Friday, May 27, 2011

Prove It: Basketball, Warhammer, and Chihuahuas

"Prove it."

This was a common phrase when we were playing Horse or Pig, the final shot was too difficult for the person about to be eliminated and they had already missed their first shot.

So instead of attempting it a second time, knowing they would miss it, that person would calculate the chances and decide there was a greater chance of their opponent missing the shot than the eliminatee had of making it.

So instead of chancing it, they would go to the time-honored "prove it card."

The amazing thing is...typically the person challenged to prove it would. If it was a twisting, turning, spinning reverse off the opposite foot, they would calmly and complacently throw it up and watch it go in the basket, thus allowing them to label the loser a horse.

Or if it was a long bomb they almost always watched the basketball swish through nicely and cleanly. It was as inevitable as rain in Oregon, lies from politicians, or me purchasing the new Weird Al cd when it is released.

There is a reason this worked. Most basketball players have a comfort zone. If one person has better range, they will step outside their opponents' range when time for that key shot. Conversely, if they make their living in the paint then a difficult lay-in will be a piece of cake for them but virtually impossible for their opponent.

And if one player has better range and is also comfortable with the most spectacular work around the basket, they would win nearly every time.

So what does this have to do with Warhammer?

There was a Warhammer event in Portland not too long ago that was a little bit off the beaten path. I suspect it owes a fair amount to one I have seen mentioned from the United Kingdom. Essentially, you take a smallish army and play each opponent twice. The first time you use your own army, the second your opponent's.

The idea behind this is that this will determine the better player by comparing the outcomes of the two games. It is also an oft-suggested resolution among the Starving Crazed Weasels.

The problem with the concept is similar to the problem with resorting to "prove it" in a game of Horse.

Though the army list might be the same, the results will seldom be equal.

For example, my standard finishing move in Horse started with a right hand dribble, 360 degree double pump lay in with the left hand.

It could trip people up many places...the dribble, spin, double pump, or especially using the left hand.

Often when that was the challenge shot, I would have to walk the victim through the steps several times and even then they seldom got it correct. Did not matter because it was even more rare that they made the shot.

Army construction often has a similar principle. Picking up a list and seeing "47 dudes with weapons, 18 different dudes with piercing eyes, firm jaw and a lock of wavy hair, and dude with a staff" might tell you what is in the army but not why.

A lot of times it has to do with play style. For example, a player who works to minimize casualties and protect themselves from shooting and magic through judicious entry into close combats will struggle to play a shooting based High Elf army well (why you would make a shooting based High Elf army is an open question).

By contrast, the person who relies heavily on magic to buff their troops, move them around the field, etc. will struggle mightily to do well when handed a Dwarf list, even if it has Thorek and a host of war machines.

Two players with the same list will not have the same results. I am a fine example.

Give me a list I put together and I will typically know which unit is supposed to perform which role. I have a sense of how long my troops will last before being swept aside...or sweeping aside their opponent.

Hand me the identical list, but put together by someone else and odds are good I will struggle with it and, in fact, will lose the majority of the games I play with it, even against inferior lists.

But there is something else to consider. When we played previously back in the last millenium, I used a Bretonnian list. Great armor saves, great mobility, and a beastly dragon rider.

When we restarted, I took to the Warriors of Chaos like a Beagle to rabbit hunting.

They fit my style very well. They are rugged, fast (the way I build lists), and reliable.

I tend to find when I use other styles of lists that I am less successful not only in the game, but in figuring out how to use the troops to hand.

It is not just that the troops die in droves...I do that with the Warriors. I cannot count the number of times my 5 strong Knight unit has lost 3 of 5 members to a 4 wound barrage or my Chaos Warrior unit has been shredded by a trebuchet or scraplauncher.

Ironically, losing 3 knights is much more costly than losing say...22 Lothern Sea Guard as I did not too long ago in just one turn. I have lost far more in potential combat ability by losing 60% of my frontage than I have by losing 0% of my frontage.

But the plan for how to use them changes. One thing I have noted in my list-building is that regardless of what troops are available, I know what roles I want my troops to play and often shoe-horn other troops into that role when my preferred troop is unavailable.

Thus in recent games with both the High Elf and Beastmen army I have had uncomfortable moments when key troops were in the wrong place. Once I lost a Watchtower game to the Lizardmen because of it when I planted deadly but too few in number Swordsmen in the Watchtower instead of the larger, less lethal but much sturdier Sea Guard block. (Arguably I would have lost it anyway, but that made the outcome certain.)

It is a mistake probably nobody else in the Starving Crazed Weasels would make. This is largely because they tend to mix up the army styles they build more frequently than I mix my builds.

I seldom take Chaos Marauders or Chaos Warriors in any numbers larger than the bare minimum because when I look at them I tend to maximize their disadvantages and minimize their strengths.

I like a mobile army. Typically facing one of the various Elven armies, Skaven, Lizardmen and Ogres, I find that M4 is just too slow. 20 - 33% slower than the opponent, the blocks of Marauders and Warriors all too often fail to get where they need to be when I need them to be there.

Conversely, Chaos Knights, Marauder Horsemen, Shaggoths, and Dragon Ogres are fully capable of following Nathan Bedford Forrests' dictum to "get thar fustest with the mostest".

My brothers, Kev and Liam have mastered skills that I envy. They all make much heavier use of infantry than I do and are far more effective with it. Whereas my Marauders, Chaos Warriors, Lothern Sea Guard, and other miscellaneous blocks of infantry often see little to no meaningful combat, they seem to get their infantry blocks into combat almost every game*.

As an interesting side-note, the use of infantry blocks is more of a finesse tactic where the majority of my tactics revolve around blunt force trauma. I also find it is quite difficult to go from blunt force trauma to the tactics of parry and thrust required to play fragile troops well, whereas I do believe it is easier to adjust finesse tactics to bft. But not always.

I think the last Watchtower game was a case in point. In the magic phase, I would have immediately gone the blunt force trauma route of throwing max dice at the power spells every turn and most likely ended up with two dead Slann due to miscast before they could ever have gotten through my Temple Guard with Chaos Knights, Chaos Warriors, etc. if the roles were fact, that is what I did with my magic phase.

I am willing to bet they would have taken Pandemonium as one of their spells and spent more time trying to get that cast than Infernal Gateway. I believe this because both brothers are better at finesse, long-term thinking like that than I am. They use those tactics far more often and effectively than I do.

Yet I have also seen them commit the bft style attacks as well. Both use Cold One Knights (one for Lizardmen, the other for Dark Elves), chariots, and "glass cannon" characters quite well.

I am not always certain the reverse is true. The most finesse I use is heavy use of blocking forces and the occasional diversionary attack.

I am far better at the blunt-force tactics that result in bringing overwhelming force into any given combat...and, indeed, if you go back and read through a typical battle report, you will find that most combats I get involved in see me allocating far more points at any given point than the opponent.

I find that all of us in the group have different strengths and weaknesses. At the risk of angering someone, I will suggest some things of that nature I see;

Liam is the best at avoidance and casualty minimizing. He does this through keen analysis of defensive positions and using mobility. His greatest weakness is the occasional lack of aggression.

Kev is great at spotting the right moment to attack a weak point in the enemy lines. His weakness tends to be rotten timing on lousy dice rolls. Whereas he will make a ridiculous number of 6+ saves, at the key moment his war machines will all blow themselves up, he will fail the re-rollable 10+ leadership test, etc.

Fullur is great at movement and thinking ahead. His weakness is being unwilling to press his advantages.

Fixed Dice is an extremely strong player. I would argue he has the best list-building skills of any of us, His greatest weakness is he occasionally will put a lot of points into a model, then be unwilling to use it for fear of losing those points.

I would say my greatest strength is getting the right troops into the right combat at the right time. My greatest weakness...and there are a fear of losing ANY model, even a little 4 point pointless guy.

I will go out on a limb here and say that those who are used to using finesse tactics will do better at adopting to using better troops than someone used to using high quality, resilient troops will do with good quality, fragile troops.

Someone used to using hordes, on the other hand, might do more poorly with an elite army than someone with an elite army would do with hordes. Empty space can be scary.

The key point, though, is tournaments/games where you switch armies might be a "truer" test of skills...but it is not a true test of skills that have been developed.

I love the thought of the Empire army detachment system. I would love to build an army revolving around a Steam Tank, couple units of knights, block of swordsmen with handgun detachments.

And I am willing to bet the first few games would be disastrous for me. I would commit the wrong troops at the wrong time, probably have the wrong units in the wrong places and could get taken apart by 60% of the points in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing.

Plain and simple, as much as I like the idea of the detachments, I have not developed the skills needed to use them effectively.

I have, however, developed the skills to use the Warriors of Chaos effectively.

Here is an example; There is a lvl 4 Wizard on disc, block of 18 Chaos Warriors with shield, mark of tzeentch, horde of Chaos Marauders with Great Weapons and mark of khorne, 2 5 man units of Chaos Knights, one with mark of tzeentch and banner of rage (always frenzied), the other with mark of khorne and war banner, 3 dragon ogres and a dragon ogre shaggoth. Last but not least, there is an exalted hero on Chaos steed with the banner of chaos, giving him terror and making every troop within 6" stubborn. Where do you place the bsb?

Some people would say there is no right or wrong answer. To me, there is a blatantly correct answer (and one I never use).

The Chaos Warriors have a 3+ armor save, 5+ parry save. They are there to occupy any enemy for a long, long time. They are unlikely to win combats on their own. The Chaos Marauders have no save whatsoever, are T3 and modest weapon skill. However, they will dish out a large number of S5 attacks.

Everything else in the list is fast enough to force the combats it wants to get into...which, theoretically, means they will WIN those combats the vast majority of the time.

Thus the BSB is clearly designed to hang out close to or within one of the infantry blocks which, themselves, are designed to work in concert with each other.

Coming up with that scenario and how each unit should be used took me about a half second. Yet time and again, I have looked through some of the other army books, found absolutely no army I wanted to put together...but when I see some of the lists put together by the Starving Crazed Weasels, I know how it will operate in their hands, know I could not use the list that way, and know they made a good list that works for them.

So when I see "prove it" tournaments, I know before I ever set out I have no interest in doing that. I know how good I am with the type of lists I like to take...and how poorly I would fare with just about any other.

In fact, I am willing to wager that if anybody in the Starving Crazed Weasels ever takes me on in a game where we switch lists, they will wipe the floor with me. I will almost guaranteed get tabled. Every time.  Regardless of scenario, list, etc.

I also know my dog will still love me.

* One exception to this is hordes. I like to think I have quickly and effectively mastered the use of hordes. Properly protected on the flank, they can occupy so much space they can effectively force the opposition to accept battle. And being a horde, I will almost always have the advantage of numbers, and being the Warriors of Chaos, even the Marauders are almost always the equal of if not superior to the opponent's base troops. Smaller blocks of infantry have oft proved to be wastes of points, but hordes have been awesome for me.

Interestingly enough, the very immobility of a horde, considered a weakness by some, are, in my opinion and experience easy to turn into one of their greatest strengths.


kennyB said...

I enjoyed reading this very much.

I would comment only that, in my opinion, anybody could take the list you showed and wipe the floor with any of us that play here because, quite simply, any Chaos Warrior units that gets into combat with any of our units wipes the floor with said units, even when we throw 2 or 3 types of troops there. The combats are almost universally short and decisive and we have very little that we have been successful at using to kill rock-hard M8 WS5+ T4+ S5+ A3+ Ld 8-9 troops, and nothing that has been dependable at it. Yet, it is not very hard to use said troops properly as a player can simply say, "point, shoot, match" and win. In said watchtower scenario, we don't have ANYTHING that has the possibility of displacing 15-20 rock-hard Chaos Warriors, even if you just put them in and hold the rest of the army back.

That said, it is quite possible that at least for me, the Tomb Kings are the answer. Wouldn't that be humorous? Yep, 50 skeleton hordes with standards worth a whopping 210 points. It should take at least 2 turns (even for the WoC) to wade through them so as long as a couple catapults can hit it should be a draw (only in straight up battle scenarios though, I still have no way to displace them or take banners). ^^

Aside from that, anybody out there have reliable, tried and true tactics and army builds for taking on the WoC in 2k-3.5k games? Let us know so it's not a foregone conclusion how every battle and fight within the battle will go. And no "attack from multiple fronts" please, as it is really unlikely that that will just be left open for anybody, and when it has happened it has just been additional CR for the WoC. We need something that KILLS rock hard troops reliably.

Also, a difference between the WoC knights and COK is the strength. The COK have S4 and it's only higher IF they charge and only for that turn, which makes it much harder to send them against just anybody you want and expect to wade through them, as you immediately begin needing 3-4 to wound instead of 2-3, and negate only 1 pt of AS instead of 2, a pretty vast difference in my experience.

kennyB said...

I forgot to say COK are STUPID! So STUPID! "What is in the box?" STUPID!...Stupid stupid STUPID! I'd rather have red herring! No, but seriously, several times stupidity has ruined my COK AND my Chariot, even with re-rollable 9 and 10. We've all been there, but when you sink hundreds of points into your most elite shock troop and they just stumble forward giving away the charge or not showing up to support you just want to tell them how utterly stupid they are. But they are Stupid so they just stand there, staring stupidly at you. So you smack one on the snout, and he bites off your hand. And you just walk away holding your stump, your face all red, thinking, now just bite off the enemy's head....STUPID!!! ;D

Darth Weasel said...

On the first point, the closest I have come to facing the Warriors list is facing all-knight armies...great armor saves, plus the 5+ ward from the blessing.

Ironically, I have found those easier to battle than some of the lists I SHOULD have an easier time with...big blocks of low strength troops.

With that said, I think most people will have an easier time adjusting to using higher quality troops, such as the Warriors, than going the other way...

But I very much object to the idea they are point, shoot, match. Indeed, in the games I have tried that I have invariably lost and lost big or, in the cae of the Blood and Glory scenario v. Wood Elfs, drawn.

Using them well requires proper planning, ensuring they have the time to get to where they need to be and are matched up with the right enemy.

And I completely agree on the Cold One strength. It is one reason I work hard to ensure my knights get charged by cold one knights, grail knights, knight errants, chariots, ogres, etc as rarely as possible.

Going back to the point/click thing, the person who simply move the knights forward and does not work to keep them from such disadvantageous combats will lose far more often than the person who works to determine the right way to get into combat.

Your skeleton horde will take way more than two turns and is one of the tactics I think would be well used more often (as mentioned in the Movement article that will pop up in a couple days...the Strength of the charge is about a week out as it is the fourth in the series) as it turns that combat into one I probably do not want my knights in...

Darth Weasel said...

Yeah, I will be a long time before I forget the game Phillip lost entirely because he failed stupidity just once in the entire game...and it turned it from a win for him to a massacre for me. It is such a huge drawback...kind of like animosity for the Orcs and Goblins, except you might get a reroll if close enough to the banner. Though we have all failed enough re-rolled LD10 tests recently that I do not count on safety there...

kennyB said...

As far as point and shoot goes, in my opinion the WoC are far more capable of versatile use than less Space Mariney armies, being elites in every sense of the word (spd, str, t, Armr, Ward, etc+) and therefore requiring less adaptability from the user as they will perform well just about wherever they end up. Versus Skaven, Undead, Elves, Lizardmen, Humans, Beastmen and whoever else whose units HAVE to do what each individual unit is designed for as they are not versatile enough to do anything other than the narrow pathway of use that each of those units has. The different types of other armies MUST be used in conjunction to succeed, vs WoC whose every unit excels at all CC in every way, against every type of enemy, whether flanked or frontal assaulted, and CC is what this edition seems to be pushing for sure. Earlier on I would have said magic was the focus, but it is as fickle now as it has been in the past, maybe more so with 800-1k pts in magic being moot with snake eyes and 3's for winds of magic, even if the opponent has brought no defense (and vice versa of course, one 150 pt magician could very well destroy entire units with luck).

Like the article headline, if it's pretty much a gimme that whoever's playing the Ultra-Tough-Elites is going to perform well, even if switching back and forth, there is still some information to be gleaned from that... and I know it is difficult once you have experienced eliteness to use inferior units, because they all seem pretty worthless compared to what my good guys can do! Like when I first got my dragon: I played him for 2 games and he was so exceptional he had to sit out for several games just to remove the disappointment from my opponents in seeing him on the table, knowing he would be ridiculously difficult to kill and even if they flank charge, they probably wouldn't have the strength to get through his toughness and armour before he tore them into shreds. But it was not just how he was used: he was difficult to use so wrong that he didn't at LEAST do some severe damage before leaving the table. Now, with initiative mitigating the value of the charge he has become less useful, while troops that would have been susceptible to well executed charges before now strike first and with elite weaponskill and multiple attacks they can even kill him before he attempts a hit, even if he charges! That is a discouraging sign: when you work hard to get a charge, even succesfully perform a flank charge, and the enemy is so tough that they shrug off the attacks and cut you down, and win or draw the combat, then do a combat reform to make sure there is nothing left of you after round 2 of combat. Just because your elites are only A1-2, S3-4, T3-4, I4-5, and AS of maybe 5+. That means you strike last with not enough attacks and no chance to save, because often elites are forced to have spears or halberds eliminating parries.

But that's why I stuck in that last post for people that have successfully performed well against WoC to post reliable tactics or lists: Because I'm sure there is SOMETHING that works well against such things. I just hope that when it comes out it's not just pure cheese or a 1000 Ghoul army or something(arent' they like 2 pts each?), as then what's the point! ;)

Last but not least, a 50 skeleton unit should last about 3 rounds vs a unit of 5 CK, lose 9 each round to attacks and 9 to CRumble (assuming CK only hit 2 of 3 and wound 8-9), but that is just my guess as I have not actually tried them yet. ^^ Soon, very soon =D

Fullur said...

I have to disagree with you on one major point: me thinking ahead. :-P I can count on one hand the number of times I have had an actual plan going into a battle. I need even fewer fingers to show how many times I have had a charge planned the turn before I initiate it. And when I am building lists, I never have a plan for what the total construction of the army will look like. It is just "hey, this unit looks fun."

I actually am trying to do some more advanced planning lately, but I never have been able to predict my enemies movements accurately. (That is why I am no good at chess.) This means that even when I plan my moves, they don't work out because I miss my opponent's ability to charge from a particular angle, or the charge I set up does not materialize because the enemy overruns 30 degrees off the axis I was planning for.

Darth Weasel said...

I still disagree on the point and click. There are combats where certain troops are of marginal value and others where they are very valuable.

Dragon Ogres, for example, are very valuable against high T, but limited numbers of models...of far less value against large units.

Conversely, Chaos Warriors are much better against large numbers of models than against just a few high T models.

Getting the right troop into the right combat makes a huge difference in what you can get done in the game.

It is a matter of matching up factors such as WS, S, T, and number of attacks (and maybe armor saves) to see where I will have the greatest success.

Example; if faced with the plague furnace and a unit of Skaven plague monks, I want my Warriors against the monks and my Drago Ogres against the furnace.

Against the monks all it takes is one fluffed roll and the Ogres lose to the ranks, banner, etc and I lose.

Conversely, winning the combat against the furnace will not break it...but I can kill the furnace and am less likely to lose to combat resolution.

The Warriors, meanwhile, can use benefits like ranks, banners, and more attacks to do more damage to the monks.

Even Knights are better off against things other than the furnace.

Capable of winning? Yes to all three types of units. Best used to win? not so much. Capable of losing? I would argue the wrong unit at the wrong time will beat the Dragon Ogres, for example...

Once in combat, sure...point and click. But choosing the right target? Not as easy as I make it look :-)

Darth Weasel said...

Fullur, you are better at planning than you give yourself credit for. You tend to have the right ideas on when and how and why to are too hard to push into a corner

kennyB said...

I think you underestimate how much of the combats your WoC troops' stats/abilities are doing for you vs you properly using them. I think you might find it doesn't matter what match-ups they end up in, in a normal equal points battle in any scenario in the rulebook they will win both the fights and the battles 9 times out of 10 (well, actually battles 10 out of 10, fights 9 out of 10 O.o). I think you might see a little different on the receiving end of WoC. And I think we shall never know. ;)

Darth Weasel said...

Wow. So basically I am worse than I think I am, I just have massively overpowered troops? I could not disagree more strongly.

When the "S" post on the "What stat is most important series pops up, take a look at Marauders v. Saurus. Chaos Warriors v. Saurus is going to be a win for me almost always...Marauders not so much.

So when it comes time to get in combat, I avoid Saurus with Marauders. I know their strengths and weaknesses and work very hard to make sure I get the right guy in the right place.

On the surface, it should not matter much if I bump into say...a Temple Guard block with 300 points worth of Chaos Knights or Chaos Warriors. But it does.

And this last game showed that...I sent Knights a place I would normally not send them because it was important to my strategy (though not to yours as I learned later) to keep your Temple Guard out of a particular location. And sure enough, my Knights died. They took a lot of guys with them...but not all, and they died.

Conversely, my frenzied, GW warriors went into a similar sized Temple Guard unit and took what...2 turns to chew threw the entire unit.

Both have similar stats...high WS, S, decent to great save. One was insanely more effective.

Yes, the WoC army is going to win the vast majority of combats they are in. That is how they are designed.

After all the "Which stat" posts are done, I will throw up a tactica on how to beat the WoC the way I play them.

I know their weaknesses intimately, I know what wrecks them and what does not bother them a bit.

I think you should throw one up on how to beat your 180 shot per turn, manticore, dragon, hydra list as well. Would be some good reading.

Much like I see the weaknesses of the Woc, you see the weaknesses of that list...a list, by the way, that has laid waste to ethereal led vamps, Lizardmen, Bretonnians, WoC...

kennyB said...

I mean I think you underestimate just how strong being fast, powerful, tough, strong, multiple attacks, high armour, etc. are and just attribute the steam tank that is an Elite Power-Armour troop to your superior tactics. I mean I think if you get hit by said army you will find it is very hard to deal with and very easy to use, as it is so hard to screw up phenomenally badly. I offer, again, to play a WoC army, or have Stanica play one, to exemplify what I mean. In fact, I am going to have her play them against me. And just have every unit move straight forward and engage whatever they contact, and I will let you know the results. It could be that I'm wrong, and the fact that we all have such a hard time vs them (unlike all our other armies which have won and lost vs everybody) is just your superior use of tactics. I however, see it differently. But the best way I can figure to test my theory, is simply have somebody else play them. Ideally against you but basically anybody that is willing to pretty much just move forward and see what happens. Actually, I guess I could do that myself! ;) I actually have been doing some internet research, which I detest as I would rather play with and against my friends instead of with and against other people through my friends, and it does seem to be a pretty common theme, both from the people that claim to play WoC, and the ones that play against them. They are generally seen as a scythe filled army that tears through things without having to worry too much about extreme tactics. Actually, the general consensus seems to be it is difficult to use them all that tactically as they don't really have that much variety overall. Variety in models and units, yes. Variety in tactical specific units (like skinks vs saurus for instance), not so much. I will let you know in a couple weeks after I try my "forward march" battles!

However, that being said, I do NOT mean that you do not have tactical sensibilities yourself. I do believe you are actually quite good at strategy. You have shown it time and again in many diverse games and situations. You are an excellent strategist.
I just believe the Chaos Marines, I mean Warriors of Chaos, do not require that someone use those skills. I believe they are just so rock-hard and impressive that they don't have a bad matchup, not just as far as in a fight, but in a battle overall. Maybe a War Machine filled armour and toughness ignoring conglomeration like a dwarf cannon-line+gun-line of doom, but that is few and far between and not fun on either end from my experience.
As far as beating the DE, (most if not) everybody has done it on multiple occasions, usually because their S3 T3 AS5, only have S3 ranged weapons, and lack any troops that can deal with Hard enemies. I think you would find using them effectively is pretty stinking difficult, as they are weak (both in str and toughness), have a hard time hitting things, are no more maneuverable than any other army any more, have had their magic defense nerfed, are limited in magical choices, have an avg initiative, and have little/no armour. Makes for a rough combo. But you found that when you used elves. They (all of them) are somewhat difficult to use because they are both brittle and weak, and as an added bonus expensive and can't take defensive options either. When you have an elite troop that is S4 T3 AS6+ and no access to resurrection it makes it rough.
My advice for defeating them is concentrate on Command Bubble and Knights if present. Try to tie them up even if you can't kill them. Don't worry about the shooting because it has proven itself ineffective over and over and over and over. Concentrate on conglomerated points (meaning actual points value like wizards or war machines or "elite" troops) instead. Because all DE die easily you just have to kill what is worth the most in the time allotted. Enjoy ^^

Darth Weasel said...

I know how strong it is...and how susceptible they are to just a few wounds.

In the post on how to defeat them...scheduled to pop up on I believe the 22nd...I point out that model for model there are maybe 2 units in the entire system that can stand up to them...

and even fewer that cost as much.

I also make a point about the tactics I use; you very, very, very seldom see me get them involved in combats where I do not have more models involved.

If I have more models with the best stats at the point of contact...I win.

When I do not, I do not.

Anyone is, as always, welcome to use them any time. I believe the book is in the garage.

As for the the game against the Lizardmen I put the wrong unit in the wrong place. Until I did that, I was doing quite well.

Against the Brets, had I played the rules correctly I would have had an easy win.

So I do not necessarily agree that they have those issues. The tools are around. It is my job to keep those tools from being used. And that is what I strive to do.

kennyB said...

Sounds good. Maybe next month then me WoC vs you Lizardmen or Brettonia?

Darth Weasel said...

Depends on how long I have to look over the Lizarman book. I would not build the list the way you or Fullur would because it does not fit my playstyle.

Regardless of which army I use, it needs to be something that fits how I play. If it isn't then I have less than no interest in fielding it which makes for a dull, uninteresting game.

One reason I have played the HE a couple times and the Dwarfs once and the Beastmen have made one appearance and are on pace to make a couple more. Trying to put together lists I amn entertained to play.

Seems like there would be Liz list I would like in there somewhere. We will see if I can get one put together.