Lists, Razors, Theory, Meta, Personalities, etc.

11/30/2011

Thinking more on the ongoing friendly debates between myself, Marshal Laeroth, Devjon & others about list composition, elements to include in a list, proper purpose for a list, fluff, theory, mathhammer/metrics, the elusive "Style" component and now dealing with my favorite 40k Xenos race, the major thing is the "Style". There are no hard and fast rules on it. There can be strong guidelines though. This is a little long and fuzzy, like the title. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those posts with answers.

When it comes to guidelines and archetypes, the corollary always comes up: "A good player plays by the "Book", a great player knows when to throw the "Book" away and still win." For those that play MMORPGs, you might know what I mean. Tanks tank and squishy Nukers nuke, but slowly so that the Tanks can keep aggro. RIght? Except for my buddy on a top raiding guild. He didn't need the uber casting gear for raids, he had to nuke slowly, so his raiding gear was about extra AC, Hit Points and Resists. Which meant when the primary Tank went down and the secondary didn't grab control right away, he'd unload his biggest nuke, the a series of stun spells to chain stun the mob. Yes, he died, but he gave the raid time and a chance to regain control instead of wiping.

So, the question is: What is "Style"?

"Style" is one of those intangible things that can be summarized for our purposes as the characteristic way that someone goes about their business. It has physical & psychological elements to it. Some things that can compose a player's "Style":

Like or dislike of certain units AND the reasons for that. For example, as a Black Templar player, I despise Rhinos & Razorbacks. They simply cost waaaay to much for what we get for them. Despite all the fancy jiggery about how "our Rhinos" with XA & Smoke "only costs 8 points more" than everyone else's, it breaks down to ours cost 150% of other codices since 15 point XA isn't worth it so nobody buys it. Which means in a five Rhino list with Smoke, we pay a penalty tax of 90 points. Or enough to buy a squad with a meltagun. Oh, if we buy the XA (which is an okay deal at five points), then the tax just went to 115. Hey scrape up five more points and stick that squad in a Drop Pod! Now, I actually have nothing against Rhino/Razorback lists, I just don't think that a cost effective way of fielding them exists for the Black Templar. It doesn't play to our current strengths.
Preferences for certain play styles AND the reasons for that. Do you prefer Alpha Strike shooting? Do you like the glorious Assault? Do you want to march your army forward smashing all before you? Do you like to dance around your enemy while stinging him to death? Amusingly, I've just realized my preferred play style is also much the same as when I used to engage in personal conflict . The details would change, but the three things would happen: 1) Distraction that couldn't be ignored to get the initiative, 2) Hammer with punches until down or on the ropes, 3) Close in to use holds and/or put the boots in. Note: Player A and Player B can use the same play style and from the details, it can be totally different in application.
The method by which cost-benefit analysis is done. Every unit has a CBA. Every last one of them. Now, it can be extensive and esoteric math hammering, it can be what the player perceives as "more fluffy", it can be that the player simply admires the way the mini looks, maybe the way it plays on the board or the sheer uberness of the stat lines. It can also be some combination of the above or even more methods by which a player chooses to measure the worth of a unit. Familiar example: Black Templar Assault squads. Awesome potential for squads, especially with a leader attached. Priced out of the ballpark by our old codex.
The reason the player plays. Pushing plastic men around and rolling dice? Showing off the old modelling & painting uberness that is you on the tabletop? (Well, it darn sure isn't me.) Trying to make sure you get the beat down on everyone? Wanting to grok the inherent harmony in the conflict to ensure a mutually satisfying gaming experience? Like to dazzle everyone with rules interpreting skillz? All this affects how you play and what lists work better for you.

Okay, so what does all this mean for anyone reading this? Not a whole lot really that I can say. It is a set of thoughts that try to cover the difference between why I love my Deep Strike list and think the latest few incarnations of the DDP list are a bit...weak. I see how it can work, I tried an earlier version and liked it well enough to keep the concept, but the straight DDP just lacks something from my point of view. Pre-FAQ it was okay, but that was with a build using lots of Deathwinds in the Pods. The important thing to notice: I play my Deep Strike list by the same methods and to achieve the same purposes as those in the DDP write up.

Gunlines go out the door with me because they don't do much different, they are more flexible in many ways but IMO in ways that play to our current codex's strengths, they are less flexible in ways that do play to our codex's strengths. PotMS lists are fun, but if I wanted to do Fast Rhino bodies, I could go play the emo mutant Chapter that sparkle red in the daylight and go on the rag.

Oh, I've been talking about Black Templars, so what do the Necrons have to do with this? Well, I got caught away from the casa for the last couple days and started messing with variant Necron lists. The variety they have of actual options is insane, especially compared to the BT codex. I'm talking about several different lists built around the same core units that will perform differently depending on which "plug 'n' play" units you add to it. So for the first thing to my fellow Black Templars: No matter how much they pork up the fluff, we are going to get real options again.

The bottom line: if someone is playing a list you don't care for, still try and figure out why they are running it and what benefit it would have

7 Comments

Marshal Laeroth link

11/30/2011 04:20:40 pm

Good post. I think the important thing to take away from these thoughts is that everyone has their own "Style". There simply isn't a single list that is the ultimate army. There are innumerable slight variations to theme and archetypes that allow a person to fit their preferences in without affecting the battlefield performance. And as you said, this will only grow more true once a new codex is released for the Black Templars.

For example, you do very well with your deep striking army. Devjon and I do very well with our versions of the DDP. Essentially the same list, with minor changes that essentially come down to personal preferences. You can mathhammer it all you want, but after you reach a certain threshold, the numbers are irrelevant. So long as a person chooses effective units that fit into their theme, it doesn't matter (assuming competitive mindset).

You like grapes, I like apples. They are both fruits in the end. ;)

Devjon link

12/1/2011 02:52:39 pm

I'm probably going to look at Drop Pods vs. Rhinos on my blog once I get the Fluff finished with, simply because it is something that I disagree with you on, but need more than just a single comment to really demonstrate why, and during that demonstration I might see differently.

As for style, it is a very hard subject to pin down exactly what it is. While I am sure it does play a part in what lists you do well with and how well certain lists work for you, it doesn't override the actual list. Consider Rock lists. While they do suit a certain play-style, because they aren't balanced lists they don't generally do as well. Play-style does encourage/discourage certain units or list archetypes, but that doesn't mean you can take bad units/lists and do as well with them as you would with actually good units/lists.

It decides if you should use an aggressive list or a defensive one, and some people can't effectively use deep-striking lists. It also decides if you work better using Close Combat or simply close-ranged combat. But it doesn't mean you don't still need certain things, like flexibility and fire-support.

You do seem to be including some things into 'Style' that don't seem to fit in what I think of as 'Style'. Your four subjects that you gave are, to me, Theory, Style, some combination (Fluff, Mathammer, and the shock value of some statistics or special rules), and something that I'm not sure effects unit choices very often but would probably end up as Style. I would consider these all things that affect unit choices and, by extension, list decisions, but not everything here is style.

As for your final comments, this is one reason that I was secretly (and still am) hoping that Matt Ward does our codex. While it is possible he could do something that a lot of people wouldn't like in the fluff, I can get over that. What I would not be able to get over is if the Crunch in the codex is awful.

Algesan link

12/2/2011 10:23:12 pm

@Marshal Laeroth - Both are fruits, but I'd say it was the next stage, we are trying to make alcohol with them. Similar product to be refined into the same thing.

@Devjon - Yes, you can split them up that way, but that is part of my point. It is a sorta Zen thing: "Be the list." Or maybe it is "Be thy list." Along with "Know thyself." I don't think you realize what an epiphany I had in bullet two about my preferred gaming style.

The Rhino/Drop Pod thing makes for a perfect example of the mixture of subjective & objective that goes into "Style". We can argue past each other all day about point costs (relative & absolute), utility on the board, strengths & weaknesses, etc. It all will come down to a personal preference.

Compare Rhino/Drop Pod to use of THDC Terminators with AACNMTO active. Do they hang back and bang out 48" shots? Or do they actively seek to engage enemy units in close combat? How many players do I play who think of them as dakka (which they are), but then find themselves flailing away vs 2+ armor saves while eating Power Fists that reroll misses?

I hate these kinds of posts because they are about "there is no try, there is only do" with no concrete answers and most of my training (and I think yours) is to seek the objective & quantifiable rather than the subjective & fuzzy.

Devjon link

12/3/2011 11:33:20 pm

I think that there are objective and quantifiable things that you can use with what you're talking about. For example, Rhinos mesh better when combined with other things that can't deepstrike (Predators and Dreadnoughts without Drop Pods being good examples of good units), which means that, at least there, you can and should look at more than just what you prefer to use.

One thing to notice about my comment was that, while I did question what you gave as Style (when to me it seemed like that is one of the best answers to "which units you choose"), I didn't challenge your conclusion (as I understood it) or your premises. On the whole I enjoyed it.

Anyway, your comment has made me have second thoughts on using Terminators aggressive Combat units. Sure, they won't slaughter everything because you don't have enough turns (unless your opponent has tried to minimize Kill Points), but the problem that I had about your opponent simply staying away from you doesn't fit quite as well. This is kind of hard to explain, but I hope you kinda-sorta get that I am less opposed to assuming you'll be able to charge forward with Terminators.

Algesan link

12/4/2011 10:41:41 am

Yes, there certainly are quantifiable things to be discussed objectively. That is part of the process in evaluating the intangibles that add up to "Style". Even if it is just "These are cool models."

The obvious example is that Rhinos are objectively better than Drop Pods in certain lists. For similar reasons Razorbacks are also good choices. OTOH, for my "Style", I take the quantifiable points costs of Rhinos (or Razorbacks) vs. Drop Pods and reject the mech builds. For the same reason I reject Assault squads & post-FAQ Sword Brethren squads. They cost way too much for what they bring to the table.

Ahh, think about how Nike's metrics work. It doesn't really tell you how strong your list is, it just is a decent indicator of its potentials and if the list is too weak to be competitive.

Of course, something else that fits *my* "Style" comes under the multiple distraction threats concept. Easiest example is in my Deep Strike list. There are only four general threats. THDC Terminators & LS-Typhoons provide me with firepower & my opponent with targets. The Assault Terminators are a massive point threat to anything that isn't a rock CC unit. The Crusaders in the Drop Pods are objective contesting, objective grabbing, suicide melta threats with the EC's squad being a little bit of a CC threat.

I then present my opponent with a choice of what to kill. Hunt down the various Terminators? They get their licks in and usually my Speeders are practically invulnerable by the last few turns as all enemy LR threats are gone. Go after my Speeders and my Terminators are in your deployment zone, holding the middle, screening my objectives or wading into your rear area squads/vehicles with power fists smashing.

Like the DDP concept itself, it is all about balance and shifting with the tide of battle to maintain the initiative.

Heh, which is one reason that despite needing to deliver Matt Ward some bitch slaps for minor crap in the codex plus one major butt kicking over the removal of all of the fear & loathing effects from it I still love the Necron codex. Because it has multiple potentially competitive builds that all play differently.

Lucion

12/6/2011 06:24:42 am

Gunline doesnt work for me because I love assault.

Drop pods could work for me - the prices are good, and so are the rules.

All that does matter if you make your own path, find what works for you and doesn’t. No one can tell me how to play with or win with my list.

Lucion

12/6/2011 06:32:33 am

Style is an interesting word. Its part of us really, but who are we?

Style is like our expression, our form, its highly individualized.
As a blue print it cant really be copied or manufactured, - although we may choose to copy elements of someone elses style and integrate it into our own.

In any field, when we look at someone who has achieved success that we want
for ourselves, we look at what they did and how they did it. Now, by copying what they did to the letter, it’s likely you won’t experience the same level of success that they did. You may experience less.

But if you take what you can in terms of simple ‘tips and advice’ – if you cross-reference your own journey against theirs and see if there’s anything you can learn – you’re more likely to succeed.

Why? Because you’re not taking everything they did for granted. You’re
learning your own techniques, your own methods, and if someone else did
something that you agree with, feel free to do it yourself. If you disagree with it,
discard it.

This is the art of cross-referencing in action – seeing what you can gain from
someone else’s experience, using what is useful, and discarding what isn’t. This
way, you get the best of the best, and can develop a path forged by your own
experiences and tempered with the advice of others.

Lists, Razors, Theory, Meta, Personalities, etc.

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories