Tavern Talk: Tournament play, comp, and what should be

Warhammer is first and foremost designed for a couple of friends to get together and have almost a co-operative experience rather than play a game. This basic concept is often poorly understood and that leads to a huge misunderstanding of what Games Workshop does with their rules sets.

This basic truth is easy to see if you simply read their material as it pervades every aspect of their printed material.  This is easy to see when in the main rule book it states, "You can simply use all the models in your collection, but most players...." (Island of Blood rulebook p. 2)

It is demonstrated by "the most important rule". It is demonstrated by the way battle report after battle report in their flagship magazine points out blatant changes/abuses of the rules in order to play a specific scenario they invent.

This truth also leads to problems when it comes to setting up tournaments. Since the books are designed almost more in terms of a co-operative endeavor than a true test of strategic and tactical skills, the rule set and various army books are full of exploitable holes.

One fine example would be the Dark Elf book. It has long been derided for its "over powered, under priced Pendant of Kaelith, Ring of Hotek, and Hydra" while others blast the Warriors of Chaos book for its "broken Infernal Puppet and H-cannon". Still other hate the Lizardman book for the talents granted a tricked out Slann while for others it is the trebuchets of the brettonians, war machines of the Dwarfs, Book of Hoeth of the High Elf army and so forth.

Virtually every army has exploitable options. This makes forming a balanced army difficult.

Consider the Wood Elf player who brings an army of Dryads, Glade Guard and Treekin, only to see them melt to the guy who brings 2 Hydras at the same point level. The Wood Elf player will be at a sever disadvantage and likely lose.

Many tournaments seek to proactively prevent this by making broad limitations such as "no double rares".

Fair enough. For many gamers, that is a preferred approach. They should have a right to game as they wish. So, however, should those who prefer to bring good units instead of poor units.

These limitations tend to have numerous and unfortunate side effects. For example, one tournament I attended in 7th edition had the "no special character, no dragons, max 6 levels of magic" rule. yet a local Lizardman player showed up with dual Engine of the Gods and a Slann who stole the opponents dice and stored them. Pity the poor Warriors of Chaos player who could not muster enough high strength attacks to deal with all that. And the Wood Elf player was completely hamstrung.

The set of restrictions created a problem.

8th edition tournament restrictions tend to have the same result. Some vocal players dislike magic so eliminate entirely the 6th spell from every lore along with making it so you can never use more than 12 power dice in an entire magic phase nor use the power scroll. Then they complain because death stars are too difficult to deal with.

The irony that the 6th lore spells are a powerful deterrent to death stars escapes them. So does the point that building a variety of army styles leads to minimizing the power of the big spell. Instead they remove a powerful strategy and thus create a powerful new archetype that fundamentally shifts the tournament metagame.

There is room for such modification but there should be more tournaments that actually follow the rules of the game.

I actually have looked at going to a large number of local tournaments but typically choose not to, and it is almost always because the comp restrictions remove my interest in playing.

I happen to like using Wulfrik, as just one example. Unfortunately, he is a 'special character' which almost every tournament specifically disallows. As soon as I see special characters are disallowed, my interest level plummets. The irony is I take him in maybe a quarter of the games I play.

By the same token, when I see "maximum 12 power dice in a magic phase" I am done with that tournament as well. If I am creative enough to build an army that finds ways to build my power dice that high it means I have sacrificed my capabilities in other departments to have a powerful magic phase. Having that strategy pre-emptively removed is something I simply do not find interesting.

As a result, I seldom play in tournaments. I would much rather have a game with my local group where I can take the models I want in the quantities I want and have a good game.

The funny thing is I often build armies that would benefit greatly from playing in a comped environment. With the High Elf army I have yet to take Teclis. With the beastmen I take an army that uses almost all core and no special characters. With the Dwarfs I do not take the Anvil of Doom or set up a gunline.

But I would rather play where my fellow players can take "all their toys" than play in an environment where I could not bring, say...two h-cannons for the Warriors of Chaos if the mood struck me.

I do understand where people are coming from who demand comp. Many people want to build armies susceptible to the 6th spells without needing to fear them, for example. Others want to build armies incapable of dealing with a double Abomination list. They want to build these armies and still have a chance to win. They believe copmp provides them with such a field. They have every right to play in that environment.

However, with few exceptions the existence of comp that I do not care for means my Warhammer playing will continue to be in the comfort of home. Or, more accurately, in my brother's garage.

Tavern Talk: List building

When I sit down to build a list, it is typically something I try to get done as quickly as possible. There are certain parts of the hobby I enjoy. Those are playing the game and talking about it with my friends.

Then there are certain parts of it I do not enjoy. Generally, that means everything else. Specifically it includes setting up and taking down the game, painting, assembling figures, and list building.

So typically when I set out to build a list I have a general idea of what I want to concentrate on. For example, in the list for the game pictured (a 7th edition list) I had just completed painting the Dragon Ogres, the Marauder Horsemen on the gray horses, the chariot, and modifying a Brettonian into my Standard Bearer.

As a result, I wanted to include those elements. I always include a unit of Knights because I love magic and knights. By the time you put in a few knights, some dragon ogres, a chariot, the requisite wizard, and a chariot, you have eaten up close to 1000 points. I believe that one was probably a 1500 point game.

Since I found Marauders in 7th edition to be worse than completely useless since they seldom ever got to attack, it was an easy choice to make it an all-cavalry force.

At that point my list is built and I simply need to figure out how to use it on the field.

When I build a list, this is a pretty typical example. I seldom take into account who my opponent is. In fact, I generally go somewhat out of my way to avoid knowing which army my opponent will use since then it is a truer test of my abilities.

I do, however, put in a battle plan along with my list.

For example, in the above list, the Knights would go straight up the middle while the Marauder Horsemen would guard the flanks. The Chariot and Dragon Ogres would lag slightly behind, planning to either attack anyone who flanked the Knights or, more likely, when the knights swung towards one flank or the other, they would combo charge on the appropriate flank while either the Marauder horsemen or remaining unit would serve as a blocking unit.

Every list I build has similar elements. I find a unit or concept I want to build around, fill it up, then when I have fit in the things I enjoy using, I fill in the "required" slots.

Case in point; I really like my troops to be reliable. As a result, the Crown of Command has quickly become a staple on those (extremely) rare occasions I do not take the Warriors of Chaos item the Banner of the gods.

However, one army (the Dwarves) has a second version, the Master Rune of Kingship. Add the Master Rune of Gromril and the Rune of Resistance and your General will make whatever unit he joins Stubborn.

Add a Thane with the Crown of Command and a BSB and suddenly your battle line is full of T4, LD 9 or 10 re-rollable stubborn troops. The ultimate in reliability short of the crumble-prone undead.

Depending on what points level you are playing, you can still have more than sufficient shooting to soften up the enemy before they crash into your nigh-impenetrable rock of a line.

Of course, despite the improved charge ranges, the Dwarf army is still enough slower (25- 50% slower than virtually any other army) that you need a solid plan.

Set up an Organ Gun between Dwarf Warriors and Dwarf Longbeards with cannons and Thunderers added as appropriate and you have a rock-hard, deadly army. The list built itself. It simply requires a few tweaks for points.*

In short, to build a list, I do the following.

1) Find a concept to build the list around.

2) Build a battle plan around that concept.

3) Include the pieces to fulfill that concept.

4) Add required things such as core troops.

5) Fiddle with the points until they fit.

*Note it DOES leave the army susceptible to magic, but this is somewhat deliberate. I like to always build in a weakness the savvy opponent can exploit.

Tavern Topic: 8th Edition

As we all know, 8th ed has been out for a short while now and everyone has had time to check their armies and see just what this new version of Warhammer has done to them. So, I am asking you; what has it done to your army(ies)? Has the new edition made you reconsider units that were pointless during 7th ed? Have you had to relegate units that were your "star players" previously? Do you make use of more or less magic now? Have you found, like many, that changes to rules - such as the parry save and great weapons - has made you use these (and other weapons) more or less?

What has 8th ed done to your army composition?

First off, thanks to Kuffeh for his efforts at building a series of viewpoints.

So let's address his questions one by one. First up, what has 8th done to my army?

It is no secret that my favorite units, without regard to edition, are Knights, powerful Wizards, and Dragons.

In 7th edition, I typically loaded up on Knights, took a scroll caddy and called it good. No matter how many points I spent on magic, my opponent could easily counteract it with a scroll caddy or, in some cases, a 50 point magic item.

I seldom took a dragon because it was too strong. Even the most basic tactical ability allowed a dragon to break huge units simply by attacking from the right direction, killing everything it touched, and thus wiping out huge units with little or no risk to itself.

So two of my three favorite things to use were seldom seen (though I occasionally broke them out, and always was disappointed.)

By contrast, core quickly became "take a unit of Marauder Horsemen for each core spot requirement and call it good." The fact that everyone had access to faster moving troops that could easily wipe out my front ranks, thus allowing no attack back, could ignore or eliminate armor saves and never need come in contact with them meant that Chaos Marauders and Chaos Warriors were arguably the worst troops available to any army in the game. It was all but impossible to build a 'competitive but fun to play against" list with them.

8th has changed everything.

First off, I now plan to take a wizard every game and know I will be able to actually get some spells cast successully. That is very exciting to me and has altered the fundamental make-up of my armies.

Second, the Warhammer community in general thinks cavalry is worthless now. I happen to disagree. Where as in 7th simply wiping out the front rank usually overcame any static combat resolution, in 8th sheer killing power is valuable. So having a unit that deals out 18+ WS5 S5 attacks at I5 is pretty sweet.

And packing them 2+ ranks in means they can take some punishment and still deal out a whipping.

In 7th, the points for a second rank were wasted. In 8th, they are nearly as valuable as the front rank.

Cavalry is no longer a "rampage over everything you come across without fear of reprisal" but instead a shock troop to finish off combats.

Furthermore, infantry has a place now. A horde of marauders is now a phenomenal investment, able to withstand a couple of big hits from template weapons/spells/hard combat units and deal back some damage of their own.

Now I find myself fielding multiple units of infantry, large blocks of Knights, and a heavy dose of Wiazards...a build I enjoy playing but would never consider in 7th because frankly...it blew might chunks of hairy underarm monkey sweat.

Okay, so that answer bled into the second and third questions...but that is the beauty of 8th. In 7th, you could and often did lose games on the strategic level...simply building a list you thought might be fun was an auto-loss to anyone who put together a list that worked together.

In 8th, there is certainly a strategic level to building...but great additions to the rules such as Steadfast, Swift Reform, and removing casualties from the back rank mean the superior tactician generally is able to obtain favorable positions and when you do that, you frequently end up with victories.

I guess one other issue should be addressed. Not attacking first on the charge automatically and not being allowed to choose your weapon if you had two did make a major change to how I equip my troops.

Example: Chaos Warriors were something I routinely gave both a shield and a great weapon. Against low S, low T opponents I would use the shield. Against high T opponents...say dragons, ogres, etc., the Great Weapons made them formidable. It was very nice having a flexible troop.

In 8th, however...hand weapon and shield. Which becomes a little non-sensical since I started doing it specifically for the parry bonus since it gets very irritating having an army whose 'advantage" is its tremendous armor save only to not even get to attempt an armor save...and then giving them frenzy so they do not benefit from it anyway.

One member of our group often responds to that complaint about not getting armor saves by pointing to my respectable win-loss record...which completely misses the point. Having a toy but never being allowed to use it (and rarely being successful when you do get to use it) removes a lot of the fun.

It reminds me a bit of a wrestling-based card game I used to play. My goal in the games was to get off my "Trademark Finisher". I would rather get off my TMF and lose than not get it off and win. In fact, my all-time favorite game was one where I got off both TMFs first turn...only to lose the game to my opponent's second TMF.

It was not the win or loss that mattered...it was seeing everyone get off "their move".

In Warhammer, it is often not winning or losing but what happens along the way. I have had more success with magic in 3 games of 8 than in all of 7th combined. Ironically, it has barely impacted the games...in fact, I have taken more damage from one Skaven Plague that wiped out almost half my horde than I have dealt...but I do not care because I am getting some spells cast successfully.

By the same token, probably the most memorable 8th moment for me so far was when I threw everything I had at his H-pit Abomination...an Exalted on Juggernaut with 5 S7 attacks, a couple spells, my own H-cannon shot, my H-cannon blowing up, and finally my Shaggoth, killing it...and having it come back to life with 4 wounds, kill my Shaggoth and a nearby wizard.

Since Shaggy dies every time I put him on the table, that is expected...but it became memorable because of the secondary result.

And that, to me, is the thing...I have a relative idea of what my win-loss record was in 7th edition. In 8th, I have a better idea of the moments that were stupendously fun...my irresistable Purple Sun wounding nobody but my Wizard, the Abomination coming back, the one extra casualty that won a combat for me which in turn cost me my unit of Knights when his spell killed my BSB...taking a flank charge by hero-buffed Grail Knights and sending them off in full flight 4", but rolling a 3 for pursuit...

Those were the highlights by far.

So in conclusion to this rambling, oft off-topic bit, I have changed my army into, except for the mages, something that could be mistaken for an actual historical force of light troops, solid infantry, and shock cavalry.

It has definitely improved any troop that can deal out large numbers of quality attacks, de-emphasized "glass cannon" heroes, and brought magic back as a reliable, fun part of the game. Great job by Games Workshop.