I'm in full 6th edition panic mode. I don't want to quit 40K. Yeah, my xenos armies suck. Yeah, the prices are outrageous. But 40K will always be the miniatures game for me.
The problem is: I can't trust Games Workshop to release a good rules product. You can trust GW to release a cool model kit, but you can't trust them to release fun balanced rules. Sure occasionally they accidentally back into something resembling good (5th edition and a lot of the specialist games), but I don't think they know how to do it on purpose.
I haven't heard anything about 6th to get me exited. Then again, all I really want out of 6th is 5th with fixed wound allocation and with the standard cover save reset to 5+. Some slight revisions to make light vehicles less survivable.and heavy vehicles more so would not be unwelcome either. The core of 40K isn't broke. It's always been the extraneous details that have been the problem. Codexes have never quite interacted with the rules in a consistent manner across all the rule books. Mucking with the core rules in a big way while leaving the codexes in disarray as they are will not fix 40K. That's why I say doom.
If I trusted GW, I would be more apologetic. I'd have more relaxed wait and see disposition. As it is now, I feel like I should be hedging my bets. I should be getting ready to shelve my 40K stuff for the edition cycle.
It's irrational behavior because I haven't seen the new rules yet. But I can't be an observer in this. I've got time and money invested in this game. I want to continue to get a return on that investment by playing fun games. 6th edition feels like a sword dangling over my head. When it comes down, I might end up with a couple of worthless miniature armies. The local community could die out because no one else likes the new edition. Even if the new edition is good, I might still have to buy hundreds of dollars worth of models to get my armies playable and competitive in the new rules.
I really wish GW would mitigate this stuff. They should be previewing the new rules. Building hype. Managing expectations. Making me excited about the change. Letting me know I'm getting what I want, or at least make me think what I want is what I'm getting That's what marketing departments are for. Battlefront let people officially know 3rd edition for Flames was coming months in advance. They let people know what was changing before the book was out. They put the rules in the hands of their veteran players first! I don't expect a free copy of the new rules, but an official heads up would be better than incessant rumor-mongering in the blogsphere. Better on a galactic scale.
But maybe this is GW being smarter than we give them credit for. They know most of us will buy the new rulebook no matter what. They don't have to do anything, because they already got the core audience by the nose due to our already mentioned commitment of time and money.
That strategy seems to be working for them so far, and companies are loathe to change a working strategy(non-working ones a lot of the time too). You have to wonder how many times they can raise prices without raising value, how many times they can ignore the competition, and how many times they can patronize their customers before it's one time too many.
Showing posts with label 40k. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 40k. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
I know what I said
I wasn't going to pay any attention to rumors, but a Slannesh noise marine rock star army with chaos cultist groupies?
Oh the possibilities. I could build a display board with a stage and light show. Little smoke generators too.
Will wait to see the actual codex before I geek out any further.
Oh the possibilities. I could build a display board with a stage and light show. Little smoke generators too.
Will wait to see the actual codex before I geek out any further.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Directionless
Seeing all the awesome armies arrayed at Adepticon has got me inspired to start on a new project. I've spend over a year working on my Tau, and now that I'm don't it feels weird to not have anything to work on.
I could start working on a Flames of War army. While I like the rules system, I'm just not inspired to paint a dull olive drab army that looks just like every one else's. I could start on Dust Warfare, but that has the same problem as FoW. Green allies, Grey Germans, boring boring boring. If only battlefront would release a 15 mm sci-fi version of FoW with space elves.
I'd like to re-visit my Eldar, but I'm hating my paint scheme and quality on them. I want to scrap most of it and start from scratch. The army will still suck, so I'm inclined to not give my Eldar any love until GW gives them some first.
I could start another army. Dark Eldar and Necrons both interest me in terms of their aesthetic. I defiantly don't want to do anything in power armor.
I'm worried about 6th edition and don't want to jump into a project with GW primed to throw-up all over themselves in a few months.
I could start working on a Flames of War army. While I like the rules system, I'm just not inspired to paint a dull olive drab army that looks just like every one else's. I could start on Dust Warfare, but that has the same problem as FoW. Green allies, Grey Germans, boring boring boring. If only battlefront would release a 15 mm sci-fi version of FoW with space elves.
I'd like to re-visit my Eldar, but I'm hating my paint scheme and quality on them. I want to scrap most of it and start from scratch. The army will still suck, so I'm inclined to not give my Eldar any love until GW gives them some first.
I could start another army. Dark Eldar and Necrons both interest me in terms of their aesthetic. I defiantly don't want to do anything in power armor.
I'm worried about 6th edition and don't want to jump into a project with GW primed to throw-up all over themselves in a few months.
Monday, April 23, 2012
My First Adepticon
The Con
I've been to a couple of gaming cons. Gencon a few times, some conventions in St. Louis, and even ran a small convention for the Fantasy and Science Fiction Appreciation Club I was an officer for back at the University of Dayton. Adepticon is no where near as big as Gencon, but it's big for a convention with such a narrow focus.
The focus has broadened away from GW properties. Warhammer 40K still dominated about 50% of the floor space, but Privateer, Catalyst, Wyrd, and Battlefront are starting to eat up all the space left over. There's so much going on at Adepticon there's almost not enough room for it all. The vendor area was claustrophobic, and companies had to have their demo tables clear on the other side of the building.
The tastiness of the swag bag this year, with the inclusion of the Adepticonstruct, and a free Battle Foam Shield Bag for the first 500 attendees created a congested registration line that wrapped around the building and took hours to parse through.
 |
| The registration table is around that corner and 50 yards away. This was an hour and half before registration opened, and it took me an hour to get there once they started. |
 |
| This is the line wrapping into and through the grand ballroom. |
There is a need for some updated registration organization next year. They could do it the way Gencon does and mail out Badges. Preferably with a guaranteed ticket for your swag bag. But I can't complain too much since I got a free battle foam bag myself. If you plan on going next year, the ViG upgrade to your ticket is worth it if you can get it. That line only had 100 people and they all got to be registered first.
 |
| Of course there are other ways to cope with long lines. Yes that is a keg hidden in a BF bag. |
One thing missing that they should have had was a convention program with a map. For a first time attendee, it was hard to figure out where things where and what was going on. If they plan on adding more events beside the big 40K tournaments they really need to have one.
The Lombard was fairly nice hotel, but everything was on the expensive side. They are also pretty much out of room to grow there. There's no room to add another vender or another big tournament for a new game system. Hopefully they can secure a bigger location in the future. The restaurants in the hotel are nice, but a bit overpriced. I would not have gone there if I wasn't taking my wife out to a nice Birthday dinner.
I would like to go again next year. It was nice to have my wife along, but I felt like I missed out on a lot of the convention. Hopefully Adepticon doesn't fall on her birthday next year.
The Championships
The championships where a lot of fun. I didn't do as well as I hopped, but I wasn't expecting to take home the championships with Tau. People liked the colors on my Tau, and it got a little attention. Blue Table Painting did a little mini-interview with me 1:30 into one of their you tube videos from the convention.
I went 1-2-1 for the day. I beat a Demon Fatecrusher list in the first round. She was a too aggressive with her drops and lost 3 units to mishaps. My second game was against Wolves and I tied. The third game as against a Foodar list, on a table with too much LOS blocking terrain. He reserve denied his army and had plenty of terrain to completely block units(even wraith lords) from my shooting. I didn't try too hard in my last game, and I also had a pretty crappy run of dice.
The format was OK, but I think it needs to improve on a few points. Some of the mission objectives are still kind of cheesy. They would be OK, if every army in 40K had an equally stocked tool box, but we all know that's not the case. The objectives to get across the table and put an HQ within 3 inches of the table center are impractical for some armies, and almost a given for others. Table quarters needs to move to the nova style. Being able to contest with a single unit is a little lame. The marked target objective was the only one that was on its face stupid. Mostly because you could reserve the marked target and deny your opponent the objective. A better way to do it would be to chose the marked target at the end of the first or second turn amongst units on the table. Accounts for armies that have to enter the game from reserve, and makes sure someone actually has the ability to get the objective.
Terrain was OK. I prefer using radial symmetry and more smaller pieces, but the 6 piece setup Adepticon uses is good enough. The exception where a handful of tables in the corner that where made up of random pieces that where left over. I had the unfortunate experience of playing on one of these tables against Footdar. It had at least 10 large city fight ruins with very few window pieces. My opponent was able to effectively hide things like wraith lords and war walkers from my LOS. My opponent took every advantage of that board and the mission, and I was a pretty impossible fight for a static shooty army like my Tau.
Spag had some trouble with his opponents and some sportsmanship chipmunking, but in my experience all my opponents where fun and fair. Adepticon this year went along way towards reminding me about what I like about the game. Mostly it's the way you can express yourself and build great interesting armies. Flame of War and Warmachine might have tighter rules, but have you ever seen something like this in anything other than a 40K or Fantasy tournament?
 |
| And this person didn't win players choice! A crime I tell you! |
It's made me want to start on another army. Unfortunately this is where GW screws the pouch again. I can't seem to reconcile an army I want to build with an army capable of winning. 40K exists because of its passionate players despite GW. Adepticon is a shining example of that.
And Now for Something New
I picked up one of the last copies of Dust Warfare from the Fantasy Flight booth. It's a pretty solid rules system. It definitely reads like a potential 40K killer. It plays at a similar scale with tighter rules. It's also pretty cheap with units costing 15-25 dollars. You could build a decent army for $150 dollars. It lacks the flair of 40K that I was talking about earlier, and I'm pretty board of the weird war II genre. But it's got the one thing that every other 40K killer has failed to produce so far, cheap cool vehicle kits. Those heavy walker units are boss. The actual unit miniatures could look better, but that's a side effect of the way they are produced, and the price is right.
The rules system is a basic 2 action system where units can move, attack, double move, or double attack. You use the same roll for everything in the game. Essentially you need to roll a 5+ to hit or save; what varies is the number of dice you roll. The moral mechanic is also very interesting. Units gain suppression markers as they take wounds. They actually increase your cover, but too many causes the unit to break. Speaking of cover, it works much more intuitively and less abstract than 40K. You can only assign wounds to models you can see, and you have to assign wounds to models outside of cover first.
I'd like to give it a try. It would be cool if another Indy local would like to also buy in.
It would also be a pretty fun project to try and convert 40K armies to use the this rule system. There are enough special rules in the core rulebook that I think you could make it work without having to introduce new ones.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Cowboy Coding at the Indy Open
A few weeks ago I decided that I was in too much of a rush to get my Tau ready for Adepticon much less even earlier for the Indy Open. I still wanted to be involved, so I let Spag know that if he needed any help running the tournament my services where available. I thought I would end up helping judge, building terrain, or playing as the ringer. Of course, I ended up as keeper of the spreadsheet.
It started when Spag emailed me asking if I had a laptop. I told him I didn't have one, but I did have Numbers on my iPad. After explaining to him what that meant, I had him email me the Excel spreadsheet he had created for managing the tournament. Luckily the only thing that didn't load into Numbers was Microsoft's default font. What I didn't think about at the time was that there was no scripting in the spreadsheet to generate parings, or to output ordered rankings. That realization was an unfortunate "Oh Sh*t" moment. Especially since the stripped down version of numbers available in iOS doesn't support scripting. I certainly didn't want to do pairings for a 64 person tournament by hand. Especially since I was also going to be the designated ringer.
I've been planning on getting a new laptop for a while. I've also been wanting to learn Objective C programming since mobile development has become an increasingly demanded skill these last few years. I had settled on buying a Mac Book Pro in April. Ostensibly as a present to my wife because she's letting me go to Adepticon on her birthday weekend. So I dropped by the Apple Store in Castleton the weekend before last and finally pulled the trigger.
Spag left it up to me on how to pair up the players, so I set about writing a script to handle just that. I mostly program windows desktop apps and web apps, so I wasn't familiar with Apple's AppleScript or Objective C languages yet. I have used a little Ruby before, and Ruby has interpreters for OS X. It even ships with one installed, but I had to be a geek and go pull down the latest and greatest.
Last Wednesday night I spent a few hours coding up a script to perform the pairings. It could read in a CSV export of the spreadsheet and generate a random pairing in the first round or pairings based off of win/loss record and battle-points for any other round. It was not my most elegant coding work, but it was good enough to get the job done.
I was all ready to go Saturday morning. After getting the spreadsheet updated for last minute additions and no-shows, my script spit out the first round pairings without a hitch. Second round was where things started to go off the rails. I had made the assumption that I would not have to worry about players playing each other more than once. Since the tournament was strait winners vs winners, you couldn't have a looser come back and play someone who beat them. That would be true if there where an even number of winners after each round in the tournament. Otherwise you need at least one winner to play a looser. In this case, it's a possibility that the one winner who has to play a looser could play a person he already beat. So we needed to do a few manual player swaps to overcome this in a few rounds.
The next hurdle had to do with ever changing requirements. I had written my matcher to not just operate off of the number of wins, but the order of wins. So only a person with a 'wlw' would only play someone else with a 'wlw', not just a 2 and 1 player versus another 2 and 1 player. I didn't know when I wrote the script that Spags wanted to put everyone with the same number of wins in individual brackets on the second day. I had to update my script to try and pair all the people with the same relative records together. This was easy enough; I changed my script to count wins instead of match a concatenated string of 'w's and 'l's. This gave me a list that was ordered close enough to the individual brackets that Spag wanted. Some people got bummed up to higher brackets to make sure that we only had one bracket with an uneven amount of players. I had to do much more player swapping as we ended with many more players playing former opponents.
My script couldn't have been changed so easily to do the 6th round pairings. I needed to pair players who had been placed into the 4-1 bracket with other players in the same 4-1 bracket. I was the ringer the fifth round, and didn't have time to write a new script. I had to do the final round's pairing by hand. Fleshy humans are not very efficient at that sort of thing.
Luckily, we had a player drop from the final round. This freed me up to add a method to my script. It could now crunch the numbers one last time and generate the final results. I ordered by record and then by overall score for the bracket prizes, and then just by overall score to get the RenMan winner.
It would be nice if there was some tournament software out there that could tackle some of the issues that we faced. You need to use something other than spreadsheets to handle the complexity and variations on player pairing in larger tournaments. A more purpose oriented user interface would also help prevent data entry errors, and could automatically sanity check results. I believe Battlefront has something for running FoW tournaments, but I think its tailored to their style of tournament play. I would like to see something that was generic and could also leverage mobile devices. Tournament software that could be distributed and allow any tournament staff member with an iPad or iPhone to enter results or painting scores would be very cool. It would be a cool project to work on, but a lot of effort for something that would only potentially be used by 2 or 3 events in a year.
It started when Spag emailed me asking if I had a laptop. I told him I didn't have one, but I did have Numbers on my iPad. After explaining to him what that meant, I had him email me the Excel spreadsheet he had created for managing the tournament. Luckily the only thing that didn't load into Numbers was Microsoft's default font. What I didn't think about at the time was that there was no scripting in the spreadsheet to generate parings, or to output ordered rankings. That realization was an unfortunate "Oh Sh*t" moment. Especially since the stripped down version of numbers available in iOS doesn't support scripting. I certainly didn't want to do pairings for a 64 person tournament by hand. Especially since I was also going to be the designated ringer.
I've been planning on getting a new laptop for a while. I've also been wanting to learn Objective C programming since mobile development has become an increasingly demanded skill these last few years. I had settled on buying a Mac Book Pro in April. Ostensibly as a present to my wife because she's letting me go to Adepticon on her birthday weekend. So I dropped by the Apple Store in Castleton the weekend before last and finally pulled the trigger.
Spag left it up to me on how to pair up the players, so I set about writing a script to handle just that. I mostly program windows desktop apps and web apps, so I wasn't familiar with Apple's AppleScript or Objective C languages yet. I have used a little Ruby before, and Ruby has interpreters for OS X. It even ships with one installed, but I had to be a geek and go pull down the latest and greatest.
Last Wednesday night I spent a few hours coding up a script to perform the pairings. It could read in a CSV export of the spreadsheet and generate a random pairing in the first round or pairings based off of win/loss record and battle-points for any other round. It was not my most elegant coding work, but it was good enough to get the job done.
I was all ready to go Saturday morning. After getting the spreadsheet updated for last minute additions and no-shows, my script spit out the first round pairings without a hitch. Second round was where things started to go off the rails. I had made the assumption that I would not have to worry about players playing each other more than once. Since the tournament was strait winners vs winners, you couldn't have a looser come back and play someone who beat them. That would be true if there where an even number of winners after each round in the tournament. Otherwise you need at least one winner to play a looser. In this case, it's a possibility that the one winner who has to play a looser could play a person he already beat. So we needed to do a few manual player swaps to overcome this in a few rounds.
The next hurdle had to do with ever changing requirements. I had written my matcher to not just operate off of the number of wins, but the order of wins. So only a person with a 'wlw' would only play someone else with a 'wlw', not just a 2 and 1 player versus another 2 and 1 player. I didn't know when I wrote the script that Spags wanted to put everyone with the same number of wins in individual brackets on the second day. I had to update my script to try and pair all the people with the same relative records together. This was easy enough; I changed my script to count wins instead of match a concatenated string of 'w's and 'l's. This gave me a list that was ordered close enough to the individual brackets that Spag wanted. Some people got bummed up to higher brackets to make sure that we only had one bracket with an uneven amount of players. I had to do much more player swapping as we ended with many more players playing former opponents.
My script couldn't have been changed so easily to do the 6th round pairings. I needed to pair players who had been placed into the 4-1 bracket with other players in the same 4-1 bracket. I was the ringer the fifth round, and didn't have time to write a new script. I had to do the final round's pairing by hand. Fleshy humans are not very efficient at that sort of thing.
Luckily, we had a player drop from the final round. This freed me up to add a method to my script. It could now crunch the numbers one last time and generate the final results. I ordered by record and then by overall score for the bracket prizes, and then just by overall score to get the RenMan winner.
It would be nice if there was some tournament software out there that could tackle some of the issues that we faced. You need to use something other than spreadsheets to handle the complexity and variations on player pairing in larger tournaments. A more purpose oriented user interface would also help prevent data entry errors, and could automatically sanity check results. I believe Battlefront has something for running FoW tournaments, but I think its tailored to their style of tournament play. I would like to see something that was generic and could also leverage mobile devices. Tournament software that could be distributed and allow any tournament staff member with an iPad or iPhone to enter results or painting scores would be very cool. It would be a cool project to work on, but a lot of effort for something that would only potentially be used by 2 or 3 events in a year.
Monday, January 30, 2012
They are making fools of us all
6th edition hanging out with his best pal Bigfoot. He's no longer on speaking terms with the Lock Ness Monster.
It was going to be Tau with super suits.
Then it was Black Templars with eternal warrior killers
Then 6th edition was epic.
Then it wasn't
Now its Dark Angels with fancy white dwarf bindings. (I'm not going to link to any rumors. They'll get no site traffic from me.)
At first I was going to write about how 40k should just be renamed Space Marine, but then I decided to not give a flying {redacted}
As far as rumor accuracy goes, I think the happy time is over. With the exception of plastic Thunderhawks and Summer of Flyers, the rumors for the last few years have more or less panned out. For some reason that's no longer the case. I think that a good chunk of the current online 40k community was generated by rumor mongering. In my personal experience I looked to the 40k online communities for two things; to improve my game, and to find out what was coming out next. With 5th edition being a mature product, there isn't much new strategy to discuss anymore. In absence of any good ePersonality drama, there isn't much alse for the online community to churn over except for rumors.
Basically we're all craving something new, and the blogs and forums are doing their best to supply it. Unfortunately accuracy is not being supplied in equal amounts. It's a situation that we all helped create. Supply is being generated to meet our demand. It's about time that we all voluntarily stopped caring about rumors. Join me in forming the rumor Inquisition!
Friday, January 13, 2012
Bad arguments for the 6th ed. "leak"
Time for more logical fallacies. This one pertaining to the 6th ed. rules "leak".
The primary argument I've heard for the leaked rule book being real follows:
A real 40K rule book takea a lot of effort to write.
This leaked rule book took a lot of effort to write.
Therefor This leaked rule book is a real rule book.
Or abstractly:
All A is a B
C is a B
Therefore C is an A
To make it clear, lets Venn it out
There's also a false dilemma. It presents the choice that its real or its being done by someone who would intentionally not take credit for it. This is denying the possibility of other reasonable assumptions, like the author is unavailable to take credit or doesn't want to be sued by GW. The whole argument right now is being presented as a false dilemma. Either it's real or a hoax. It's denying the very real possibility that it is someones pet project; not something done to intentionally deceive.
There's some correlation is not causation action going on too. Just because the 5th edition leak turned out to be real, does not mean that the 6th edition leak will turn out to be real.
The leak could very well be true. Tearing apart the arguments, does not change the truth of the matter. But if the arguments for the potion are bad, and the evidence for the position is bad, it is most likely that the position should not be affirmed. The evidence against the hoax is just about as bad as the evidence for. To me that's a push. I'll wait and see what happens.
I do think it's interesting that with equaly poor evidence for and against most people seam to believe the leak is real. I think that's because most people want to believe what they are reading is really 6th edition. Unfortunately wanting something cannot change reality.
The primary argument I've heard for the leaked rule book being real follows:
A real 40K rule book takea a lot of effort to write.
This leaked rule book took a lot of effort to write.
Therefor This leaked rule book is a real rule book.
Or abstractly:
All A is a B
C is a B
Therefore C is an A
To make it clear, lets Venn it out
Just because something takes effort does not mean that it is real, only that it could be. Yet, this is a common argument in support of it,
Another fallacy I see in relation to the leak is wishful thinking. Since the leak matches what people want the next edition to be like, they are more inclined to believe it.
Then there's this gem from a guy by the name of Stucarius:
Since there is no evidence that is is not true, it must be true. That does not logically follow. This is what is known as an argument from ignorance(not trying to be mean, that's really the name of the fallacy). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.“The work that has gone into this set of rules is legion. There are not that many designers in this community who could do it and I cannot imagine anyone who would and then not take credit.”To be honest there is absolutely no evidence I have seen so far that points to this not being a leaked copy or a near final draft of the rules. Very much the opposite actually. All the circumstantial and logical evidence, not to mention history (see the leak of 5th ed) point to this being the rules.
There's also a false dilemma. It presents the choice that its real or its being done by someone who would intentionally not take credit for it. This is denying the possibility of other reasonable assumptions, like the author is unavailable to take credit or doesn't want to be sued by GW. The whole argument right now is being presented as a false dilemma. Either it's real or a hoax. It's denying the very real possibility that it is someones pet project; not something done to intentionally deceive.
There's some correlation is not causation action going on too. Just because the 5th edition leak turned out to be real, does not mean that the 6th edition leak will turn out to be real.
The leak could very well be true. Tearing apart the arguments, does not change the truth of the matter. But if the arguments for the potion are bad, and the evidence for the position is bad, it is most likely that the position should not be affirmed. The evidence against the hoax is just about as bad as the evidence for. To me that's a push. I'll wait and see what happens.
I do think it's interesting that with equaly poor evidence for and against most people seam to believe the leak is real. I think that's because most people want to believe what they are reading is really 6th edition. Unfortunately wanting something cannot change reality.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The Skyray's the limit
My Tau list so far has included a Skyray. The clarifications on Seeker Missiles made them seem like a tempting include in my eventual Adepticon list. They bring along a pair of mobile marker lights which also seamed like a good enough reason to give them a go. Third, the Skyray box includes the parts to make a Hammerhead, so I could still equip the hull with a rail-gun if it didn't work out.
The first couple of games I used the Skyray it preformed fairly well. It provided more benefit than my Hammerhead or Broadsides. Having mobile marker-lights upgraded to hit on 3+ was a solid addition to the list, and it was devastating to most targets to launch a Marcross Missile Massacre from the Skyray. For most of these battles, I was facing lightly armored foes. Most of the available armored targets could be adequately handled by battle-suit missile pods. In those games my st 10 rail-guns where superfluous. Their low rate of fire meant that they didn't have quite the effect of markerlight boosted st 7 missile pods and st 8 seekers.
The shine wore off the Skyray when I played against Necrons in a Dawn of war game. The first issue that arose was that my Skyray was stuck in support mode while my Pathfinders moved into position early game. This meant that I never had the opportunity to fire any seekers. The second issue was that my missile pods where fantastically useless against Monoliths and only slightly less useless against Quantum Shielding.
This left the whole anti-armor duty for my army onto my two Boadsides and single Hammerhead. I was rolling pretty badly for my rail-guns, and only managed to immobilize one Monolith with them. I was wishing for a third rail-gun equipped unit the whole game.
This was only my 1500 point list. My full 1850 Adepticon list adds in two Piranhas to assist against heavy armor, but that may not be good enough. I'm coming around to the standard reasoning that-no matter how good the Skyray is-it's not as good as anything carrying a rail-gun.
Those two marker-lights the Skyray provides are hard to give up, but I think in the long run having at least one more rail-gun will be more useful. I would like to add in another squad of two Broadsides in place of the Skyray, but practical considerations will probably lead to using an additional Hammerhead instead. If I can get the army completed and painted ahead of schedule, I may convert two additional Broadsides. As it is, I'm not sure I'll have the time to do that.
The first couple of games I used the Skyray it preformed fairly well. It provided more benefit than my Hammerhead or Broadsides. Having mobile marker-lights upgraded to hit on 3+ was a solid addition to the list, and it was devastating to most targets to launch a Marcross Missile Massacre from the Skyray. For most of these battles, I was facing lightly armored foes. Most of the available armored targets could be adequately handled by battle-suit missile pods. In those games my st 10 rail-guns where superfluous. Their low rate of fire meant that they didn't have quite the effect of markerlight boosted st 7 missile pods and st 8 seekers.
The shine wore off the Skyray when I played against Necrons in a Dawn of war game. The first issue that arose was that my Skyray was stuck in support mode while my Pathfinders moved into position early game. This meant that I never had the opportunity to fire any seekers. The second issue was that my missile pods where fantastically useless against Monoliths and only slightly less useless against Quantum Shielding.
This left the whole anti-armor duty for my army onto my two Boadsides and single Hammerhead. I was rolling pretty badly for my rail-guns, and only managed to immobilize one Monolith with them. I was wishing for a third rail-gun equipped unit the whole game.
This was only my 1500 point list. My full 1850 Adepticon list adds in two Piranhas to assist against heavy armor, but that may not be good enough. I'm coming around to the standard reasoning that-no matter how good the Skyray is-it's not as good as anything carrying a rail-gun.
Those two marker-lights the Skyray provides are hard to give up, but I think in the long run having at least one more rail-gun will be more useful. I would like to add in another squad of two Broadsides in place of the Skyray, but practical considerations will probably lead to using an additional Hammerhead instead. If I can get the army completed and painted ahead of schedule, I may convert two additional Broadsides. As it is, I'm not sure I'll have the time to do that.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Eclectic Gamers Unite!
I like to play games. I like to play lots of games. I would like to play more games than I currently get to play regularly While I spend most of my energy on 40K, that doesn't mean I don't like Warmachine, Flames of War, Dystopian Wars, Uncharted Seas, Firestorm Armada, ext, ext... Unfortunately, reality only allows me to play one game system on any kind on a regular basis. Time and money are the big factors for the most part.
Money is pretty significant hurtle to overcome, but over a decade of hobby gaming has allowed me to accumulate collections across a broad spectrum of game systems. I would have a much larger collection if I had not developed some very strict rules on when I allow myself to buy miniature games. Rule 1: I have to have time to paint it. Rule 2: There has to be people to play with.
I've broken this rule a couple of times. This is why I have an unused copy of Space Hulk and both of my Dystopian War and Firestorm Fleets. Following this rule has kept me from double the size of my Dystopian War and Firestorm Fleets and from starting a High Elf Fantasy army. It's also keeping me from getting back into Flames of War.
So really, time is the big constraint. If I have no time to play or paint, then it's a waste of money to get into a game. Wasting money is a big pit fall for me thanks to the sunk cost fallacy. The more I spend; the more I want to spend to justify what I've already spent.
I would like to branch out a little on a regular basis and play other games, but I can't justify the expense if I'm not guaranteed to have the regular basis in the first place. If I knew I could get in at least 2 games a month of Flames or War, I'd defiantly collect some British armor as soon as I finished my Tau.
The ironic thing here is that Indy has a big FoW community. Unfortunately, they primarily play on weeknights at stores that are an impractical distance from my home and office for weeknight gaming. While you might have the occasional gamer that pays for both sides, the communities tend to give each other a wide berth. The Fantasy guys and 40K guys and the Warmachine guys, and FoW guys don't play on the same days. There's practical considerations behind this. Game stores have limited room, and it's not good to have players from a half dozen systems competing for table space.
When I was in college and single, I could spend two or three nights a week at the game store. With a full time job, a full time wife, and at minimum a 30 minute commute to a game store, I can't do it anymore.
So, today I had a thought. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a gaming club that focused on the eclectic gamers of the world. Able Company and Hivefleet do a great job for the FoW and 40K communities respectfully, but I think there is a need for a club that focuses on the entire miniature gaming community.
A primary job for the club would be to organize a gaming schedule. It would pick a day and a local store to set up shop in, and set up a rotational schedule of gaming systems. For example: the first Saturday of the month is 40K/Fantasy, the second is FoW, the third is Warmachine, and the forth is anything goes.
Something like this would allow people with limited gaming time to play all the games systems they like, without having to juggle their schedules so much. It would also help alleviate the often encountered problem of gamer burnout. People just get tired of their games when they play them too much. Spending some time playing something else would give people much needed break. Too often people end up switching games by selling off one army to buy into another game. I've always regretted the times I've done that. I'll eventually want to play the game I sold again at some point.
What are peoples thoughts on this? Is this something anyone but me would be interested in?
Money is pretty significant hurtle to overcome, but over a decade of hobby gaming has allowed me to accumulate collections across a broad spectrum of game systems. I would have a much larger collection if I had not developed some very strict rules on when I allow myself to buy miniature games. Rule 1: I have to have time to paint it. Rule 2: There has to be people to play with.
I've broken this rule a couple of times. This is why I have an unused copy of Space Hulk and both of my Dystopian War and Firestorm Fleets. Following this rule has kept me from double the size of my Dystopian War and Firestorm Fleets and from starting a High Elf Fantasy army. It's also keeping me from getting back into Flames of War.
So really, time is the big constraint. If I have no time to play or paint, then it's a waste of money to get into a game. Wasting money is a big pit fall for me thanks to the sunk cost fallacy. The more I spend; the more I want to spend to justify what I've already spent.
I would like to branch out a little on a regular basis and play other games, but I can't justify the expense if I'm not guaranteed to have the regular basis in the first place. If I knew I could get in at least 2 games a month of Flames or War, I'd defiantly collect some British armor as soon as I finished my Tau.
The ironic thing here is that Indy has a big FoW community. Unfortunately, they primarily play on weeknights at stores that are an impractical distance from my home and office for weeknight gaming. While you might have the occasional gamer that pays for both sides, the communities tend to give each other a wide berth. The Fantasy guys and 40K guys and the Warmachine guys, and FoW guys don't play on the same days. There's practical considerations behind this. Game stores have limited room, and it's not good to have players from a half dozen systems competing for table space.
When I was in college and single, I could spend two or three nights a week at the game store. With a full time job, a full time wife, and at minimum a 30 minute commute to a game store, I can't do it anymore.
So, today I had a thought. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a gaming club that focused on the eclectic gamers of the world. Able Company and Hivefleet do a great job for the FoW and 40K communities respectfully, but I think there is a need for a club that focuses on the entire miniature gaming community.
A primary job for the club would be to organize a gaming schedule. It would pick a day and a local store to set up shop in, and set up a rotational schedule of gaming systems. For example: the first Saturday of the month is 40K/Fantasy, the second is FoW, the third is Warmachine, and the forth is anything goes.
Something like this would allow people with limited gaming time to play all the games systems they like, without having to juggle their schedules so much. It would also help alleviate the often encountered problem of gamer burnout. People just get tired of their games when they play them too much. Spending some time playing something else would give people much needed break. Too often people end up switching games by selling off one army to buy into another game. I've always regretted the times I've done that. I'll eventually want to play the game I sold again at some point.
What are peoples thoughts on this? Is this something anyone but me would be interested in?
Monday, November 28, 2011
I hope Tau isn't the next Codex
After the amazing two games I've played with my Tau, I have to say that I like the army. The variability in their wargear options has allowed them to stay competitive despite the age of the codex. Tau very effectively matches my play style. I've always been a castle type player. I prefer to build a defensive line and make my opponents come to me. This works fairly well in lot of game systems for me, so long as I can find an army that can effectively fight that kind of battle.
When I played Flames or War I used German Grenadiers. They where a very effective defensive force. You couldn't effectively fight them from greater than 16" away, and they had some very good mobile reserve options in the form of Tigers and Stugs. My Cygnar in Warmachine was much the same. They weren't as tough, but they could outrage anything else they would fight. They had a lot of units that weren't good at leading a charge, but where more than adequate to clean up anything that survived a turn or two of trying to march though long gunner fire.
It may seem like a simple way to play the game; just sitting there and roll dice while your opponent marches across the table. It's much harder than you think to do it right. You have to build the defensive line just right so that you can absorb a charge and regroup. You need to build in bait to tempt the enemy to commit their forces where you want them to. You need to have a mobile reserve behind your lines to counter whatever tricks your opponent pulls off.
40K has given me some trouble because I could never build an army that worked that way. The way the armies are designed in 40K you can win games by aggressively driving your assault units into the opposing army. You can't quite do that in other games. In FoW you need to measure your movement out just right to make an assault work. The Defensive Fire mechanic and the deadliness of weapons fire under 16" in that game make miscalculations very painful. In Warmachine you have to protect your own warcaster, so if an all out attack fails, you're probably going to loose to the counterattack. In both games, needlessly sacrificing units can tend to hamper you chances of winning.
In 40K, assault units are relatively cheap, and losing one doesn't loose you the game in most cases. The good assault based units are generally so much better in assaults than ordinary units, that there is no likely chance of failure. In assault unit versus assault unit match ups, mutually assured destruction is usually good enough. It's acceptable to loose an assault terminator squad to take out a Thunderwolves unit.
I'm not a very aggressive player. I think this is a result of Eldar being my first army. I've never held much stock in relying on close-combat for victories since my games always featured my expensive exotic aspect warriors bouncing off of regular old tactical marines.
Tau is the first army that I've played where I think a defensive strategy will work. It has cheap units to absorb charges, and sturdy units that can stand up to ranged fire. Many of the units are also decently fast enough to go on the offensive when the situation calls for it. I can build an army that will force my opponent to think about how to attack it. Or better yet, one that my opponents don't know they have to think carefully about approaching.
Anyway that's my hope. Based on the enormity of my experience(2 games).
So how does this relate to not wanting Tau to be the next codex? I don't want to have to relearn the army for Adepticon. Especially with as late as a march release window for the next codex. I also don't want to have to do any marathon painting sessions to get a rebuilt army ready in time.
I've been rethinking my list a little in the meantime though. I was worried about the Necron solar pulses. A ranged army really doesn't need to loose 2+ turns of shooting, so I removed a few gun drones to fit in some black sun filters. I haven't read the Necron rules, so I would be grateful if someone would confirm if the standard anti-night-fight equipment works against solar pulse.
New list follows:
When I played Flames or War I used German Grenadiers. They where a very effective defensive force. You couldn't effectively fight them from greater than 16" away, and they had some very good mobile reserve options in the form of Tigers and Stugs. My Cygnar in Warmachine was much the same. They weren't as tough, but they could outrage anything else they would fight. They had a lot of units that weren't good at leading a charge, but where more than adequate to clean up anything that survived a turn or two of trying to march though long gunner fire.
It may seem like a simple way to play the game; just sitting there and roll dice while your opponent marches across the table. It's much harder than you think to do it right. You have to build the defensive line just right so that you can absorb a charge and regroup. You need to build in bait to tempt the enemy to commit their forces where you want them to. You need to have a mobile reserve behind your lines to counter whatever tricks your opponent pulls off.
40K has given me some trouble because I could never build an army that worked that way. The way the armies are designed in 40K you can win games by aggressively driving your assault units into the opposing army. You can't quite do that in other games. In FoW you need to measure your movement out just right to make an assault work. The Defensive Fire mechanic and the deadliness of weapons fire under 16" in that game make miscalculations very painful. In Warmachine you have to protect your own warcaster, so if an all out attack fails, you're probably going to loose to the counterattack. In both games, needlessly sacrificing units can tend to hamper you chances of winning.
In 40K, assault units are relatively cheap, and losing one doesn't loose you the game in most cases. The good assault based units are generally so much better in assaults than ordinary units, that there is no likely chance of failure. In assault unit versus assault unit match ups, mutually assured destruction is usually good enough. It's acceptable to loose an assault terminator squad to take out a Thunderwolves unit.
I'm not a very aggressive player. I think this is a result of Eldar being my first army. I've never held much stock in relying on close-combat for victories since my games always featured my expensive exotic aspect warriors bouncing off of regular old tactical marines.
Tau is the first army that I've played where I think a defensive strategy will work. It has cheap units to absorb charges, and sturdy units that can stand up to ranged fire. Many of the units are also decently fast enough to go on the offensive when the situation calls for it. I can build an army that will force my opponent to think about how to attack it. Or better yet, one that my opponents don't know they have to think carefully about approaching.
Anyway that's my hope. Based on the enormity of my experience(2 games).
So how does this relate to not wanting Tau to be the next codex? I don't want to have to relearn the army for Adepticon. Especially with as late as a march release window for the next codex. I also don't want to have to do any marathon painting sessions to get a rebuilt army ready in time.
I've been rethinking my list a little in the meantime though. I was worried about the Necron solar pulses. A ranged army really doesn't need to loose 2+ turns of shooting, so I removed a few gun drones to fit in some black sun filters. I haven't read the Necron rules, so I would be grateful if someone would confirm if the standard anti-night-fight equipment works against solar pulse.
New list follows:
| Unit Name | Upgrades | Qty |
| Shas'el (Commander) | ||
| Missile Pod | ||
| Plasma Rifle | ||
| Multi-tracker | ||
| Hard wired black sun filter | ||
| XV8 Team | 3 | |
| Missile Pod | 3 | |
| Plasma Rifle | 3 | |
| Multi-tracker | 3 | |
| XV8 Team | 3 | |
| Missile Pod | 3 | |
| Plasma Rifle | 3 | |
| Multi-tracker | 3 | |
| XV8 Team | 2 | |
| Twin linked Missle pod | 2 | |
| Black sun filter | 2 | |
| Fire Warriors | 6 | |
| Fire Warriors | 6 | |
| Devilfish | ||
| Seeker Missiles | 1 | |
| Disruption Pod | ||
| Kroot Squad | 10 | |
| Kroot Hounds | 7 | |
| Kroot Squad | 10 | |
| Kroot Hounds | 7 | |
| Pathfinder Squad | 8 | |
| Devilfish | ||
| Seeker Missiles | 1 | |
| Disruption Pod | ||
| Piranha | 1 | |
| Fusion Blaster | ||
| Targeting Array | ||
| Piranha | 1 | |
| Fusion Blaster | ||
| Targeting Array | ||
| XV88 Broadsides | 2 | |
| Team leader | ||
| Hard-wired black sun filter | ||
| Hard-wired target lock | ||
| Drone Controller | 1 | |
| Shield Drone | 2 | |
| Black sun filter | 1 | |
| Hammerhead | ||
| Rail Gun | ||
| Smart Missile System | ||
| Black sun filter | ||
| Disruption Pod | ||
| Multitracker | ||
| Sky Ray | ||
| Smart Missile System | ||
| Disruption Pod | ||
| Black sun filter | ||
| Multitracker | ||
| Targeting Array |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)