fluff, and theme is concerned so I would really like running that style of list. Going one step further, I love wolf guard with storm bolters. I will absolutely build the strongest, most missile-spamming, storm bolter-spamming, foot Loganwing list that I possibly can with TWC (because they really are awesome) and long fangs and everything, and it would be my fun list.
I legitimately am in love with the shooty Tyranid list; hive guard, t-fexxen, tervigons, harpies are all my favorite units in the codex. Why don't I use genestealers? Because I don't like them that's why. They don't fit into the fun, fluff, or theme of my army list. The fact that they aren't very good doesn't come into it at all (I mean, if I liked them and they had their current rules, I would use them, but I don't so I don't... the same can be said that if they were amazing game-winning units, I still wouldn't use them because I don't like them) it just happens to be the case.
My DE list is basically a warrior kabal with a few beasts thrown in and will likely be fairly competitive. I am at a point with it where I really like the level of fun, fluff, and theme that it has, but I think it will also be quite strong. Lots of S8, lots of SX, lots of skimmer platforms, lots of bodies, it's going to be good but it also has all of the units that I really like. (well, except for scourge and harlies I guess, I just couldn't fit them in; I can only take so many points, after all...and to be fair, incubi are pretty awesome too)
My point is, these lists are my fun, fluffy, themed lists. They are also my competitive lists. They are very obviously not optimized or WAAC, but they are still the strongest I could make them while still taking all the units I like and nothing I don't like. Will I ever get anything other than snide remarks from certain people about not being fun? Not likely. But why? Because I use a special character? Because it looks like a netlist? Because I have a lot of spam? Because it can actually handle itself in a tough spot? Because I put thought into it at all when I put it together? Because it isn't what they think of as being fun, fluffy, or thematic?
Why do fun, fluffy, or thematic lists all have to be about blood claws, or genestealers, or thousand sons, or Necrons, or Chaos spawn? Why do strong units automatically negate any level of fun, fluff, or theme a list has?
Your idea of fun, fluffy, and thematic is an all Blood Claw army led by Wolf Priests, mine is an IG armoured company. You get to be right and I wrong just because I can win and you don't get to? Well, I've got news for you: there is no such thing as right or wrong, only fun and boring!*
============================================
* - See what I did there? Yeah. I'm pretty proud of that.
Monday, November 8, 2010
DE Models, Woo!
Got out to the FLGS this weekend and picked up my first couple of models in years. Set out to get a codex, but they were all out of the books. They had gone through all 30 they had ordered for launch by the time I got there on Sunday. Crazy!
So instead of the book, I picked up a box of warriors. This, plus the one I preordered a few weeks ago, puts me up to 2 boxes of warriors down and the entire rest of an army list to go. Woot?*
I want to take a minute to talk about how awesome these models are, though. I mean, they are quite attractive. Very clean and precise details, and a LOT of them. Not only that, but on the pieces I have done so far, there has been very little cleaning required.
I am probably more anal about mold lines than any other aspect of 40k models; I will spend hours cleaning mold lines off of as few as a dozen models, and am not above "altering" details just to be rid of the wretched things. That being said, I blew through the DE models in no time at all.
A lot of the mold lines fell on places where they almost didn't even require removing anyways, like on the edge of armour plates and such. Anywhere that it was across open plastic, the lines were very small almost to the point of not being there at all. I still had to get rid of them, but I wasn't spending time scraping down a millimeter of plastic so much as I was just sort of smoothing out some tiny ridges. I didn't finish them all, but what I did manage to do went very smoothly.
DE have a lot of spikes, though, many of which have mold lines going right down the middle of them and into the little valleys between. It's not so bad to clean with an X-acto knife or small file when they're spread out a little, but some of the little spikes, on the lower legs for example, were nearly the width of my blade apart from each other. Made not so bad by the fact that, as I mentioned, the actual lines were very thin, but it was still a bit of a hassle.
============================================
* - Did I mention that I'm going to be building this army rather slowly? The cost of entry for this hobby is so high, and there's no way I could justify dropping a few hundred dollars all at once. At the rate I intend to hobby the models into existence anyways, there really isn't any point for me to have more than a box or two at a time. I figure I'll buy a box or two, assemble/paint/base them and then when I'm done (and/or tired of doing those units) pick up the next box. I won't be getting into the gaming side of things at breakneck speed this way, but it will be a lot more comfortable for me and my schedule and will give me more time to focus on getting them painted to a reasonable standard. When it comes to aesthetics, I am:
a) A totally anal perfectionist.
b) Pretty terrible at painting.
With a little bit of math, I can safely say that a+b=I might be here for a while...**
Also, right now my list is as-yet unfinanalized. I've got it relatively figured out (I think...for now, at least) but I'm not 100% sure just yet. The only thing I can really say for sure that I'm going to need is a shit-ton of warrior models and skimmers. Didn't want to buy a raider just yet (I'd like to get some more painting under my belt before I go on to vehicles. Maybe it'd be better the other way around, practice on the larger model before going into the tiny details, but those large flat areas worry me. I can't just leave them solid, but frankly I'm fairly terrified at anything I might have to do to make them more interesting.) so I figured I'd knock out some warriors.
** - Got a test model painted a little while back, so I can say firsthand that this will likely be the case. It came out what I would consider slightly less than acceptable and it still took me several hours to complete.***
*** - I don't think I watered my paints down quite enough and my paint ended up going on way too thick. Oh yeah, and I never finished it. A couple of hours basically just to get it basecoated with some tiny lowlighting. Actually, that's only mostly basecoated. I'm missing some colors that I wanted and/or I just didn't want to deal with trying to paint some parts of it since it was just a test model. In retrospect, what the heck was I doing the whole time? I blame Jeremy Wade.
I've been meaning to put up pictures of it, but I keep forgetting and/or coming up with reasons not to. I'll do it sometime soon, with any luck.
So instead of the book, I picked up a box of warriors. This, plus the one I preordered a few weeks ago, puts me up to 2 boxes of warriors down and the entire rest of an army list to go. Woot?*
I want to take a minute to talk about how awesome these models are, though. I mean, they are quite attractive. Very clean and precise details, and a LOT of them. Not only that, but on the pieces I have done so far, there has been very little cleaning required.
I am probably more anal about mold lines than any other aspect of 40k models; I will spend hours cleaning mold lines off of as few as a dozen models, and am not above "altering" details just to be rid of the wretched things. That being said, I blew through the DE models in no time at all.
A lot of the mold lines fell on places where they almost didn't even require removing anyways, like on the edge of armour plates and such. Anywhere that it was across open plastic, the lines were very small almost to the point of not being there at all. I still had to get rid of them, but I wasn't spending time scraping down a millimeter of plastic so much as I was just sort of smoothing out some tiny ridges. I didn't finish them all, but what I did manage to do went very smoothly.
DE have a lot of spikes, though, many of which have mold lines going right down the middle of them and into the little valleys between. It's not so bad to clean with an X-acto knife or small file when they're spread out a little, but some of the little spikes, on the lower legs for example, were nearly the width of my blade apart from each other. Made not so bad by the fact that, as I mentioned, the actual lines were very thin, but it was still a bit of a hassle.
============================================
* - Did I mention that I'm going to be building this army rather slowly? The cost of entry for this hobby is so high, and there's no way I could justify dropping a few hundred dollars all at once. At the rate I intend to hobby the models into existence anyways, there really isn't any point for me to have more than a box or two at a time. I figure I'll buy a box or two, assemble/paint/base them and then when I'm done (and/or tired of doing those units) pick up the next box. I won't be getting into the gaming side of things at breakneck speed this way, but it will be a lot more comfortable for me and my schedule and will give me more time to focus on getting them painted to a reasonable standard. When it comes to aesthetics, I am:
a) A totally anal perfectionist.
b) Pretty terrible at painting.
With a little bit of math, I can safely say that a+b=I might be here for a while...**
Also, right now my list is as-yet unfinanalized. I've got it relatively figured out (I think...for now, at least) but I'm not 100% sure just yet. The only thing I can really say for sure that I'm going to need is a shit-ton of warrior models and skimmers. Didn't want to buy a raider just yet (I'd like to get some more painting under my belt before I go on to vehicles. Maybe it'd be better the other way around, practice on the larger model before going into the tiny details, but those large flat areas worry me. I can't just leave them solid, but frankly I'm fairly terrified at anything I might have to do to make them more interesting.) so I figured I'd knock out some warriors.
** - Got a test model painted a little while back, so I can say firsthand that this will likely be the case. It came out what I would consider slightly less than acceptable and it still took me several hours to complete.***
*** - I don't think I watered my paints down quite enough and my paint ended up going on way too thick. Oh yeah, and I never finished it. A couple of hours basically just to get it basecoated with some tiny lowlighting. Actually, that's only mostly basecoated. I'm missing some colors that I wanted and/or I just didn't want to deal with trying to paint some parts of it since it was just a test model. In retrospect, what the heck was I doing the whole time? I blame Jeremy Wade.
I've been meaning to put up pictures of it, but I keep forgetting and/or coming up with reasons not to. I'll do it sometime soon, with any luck.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
DE Troop Comparison: Wracks v Warriors (The Lightning Round)
I think I may have been a bit hard on the wracks. Five of them in a venom is a very durable, very cheap unit, and they're pretty decent in CC for standard troops. Liquifiers are also a plus.
I still just don't like them.
I mean, they were pretty much better than warriors at everything except ranged firepower and flexibility. Still, those two are pretty big in my book. I like fire support, torrent of fire, that sort of thing. Venoms can put out some good anti-infantry, but so can 10 warriors with a cannon.
Sure they're durable, but so what? Bringing one or two to camp objectives and/or be annoying will be a great idea, but I just don't see myself filling my troops slots with anything other than warriors. The bottom line is that warriors get great anti-infantry in all the SX, some good anti-armour in the raider's DL and a blaster for the squad if I can swing it, and if they can get their hands on a token, they can be pretty durable themselves. They offer me flexibility to do whatever is needed to be done.
But wracks can take a raider instead of a venom. So, what, I give up most of the ranged anti-infantry in the army for a couple of dark lances? Think I'll pass on that one.
No, despite the favorable numbers, wracks still just aren't doing it for me. I think my list will be:
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
5Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + SC
That CC harassment unit I had before in the wyches, I think I've found something else to cover. I'll go into it more a little bit down the road.
P.S. - WOO! DE launch day! Can't wait to get off work to go pick up some stuff at the FLGS.
I still just don't like them.
I mean, they were pretty much better than warriors at everything except ranged firepower and flexibility. Still, those two are pretty big in my book. I like fire support, torrent of fire, that sort of thing. Venoms can put out some good anti-infantry, but so can 10 warriors with a cannon.
Sure they're durable, but so what? Bringing one or two to camp objectives and/or be annoying will be a great idea, but I just don't see myself filling my troops slots with anything other than warriors. The bottom line is that warriors get great anti-infantry in all the SX, some good anti-armour in the raider's DL and a blaster for the squad if I can swing it, and if they can get their hands on a token, they can be pretty durable themselves. They offer me flexibility to do whatever is needed to be done.
But wracks can take a raider instead of a venom. So, what, I give up most of the ranged anti-infantry in the army for a couple of dark lances? Think I'll pass on that one.
No, despite the favorable numbers, wracks still just aren't doing it for me. I think my list will be:
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
10Warriors - SC - Raider + Shields
5Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + SC
That CC harassment unit I had before in the wyches, I think I've found something else to cover. I'll go into it more a little bit down the road.
P.S. - WOO! DE launch day! Can't wait to get off work to go pick up some stuff at the FLGS.
Friday, November 5, 2010
DE Troop Comparison: Wracks v Warriors (Pt II)
When we left off, neither unit really stuck out as being superior. Shooting power was basically a wash and wracks pulled slightly ahead in CC ability, but not by any sort of ridiculous margin. So let's see about durability.
There isn't quite as much to this math as the other, but it hurts my brain more to do. You have to think about recipricals and it just seems counter-intuitive to what I usually want to do with gaming math.
For example, a BS3 S3 weapon shooting at a T3 target with a 3+ armor save would be:
2 X 2 X 2 = 8 shots expected to wound
Basically, 3 out of 6 shots will hit thanks to BS3 (aka: 1 in every 2), so the number of shots before we can expect* one to hit would be 2. The same can be said for wounding and armor save. 3 out of 6 that do hit, wound, and 3 out of 6 that wound aren't saved by the armor.
When we figure it out from an offensive point of view, we usually take those numbers and do something like:
(3/6) X (3/6) X (3/6) => (1/2) X (1/2) X (1/2) => (1/8) = 0.125 chance to cause a wound
But when we want to know how many shots I can take before I am expected to take a wound, we use the recipricals of the fractions. (reciprical, meaning the opposite, like 6/3 instead of 3/6)
(6/3) X (6/3) X (6/3) => 2 X 2 X 2 = 8
(the canny individual might observe that 8 = 1/0.125, which is exactly what we're doing by using all the recipricals, except where 2x2x2 isn't a big deal, fractions can get a bit trickier to do in your head)
Meaning, I can tank 7 shots and then expect the 8th to be a wound. Of course, this is all averages and expected values, etc. Just because math says 24 lasgun shots should kill 3 (24/8=3) of my T3/3+ guys, it doesn't mean it will happen that way every time. The average over every game we ever play will be 3, but we might never see exactly 3 deaths. Again, expected value is what we're working with here. It isn't perfect, but it's as good as we can get. And besides, if math could tell us the exact outcomes for everything, then there wouldn't be any point in playing the game. Where would the fun be in that?
So, to the table:
And there we have it. Wracks are significantly more durable, but because there are less of them the required attacks to wipe out the whole squad are about even.
Now comes the tricky part. The part I don't like as much. The part that isn't about numbers...
Our math shows us that neither unit is enormously more desirable than the other, so now we have to look at all the other factors. Ugh, subjectivity.
Well, for starters, all the wrack math was including FNP, but none of the warrior stuff was. So if the warriors can get a pain token, they'll be far more survivable than the wracks against most things. At S6 and S7, the wracks will still be better per model but the number of attacks to wipe the squad will be the same.
Hmm, warriors come with 3 raiders with dark lances, and the option of taking a blaster. That's nice. The wracks have literally nothing that can touch armor. Anti-infantry is nice to have, but dedicated anti-infantry is dangerous.
Venoms are more durable than raiders, sort of. Taking nightshields makes them the same point cost and leaves the 3 warrior squads 5 points under the cost of the 4 wracks. Alternatively taking 5++ shields puts the warriors 10 points over the 4 wracks. Sort of a wash there.
What about less quantifiable things? Like, threat level. What's a higher priority target? 10 warriors in a raider? Or 5 wracks in a venom? I'm thinking the warriors, mostly for psychological reasons. Who was it, Fritz, I think, that had the 100% fool-proof video tactica where he basically said "people suck at target priority, so put whatever you want them to shoot in front and 90% of the time they will". I think, given the choice between shooting at 4 x 5 guys with T4 and FNP or 3 x 10 guys with T3 and nothing, most people would take aim at the 10. Whether or not this is tactically sound depends on the situation, obviously, but people like to feel like they're doing something. Killing 2 or 3 warriors is more satisfying than rolling a bunch of FNP saves and only killing 1, even though they represent the same percentage of the original squad size. Also, there are 4 of them? I'll never be able to kill them all.
It's human nature, I think. When faced with a lot of things to do (small tasks, or otherwise) we tend to get overwhelmed and do nothing. This weekend I need to do the laundry, clean the house, do the dishes, go grocery shopping, and change the oil. Ugh, there's so much to do I'll never get it all done. I guess I'll just watch TV instead. If doing what we deem an acceptably easy piece of the whole makes little appreciable difference in what still needs to be done yet, then we shut down and do nothing. That is why I feel like wracks won't get targeted quite as much.
I thought we were using math to figure this out, not psychology. What happened? Eh, it is what it is. Math failed me so now I'm ranting.
At the end of the day, I think it's going to come down to personal preference and how I feel about the units. I prefer the warriors, but I feel like using them exclusively isn't good.
This is what I want in my troops: 3 units warriors, 2 units wracks, 1 unit wyches. That gives me the shooty-death awesomeness of the warriors, a couple of units that are tough to move and have some decent output, and a squad of wyches to do whatever; hold an objective in cover daring someone to charge, tarpit PWs or other big scary CC units, go get into CC of their own, whatever is necessary.**
I feel like that would be a great mix. I also feel like it's too much. I haven't done the points yet, but it feels like too much. I'd still like a useful HQ (either an archon, useful character, or possibly more haemonculi) and some heavy infantry. Don't know how much I could fit in with my core + 3+2+1. I'm still liking the Baron+5 too. Does he force you to take hellions as troops? Or does he just make it an option?
============================================
* - Probability is all about expected values. It doesn't mean that is what is going to happen, but it's the best approximation we can get when trying to do the math.
Sometimes it doesn't even make sense. What is the expected outcome if I roll a D6? 3.5, which, as it turns out, isn't even an option.
** - Wyches really are awfully versatile. I wonder if a full on wych cult would be any good. I can see it going either way, really. Eh, it doesn't especially interest me, but it's an interesting thought.
There isn't quite as much to this math as the other, but it hurts my brain more to do. You have to think about recipricals and it just seems counter-intuitive to what I usually want to do with gaming math.
For example, a BS3 S3 weapon shooting at a T3 target with a 3+ armor save would be:
2 X 2 X 2 = 8 shots expected to wound
Basically, 3 out of 6 shots will hit thanks to BS3 (aka: 1 in every 2), so the number of shots before we can expect* one to hit would be 2. The same can be said for wounding and armor save. 3 out of 6 that do hit, wound, and 3 out of 6 that wound aren't saved by the armor.
When we figure it out from an offensive point of view, we usually take those numbers and do something like:
(3/6) X (3/6) X (3/6) => (1/2) X (1/2) X (1/2) => (1/8) = 0.125 chance to cause a wound
But when we want to know how many shots I can take before I am expected to take a wound, we use the recipricals of the fractions. (reciprical, meaning the opposite, like 6/3 instead of 3/6)
(6/3) X (6/3) X (6/3) => 2 X 2 X 2 = 8
(the canny individual might observe that 8 = 1/0.125, which is exactly what we're doing by using all the recipricals, except where 2x2x2 isn't a big deal, fractions can get a bit trickier to do in your head)
Meaning, I can tank 7 shots and then expect the 8th to be a wound. Of course, this is all averages and expected values, etc. Just because math says 24 lasgun shots should kill 3 (24/8=3) of my T3/3+ guys, it doesn't mean it will happen that way every time. The average over every game we ever play will be 3, but we might never see exactly 3 deaths. Again, expected value is what we're working with here. It isn't perfect, but it's as good as we can get. And besides, if math could tell us the exact outcomes for everything, then there wouldn't be any point in playing the game. Where would the fun be in that?
So, to the table:
| Warriors v Wracks: Ranged Wounds | ||
| 10 Warriors | 5 Wracks | |
| MEq S4 | MEq S4 | |
| 1 W | 2.25 | 6 |
| 25% | 4.5 | 12 |
| All W | 22.5 | 30 |
| MEq S6 | MEq S6 | |
| 1 W | 1.8 | 3.6 |
| 25% | 3.6 | 7.2 |
| All W | 18 | 18 |
| Warriors v Wracks: CC Wounds | ||
| MEq S4 | MEq S4 | |
| 1 W | 4.5 | 9.6 |
| 25% | 9 | 19.2 |
| All W | 45 | 48 |
| 5's | 5's | |
| 1 W | 2.7 | 5.4 |
| 25% | 5.4 | 10.8 |
| All W | 27 | 27 |
And there we have it. Wracks are significantly more durable, but because there are less of them the required attacks to wipe out the whole squad are about even.
Now comes the tricky part. The part I don't like as much. The part that isn't about numbers...
Our math shows us that neither unit is enormously more desirable than the other, so now we have to look at all the other factors. Ugh, subjectivity.
Well, for starters, all the wrack math was including FNP, but none of the warrior stuff was. So if the warriors can get a pain token, they'll be far more survivable than the wracks against most things. At S6 and S7, the wracks will still be better per model but the number of attacks to wipe the squad will be the same.
Hmm, warriors come with 3 raiders with dark lances, and the option of taking a blaster. That's nice. The wracks have literally nothing that can touch armor. Anti-infantry is nice to have, but dedicated anti-infantry is dangerous.
Venoms are more durable than raiders, sort of. Taking nightshields makes them the same point cost and leaves the 3 warrior squads 5 points under the cost of the 4 wracks. Alternatively taking 5++ shields puts the warriors 10 points over the 4 wracks. Sort of a wash there.
What about less quantifiable things? Like, threat level. What's a higher priority target? 10 warriors in a raider? Or 5 wracks in a venom? I'm thinking the warriors, mostly for psychological reasons. Who was it, Fritz, I think, that had the 100% fool-proof video tactica where he basically said "people suck at target priority, so put whatever you want them to shoot in front and 90% of the time they will". I think, given the choice between shooting at 4 x 5 guys with T4 and FNP or 3 x 10 guys with T3 and nothing, most people would take aim at the 10. Whether or not this is tactically sound depends on the situation, obviously, but people like to feel like they're doing something. Killing 2 or 3 warriors is more satisfying than rolling a bunch of FNP saves and only killing 1, even though they represent the same percentage of the original squad size. Also, there are 4 of them? I'll never be able to kill them all.
It's human nature, I think. When faced with a lot of things to do (small tasks, or otherwise) we tend to get overwhelmed and do nothing. This weekend I need to do the laundry, clean the house, do the dishes, go grocery shopping, and change the oil. Ugh, there's so much to do I'll never get it all done. I guess I'll just watch TV instead. If doing what we deem an acceptably easy piece of the whole makes little appreciable difference in what still needs to be done yet, then we shut down and do nothing. That is why I feel like wracks won't get targeted quite as much.
I thought we were using math to figure this out, not psychology. What happened? Eh, it is what it is. Math failed me so now I'm ranting.
At the end of the day, I think it's going to come down to personal preference and how I feel about the units. I prefer the warriors, but I feel like using them exclusively isn't good.
This is what I want in my troops: 3 units warriors, 2 units wracks, 1 unit wyches. That gives me the shooty-death awesomeness of the warriors, a couple of units that are tough to move and have some decent output, and a squad of wyches to do whatever; hold an objective in cover daring someone to charge, tarpit PWs or other big scary CC units, go get into CC of their own, whatever is necessary.**
I feel like that would be a great mix. I also feel like it's too much. I haven't done the points yet, but it feels like too much. I'd still like a useful HQ (either an archon, useful character, or possibly more haemonculi) and some heavy infantry. Don't know how much I could fit in with my core + 3+2+1. I'm still liking the Baron+5 too. Does he force you to take hellions as troops? Or does he just make it an option?
============================================
* - Probability is all about expected values. It doesn't mean that is what is going to happen, but it's the best approximation we can get when trying to do the math.
Sometimes it doesn't even make sense. What is the expected outcome if I roll a D6? 3.5, which, as it turns out, isn't even an option.
** - Wyches really are awfully versatile. I wonder if a full on wych cult would be any good. I can see it going either way, really. Eh, it doesn't especially interest me, but it's an interesting thought.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
DE Troop Comparison: Wracks v Warriors (Pt I)
I still can't decide on which type of troops to use. I want to take warriors, but there's this little part of me nibbling away at my resolve that keeps saying wracks might be too good not to use. Let's see what we can see.
For this I am comparing a single squad of warriors and a single squad of wracks:
10 Warriors - Splinter Cannon - Raider
5 Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + Splinter Cannon
These are very much not equal in cost, but they are the units that I would be taking in my list. Comparing them at equal point levels wouldn't help me any if I don't plan on taking them in whatever configuration that would be. My list would have either 4 wracks or 3 warriors, so the final conclusion will likely include that. For my liquifier, I am calculating the chance to wound per single model. Since it is a template weapon and auto-hits, it is more useful this way. It allows me to figure out how many hits I need to get on the template in order to make things even.
First, let's take a look at some shooting stats:
Alright, so what does this tell us? Well, 12 SX shots are almost as good as 13, but 24 are twice as good. Just in case there was ever any question of that. Liquifiers are pretty good too. Let's see, some more quick math:
In all cases, a venom + a single model under the template will cause more wounds than the whole warrior squad shooting on the move. That's pretty neat. Compared to the warrior squad at max shots (rapid fire and Heavy 6), the wracks need 4 MEq's or 5's under the template to come out on top, or 7 GEq's. That's a bit trickier to manage, but still not bad.
The main (unquantified) kicker here, though, is range. Moving around to try to stay between 24 and 36 inches, the wracks still have two cannons where the warriors only have the one. So in that range, the wracks are better. Between 12 and 24, the warriors get everything but the wracks still only get the 2 cannons, so the warriors are better. At point blank, if the wracks can bring their template to bear well enough, they can come out on top. It sort of seems like a wash, overall.
Squad vs squad, the numbers are pretty even. For the same points, though, I can have 4 wrack units but only 3 warriors. Increasing killiness by 33% is cool, but not exactly no-brainer territory.
How about assault? Warriors are nothing scary in CC, but wracks are pretty sweet with their 2 poisoned attacks. Let's see:
So again, they're somewhat close. The wracks are clearly superior, but not by a huge amount. They're both likely to kill 1 MEq, or about 1 5's ever 3 combats. The weight of numbers of the warrior squad kills more GEq's, but so what? Everything kills GEq's. How about outside of the charge or against something with grenades?
I think that for these units, generally speaking, if you are in CC without your bonus A, something bad is happening. Well, that's not true. Hanging out in cover and shooting guys until they charge you isn't an especially bad option. They aren't as good at it as, say, Space Wolves, but it's still at least a decent tactic if your raider gets shot out from under you. Still though, it isn't exactly something I'd like to rely on. Maybe if I'm running on foot with max squad sizes, but otherwise, meh.
Anyways, wracks pull ahead a little bit, but there still isn't really a clear winner yet. Let's look at durability and see if anything becomes more apparent. If they are at least mostly equally killy, but one is significantly more survivable then the choice will be obvious. This has gone on for a while already, though, so I think I'll append a "Pt I" to the title of this and tackle that in part II. (this post isn't especially long, but all the table stuff takes some effort so I'm going to take a break for a while)
For this I am comparing a single squad of warriors and a single squad of wracks:
10 Warriors - Splinter Cannon - Raider
5 Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + Splinter Cannon
These are very much not equal in cost, but they are the units that I would be taking in my list. Comparing them at equal point levels wouldn't help me any if I don't plan on taking them in whatever configuration that would be. My list would have either 4 wracks or 3 warriors, so the final conclusion will likely include that. For my liquifier, I am calculating the chance to wound per single model. Since it is a template weapon and auto-hits, it is more useful this way. It allows me to figure out how many hits I need to get on the template in order to make things even.
First, let's take a look at some shooting stats:
| Ranged Combat: Warriors v Wracks | ||||
| 10Warriors + SC(min) | 10Warriors + SC(max) | 5Wracks + Liquifier | Venom + 2SC | |
| v MEq | v MEq | v MEq | v MEq | |
| h | 8.666 | 16 | 1 | 8 |
| w | 4.333 | 8 | 0.5 | 4 |
| k | 1.444 | 2.666 | 0.333 | 1.333 |
| v GEq | v GEq | v GEq | v GEq | |
| h | 8.666 | 16 | 1 | 8 |
| w | 4.333 | 8 | 0.648 | 4 |
| k | 4.333 | 8 | 0.555 | 4 |
| v 5's | v 5's | v 5's | v 5's | |
| h | 8.666 | 16 | 1 | 8 |
| w | 4.333 | 8 | 0.333 | 4 |
| k | 0.722 | 1.333 | 0.185 | 0.666 |
Alright, so what does this tell us? Well, 12 SX shots are almost as good as 13, but 24 are twice as good. Just in case there was ever any question of that. Liquifiers are pretty good too. Let's see, some more quick math:
| Warriors(min) | 2SC + 1 Template hit | |
| v MEq | v MEq | |
| k | 1.444 | 1.666 |
| v GEq | v GEq | |
| k | 4.333 | 4.648 |
| v 5's | v 5's | |
| k | 0.722 | 0.851 |
| Warriors(max) | 2SC + 4 Template hits | |
| v MEq | v MEq | |
| k | 2.666 | 2.666 |
| v 5's | v 5's | |
| k | 1.333 | 1.407 |
| Warriors(max) | 2SC + 7 Template hits | |
| v GEq | v GEq | |
| k | 8 | 8.537 |
In all cases, a venom + a single model under the template will cause more wounds than the whole warrior squad shooting on the move. That's pretty neat. Compared to the warrior squad at max shots (rapid fire and Heavy 6), the wracks need 4 MEq's or 5's under the template to come out on top, or 7 GEq's. That's a bit trickier to manage, but still not bad.
The main (unquantified) kicker here, though, is range. Moving around to try to stay between 24 and 36 inches, the wracks still have two cannons where the warriors only have the one. So in that range, the wracks are better. Between 12 and 24, the warriors get everything but the wracks still only get the 2 cannons, so the warriors are better. At point blank, if the wracks can bring their template to bear well enough, they can come out on top. It sort of seems like a wash, overall.
Squad vs squad, the numbers are pretty even. For the same points, though, I can have 4 wrack units but only 3 warriors. Increasing killiness by 33% is cool, but not exactly no-brainer territory.
How about assault? Warriors are nothing scary in CC, but wracks are pretty sweet with their 2 poisoned attacks. Let's see:
| Close Combat: Warriors v Wracks on the charge | |||
| 10Warriors + SC | 5Wracks + Liquifier | ||
| v MEq | v MEq | ||
| h | 10 | 7.5 | |
| w | 3.333 | 3.75 | |
| k | 1.111 | 1.25 | |
| v GEq | b GEq | ||
| h | 13.333 | 10 | |
| w | 6.666 | 5 | |
| k | 4.444 | 3.333 | |
| v 5's | v 5's | ||
| h | 6.666 | 5 | |
| w | 1.111 | 2.5 | |
| k | 0.370 | 0.416 | |
So again, they're somewhat close. The wracks are clearly superior, but not by a huge amount. They're both likely to kill 1 MEq, or about 1 5's ever 3 combats. The weight of numbers of the warrior squad kills more GEq's, but so what? Everything kills GEq's. How about outside of the charge or against something with grenades?
| Close Combat: Warriors v Wracks general combat | |||
| 10Warriors + SC | 5Wracks + Liquifier | ||
| v MEq | v MEq | ||
| h | 5 | 5 | |
| w | 1.666 | 2.5 | |
| k | 0.555 | 0.833 | |
| v GEq | v GEq | ||
| h | 6.666 | 6.666 | |
| w | 3.333 | 3.333 | |
| k | 2.222 | 2.222 | |
| v 5's | v 5's | ||
| h | 3.333 | 3.333 | |
| w | 0.555 | 1.666 | |
| k | 0.185 | 0.277 | |
I think that for these units, generally speaking, if you are in CC without your bonus A, something bad is happening. Well, that's not true. Hanging out in cover and shooting guys until they charge you isn't an especially bad option. They aren't as good at it as, say, Space Wolves, but it's still at least a decent tactic if your raider gets shot out from under you. Still though, it isn't exactly something I'd like to rely on. Maybe if I'm running on foot with max squad sizes, but otherwise, meh.
Anyways, wracks pull ahead a little bit, but there still isn't really a clear winner yet. Let's look at durability and see if anything becomes more apparent. If they are at least mostly equally killy, but one is significantly more survivable then the choice will be obvious. This has gone on for a while already, though, so I think I'll append a "Pt I" to the title of this and tackle that in part II. (this post isn't especially long, but all the table stuff takes some effort so I'm going to take a break for a while)
Monday, November 1, 2010
Core List(s)
I'm driving myself crazy playing with lists. Partly because I keep second-guessing everything, and partly because I just don't have enough information about the codex. Guessing and hearsay only go so far for determining points values.
I hated wracks when I first went through the codex, and I still hate them, but I cannot deny all that they bring to the table. It stands the possibility of leaving a poor taste in my mouth, but I've been toying with some wrack lists. Generally speaking, here are the two core lists I'm working with:
Here is the warrior variant. The first core I came up with. I still like this one the most. There's some wargear I'd like to take, but didn't include just because it's mostly optional stuff. Some sort of shields on the raiders would be nice, extra cannons on the venoms, stuff like that. As is, it has 12 dark lances, 8 blasters, 4 heat lances, 88 SX (on average) shots, 49 bodies, and 8 platforms. Considering it also leaves me with 561 points to spare, this is pretty not bad, if you ask me.
No CC presence whatsoever, but I do plan to use some of whatever points are left over for harlies and probably at least 1 unit of wyches. Wyches are great at tying up dangerous units in CC, and harlies are just good at killing stuff in general.
Part 2:
The only difference here is obviously in the troops. Total, this is 20 points more so it leaves me with 541 to play with. I'm trading 3 dark lances and 6 SX shots (on average*) for 4 liquifiers and more durable troops. Worth it? I don't know. I have 10 less bodies with the wracks, how much more durable are we talking here? Are 9 dark lances with 8 blasters and 4 heat lances enough? Would those 3 extra really make that big a difference? I'll have to do some thinking on it. Maybe run some numbers, see what happens. Not now, though, there's more to be discussed.
My main gripe with the second list is that it has wracks instead of warriors. Firstly, I still think that DE warriors are some of the best units in the book. Maybe they fold like an already-folded paper bag in CC, and don't have much durability at range either, but they're pretty cheap, can take decent weapons, and splinter rifles are potentially the strongest standard guns in the game. Basically, my point is that they are Dark Eldar.
Wracks, on the other hand, are marines. Their roles (as I see it) are to:
1) sit in their transport and shoot stuff until they get de-boxed
2) sit in cover and shoot stuff until they get charged (not quite as good at this as marines)
3) ride up in their transport and shoot all assault weapons before charging into CC
4) hold objectives
That's obviously a gross over-simplification, but generally speaking these are the things that wracks do; eerily similar to the things that marines do. Perhaps that is why the internet is so in love with them.
"Wyches, so they're weaker ASM? No thanks."
"Warriors, these guys look like Tau statlines. No thanks."
"Wracks? Now here is something I can work with."
Everyone already knows how to use them because they play like marines. Marines have a paradigm that is comfortable and effective. This is the "safe" option. I don't want "safe". If I wanted to play marines, I would. I want to play DE. I want speed and I want death.
Maybe wracks are good, maybe they're even fun to play, they just don't seem very characterful to me. I've said before that I'm not a competitive gamer, but that's only mostly true. I don't care how much I love blood claws, I'd never use them instead of grey hunters. If there is something that I like better that is at least pretty close to being as viable, though, then I will use that instead. I feel like warriors are very viable, so more than likely I will be running with them. Only time will tell for sure, though.
Well, time and Excel, perhaps...
============================================
* - By the way, when I say on average, I'm referring to variable rate of fire weapons. Rapid fire becomes 1.5 shots, and infantry-bound cannons become 5 shots. I know it isn't 100% accurate, but it's at least better than assuming always max or always min shots.
I hated wracks when I first went through the codex, and I still hate them, but I cannot deny all that they bring to the table. It stands the possibility of leaving a poor taste in my mouth, but I've been toying with some wrack lists. Generally speaking, here are the two core lists I'm working with:
| HQ 1 Haemonculus ELT 4 Trueborn - 4 Blasters - Venom 4 Trueborn - 4 Blasters - Venom TRPS 10 Warriors - Splinter Cannon - Raider 10 Warriors - Splinter Cannon - Raider 10 Warriors - Splinter Cannon - Raider FST 5 Scourge - 2 Heat Lances 5 Scourge - 2 Heat Lances HVY Ravager Ravager Ravager |
Here is the warrior variant. The first core I came up with. I still like this one the most. There's some wargear I'd like to take, but didn't include just because it's mostly optional stuff. Some sort of shields on the raiders would be nice, extra cannons on the venoms, stuff like that. As is, it has 12 dark lances, 8 blasters, 4 heat lances, 88 SX (on average) shots, 49 bodies, and 8 platforms. Considering it also leaves me with 561 points to spare, this is pretty not bad, if you ask me.
No CC presence whatsoever, but I do plan to use some of whatever points are left over for harlies and probably at least 1 unit of wyches. Wyches are great at tying up dangerous units in CC, and harlies are just good at killing stuff in general.
Part 2:
| HQ 1 Haemonculus ELT 4 Trueborn - 4 Blasters - Venom 4 Trueborn - 4 Blasters - Venom TRPS 5 Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + Splinter Cannon 5 Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + Splinter Cannon 5 Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + Splinter Cannon 5 Wracks - Liquifier - Venom + Splinter Cannon FST 5 Scourge - 2 Heat Lances 5 Scourge - 2 Heat Lances HVY Ravager Ravager Ravager |
The only difference here is obviously in the troops. Total, this is 20 points more so it leaves me with 541 to play with. I'm trading 3 dark lances and 6 SX shots (on average*) for 4 liquifiers and more durable troops. Worth it? I don't know. I have 10 less bodies with the wracks, how much more durable are we talking here? Are 9 dark lances with 8 blasters and 4 heat lances enough? Would those 3 extra really make that big a difference? I'll have to do some thinking on it. Maybe run some numbers, see what happens. Not now, though, there's more to be discussed.
My main gripe with the second list is that it has wracks instead of warriors. Firstly, I still think that DE warriors are some of the best units in the book. Maybe they fold like an already-folded paper bag in CC, and don't have much durability at range either, but they're pretty cheap, can take decent weapons, and splinter rifles are potentially the strongest standard guns in the game. Basically, my point is that they are Dark Eldar.
Wracks, on the other hand, are marines. Their roles (as I see it) are to:
1) sit in their transport and shoot stuff until they get de-boxed
2) sit in cover and shoot stuff until they get charged (not quite as good at this as marines)
3) ride up in their transport and shoot all assault weapons before charging into CC
4) hold objectives
That's obviously a gross over-simplification, but generally speaking these are the things that wracks do; eerily similar to the things that marines do. Perhaps that is why the internet is so in love with them.
"Wyches, so they're weaker ASM? No thanks."
"Warriors, these guys look like Tau statlines. No thanks."
"Wracks? Now here is something I can work with."
Everyone already knows how to use them because they play like marines. Marines have a paradigm that is comfortable and effective. This is the "safe" option. I don't want "safe". If I wanted to play marines, I would. I want to play DE. I want speed and I want death.
Maybe wracks are good, maybe they're even fun to play, they just don't seem very characterful to me. I've said before that I'm not a competitive gamer, but that's only mostly true. I don't care how much I love blood claws, I'd never use them instead of grey hunters. If there is something that I like better that is at least pretty close to being as viable, though, then I will use that instead. I feel like warriors are very viable, so more than likely I will be running with them. Only time will tell for sure, though.
Well, time and Excel, perhaps...
============================================
* - By the way, when I say on average, I'm referring to variable rate of fire weapons. Rapid fire becomes 1.5 shots, and infantry-bound cannons become 5 shots. I know it isn't 100% accurate, but it's at least better than assuming always max or always min shots.
HoP: Creepy Miniature Contest
Here's my entry for the creepiest/scariest/weirdest mini contest over at the House of Paincakes.
From a CMON forum post I found a long time ago:
From a CMON forum post I found a long time ago:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
