Talking Points: Introduction and 1500 Points

I wanted to muse a little bit about varying points levels. Most people that I have met do not have much of a preference to a given points level. Some people are quite vocal about their preference for points! For this article, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss varying point games and some potential effects on game play they might have. I will be breaking down the conversation along the following sub-sections.

• 1500 – Widely considered the smallest, acceptable size for a normal game of 40K.
• 1750-1850 – The old tournament range. This is for the players that usually want the best of both worlds, not too small and not too big.
• 2000 – This is for the people that enjoy the flexibility of a larger game.
• 2000+ - For people that enjoy much larger games!

Each one of these varying point levels has an impact on the way the game is played, especially games at the 1500 and 2000+ point levels. Each codex also has a seeming sweet spot for points which could be a hotly debated topic in its own right. I’m going to hit the Pros and Cons of varying point levels. In truth, I think everyone should try all the different levels. MY personal preference is usually, the bigger the game, the more fun it is to play!

1500 Points

1500 points is generally considered the smallest, acceptable size for a normal game of 40K. This is also the standard size of play for some major, local areas in the US as well as the standard size for play in the UK.

Pros

• This point level severely restricts many codices from being able to overload the board with power. Most codices see somewhere between 400-500 points spent in just compulsory troop and HQ choices. For example, two, basic ten man tactical squads with rhinos and a captain costs 510 points. This does not mean that you can’t try to fill your compulsory choices on the cheap. (2 x 5 Scout Squads + Captain = 250). Usually, though, once you have given a working kit to your troop choices and given wargear to your HQ, you’ll end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 33% of your points already spent just in compulsory choices. This only leaves you 1000 or so to fill in your strategy.
• This point level restricts an army’s ability to handle “all situations” and usually gears itself more toward “adopting a strategy and running with it”. This is because the points available to you are generally low so that you can’t have everything you want! Generally, people who adamantly defend 1500 points as being the appropriate point level refer to this as having to be tactically choosey about what you can include in your army.
• There is more room on the board, generally, and less going on. This makes games easier to track, faster to play, and it is generally easier to maneuver.
• Some armies truly excel at 1500 points because any points in excess of 1500 sees them filling out excess points rather than gaining anything overly useful for the extra points. These armies are the most efficient at 1500 because any more points just go into fluff. For example, in my opinion, Tau are at their strongest at 1500 points. This is because they can max out their force org with 1 Broadside each, 1 suit each, some troops, and some HQ. The addition of more troop choices doesn’t really help Tau that much, and the inclusion of more suits is only necessary once the points start going up.
• Many effective and fun strategies are only possible at 1500 points. These strategies usually rely on the opponent not having access to enough of their force org or units in order to combat them. For example, Dark Eldar Lance Spam works beautifully at 1500 points. It is not so effective at 2000 points where the opponent can usually stand to soak some of the damage and keep coming.
• Hammer Units and Elite Units tend to function better at the 1500 point levels because there is “less opposing army” to deal with them. This is also true of bigger characters and creatures. Usually because the weapons needed to deal with these units only come on more expensive squads. This might seem counter-intuitive as Hammer Units are usually very expensive and thus take up more of the valuable points at 1500. However, you must also imagine that at 1500, the opponent doesn’t have access to the variety of tools needed to deal with them.

Cons

• Just as some armies excel at 1500, some armies are terrible at 1500 points in terms of balance. For example, in my opinion, 1500 points severely restrict Tyranids from being effective. This is because generally accepted builds are Hive Guard, Tervigons, Termagaunts, and HQ. You cannot effectively fit these elements in at 1500 points and still get an effective quantity (i.e. 2-3 Hive Guard per slot) at the points. This puts them at a pretty major disadvantage to armies that function very well at 1500, like Dark Eldar for example who can pack in an unbelievable amount of Dark Lances even at low points.
• Some armies, especially newer ones, can pack in enormous amounts of fire power into highly under-costed units. This can truly unbalance a 1500 point game because not all armies have access to these “super units”. At higher point levels, other armies can mitigate a lot of this imbalance by packing in more units, especially since usually the player having access to these units usually has run out of force org slots even at 1500. Great examples are Vendettas or Long Fangs. Because these units are so effective and so cheap, an opponent’s ability to mitigate them at 1500 is severely limited, especially with older codices that don’t have that great new pricing available to them.
• Many, very effective strategies and variety get restricted at lower points. There are many builds that simply aren’t viable at 1500 points. For example, many very expensive HQ units are simply not viable in 1500 point games because they eat up to many of the available points to allow for a balanced army build.
• These smaller games tend to exacerbate imbalances found between the older and newer codices. Once again, this has to do with costing and the ability for older codices to offset some of that bad costing once the newer dex has run out of force org slots for their cheap stuff. This is not true in all cases, but it does hold true in most cases.
• 1500 points are more likely to suffer from “paper, rock, scissors” problems. This is because higher point games allow for players to construct more balanced lists which are capable of handling a variety of situations whereas 1500 point games tend to prefer lists which are very pointed to a particular strategy. For example, if someone shows up with 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points, the availability of weapons necessary to deal with them in a balanced 1500 list will be not be very high. At 2000 points, there are usually plenty of weapons necessary to deal with such a “rock” army.

Common Misconceptions

For each point level, I want to point out some common misconceptions and address them.

1500 points is a superior level because it forces players to make choices because they can’t include everything they want.

- This is the most common misconception from people who generally prefer 1500 point games. For those of us who player at higher points, there are plenty of sacrifices and choices you have to make even at 2000 points. You can’t always have what you want. In fact, for many armies, 1500 points is so restrictive they can’t get what they NEED let alone WANT. The theory behind this is nice, but this is also what introduces the exacerbation of codex imbalance. For example, how many Long Fangs will a Space Wolf player have at 1500 points? 15. How many will he have at 2000 points? 15. You can see how the effectiveness of such a powerful, widely under-costed unit gets diminished at higher points and not at lower points.

There are builds that don’t work at 1500.

- This is true! However, it is also true that there are builds that work at 1500 that don’t work at anything more. So, this statement is not a valid reason not to play at 1500.

1500 is balanced and the point level intended for play by GW.

- It may be the point level intended, but it is certainly not balanced. No point level is truly balanced for all codices. Some function better at 1500. Some function better at 2500.

1500 point games are faster.

- Most games at ‘Ard Boyz finish in the 2 ½ hour time limit at 2500 points. At the NOVA, all of my games were done before 2 hours at 2000 points. It’s not the point level that matters, it’s the players. The number one factor in making a slow game is looking up rules while the game is going on or by people that don’t have charts memorized or their basic army stats.

Building an Argument for Balance Part 1: Can we agree on what balance means?

Before searching for a more quantifiable way to describe army balance, we have to first agree on what balance means. I already introduced the idea that “can” does not equal “okay” in the pre-statement. Let me flesh that out a little bit more.

One of the ways in which the competitive-scene nowadays justifies most armies being balanced is what I now refer to as the “mono-build” defense. Consistently, you will see the argument that is along the lines of, “well, Dark Eldar, overall, aren’t that good, but there is still a mono-build or perhaps two builds which are still competitive!” Replace Dark Eldar with a multitude of other armies, and you will see where I am going with this. The notion being put forth here follows two thoughts:

1) If an army CAN win a game, it must be balanced.

2) Even if the majority of an army doesn’t work, most of its units being worthless or over-costed, and if you hold your tongue JUST RIGHT, the list is balanced okay with other dexes.

As you see, with just the slightest amount of “spin”, both of these thoughts are not only ineffective at showing that a list is balanced; they are almost proof that there isn’t balance. If an army is LIKELY to win games versus CAN win games, there is an obvious imbalance. Space Wolves are LIKELY to win some of their games. Black Templar CAN win some of their games, if you hold your tongue right. Dark Eldar are OKAY provided you run a certain list. Imperial Guard has list variants running in droves, all of which creates uncertainty in play style and list composition, all advantages. These is no balance in stating that an army is competitive only every third Tuesday when the stars align. I hope that without further discussion, we can agree that THIS IS NOT BALANCE.

I think that what the competitive scene really wants to say is, certain armies, although not very balanced in the grand scheme, CAN still win at a tournament in the right hands, thusly making them balanced ENOUGH for competitive play. This statement is a lot better than trying to come up with some lame reasons why something works. We aren’t saying that the ‘dex is balanced. We are simply saying that they CAN still compete in some form or fashion. I like this notion much better because it contains honesty.

I’m not saying you can’t win the Heavy-Weight title in your 50’s. George Foreman did it. What I’m saying is that this doesn’t preclude an imbalance in fighters between someone in their 20’s and someone in their 50’s.

So, the point I want to drive home here is that just because something CAN be competitive does not mean it is balanced. In mixed martial arts, the Gracie family showed us that a man weighing 175 pounds can decimate a man weighing 275 pounds in a fight. That being so, we do eventually come to the realization that we get a lot more INTERESTING and FAIR contests when we put people in weight classes. See, truth be told, the goal of any competition should be to provide an arena that is as FAIR as possible to all contestants who are thusly competing on equal ground to determine a winner. This should be the dream of all competitive players! We want an arena where we can fairly determine who the best is, thusly enticing us to all get better.

As such, I would like to introduce the notion of FAIRNESS into the definition of balance, for perhaps the first time in competitive 40K culture. FAIRNESS combined with the CAN idea gets us on the road towards what balance really means.

Definition of Balance – Two armies are balanced when either army CAN defeat the other army and both armies are FAIRLY matched up.

You see, right away, the ability for an Imperial Guard player to mix and match more flavors into his list building than Baskin Robbins ice cream cones automatically places his potential Dark Angel opponents in an UNFAIR scenario. This truly violates the definition of balance, but in order to see that violation, you have to agree to several other ideas.

1) Proposition – Part of army balance is the ability for the army to create and/or construct a variety of viable lists.

2) Proposition – There must be a way to determine if a list is VIABLE or not.

3) Proposition – Viability is determined based on the overall level of FAIRNESS in potential match-ups.

Let’s talk about these ideas for just a moment, especially the third proposition. We are all familiar with the term “all comers list” as a list building technique which incorporates the idea of building an army list which is capable of fighting with and defeating any other possible list in the game. So, your ability to construct an “all comers” list will vary greatly depending on who your potential opponents are. For example, if you go to a tournament and know that you could only possibly face Necrons, Dark Angels, Witch Hunters, and Chaos Space Marines, your ability to construct an “all comers” tournament army with ANY list drastically increases rather than if you had to build a list knowing that you could potentially face every codex. The problem is, as is already generally accepted fact in the competitive community, that certain lists can only possibly compete with ALL other codices in very specific ways; i.e. mono-build theory. This IS generally accepted in most competitive circles, and if this is true, then proposition #2 must also be accepted otherwise this decision could never be made.

So, lastly, let’s analyze Proposition #1. Instead of asking you if Black Templar really can defeat Space Wolves thusly making it balanced, let me ask you something a little different instead. Is it FAIR that Black Templar are stuck with a couple of “mono-builds” and Space Wolves are not in a contest between the two? The answer is obviously no. It’s not fair. So, if something isn’t FAIR, why is it considered competitive? Or Balanced? It shouldn’t be! Fairness IS part of balance when it comes to competing.

This is why we don’t put Heavy Weight fighters in the ring with Middle Weight fighters. It’s not that the Middle Weight guy “can’t” win. It’s that we are introducing a scenario where there is inherent UNFAIRNESS. This doesn’t create a balanced competition just because the guy CAN win. It’s inherently unbalanced because it’s unfair. Simple.

Let’s get out of the arena of mono-building and variety. Let’s go an entirely different direction! Here some rapid fire questions for you.

· Is it FAIR that Black Templar have to pay more points for the same Razorback that Vanilla Marines get?

· Is it FAIR that Orks have no melta weapons?

· Is it FAIR that Necrons have to phase out because of We’ll Be Back even though Blood Angels can convey a FnP aura over almost their entire army and don’t suffer from this?

The answers to each of these questions are complicated! The point I’m trying to make here is that there is a lot of potential UNFAIRNESS throughout the whole game system. However, that’s inherent because we have different armies. We don’t want to make every army the same. That would be boring! What we really NEED is a way to judge FAIRNESS because fairness really is part of balance. We can’t do it with specific scenarios, we have to analyze the situation overall. In other words:

It’s definitely NOT FAIR that Space Marine devastators are flat out more expensive than Blood Angel devastators, but it MIGHT BE FAIR since Space Marines have access to some special characters that Blood Angels don’t. Thus, we introduce the idea that the overall “scheme” might create some fairness.

Likewise, we introduce the idea that the overall “scheme” might create some unfairness.

Let’s modify our definition a bit!

Definition of Balance - – Two armies are balanced when either army CAN defeat the other army and both armies are FAIRLY matched up in their overall ability to compete with their codex.

It’s going to be an uphill battle trying to figure out a way to decide on if two codices are overall FAIR and thusly, balanced! However, just because something is hard doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try!

Let’s add a few more things to our definition that should be taken for granted. First, FAIRNESS also encompasses ability to compete with each other across the scenarios in place. It also assumes that the players playing each army are of equal skill levels. It assumes a lot more than just that, as well!

There’s probably more that needs to be added to this definition as we move forward! We’ll discover it, I’m sure, as we embark on this journey.

Building an Argument for Balance (Pre-Statement)

When you take a course in ethics, usually required nowadays by some bureaucrat to get any kind of college degree, especially ethics as applied to technology, the “office printer” scenario always pops up. Is it ethical to use the office printer to print materials which are for personal use? The answer is easily understood to be, “no”. Yet, EVERYONE does it. Indeed, if everyone participates in such a dastardly, unethical practice, is it really unethical? A purist would argue that the answer is yes! A realist or naturalist would argue that, although unethical, reality dictates it as acceptable. Since ethics is a subjective matter, how could it really be unethical if everyone takes part in it -- thusly forming the majority opinion? Ethics aside, it is the scenario of “everyone knows it” but “no one admits it” that I really want to get to the bottom of. The reason is because that is exactly what I believe about the current state of codex imbalance in 40K.

Now, as any person who might fancy themselves a competitive player in the 40K arena knows, discussing any notion of balance, tactics, or appropriate army usage is generally lost in a public forum. That’s because the vast majority of the public doesn’t understand enough about the game or is stifled by their local meta in such a way as to skew their opinion into the realm of “doubt” rather than general acceptance of well-laid ideas. For example, although a competitive-minded individual doesn’t need to be told that Necrons are a terrible army, there are still many out there that would argue that it is still quite potent and effective. As will be shown, this very idea itself makes honestly discussing balance amongst codices extremely difficult since it’s hard to find common ground. For example, if the best tactician in your gaming group happens to play Necrons, you might believe that Necrons are a powerful force. If the best tactician plays Imperial Guard, your Necron players will wonder why they ever wasted money on their models, even if they are the second best players in your group.

However, a student of the competitive scene of 40K has no reason to have their ability to consider the state of codex balance be skewed in this way. Yet, the entire premise of this series of articles is going to be about building an argument to show that the codices are in fact not balanced. So, what gives? If the competitive scene seems to think that the majority of codices are balanced enough for general competition and I fancy myself part of that scene, why would I be writing an article about how they aren’t balanced – a paradox?

The answer is that I believe the competitive scene knows that there are imbalances but are unwilling to admit it. I think there are several possible reasons for this, but first, I want to talk about why I think we know this to be true.

• Ask a competitive-scene player who the best armies in 40K are. Do you think you will get an answer, or do you think you will get “they are all pretty equal!”?

• Ask a competitive-scene player how they would “rank” the armies in 40K. Notice how, consistently, certain armies will always fall to the bottom. Black Templar, Dark Angels, Necrons, and Demon Hunters are usually the worst. Usually following that will be Dark Eldar (pre-new Codex), Witch Hunters, Tau, and so on.

• Look at tournament results. How many Black Templar players have golden tickets this year? How many Space Wolf players have them?

• Analyze the armies that “known” competitive-scene players take to tournaments. Do you see any of them running Witch Hunters? Dark Eldar? Black Templar? Chaos Space Marines?

• Do we expect Black Templar players to win big tournaments this year? How about Chaos Space Marine players? How about Demon players? How about Space Wolf Players?

• If someone was new to the game, would you recommend that he/she pick up Dark Angels as their first army? How about Dark Eldar? How about Blood Angels?

I don’t need to answer these questions because we all already know the answer. Indeed, just like the “office printer” scenario, we will all scream that this game is basically “balanced” yet can plainly see that the answers to these very basic questions will certainly show that it is not. This is paradox! We all know it, but we won’t admit it.

So why is it like this?

I have several theories about this:

• Theory #1: Competitive-scene players know that admitting to an imbalance opens the door for much greater evils! Evils like COMP…. *shudder* Evils like DRIVING AWAY PLAYERS from their tournaments because their armies truly can’t compete. This theory is that competitive-scene players FEAR admitting there is imbalance because it might create a problem with building up the competitive scene. I’ll address this later.

• Theory #2: We “want” there to be balance. We want it so bad that we’ll lie to ourselves to make it so.

• Theory #3: We have a hard time separating ourselves from CAN versus PROBABLE. Example, a plane can crash and kill all the passengers. It’s still more PROBABLE that you will die in a car wreck rather than a plane crash. So, although Black Templar CAN win games against Imperial Guard, the PROBABLE outcome is that they won’t. More on this later, but we also have to assume that the two individuals are of equal skill.

• Theory #4: Competitive scene players, by nature, are arrogant individuals. It’s part of being competitive to believe that you are the best or that you have a chance. When presented with the idea of beating everyone else with Chaos Space Marines, they’ll rise to the challenge. (As an aside to this, when the rubber really meets the road, go back and look at bullet #4 and rebuke this one yourself!)

So, what’s my goal here? I have several.

• Like most other competitive players, I want to grow the community and the scene. First and foremost! I don’t believe we can truly do this if we mislead people about the current state of the hobby. This hobby is very, very expensive! Convincing people that Black Templar can be competitive with a “mono-build” is not the way to get new, competitive players.

• My goal is to create a base-line for what balance is or really means.

• My goal is to attempt to come up with a logical, reasonable way to show where balance exists and doesn’t exist. The reason for this is two-fold. First, I want to gather the evidence necessary to work for goal #1. Second, so we can start being honest with ourselves.

• My fourth goal is to show that “can” does not equate to “okay”. Just because something “can” doesn’t equate to it being functional. This will be extremely helpful to the majority of the player base out there that doesn’t like the whole competitive scene.

• Fifth, I want some reasonable solutions to the imbalance problem rather than the ostrich algorithm…. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending like this game is balanced so we don’t have to deal with it, usually in ways that scald competitive players like holy water to a vampire…. Namely a variation of comp or what I like to call league brackets. Just to plant a seed, the reason why we don’t put Heavy-Weight fighters in the ring with Middle-Weights.

• Lastly, I want more people to be able to play with and enjoy their armies in a truly competitive environment, one which is actually balanced, not “pretend” balanced.

Orks for The Battle for Salvation

So! Turns out that I will, in fact, be brining my Orks to the Battle for Salvation. This is because of two reasons.

1) My consistent bad dice slump over the past few months has really gotten to me. I think over the last week I’ve finally broken the slump, but at the time I was very “irked” by the elite army bad dice roll mojo, and Orks don’t care about dice!
2) As a result, I offered to let Cheatin’ Steve take the Wolves instead of the ‘Dar. The reason? Because Steven didn’t want to play Mech ‘Dar again. They are boring to play, and Steven wanted something more fun and more killy. We started working on “fun” ‘Dar lists which were hyper-killy, but as you can guess, they weren’t exactly hyper competitive. As such, because the Wolves were making me angry and because Steven needed something to play, I offered him the Wolves.

Now, I kind of regret doing that because the modifications that Steven and I made to the Wolf list are just downright disgusting. I don’t think he’ll be winning best sportsman this time after people see that list!

So, that’s stuck me with the less competitive army, but what the heck! It’ll be fun, and just like at ‘Ard Boyz, someone is going to rue the day they under-estimated Orks when they meet me. I don’t expect to take home gold, but I will not do badly. If I can come home with a winning record, mission will be accomplished. Go green!

So, I’ve spent the last 2 weeks literally obsessing about this Ork list. I’ve lost sleep over this! Honestly, this was easier for ‘Ard Boyz. Orks perform much better at 2500 points. The reason for this is because while many MSU armies have already maxed out their power slots (like Heavy, Fast, or Elite) at 2000 points, my Ork lists generally have not. That additional 500 points could be over 60 additional Orks, another Wagon squad, 2 squads of Storm Boyz, more Lootas, etc. etc. I had a lot more flexibility at 2500 than I do at 2000. Believe it or not, I actually prefer 1500 or 2500 with Orks. That’s because at 1500 MSUs have a much harder time stopping Wagons, and at 2500 I can pack a lot more in. 2000 points is a sweet spot for MEQ MSU.

So, here’s the list. Be warned, this list is not for the feint hearted nor for everyone. You absolutely have to understand and “commit” to it in order for it to work. For most players, this list lacks versatility and inability to handle all comers. That being said, I would state that as a Xeno player, you must adhere to the golden, Xeno, tournament rule! There is generally a 60-75% chance you will be playing Space Wolves, Blood Angels, or Marines! Play the meta game because it will rarely fail you! All comers is for the birds with Xeno armies in my opinion! If you can fight MEQ MSU, you are good. If you just so happen to run into the Demon guy, oh well! Maybe he will roll bad! Just remember, those MEQ MSUs won’t be packing in the anti-Ork weaponry either. This is your best strategic weapon. Use it!

HQ:
Ghazzie (I call him “Tiny”) – 225
Big Mek + KFF – 85

Elite:
4 x Mega Nobz w/ Battle Wagon + Deff Rolla + Big Shoota – 275
4 x Mega Nobz w/ Battle Wagon + Deff Rolla + Big Shoota – 275
10 x Lootas – 150

Troops:
3 x Mega Nobz w/ Battle Wagon + Deff Rolla + Big Shoota – 235
19 x Boyz + Nob w/ PK – 155
19 x Boyz + Nob w/ PK – 155
30 x Shoota Boyz + 3 Rokkits – 210

Elite:
Battle Wagon + Deff Rolla + Big Shoota + Stikkbomb Chukka – 120
Battle Wagon + Deff Rolla + Big Shoota – 115

Notes:

The grand strategy behind this army is Berserk Charge! There’s no holding back, and there are no second chances. You will dive on the enemy with extreme prejudice and die a horrible death trying to tie them up and greatly weaken them the whole game. Gut reaction of most opponents once they see 5 battlewagons on the board is to BACK UP and SHOOT. This is EXACTLY what you want to happen. You barrel into them, shoving them into a corner, and try to tie them up for the rest of the game. You then attempt to win with your backfield by taking quarters, objectives, or what have you.

The Berserk Charge works in this case because of the sheer lethality of Deff Rollas. NO! Don’t get me wrong! It’s not the Deff Rollas that will do the killing! It’s the threat of the Deff Rollas that do the killing. That’s because your MEQ MSU opponent will want to protect his massive parking lot, and he will want to shoot your Battlewagons to do it. This provides a 1+ invulnerable save for your 30 man mob (because they won’t get targeted) and some serious target priority issues for the Lootas. Second, when you disembark to assault, what does he shoot at with his meltas?! The meganobz or the wagons?! Decisions, decisions!

As you well know, I’m big on the mathhammer, so the “but mez Tauz will PEW PEWZ your Battle Wagons off da boardz!” doesn’t fly because they statistics don’t support it at all. 14 front armor (even 12 side) + Big Mek = Wagons make it. Not to mention, nobody plays Tau. :p The point sticks though for the Razor-spam you will face.

Last but not least, for this list to function, you must have a very, very keen understanding of how to multi-assault and proper wagon usage. I have years under my belt and wield this army like a surgeon. So, I’m ready!

That’s the strategy. Here’s the unit notes.

Ghazzie/Tiny:

Okay, Tiny has taught me a valuable lesson through recent play testing. First off, he’s a total BEAST. He’s got more beast in his pinky toe than most other special characters do at 225 points. The guaranteed 6 inch WAAGH! Is money in the bag for my 2nd turn assault. Also, his one turn of 2+ invulnerable has been absolutely invaluable.

Because Ghazzie/Tiny can use his WAAGH at any time, I can wait till my opponent’s shooting phase to pop it. This allows Tiny to soak up melta shots with a 2+ invuln, saving him and the 3 man Mega Nobz with him. Bonus, I can pop the WAAGH “at any time” which means I can wait till he has already shot at me to do it. The fearless to boot is also invaluable because it may just prevent a Mega Nobz squad who just got shot up from running after the assault. I didn’t use to take Ghazzie because he is the same cost as a Boyz squad, but extensive play testing has taught me that Ghazzie/Tiny is the man.

Meganobz:

I know that most Ork players don’t understand or appreciate the Mega Nob. However, you must consider some key points to this choice. First and foremost, the only other option I have to serve the same role are normal Nobz. Meganobz are greater than Nobz in ALL CASES for my army. 2+ > 4+/FnP in all cases. Meganobz come with Klaw and 2+ for 40 points. Nobz can’t even come close to that! 45 minimum just for Klaw. 50 for Klaw + Armor + additional 50 for Pain Boy. For the same attacks and close to save, Nobz would be 250 points versus 160 points. Mega Nobz are better.
Second, Mega Nobz are just like normal terminators save for the Slow and Purposeful.

I don’t know why people hate them so much! I know, I know, no invulnerable right!? True! But they do have 2 wounds, and they do have a 5+ cover from shooting (Big Mek). However, they also have one thing Terminators will never have that is beyond the unit. They have transport options that don’t cost 250 points! Holy cow! Didn’t think about that did ya? In fact, I can run 10 Mega Nobz in 2 FAST Trukks for the price of 5 Terminators and a Land Raider. Think about it. You can’t beat Orks ability to transport their “Terminators”. I can get two battlewagons for CHEAPER than a single Land Raider.

Mega Nobz serve multiple roles. First and foremost, can openers. Any given Meganob has just under a 50% chance to stun lock a vehicle that moved > 6 inches. If they didn’t move or moved less than 6, it’s just gross. Multi-assaulting Meganobz with a free 6 inch fleet out of a wagon, can stun-lock many vehicles at once. Good stuff! Meganobz also create a target rich environment. Shoot the Nobz or the Wagons? Death by Rolla or Klaw? You pick!

Only thing that sucks about Mega Nobz is LD 7. That’s where Ghazzie/Tiny comes in! Fearless for a turn. Good stuff. And a turn is usually all you are going to get anyways.

Also, Meganobz are my answer to large, FnP assault squads and other nasties like Death Company or other Khorne Berserkers. You have to have some defense against these kinds of units.

The three man Mega Nobz squad is Tiny’s retinue. He only gets 3 because he doesn’t need them.

Lootas:

Liked these in playtesting. I only have a few hopes for my Lootas. First, they draw fire. Second, I hope maybe to pop a single transport, a vendetta, or if I’m real lucky, a Manticore! Third, they “help” with my anti-wolf scout infiltrate measures. Say what?!

Okay, Lootas help against Wolf Scouts how? First, maybe it will prompt my opponent to “outflank” them. Second, they can spray down any in mid-field. Here’s the problem folks, if you don’t know already. A guy who infiltrates his Wolf Scouts in mid-field with melta guns can seriously wreck Battle Wagons in mid-field before they get across the board. I don’t want to stop to “deal” with them because that ruins the speed element and gets me killed. Lootas will help to spray down those scouts or cause my opponent to want to “outflank” to kill the Lootas.

Also, if my Lootas can pop just one transport, I can use that as a multi-assault trick to get “stuck in” as I leap from wagons and assault vehicles to provide my opponent with no units to shoot because they will be in combat.
The 30 Man Shootaz:

Okay, normally, I don’t take Shoota Boyz, but I have high hopes for this squad. They are going to be my swiss-army knife of “situational” fixes. Here it goes.

1) Can use Shootaz to soften up IG Blobs, to Spray down Wolf Scouts in mid-field, or whatever. 3 rokkits could be used to try and pop tanks or Vendettas, or whatever. Not good odds but who cares!
2) More importantly, they provide Wolf Scout infiltrate defense. 30 Shootaz on average wipe a 6 man scout squad! Woot! One down out of mid-field!
3) Even more important, they provide the hearty bodies I need to deflect IG Vendetta Alpha Striking. I got Sneaksie Plans for this dealing with putting Boyz “in between” Wagons to block that Alpha Strike.
4) They provide a 30 Man core to take Objectives or Quarters while the rest of my army is attempting to “corner” or “shove” my opponent into a corner to win the game.

Last but not least is the Stikkbomb Chukka. It’s there because I had 5 points to spend. The wagon it is on will contain a 20 man mob. I will attempt to use that as a situational tool to assault an IG Straken Blob (should I face one) in cover so I can go at the same time. Only reason!
The Big Shootas on the Wagons are not there for shooting. They are there to “absorb” a weapon destroyed result to prevent an immediate immobilized.

Weaknesses:

My current weaknesses are going to be:
1) Manticores in general which annihilate battle wagons.
2) Blood Angel all assault lists with lots of FnP. Nothing Orks can do about this.
3) Storm Ravens with Dual Blood Talon dreads hiding in them.

My current strength is not borne in this list but in the assumptions and general arrogance of the average MEQ MSU player that Orks suck.

To Frag or not To Frag???

I was doing some thinking about my SW list, and I started to question, when is it better to use Frag Missiles or Krak Missles to kill stock marines? I was somewhat surprised by the analysis, and figured I would share.

Krak Missile:
Chance to Hit: 0.666
Chance to Wound: 0.833
Chance to Kill = 0.666 * 0.833 = 0.5547 or 55.47% chance to kill.
Chance to Kill if in Cover = 55.47 / 2 = 27.7% chance to kill.

Krak is easy to calculate! However, before we can truly analyze Frag's potential, we must first deal with the "deviation" issue. The "deviation" issue is that a Frag missile doesn't have to exactly "hit", to hit. For example, a hit = a deviation of 4 inches or less = a deviation of 5 inches or less (because a centered template won't move off a model with a 1 inch deviation), etc.

So, to begin dealing with this, let's analyze just the flat out odds of a single Frag hit killing a stock marine.

Frag Killing a Marine:
Chance to Wound: 0.5
Chance to Fail Armor Save: 0.333
Chance to Kill = 0.5 * 0.333 = 0.1665 = 16.65% chance to kill a marine if a Frag missile hits it.

So, right at face value, to kill a single Marine, Krak is better than Frag, and we are assuming that the Frag auto hits! It's better even if the Marine is in cover.

Yet, we know that Frag doesn't hit just one marine (in theory anyways). That's the point! It hits multiple targets. So, the fundamental question is, when is it better to use Frag instead of Krak?



Just going off of what it takes to kill a Marine that is hit by Frag, it will take 2 HITS to Equal 1 Krak Missile against a Marine in Cover, and 4 hits to Equal 1 Krak Missile against a Marine in the open. We know that by using my trusty "At Least" calculator. Remember, this is statistics people! We would be so lucky as to just multiply here! Basically, 4 hits = 51% chance. 2 hits = 30% chance. It's close enough (although technically, you would need 5 hits to equal 1 Krak in Open BECAUSE there is no such thing as a fraction of a hit!)

Well! All of this great. The problem is, Frag doesn't auto-hit, does it? Indeed, it does not. That little blast template deviates. In fact, it deviates 44% of the time!



Here's the math:
Chance To Roll a Hit + Chance that 2d6 <= 4 = Total chance to not deviate.
Chance to Roll a Hit = 33%
Chance that a 2d6 <=4 = 16.7%
Total = 33.333% + (16.7777% * 66.66%) = 44.4%

*** In case you were wondering where the 16.7% * 66.6% came from, it's because the chance to roll <=4 on 2d6 is 16.7%, but when the Hit Dice is used, 33% of all outcomes are already a hit. Thus, 16.7% of the remaining 66% of outcomes is all that we need to apply.

So, 44% of the time, the blast marker will go exactly where we put it. This is something we can work with! Okay, let's do some more Mathhammer! Now, let's assume our Blast Template HAS TO HIT for this to work. How many Marines would HAVE TO BE HIT in order for the Frag to be better than the Krak?

Frag to Hit + To Kill:
Chance to Hit: = 0.444
Chance To Wound: = 0.5
Chance to Fail Armor Save: = 0.333
Odds to Exactly Hit and Kill A Marine With Frag = 0.444 * 0.5 * 0.33 = 0.0739 = 7.39%

Not very good at all! So, let's put our handy "at least 1" calculator to work and ask the question: "when will Frag hits EQUAL a Marine in Cover and not in Cover?"

Marine in Cover = 27.7% chance to kill with Krak.
How Many Hits will it take from Frag before we greater than or equal to a 27.7% chance to kill? Survey Says: Approximately 4 hits (26.4%)!

We have to Tag 4 Marines with an exact hit to equal 1 Krak Missile firing into a Marine in cover. For a marine not in cover, we need 11 WHOPPING HITS to equal one Krak Missile. Yikes!



STOP!

One more thing to consider before we come to our final conclusion. Just because a Frag missile doesn't exactly hit where we want to doesn't mean that it misses!

One could make the argument that slight deviation isn't a big deal. However, now, we are entering into the realm of situational arguments! The next question is, well, how much deviation is acceptable? That's going to depend on how clumped up the target is! Now, I knew you would ask me these questions! So, I'm solving it for you!

Here's your answer to the age old question in RAW form:

How many Marines do I have to be able to HIT with Frag before it is better to use than Krak????

Odds To Kill a Marine where No Deviation is Acceptable: 0.0739
- Need to Hit 4 Marines = 1 Krak in Cover
- Need to Hit 11+ Marines = 1 Krak not in cover
Odds To Kill a Marine where 1 inch Deviation is Acceptable (51.8% to deviate one inch or less): 0.0862
- Need to Hit 4 Marines = 1 Krak in Cover
- Need to Hit 10 Marines = 1 Krak not in cover
Odds To Kill a Marine where 2 inch deviation is Acceptable (61.05% to deviate two inches or less): 0.102
- Need to Hit 3 Marines = 1 Krak in Cover
- Need to Hit 8 Marines = 1 Krak not in cover
Odds to Kill a Marine where 3 inch deviation is Acceptable (72.15% to deviate three inches or less): 0.12
- Need to Hit 3 Marines = 1 Krak in Cover
- Need to Hit 6 Marines = 1 Krak not in cover
Odds to Kill a Marine where 4 inch deviation is Acceptable (81.4% to deviate four inches or less): 0.135
- Need to Hit 2 Marines = 1 Krak in Cover
- Need to Hit 6 Marines = 1 Krak not in Cover



Okay, so, let's wrap it up!

Q) Well, how do I know how much deviation is acceptable?
A) The answer to this is easy! The acceptable deviation = the amount of marines you NEED TO HIT to be better than Krak. So, if Marines are sitting in cover, and you can still hit 3 Marines OR MORE, even if the template deviates 2 inches from where you place it, Frag is better! If not, Krak is better. You see?

Q) So, basically what you are saying is that the likelihood of Frag ever being better than Krak against a Vanilla Marine who is not in cover is slim to none?
A) Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you can't see that here, look again. :) There is a slim possibility that you could tag enough Marines, but they would have to be seriously clumped up, like just having deep struck or something. Remember to pay attention to your deviations before you go "NUH UHZ IT HAPPENZ ALL DUH TIMEZ!"

Q) So, what's the short answer here?????? (You expect me to follow all of this crap???)
A) The short answer is!!!

You need to be able to hit 4 Marines with a direct hit to really make it statistically better than firing a single Krak Missile into cover. It's basically never more efficient to use Frag over Krak if the Marines are not in cover.

Past that, things get more complicated. You have to start "eyeballing" allowed deviation amounts and odds of hitting a certain amount. Refer to the chart to see! Basically though, if you lay that small blast marker down and it touches 4 or more marines, you are better off using Frag (unless they aren't in cover!)

Welcome to the Desert of 40K

Welcome to the east coast desert of 40k!

Want to know where that is? Find the little state on the east coast marked "SC". Then, find the eastern most pointed tip. That's us right there!

Now, check this out: GT Circuit

Here's the thing, the closest GT to us was the NOVA Open which was in Virginia. Next closest? Check out the tip of FL or all the way to PA or NY. Have any idea of how far that is away? I'll tell you. The NOVA Open (the closest) was about 8 hours! Tip of Florida or New York? 12+ depending on where you want to go!

What's that you say? What about this thing over in Tennessee? It's a 1000 points "team" tournament. Great for hobbyists I'm sure, but as I'm sure you can guess, doesn't exactly "jump out" at me.

So, what's it like in the desert of 40K? If you want to travel to an event of any size, it takes 4 days. One day to drive. Two days to be there. One day to come back. We did the NOVA in three, but in any case, you are still looking at having to take time off of work to go ANYWHERE!

This boggles my mind. It really does. So, there is this thing in the middle of GA on that map called Atlanta. It's the 33rd largest city in the nation, and it's barren. What gives! Indeed, three states, GA, NC, and SC are barren, but there are people here. Do we all drive 8 hours to get to a GT? I'm guessing so!

So, what does it take to get a GT around here? Geez!

So, we live in sunny Myrtle Beach.



We have hotels. We have convention centers. What we don't have is many people to play. Indeed, it's either us (The Myrtle Beach Wild Bunch) or this small store Corsair Comics. However, there are stores out there! Stores that are much closer than 6 hours away, and they sell 40K Products. Indeed, they hosted 'Ard Boyz tournaments in multiple spots across SC, NC, and GA.

So, how do we start a GT? I've got sunny beachside resorts. I've got an airport, transportation, and even places gamers could drop their wife and kids off at while they had a good time at the tournament. (Golfers do it all the time!) I'm interested! I really am.

You get really thirsty when you live in the desert! :)

Interview related stuff post Nova open

Survived the Nova open and crazy traffic. I have some interviews to edit.
I Interviewed my Vanilla space marine opponent, Rick Bond, he runs a rifleman dread related list. I also got a hold of Cheatin' Steve's Tau opponent, Old Shatter hands, Author of Tau of War. I still have to edit my chat with Chris Jones, the Professor from The BattleZone. I interviewed a Previous captain of the french ETC team, Pierre. I interviewed Jeff Dunster with his interesting and unique IG list. I still have an interview to edit from Big Jim, which i had forgotten i still had till he reminded me during my last interview with him. I also still have material from Neil Kerr and Rob Harvatt to fix.

Little short on time lately, real job getting hectic at the start of the school year, own kids, etc....

If anyone has leads to interviews they would like to see done, hit me up, i am a glutton for punishment and slave labour.

Interview related Stuff

Finished interviewing Tasty Taste, interviewed Big Jim about his killzone work from his blog. Finished edits on both. Finished editing work for some interviews to be aired while we are away at tournament.

Interviewed Pierre aka Chtio fonce, he has been the french team captain in the past, was going, but his first borne interrupted his plans to attend. He talks about the french meta game, how his group beat out other 8-man french teams to win the right to represent, talked about the results and the desire to see a Canadian team compete, regardless if they are french or English speaking. Long distance telephone calls make for bad recordings, so this will require lots of editing.

Vacation is over, still have some painting to do for tournament, editing time will be hard to come by ;P

Exaggerated or Optimistic Thinking

On Episode 28, Pat and I talked about exaggerated and optimistic thinking as a potential peril to avoid while trying to improve your game. Here's how that works:

"I have 100 guardsmen who can just rapid fire their lasguns if the enemy gets to close. Think about it! That's 200 lasgun shots. Nothing is going to stand up to that!"

Hmmm..... let's do a little mathhammer:

(Guardsmen roll to hit = 50% chance) * (Lasgun Roll to Wound a Marine = 33% chance) * (Marine Fails a Save = 33% chance) = 5.5% chance to kill a Marine with a single Lasgun. Just using dirty statistics, what does this tell me?

200 dice are rolled. 1/2 of those dice will MISS... leaving only 100 dice. Of those 100, only 1/3 of those will WOUND... leaving only 33 dice. Of those, only 1/3 of those will FAIL AN ARMOR SAVE... leaving only 11ish dice. There you have it. 200 Lasgun shots appromixates to 11 dead marines.

So, nothing will stand up to it? What about 2, 10 man squads of marines? What happens if a 10 man squad of Blood Angels with a Sanguinary priest deep strikes right in front of you (FnP negates half the failed saves, killing only 5-6 of the assault marines)?

It's easy to see where hyperbole, exaggeration, or just plain old optimistic thinking can get you into a lot of trouble! Do just a "little" research on some popular BLOGs, forums, or web sites and you will quickly find statements like:

- This army does well against all armies.
- If I face ______, all I have to do is ______, and then, ______ occurs in my favor.
- This army is packing _____ Strength _____ shots. I can definitely kill ______ by Turn ____.
- Everything in 5th edition gets a cover save.
- Melta guns are required.
- Only mechanized forces work in 5th ed.

The list goes on and on.



Statements like these are what I call "blind assertions" or just "assertions". The statement being made assumes facts not in evidence. Using the example above, "nothing can stand up to 200 lasgun shots" is just false, period. It might seem like it's not. After all, that is a bucket load of dice to toss at something. However, the statistics show us another story entirely.

The mark of a veteran player is to be able to incorporate probability into their game play without necessarily doing the calculations. A veteran player know what actually works and what actually doesn't because of game player experience. A veteran player has experienced the game, in detail, and knows when something "actually" works, doesn't, and so on. A veteran player doesn't exist at the level of "theoryhammer", because theoryhammer relies on assertions to prove points. A veteran player substitutes experience for assertions.

In any case, it's not true if you can't prove it. You can easily theoryhammer your way into a hole that you can't escape from if you aren't careful. Theoryhammering creates sandboxes. Sandboxes are basically "meta games" where assertions have created an entire "universe" where some things hold true which don't necessarily reflect reality. Here are some examples you will find commonly across the web:

- Your list isn't good unless it has mech elements in it.
- Your list isn't good if it is assaulty.
- Mobility is required to win games.
- ______ army sucks and can't compete.

Even I will tell you that in my sandbox, Necrons can't compete. However, in other sandboxes, they do just fine. So what gives? Sandboxes are dangerous to growing as a player! Anytime you step into a sandbox, either your own or one that someone else created (on a BLOG, a website, a forum, your local gaming club, etc), you are applying blind assertions to create a false universe. Granted, some sandboxes are better than others, but that's usually because there are less assertions or some assertions in the sandbox are actually shown to be true. Some sandboxes are so bad; nothing useful can be found in them.

They are dangerous because they trap you within a realm in which you can no longer expand your thinking "outside of the box". In irony, many statements are geared towards "thinking outside of the box" simply by offering a new way to think; the irony being that now you are just "thinking inside that box" instead of "outside of a box" at all.

The best way to correct your assertions? Attend some big tournament. You'll see how much of what you hold to be true actually is true... or not as the case may be.

In any case. I wish I could change the world. Since I can't, all I can offer are some ways to protect yourself against making assertions as well as believing the assertions of others. Ask yourself the following:

1) Was a "statement of fact" made that was not proven?
2) Do plain old statistics actually back up what is being said?
3) Is hyperbole being used?
4) Are assumptions being obviously made which aren't stated? (Assuming your 200 lasguns can even rapid fire because they are in range, has line of sight, troops aren't inside rhinos,... etc.)
5) Are assumptions being made about the list the opponent is running or the way the opponent is playing that list and not being stated? (All Tau players run Crisis suits....)

Essentially, watch out for saying or reading statements which you can't prove to be true and using those as a basis for decision making.

It's not that you shouldn't make or accept some assertions. It's that you should be careful about doing so. Some assertions are useful. Some are not.