CONCEPTS: Troops and Scoring

This CONCEPTS article looks at troops - why we need them, how to protect them and useful tools for hunting them down.

CONCEPTS: Spam



Hmmm... Spam...

Threat saturation, redundancy, target overload, cookie cutter, copy and paste – aka spam.

From what I've read around the mighty internet over the past few years, the use of the term of spam can differ from place to place. Extreme examples are easy to spot, but is seems particularly tricky to identify the line at which spam occurs (I never thought I'd write a sentence like that with a serious face...). What seems to be limited though is an explicit detailed discussion of whether spam is useful or not (any suggestions welcome!).

 

This CONCEPTS: article discusses the definition of spam, and then looks at the benefits and drawbacks of the most famous of all gaming foods (ok, maybe cheese should win this title).

 

DEFINITION

As alluded to above, pinning down an exact definition of spam is potentially a contentious subject. For the purposes of this post I will use the following:

 

Spam – Taking an identical unit in multiples over and above what is commonly considered acceptable in casual games.

 

That's about as good as definition as I can get to. The real problem is not so much in defining the concept, but rather agreeing what counts as spam as this is appears to be highly subjective (as highlighted by Mercer's discussion on Imerius Dominatus here). Let's go into this in a little more detail to show you what I mean.

Units 

Easy ones first. Filling all available slots with the largest possible number of identical models automatically qualifies as spam. For example, taking three units of three broadsides (the maximum allowed per unit) with the same load out is definitely generally accepted as spam. On the other hand one unit, even with identical options on each model, is not spam. I don't think many would argue against this as a commonly accepted starting point. Now for the large grey area in the middle.

 

Two identical units is borderline in some people's opinion (personally I'd say two is definitely not spam), but what about two identical units and a third unit with a different load out? What about three units of largely similar but slightly different equipment? Or even better, three units with just one model, but all with the same equipment? In the broadside example, I think many would class three units of a single broadside as spam, but the exact same number in one unit would be fine. Good huh?

Weapons 

Then we have the repetition of similar weapons across different types of units. If taking 12 missiles in 3 squads of long fangs is spam, what about spreading the same number of missiles around more units? Does taking 2 units of long fangs with 2 missiles each (plus other different weapons), a couple of landspeeder typhoons (which have missiles) and a couple of cyclone missile launcher wolf guard still count? I'd guess that the latter wouldn't instantly trigger cries of spam, but it has the same number of missiles!

So given the above, I'm leaning towards the use of the term spam in relation to a combination of weapon types, rather than by unit type. So missile spam Space Wolves are in, but long fang spam is out because isn't precise enough. If a unit has only one common load out (with minor variations), then I would say using 'unit' spam ok as it is easily understandable, e.g. wave serpent spam.

Troops

So that's considering units and weapons typically the 0-3 FOC slots, but what about multiple troops choices? Would a Necron army with 4 units of 10 warriors trigger 'warrior spam'? Or maybe an army full of tactical marines should be considered 'bolter spam'? I would say no for the former but a technical yes for the latter. What about chess and it's terrible burden of 'pawn spam' (Google search this at your own risk!)?

I thought that the idea was that troops make up the majority of an armies fighting resources, and even though specialised or elite forces exist in the fluff, people seem to get offended when gamers take a large number of very common units for that army, especially when this includes multiple dedicated transports like razorbacks, venoms or night scythes.

Relative 

So as you can see, pinning down an exact definition of spam that everyone can agree on isn't easy. Personally, I'd suggest that spam is relative to the number of slots available and that troops and dedicated transports have a higher threshold before gaining spam status. So for 40k, I'd say that outside of troops 3 identical or very similar units qualifies as spam but anything lower isn't. For troops I'd say at least 5 units, with similar amount for dedicated transports.

 

The ultimate gaming food!

 

PROS

What's I've completely avoided in the definition is the question of whether it's beneficial to spam anything in the first place.

Redundancy
The primary benefit is of course redundancy, in terms of threats (offensive redundancy) or targets (defensive redundancy). I think a balanced competitive list will use the right amount of both offensive redundancy using multiple threat vectors and defensive redundancy through a focus on one aspect (e.g. light or heavy mech, infantry). I also prefer my threats to be diffused throughout the army rather than in discrete targetable units, but ideally have enough of a threat range (via weapons and mobility) to be able to concentrate on one area if I need to. This is easier said than done though!

Efficiency
If it's good and cheap, why not take lots? (see Cons below!)

Aesthetics/Theme

Some people like to take lots of something because they think it looks cool or is fluffy. Noteable examples include Deathwing and Ravenwing, but there are many more. Others might like to play a certain style afforded by spamming one aspect. When I was playing 40k at school in 2nd/3rd I always loved the idea of a mechanised space marine army because I really liked the idea of an independent strike force speeding around attacking the enemy. I didn't ever get this far but when I started playing again in 5th, vehicles had suddenly become usable and were actually really good so I was very happy! I think Mech still has a place in 6th, so I get to play with a style of army that I like in a competitive setting.
 



I'll pass, thanks

CONS

False economy
It's easy to spam something that really isn't that good! Imagine taking an army full of flamers and virtually nothing else. Even if they were massively discounted, they have limited range and are only really effective against certain targets. This example would be so severely hampered against most other armies that this would not be a good choice of weapon to spam. Mid-strength weapons with a decent range are a much better choice, as they can effect light vehicles and MCs, but usually come in enough numbers to have some use against infantry too. However...



TigerofMyth on DeviantArt

Too many spoons
Spam can limit your capacity to deal with a number of target types. Spamming strength 7 with good range may be a strong choice, but if it's all AP4 or worse your army will find AV13 or massed 2+ saves a challenge. Repetition can come at the cost of operational flexibility.

Predicable
Opponents won't have much difficulty working out your battle plan and can plan to play around your spam, potentially turning your strength into a weakness. For example, going first with an effective threat range of 36" will prompt most enemy generals to deploy out of range, wasting a whole turn of your shooting. Loads of static shooting units can be out-maneuvered by using cover or line of sight blocking terrain to limit your effectiveness and mobility to tackle sections of your army at a time. Being predictable isn't usually a benefit!

Opportunity Cost

If you're filling your slots and spending a large proportion of your points on the same thing, naturally there won't be the points or space to cover other important functions or tools. The basics still need to be covered if you're aiming for a balanced list.

Repetitive Gameplay and/or Aesthetics
This is the other side of the coin to aesthetics/theme. Whilst some people may love to model, paint and play a certain way, this could be torture for others. Not everyone is as motivated to spam a unit by the time they get to their 8th razorback or 100th kroot. Also, playing against the same style of army over and over can be a bit dull for opponents!

 

 

Irene Koehler on AlmostSavvy

 

COMP

Composition scoring (aka comp) deserves a special mention here. Not to repeat myself as I've already covered this in some depth, comp typically seeks to restrict spam, as some TOs see as spoiling the fun in the game (and of course everyone agrees with the TO's version of fun, right?).

If the most efficient choice is, say, 4 fliers but the comp limits the choice to 3, I'd suggest that there's a good chance there will be a lot of armies with 3 fliers. Players will just push to the limit of what's allowed. Added to this, some armies are better placed to get around traditional comp and still spam certain effective elements thanks to a better range of choices to select from.

I think that comp aiming to restrict spam just changes the strongest builds available, and I've yet to see it restrict all players equally due to the differences between armies.

 

 

 

EAT MY S***

 

 

 

SPAM - A FOUR LETTER WORD

I don't mind the term spam when it's used accurately, and see it as more of a description than an insult. However, I've seen or heard it used so many times as a derogatory term by players who don't like repetition, often under the guise of fluff, sportsmanship, or maybe their own made up version of the rules. I would like to respectfully point out three things.

1) Many armies, in both real life and in the gaming universe, take an efficient unit or weapon and use it in multiples because they think it gives them the best possible chance of winning the battle. Fluffy and competitive, no?

2) Using spam as an insult is deeply unfair on themed armies, as they often seek to repeat an aspect as the driving narrative behind their army (e.g. Deathwing = terminator spam, any mech army, you get the idea...).

 

3) Spam is entirely legal and supported by the rules. GW, or whoever wrote the game, have specifically stated how much of a certain unit an army can contain. GW in particular are well known for their aversion to competitive gaming in preference of forging a narrative (selling models is apparently mutually exclusive from good tight rules and random is supposedly fun too...), and could very easily have further restricted the available options. 

If players wish to introduce house rules or comp to control spam, that's completely ok and their choice, but this is not standard gameplay and everyone else should not be expected to play a different version of the game to suit another's preferences by default. As I've mentioned before, I politely suggest finding like-minded gamers and enjoying the type of game you prefer, rather than trying to impose your own expectations on others (this applies to both casual and competitive games alike!).



WikiHow

CONCLUSION
Spam can be effective when units/weapons are taken that provide offensive redundancy and/or target saturation whilst being points efficient and still covering all the required tools/battlefield roles. However, spam can also be limiting by reducing an armies capacity to deal with a wide range of threats and by being predictable.

I don't have a problem with spam, either on competitive or fluff grounds, but I understand that not everybody feels the same. However, there can be a lot of factors to consider when choosing what to spam, taking into account the pros and cons discussed above.

Now I need to go and have a snack...


Further Reading
What is Spam? on Imperius Dominatus
Ideas For Army List Restrictions at Blog Wars 6 on From the Fang
CONCEPTS: Redundancy and Reliability
CONCEPTS: Comp

CONCEPTS: Netlisting

sxc

It seems like netlisting is a four letter word amongst a lot of gamers, often used as a derogatory term for an army list that appears to be copied from the internet. Netlists are also often assumed to be high-powered lists, and that by using them you are somehow cheating or playing with an unfair advantage.

This CONCEPTS: article seeks to establish a clear understanding of the definition, pros and cons of netlisting.

DEFINITION
For the purposes of this discussion, I will define a netlist as an army list that is commonly found on the internet, whether it be on forums, blogs or wherever, including minor variations on it's build-up. I will not include any and all lists that are on the web, uncommon or unique lists, otherwise every list on the web would be a netlist!

PROS
Personally, I can understand how satisfying it can be to create and play (and win!) with your own unique list. The army is your own and can be an extension of your personality and preferences, both visually and strategically. However, when playing competitively, I think that this attitude can be restrictive.

As I have briefly said before, a netlist can be a very useful tool for players looking to learn an army or particular playstyle. Also, choosing a list that consistently does well across a number of different tournaments means that any purchases are much more likely to be useful, hopefully avoiding dud units or models. This is a massive put-off for new players, having spent however much money and time getting their army ready to play, only to find out that half (or more!) of it is commonly thought of as terrible.

Using a netlist can give you the confidence that your army has the capacity to win games. I have heard so many players blaming their army or their dice for their losses, but I've never seen anyone with continually bad luck and when you're using a proven list, I'd humbly suggest that repeated losses are down to the general! At least with a decent netlist you can identify where the weakness is and work on improving your gameplay, rather than keep swapping around units or blaming the dice. It's also possible to read battle reports to see how others are using the list against different opponents to pick up strategies and tactics you might otherwise have missed.

CONS
As useful as it can be to learn the ropes using a netlist, there are plenty of pit-falls and disadvantages.

Choosing the right list
Although it seems like an easy thing to do to just go on the net and pick up a list, there are lots of bad ones around! When you're still getting to grips with a game, the problem is you might not know how to differentiate the good from the bad. Not only this, the lists you find may not be accurate. Sometimes lists are typed up by opponents who remember certain things incorrectly, so I strongly suggest verifying the list's authenticity before spending any money copying it!

To further complicate matters, there are some lists that are specifically build for certain tournaments and their variation of the rules. For example, if you were to take a list from NOVA, commonly accepted as one of the most competitive tournaments around, without doing some research you may not realise that the terrain set-up always includes a large line of sight blocking piece in the centre (greatly assisting assault oriented armies), that the missions are tiered into primary, secondary and tertiary objectives or that vehicles can never be scoring (e.g. in The Scouring).

Looking at the lists that did well in this environment, it was clear that many of the armies were built specifically to take advantage of, or at least avoid the disadvantages, of the tournament specific ruleset. This means that the performance of a list from that year's NOVA playing basic rule book missions with normal terrain is likely to be very different (and presumably worse).

Another example is the ETC (or equivalents). These team tournaments allow captains to pick their match-ups, so it is possible for a list to be designed in such a way as to be very strong against certain enemies, with the intention of tying to avoid it's bad match-ups. Copying a list that appeared to do very well doesn't mean that it would necessarily do so in a standard tournament setting.

Added to this, a large number of tournament players 'metagame'. This topic may well end up as a future CONCEPTS: article, but suffice to say that these players are well aware of what is popular and what they are expecting to face, and so tailor their lists against the common builds. However, this can leave vital tools out and weaken their lists against other builds.

I can throw in a personal example here of my first game at the 40kUK GT heats in 2012. This was my first ever national level tournament, and so you can imagine my joy following the random pairings when I found myself playing against the reigning UK Masters Champion (actually I was really pleased about this as I had gone to get some hardcore games!). After a really good and enjoyable game, much to my surprise I ended up winning. Chatting afterwards, he said that he hadn't built his list thinking that's he'd play anyone running my kind of list. Looking back over the lists 9 months later, I don't think that the match-up was actually that bad, but I use this as an illustration that there are top players out there who bring what they think will do best in the current 'meta', and that there are risks involved with this.

Predictability
Before you have even found the list, others will have played against it and identified how to beat it. The more well known your netlist is, the more your opponents will have played against it. Knowing how to fight against an army is a massive benefit, so be aware that you will be making your opponent's life a whole lot easier by netlisting.

Learning Curve
Picking the latest GT dominating list is not an 'I-win' button! The players using those lists will know how to use them and are likely to have years of experience informing their decisions. I wouldn't expect to get into a Ferrari for the first time and win every race, so I wouldn't expect to know how to use a netlist to its full potential without practice and understanding why it works. That said, some lists are easier to pick up or more forgiving that others!

Innovation
The originators of successful netlists have a good understanding of the game, and presumably didn't copy the lists from anywhere! They may have taken parts from various sources but combined and used these in a way no-one had thought of before, or perhaps have found an undiscovered combo or underrated unit. After all, the internet can be wrong (shock!), and as lists progress older netlists can seem weak and outdated. Only playing with netlists may therefore hold you back as a player.

CONCLUSION
Using a netlist as a learning tool can be really valuable, and save a lot of wasted time, effort and money. However, there are limitations to be aware of, and simply picking up a list without knowing it's context can be risky. Tournament specific lists aren't necessarily good outside of their format and meta lists go out of date and aren't balanced anyway. If you are going to use a netlist, I suggest doing your research, trying learn why it is good and how to use it, and then using that to inform your own list building and continuous improvement as a player.

CONCEPTS: Burnout

sxc

I have to confess that I am a complete 40k nut. It's my release from the stress of the real world and I enjoy consuming as much of the game as I can. But I don't force it. If I'm not feeling like it, I won't make myself paint, blog, read or whatever. I prefer to do something else (there are other things, right? Right?!?), because I do not want my precious free time being taken up by something that feels like work or that I end up resenting. I do this because I've learned from my past mistakes.

My interests tend to go in long cycles. Before I got back into 40k, I was heavily into MTG (which is great!). But after a few years of intense enjoyment, things started to get a bit stale. I was playing and building decks out of habit but not really with the passion I had before. I ended up just doing it because I didn't really have anything else that I fancied doing at the time, rather than because I really wanted to. I eventually reached burnout – a point where I really couldn't stand the thought of playing or making a deck, I felt completely uninspired and detached from the game.

But I kept on playing anyway.

And then I really burned out.

Having had a break of a few years, I can now play occasionally for fun, but I no longer have the intense desire to make a killer rouge deck or try out loads of new combos. I dip into it when I feel like it and I'm happy with that. Perhaps I will return to my former all-consuming passion for the game, but equally, maybe I won't. I'm just going to see what I feel like.

I recently read this guest post on Imperius Dominatus by Adam from the Space Wolves Blog. Adam created and ran the site for years during the height of the 5^th edition love with the crazy space Vikings, just as I was getting back into 40k. There was a huge amount of great content for me to devour, and really helped develop my understanding of how to make a decent Space Wolves army and had lots of cool hobby content too. Then the posts started slowing down, and suddenly stopped. For months nothing was added, and we were left with a big wolfy hole in the blogoshpere.

Some time later, the blog was re-launched in it's current iteration, purchased by another blogger who paid Adam to contribute occasional posts. And they felt forced. It was obvious to me (and probably many others) that sadly Adam had hit burnout, and was pushing out the content. Adam knew how he felt, but he just kept going anyway. Like with my MTG, he kept going until it was just too much, and the result is his farewell to blogging article linked above.

Wargaming, like any wonderfully nerdy hobby (I embrace this!), attracts a large spectrum of different personality types. I don't think I'm going too much out on a limb here to suggest that a large proportion of us (myself included) love to loose ourselves in the game, totally immersing ourselves and loving every minute. But I know I can become reliant on the escape it provides, and any other hobby or game doesn't seem as interesting or exciting. I've done it before with Diablo II, Morrowind, and MTG. But it can get too much, and whether through habit/addiction or choice, overdoing a game when you've actually had enough can lead to burnout and sometimes quitting the hobby that you once loved.

Conclusion
We invest a great deal of time, money, effort and emotion into our hobby, and it's not easy to put things in perspective sometimes. I think what I'm trying to get across here is that's it's ok, healthy even, to step away, have a break, and come back to your favourite game if and when you're ready. For the gamers who want to get better all the time, to the blogger who's trying to maintain their success or push to the next level, for the modellers and painters who are working on their masterpieces or to complete their award winning army – it's ok to have a break. For a hour, day, week, month, or however long you want, take a breather when you need it!

So I guess through past experience I've learned to pace myself and to recognise the signs of burning out. Sometimes it's a natural thing as interests move on. Sometimes it's overdoing it. Either way, I hope this has given you an insight into what to look for, and maybe a moment to reflect on where you are and why you're there.

Now, where's that codex...

CONCEPTS: Feeding Yourself 40k (or Your Game of Choice)

sxc

I like to consume as much 40k (you can replace this with your game of choice) as I can in my free time. Such sustenance comes in various forms, but I find that I run out of good quality food for thought fairly quickly, as I seem to get though it so fast!

This CONCEPTS: post looks at a few of my hunting grounds and suggests a few places to forage for the good stuff.

Blogs
The one thing I do get to do a lot of is read blogs. Having a smart phone means that whenever I have a few minutes, I'm usually reading about 40k. There are a few regular sites that I'm often on, and I will regularly check through my blog list to see if anything new has been added. Once I find a good blog, I will generally take a long look through their past posts, as this can be a great mine of interesting stuff that is still relevant.

If you sign up with Blogger, you can also follow your favourite blogs (hint!). When you log in, you get a dashboard of the latest posts from each of the sites you follow. This saves you the effort of going to visit each site to look for new stuff, as it is done for you. I didn't create an account for a couple of years as my method of accessing the net (my first smartphone) didn't quite have the facility or speed to do this. However, with my new one and another (sometimes unreliable) source of internet on my netbook, I created a profile and signed up to all those blogs I had read for years but not followed with a profile. Very convenient!

I'd guess that this is painfully obvious to anyone reading this, but for completeness I also recommend taking a look at different site's blog rolls. These are usually sidebars that update automatically with recent posts from other sites the authors follow. I found nearly all the sites I like via the blog roll of ones I already visit, and I tend to take a look at a site that I see coming up frequently on multiple sites I know.

Finally for blogs, there is stalking, erm, I mean looking at what blogs other people follow. If you click on someone's profile on Blogger, a helpful little list comes up with all the other blogs that person follows. If you happen to recognise that the person is a internet celebrity or high ranking tournament player, it may be worthwhile taking a look at what else they are reading. It might be drivel, but then again, it might be a valuable source of information! This is not stalking. Honestly...

Codexes
Thankfully I don't need to buy every codex to take a good look at it, thanks to the library at the club. There is usually a copy of a codex that I haven't had a good look through, or one I feel like going over again, sitting around waiting to be borrowed. I'm trying to get into the habit of writing lists for different armies, even if I don't intend to play them, to get an idea of what I could create and use this to try and find the strengths and weaknesses of the codex.

This also helps widen my knowledge base for tournaments, as players at the club generally don't play every single army. Even if they did, it is unlikely that they would all be playing the latest power-builds, so trying to get an idea of what popular units can do is really handy. Since memorising every codex is going to take a little time (if I manage it at all!), rather than stick with one army until I know it I decided to break down the task into parts and not beat myself up if I didn't find the time or the willpower to digest the whole book.

My first stage is trying to familiarise myself with army wide abilities and generic stat lines to classify the troops as GEQ, MEQ or TEQ (some codexes may have more than one). This helps me assess the relative strength of the units I expect to see in the bulk of the army, e.g. guardsmen are squishy but cheap, marines are tougher but typically less numerous, etc.

Next is getting to know the units I'm most likely to see at a tournament. You can easily find these out by reading the most popular army lists, or even better - records of tournament army lists from the organisers (akin to gold dust). If I see a lot of armies using wraiths, it's in my best interests if I make the effort to find out what they can actually do as I can more accurately assess their relative threat level *to my army at that time*, rather than think 'the internet says they're amazing - I'd better avoid those'.

This is generally as far as I get before I give the codex back, but the next thing I look for is the weapon profiles. When I was (and still am) learning what different units can do, the first question I ask my opponent when reading their list is 'what weapons have AP3 or better', shortly followed by 'how about mid-high strength weapons'. As a marine player, I'm not too concerned by big scary weapons that can't ignore my armour. As a mech player, I am concerned about the number of shots that can reliably damage my metal boxes. The next question for most would probably be 'what anti-flier is there' or 'what ignores cover' now I'm using guard allies. You could go on for some time, but since you don't have that at a tournament, these quick questions help me form a very quick basic threat evaluation before I plan my strategy (unfortunately it also gives an astute opponent an insight into what I find most threatening, but at this stage you gain more than you loose!). As you can see, reading up on expected threats before the stress of a tournament environment takes a lot of pressure off!

Finally there is getting to know each unit, weapon and rule in detail. I find this much easier for armies I find interesting, or for armies I face more often, as I will read the codex for longer and more frequently. To reference a famous ancient tactician, know your enemy, as you can plan more effectively how to beat them. It is also quite handy to make sure that you know if your opponent has 'forgotten' or misunderstood the rules in their favour!

Forums
This is used as a four letter word in certain circles, but there are some very popular forums out there that some absolutely swear by. The risk is that you will find many conflicting voices or an overpowering wrong one that can sway you from the path of true knowledge (or something less pretentious). One of the early pieces of advice I read on YTTH was to avoid forums like the plague, and stick to a few good quality sources for your opinion forming input. I have stuck to this largely, and try to avoid muddying the waters with masses of opinions. Instead I have tried to seek out sources that I have found to be consistent and of high quality. That said, reading some of the bar-room brawls on the Space Wolves section of Bolter & Chainsword have been just brilliant fun. I think what I'm getting to on this one is be aware what you feed yourself with and why you're having it, and know you're junk food from your award winning pie.

Social Media
There are some very active Facebook (and I assume Twitter) pages and groups out there. From my experience these are great for quick interactions, sharing photos and arranging games. As with blogs, just search for your army and I would be surprised if you couldn't find somebody somewhere who is talking about it. As with forums, be aware of who you're letting influence you!

Magazines/Catalogues
I used to collect a magazine named after a white bearded dwarf when I was younger, I loved every single page. A combination of growing up and a change in the function of said magazine into a catalogue/advert has changed my opinion of said publication, but if you're looking for somewhere to see the latest shiny toys, this is one of the first (legitimate) places you'll find the goodies.

I will also include the Games Workshop and other online retailers in this section, as these provide a quick way of seeing what's available. I've used this to take a look at the models for units I keep seeing mentioned on the next but have know idea what they look like in the flesh. This won't help against 'count's as' armies, but being able to tell a Vulture from a Valkyrie or identify the types of weapons a unit has just by glancing at them in game saves a whole lot of time and mental energy.

Clubs
Not everyone has friends who play, so clubs can be a great way of getting more games in. If you have the luxury of choice, I would recommend finding a group of like-minded gamers. Some clubs have a different flavour to others, ranging from campaigns to tournament play, and others allow some expansions (e.g. Forge World) as standard whilst others do not. Finding a club that suits your tastes will make gaming there much more fulfilling.

Basic Rulebooks (and FAQs)
I've left this one to near the end because it's easier to remember - read the basic rules! So many people have been playing for ages and still don't know the rules properly (I count myself in this too!). There is a load of stuff to remember, sure, but in my experience most people stop reading the rules after a few games and think they know enough. But my motivation is simple and selfish. I have lost games because I though I knew a rule, but was argued out of it or defaulted to a more experienced player's opinion. That's no good! I don't mind losing a game because my opponent was better than me, the dice actually failed me the whole game (unlikely) or I made a mistake(s) that cost me the game (as I can learn from these and play better next time), but to loose because I didn't know where to look for a rule that I know is right really irritates me (until I remember it's a game of war dollies and there are much more important things in life). So from time to time I pick up the rule book and take a look through. Highly recommended.

Create Your Own
When you can't get enough from anywhere else, you can always do it yourself! This is much easier as it seems thanks to a wide variety of free operators such as Blogger, WordPress, Facebook and Twitter. I find writing articles and posts really helpful in encouraging me to articulate and consider my own thought process and ideas. I also use mine as a custom gaming resource, where I can effectively bookmark all my favourite sites, shops and articles. It's also fun to put up my own gaming photos and hobby progress too. Really the level of effort and commitment is entirely up to you and you get to set your own pace, which is really nice. I'd say it's one of those things that you get out of it what you put in, except maybe for proper battle reports because those things take an age to do properly!

Conclusion
There are loads of different ways to immerse yourself in the game, whether it be to get information, to see great hobby projects or to be part of the community. I hope that this article has offered a few different ways of feeding yourself 40k/your favourite game and has offered a few options that you may not have considered. Bon appetit!

CONCEPTS: List Writing

shx

This CONCEPTS: post looks at the process of physically writing an army list, rather than exploring strategies on building and developing an army (covered in various other CONCEPTS: articles). I will highlight some of the advantages and dangers of the most common techniques, and I'm also going to discuss some alternatives including some unorthodox methods for different types of thinkers (visual/kinesthetic).

COMMON TECHNIQUES
Netlisting
Why write your own when you can copy someone else's? Well, there are lots of reasons actually, and I will cover this topic in more detail in it's own CONCEPTS: thread at some point, but you could do worse than starting with a proven list to learn the ropes. The major disadvantage is the risk of not understanding how the army works, so picking up the latest 1st place GT winning list is not an 'I win' button! However, finding a list does consistently well and learning how to use it can be a great training tool, and is also unlikely to leave you with a bunch of useless models barring a bad FAQ or change in the game system (note - these are entirely possible!).

Typed Lists
I.e. what you see if you're on the internet. Whether generated from a programme such as Army Builder, or typed out manually, this method is very common. This can be quick and efficient, and is also easy to read for your opponent or tournament organiser (TO). 

Hand Written Lists
I do this a lot when developing an idea (although I will type up the list if I'm giving it to someone else). I have a sketch pad full of scribbles and ideas. I find that using different media helps access different parts of my brain when I'm designing, and list writing is no different. Forcing an idea through a pen rather than typing or copying on a computer/phone makes me look at a list in a different way, and this can trigger different ideas I may not have thought of otherwise. This leads to my secret weapon...

Short Hand vs Long Hand
As you become more familiar with your army, you will pick up the abbreviations for units. It's common to save time by writing lists in short hand, and I do this all the time too. However, one quick note is the danger of presuming that you know all the entries well enough, especially in regards to unit options and equipment. It wasn't until I looked more closely at some other people's long hand lists that I realised that I had a choice to make when swapping out weapons for a combi-weapon for my wolf guard, or that I could do this for both weapons if I wanted to. Details like this can easily be missed when writing everything in short hand.

From Memory
Another warning is the pitfall of writing a list from memory and not checking afterwards. I have read horror stories of when this was done the night before a tournament, even by vetran players, then the points didn't add up and the subsequent penalty significantly affected the player's overall standing. So if you want to avoid the pain of dropping X amounts of tournament points per game or avoid the chance of playing with an under-pointed force, check and double check that list! In casual games, it also helps to have a legal list if you want to keep on good terms with your opponent, especially if you're playing a pick up game. 


ALTERNATIVES
Sketching (with Hand Written Lists)
We play a visual strategy game, with models we spend a huge amount of time creating and painting (oh, for a world without mold lines...). The chances are that there are a good number of us that are visual thinkers (see Further Reading links if you are interested in finding out more about the different types of thinking/learning). When I started writing lists, I didn't have a feel for what any of my choices really looked like, or the consequences of their preferred deployments/roles (e.g. how much space in my deployment zone 6 or more razorbacks really took up, especially when you take into account terrain and the locations of mobile and static fire support).

So I started drawing out the units next to my hand written lists. A unit of 5 Grey Hunters and a lasplas razor would get 5 circles, i.e. 'ooooo', and a box with a turret. The attached wolf guard would be shown as a '+ o'. This was really easy to do, especially with a MEQ army. I imagine that I might have done this less frequently with an infantry horde army, but then again, this would remind me that I'd have to be moving and rolling for that many models in game and how slow that could be!

The next step was to sketch out these units in their relative preferred battlefield positions next to a list. So I would have the bottom row with backfield units, such as fire support or objective babysitters. The next row would hold the midfielders (grey hunters), the next the forward units (TWC), and finally the units that would be aiming at the enemy backfield (speeders, wolf scouts).

Developing on from this I started to add arrows to certain units, for example to flanking fire support units (rifledreads). Occasionally I would try my hand at typical deployments, drawing relatively to scale where possible. 

When you don't get the chance to play a lot of games or whilst your learning the game, this sort of thing can be really helpful in visualising your army, and can quickly highlight the balance of your army across the different battlefield positions. When looking at the weight of the rows, there is a very obvious difference between a gunline army compared to a pure in your face force. This should give you the opportunity for a quick check against the strengths of your army, so a Tau army with the backfield crammed isn't to be unexpected, but alarm bells should be ringing if this happens with an assault army! Continuing with a gunline example, this technique should help flag up that you've got nothing to deny/take far objectives, or that you've vulnerable to assault and that you need some bubble wrap or tar pit units in midfield. 

I could give further examples, but suffice to say that sketching out the units, typical positions and deployments should match your expectations and the abilities of your army. I found this method really useful when starting out, and although I don't do it so much now, this is because I've had more experience and familiarity with my primary force, but I would certainly do it again when getting to grips with a new force.  

Models on the Table
One for people with large model collections or who find physically placing/seeing the models in front of them useful (kinesthetic thinkers). Although I haven't personally used this one as a list writing technique, I do this when I'm modelling/painting a tournament list to see how much I still have to do to complete the army (e.g. I've got all the wolves to three colours with details and highlights, but my 30+ guard infantry only have legs and torsos and I've only got X weeks to go!). 


CONCLUSION
There are many ways of writing a list, and I wouldn't suggest that the techniques discussed above are exhaustive or compulsory. However, I hope this article has offered an opportunity to reflect on some of the benefits and pit-falls of the different methods, and give you the chance to consider trying something different! I'd be really interested in hearing if anyone else uses unorthodox methods, and how this has helped them improve their game.

Further Reading
Wikipedia definition of Neuro-lingustic Programming (NLP) - There is an extensive body of work classifying and discussing visual/audio/kinesthetic thinkers and learners. Highly recommended.

CONCEPTS: Comp

shx

Composition scoring, also known as 'comp', essentially seeks to control the composition of each player's army, for example by limiting the number of times a unit may be taken or banning certain models. It is seen by some tournament organisers (TO's) as a tool to try to restore balance to a game where particular army builds, units or tactics are dominating the tournament scene.

This CONCEPTS: posts looks at the pros and cons of comp for the purposes of competitive tournament gaming, followed by my personal opinion as to if or when it should be used. What I'm not going to talk about here is terrain, missions or FAQ's, as while these can have an impact on your army (if you choose to tailor your list to an event), I will not class these as comp for the purposes of this article. This is also not a discussion related to custom or specialist tournaments, as these are by definition individual by nature. What I'm looking to discuss here is comp for general tournament play.

Pros

1. Balance - In an environment where a particular type of unit is very strong, but where not every army has access to said unit, comp is seen as an easy way to remove the 'problem', restoring balance and making it much fairer for everybody else.
2. Variety - Encouraging a variety of armies/units/play styles is good for the game.
3. Playing the game 'as intended' - Similar to the rules as written (RAW) vs rules as intended (RAI) debate, it could be argued that the game designers never intended the 'broken' units to be so powerful, and that it's no big deal to fix the game with comp.

Cons

1. Shifts the 'broken' units/lists/armies away from the perceived problem area and into another. Players who spend the time improving their armies/game play are probably aware enough to adapt to the restrictions to a greater or lesser degree, so after a period of adjustment the game balance appears 'broken' again. The restrictions can also penalise some factions more than others, with some armies able to work around the limitations with minimal difficulty and others finding themselves severely hampered, which may not have been the intention of the original comp.
2. Subjective and often not open to debate. The TO usually sets the comp and players either accept it and attend the event or not and don't go.
3. Doesn't give players a chance to find their own solution to the 'problem', which may turn out to be not that great after all when something even better is found as the game progresses (a common fix).
4. Theme armies - It can also stop people playing with themed lists like all terminators, bikes etc.
5. National/international tournament standard - It's harder to run a consistent competitive environment when individual TO's restrictions placed on a game system.

Opinion

Whist I too want a well balanced gaming system, I think introducing comp needs to be handled with extreme care.

I look to how Wizards of the Coast handle the various Magic The Gathering formats banned/restricted lists as a comparison. There is a centralised rules system run by the game creators, who actively seek to provide a worldwide accepted professional tournament capable game system. Dominating a meta (and I choose my use of the word carefully here) in MTG is not enough to ban/restrict a card. Generally speaking, only when it becomes apparent that a particular card makes the game almost completely unplayable over an extended period of time do WotC begin to consider comp.

On the other hand we have Games Workshop, who have clearly stated that they are a model company first and actively discourage competitive play. They now mostly run tournaments from Warhammer World with, let's say, unusual scoring, effecting leaving independent TO's to themselves. I have found that comp at a independent 40k even tends to be on a much wider level than MTG, often changing the fundamental rules of the game (not just banning a single unit), such as banning or limiting allies/fliers, because they think that they are too powerful without, I suspect, the depth of consistent playtesting that a company with a developed competitive scene such as WotC provide.

I believe that all games have certain biases and imbalances, some by design and others by consequence. As such there will naturally be stronger and weaker choices, and these will change if new factors are introduced into the system (e.g. new models, units, or armies). In a competitive setting, the stronger choices are much more likely to be taken more frequently, as they are often strictly better. If there are limited strong choices, these can become predictable, in which case a counter can be prepared. This can provide it's own balancing factor. However, if the counter is in turn predictable, a counter-counter might be possible. Without going into a separate discussion into knowing your enemy, Yomi, metagaming, or any of that stuff, suffice to say that comp removes the possibility of the players finding their own solution to the perceived problem.

Sometimes, however, there is a problem. Some games companies work hard to maintain a level of internal balance, and only when absolutely necessary do they step in with comp. There also other model companies who write rules for their models, and for whatever reason (sales? ignorance?), change the balance over time and leave it up to us to play nicely or roll-off (good name for a blog there!). Without central leadership, its up to the community to agree its own way forward in the event of a problem.

Summary
Personally I think that variety is good for the enjoyment of any game, and perhaps this can be provided by the various custom tournaments available. However, to develop a consistant competitive tournament environment, i.e. one where we're all playing the same game and can build, practice with and play with the same armies and they work the same everywhere, I suggest we need consistency, not comp.

Further Reading
Sirlin, Playing to Win  (seminal internet book on competitive gaming, free)
Ideas for Army List Restriction at Blog Wars 6 on From the Fang (see comments for some very good points on comp)

Food For Thought: List Building Questions

Rodin Thinker Silhouette

I thought I'd start of 2013 with a Food For Thought covering one of the fundamental aspects of the game for me - list building. Now is not the time for me to go into why I think bringing a balanced list along is a good idea, but what I am going to offer today is the six fundamental questions I ask myself when I'm putting together an army.

Now, there is a huge amount of depth behind each of these questions and I've only really recently articulated these as I develop my understanding of what I want my 6th edition competitive army to be (but that is a subject for another post!). The more I play, the better I understand them myself, but they do help frame my thought process on and off the battlefield.

Anyway, enough rambling, these are the questions:

1. Can this list take and hold multiple/low numbers of objectives?
2. How effective is it in killpoint style games (low number of VPs vs effeciency/MSU)
3. How easily can it take/give up secondary objectives?
4. What control can I exert on the different areas of the battlefield (rear/mid/enemy deployment/flanks/airspace/reserves/alternative deployments)?
5. Am I comfortable with the balance of scoring (including secondaries), board control (mobility/range/blocking) and threat (anti-infantry(GEQ/MEQ/TEQ), ant-tank/MC, anti-air)?
6. Do I know what each unit’s purpose is and how the army works together as a whole (e.g. mobile&reactive/static&dug-in/glass hammer/etc.)?

If these are obvious to you, good! However, there is a lot of subtlety that can be applied, for example between the balance between threat versus durability? Do you achieve durability though large units, MSU, mobility or deployment? How many troops do you need to hold you home objectives and how can they contribute to the game offensively?

There are many more, but I hope you get the idea that whilst these may appear obvious to begin with, these is more to it the more you think about it. In time, I hope to delve into some of the subjects I've touched on here in further Food For Thought and CONCEPTS: posts, but I will discuss the coming year in another post.

If you have any other useful list building questions or requirements, please feel free to add your thoughts!

CONCEPTS: Mech in Early 6th

Cool Mini or Not - ebonybrush

So we are now a good few months into 6th and, from what I can gather, the initial consensus of the masses was that 'mech is dead'. I’m not so sure, but I do believe that mech has changed significantly. A few credible blogs have now given their opinions (see further reading links below), and following these I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of mech in early 6th.

Cons
Let's look at the negatives first, in order of importance (give or take) according to my own humble opinion.

1. Less durable thanks to hull points and the reduction in cover saves (including smoke).
2. Passengers being effected by shaken and stunned results.
3. Transports no longer score (grand strategy excepted, but the advantages of making a transport score over, say, a dread or unit of purifiers is…?).
4. The effective reduction of 2” when disembarking.
5. Easy First Blood (secondary objectives are especially important for Relic and Emperor's Will) and easy victory points (previously kill points in 5th) for Purge the Alien.
6. Top hatches are less useful because your tank is much easier to destroy, making drive-byes less likely.
7. No longer being able to assault out of your transport unless it's open topped or has an assault ramp.

I'm sure that there are others, but that's still a pretty long list! I can certainly see why footslogging is the better option for some armies now.

Cool Mini or Not - Ash the Flash

Pros
So why spend the points mech'ing up instead of more warm bodies on the ground?

A. Mobility - Still massively important. The flat-out move typically offers an extra 6” of movement to ground based tanks, more for fast skimmers. 18” for a rhino or razorback when you need to get somewhere in a hurry, for example in objective games or against a gun-line army is well worth considering.

B. Firepower - Transports with a (typically heavy) weapon offer an additional unit outside of the FOC restrictions (also know as the 1+1). Given that the transport is unlikely to survive the game, I think due consideration needs to be given to whether the more expensive weapons are worth the investment.

C. Mobile cover - Sure, you can buy an aegis defence line and sit behind it for the whole game, but transports can offer cheap mobile cover, block line of sight to models tanking in front of a squad and can clog movement routes/firelanes for your opponent. Wrecks and craters can still be used to your advantage too.

D. Tank shocks/Ramming - Situational, and no-longer useful for breaking and running units off the board, but still a useful tool and easily forgotten. Moving enemy units into nice flamer shaped formations is handy, assuming you have a flamer of course! With less melta around, I expect that units will find it harder to succeed a death or glory attempt. Just consider whether it's worth tank shocking/ramming when you've got one hull point left, especially in Purge the Alien...

E. Searchlights - With night fight now much more likely, having multiple seachlights can be very useful. I frequently move 12", snap fire the main weapon and light up a key target.

Cool Mini or Not - sljer king

In relation to the cons above:

1. Yeah, hull points mean that you can now reliably wreck a vehicle, but I never really liked the *random seemingly invincible but stun-locked scoring tank of irritation* situations that occurred in 5th anyway (random makes planning hard). Instead, we have transports that continue to shoot their gun(s) even with one hull point, and can still snap-fire when moving at cruising speed or when shaken. Sure they die faster, but with the global reduction in cover saves, everything seems to die faster. Cover generating psychic powers have relatively improved in 6th (e.g. Shield of Sanguinius, Storm Caller), especially coupled with shrouding.

2. Damage effecting passengers. This is a problem and requires using transports in a different way. For example, I have found that instead of deploying units in the (possibly exposed) front rank of transports (second rank deploying hull down a little behind), I put the units behind instead. If the transport survives the first turn, I still have the option to embark before going 18”, but if it gets blown up there is less collateral damage to the squad and they aren't going to be pinned, meaning that they can either move forward with the other units, or drop back for objective sitting duties.

3. In tough games, did your transports last to the end of game anyway? Not often for me, so in reality this has a smaller effect than it first seems, otherwise I might rank this as the biggest disadvantage.

4. The reduction of disembarkation moves – This hurts melta delivery, true. Yet the dominance of melta appears to have waned, as 2D6 penetration is no longer required to reliably destroy a low-mid AV transport. Also, the way that I've been developing the use of my transports, I'm either moving 6” and footslogging next to the tank to make the most of the longer range of rapid fire weapons, or blitzing 18” to get into position before my marines are forcibly disembarked.

5. First blood / kill points - This is the big one for me, and why I think current lists have generally abandoned traditional mech. In Emperor's Will and Relic (totaling 1/3 of the basic missions), the secondary missions are relatively much more significant. In these two missions, getting first blood is a huge advantage and can force your opponent to play aggressively, and therefore perhaps take more risks. It seems like players are now building their lists with this in mind and trying to avoid giving away an easy VP, and generally moving away from MSU in favour of larger, more durable units.

6. Top hatches - I used to swear by a mobile top hatch for blasting my melta hunters out of. Now? I never thought I'd say it, but I'm not really using them. it now seems to be an opportunistic . Having tried both, I've come to the conclusion that I'd much prefer a gun, because sitting in a fragile tank doing drive-by's risks getting the squad inside pinned.

7.  Assaults - This has really hurt Blood Angels. Not so much Space Wolves, although I'd prefer to have the option!

Cool Mini or Not - Wappellious

Thoughts

Personally, I played MSU mech Space Wolves in 5th, and have experimented, researched and contemplated how/if they transition into 6th at a competitive level. I've come to the conclusion that expensive transports (e.g. lasplas or assault cannon razorbacks) pop too easily for their points, but cheap rhinos or razorbacks don't break the bank and still contribute to the game (personally I've found razorbacks to be much more effective). 

I've also found that the Space Wolves power Storm Caller is much more useful in 6th, especially when I'm playing conservatively with my Rune Priest to preserve the Kill the Warlord secondary objective.

I'm still getting to grips with 6th, but I can see certain armies making the most of the 1+1 using cheap and effective gun tanks (Grey Knights and Space Wolves with heavy bolter razorbacks come to mind) continuing to develop, whereas other previous archetypes such as Blood Angel razorspam (of the lasplas or heavy flamer variety) just don't seem to function with the new ruleset. I wonder if cheap fliers (vendettas, night scythes) will become the new mech?

Cool Mini or Not - Tzardauker

Conclusion
So, why spend the points mech'ing up instead of more warm bodies on the ground?

Transports in 6th still offer increased mobility, additional firepower outside of the FOC (the 1+1), (temporarily) mobile cover and added utility of tank shocks/ramming/searchlights. There are some significant nerfs to mech in 6th (effects on passengers, first blood, kill points), but some of the apparent downsides aren't that bad on further consideration (survivability, scoring, disembarkation distances).

Overall, I think mech still has a place in various (but not all) competitive lists, and needs to be integrated and used in a way that responds to the new edition.


Further Reading
http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/back-to-basics-how-rhinos-razorbacks.html (Summary of main changes)
http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/08/understanding-the-razorback-in-6th/ (Detailed razorback discussion)
http://theback40k.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/strategy-1-vs-vehicles-in-6th-edition.html (Target priority and discussion on future of mech)
http://www.imperiusdominatus.com/2012/10/discussion-vehicles-in-6th-for-better.html (Discussion of main changes)
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-strength-of-armour-in-6th-edition.html#comment-form
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-strength-of-armour-in-6th-part-2.html
http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-voice-speaks-blood-angels-1850.html
http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/11/community-quiz-why-do-you-bring-rhinos/ (Good quick summary of pro's of rhinos, and by association mech)
http://hulksmash-homeplace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/vehicles-and-transports-in-6th-edition.html?m=0 (Discussion of main changes)

CONCEPTS: Redundancy and Reliability

Continuing to expand on the definition of balance as “having the right tools in enough numbers to give you a fighting chance against any army”, this post explores what ‘in enough numbers’ means and what this offers for strategic gaming – ie. redundancy and reliability.

Simply put, redundancy is taking multiples of the weapons/units/roles you need to make sure your army can still function with the loss of a few of these key elements. Because let’s face it, everything dies in 40k and it doesn’t hurt to have a back up plan.

For example, if I’m relying on a handful of lascannons to cover all my anti-tank needs, and my opponent destroys, supresses or avoids them, then I’m in trouble! Similarly, taking three rhino hulls in a 2000pt game as my only mech and expecting them to survive to carry my troops across to the enemy deployment zone is also asking a bit much. Other examples include counting on limited scoring troops or relying on a single tarpit/blocker to hold up an enemy deathstar, but I hope you get the idea…

Now, some armies are able/forced to repeat the same units to achieve redundancy, otherwise known as ‘spamming’ (personally, I don’t mind spam, either on competitive or fluff grounds, but this is a subject for another day). Whilst this is perhaps the simplest way of achieving redundancy, the choice of repeated elements can (although will not necessarily) lead to diminishing returns at the cost of providing other tools. Also, if the spammed unit/element faces a difficult matchup (e.g. a Deathwing/Loganwing army with only missiles vs lots of AV 13-14), then spamming one type of weapon won’t necessarily be a great advantage.

As an alternative, some generals choose to provide redundancy across different units, FOC slots and weapons. Although it can be argued that this can be at the expense of efficiency, varied units can have the added benefit of making target priority harder for some opponents (although if this is the case then you may have less to worry about than you think). This is a part of the argument against tournament composition limitations, or ‘comp’. Whilst spam can be avoided by placing artificial restrictions on (typically) the numbers of units a legal army can include in order to make the games more fun/balanced across all the codices, I think it merely shifts the ‘broken’ armies across to codices who have the depth to achieve a competitive level of redundancy across multiple FOC slots.

A further way of achieving increased redundancy is via duality, typically considered as a unit being able to provide both anti-infantry and anti-tank. I will expand on this further in a future post, but for now it is sufficient to acknowledge the benefits of units performing multiple roles.

Really, the purpose of redundancy is to improve the reliability of an army. It’s very hard to formulate and execute a strategy if you run out of tools or your dice desert you. Whilst luck is an integral part of the game, building in layers of contingency and increasing the reliability of your army when list writing goes a long way to mitigating the loss of a portion of your forces or disastrous rolling in-game. Of course, the tools still need to be used in the right way, but I’d prefer to have the right tools in enough numbers to make the game one of strategy rather than rely on my dice rolling hot to win!

Further reading:

theback40k.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/something-my-teacher-once-told-me.html
www.3plusplus.net/2011/05/repetition-and-redundancy.html
nike40k.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/40k-theory-opimization-backlash.html

CONCEPTS: Balance

Denewer @ deviantART

The 'CONCEPTS:' series is intended to be a range of articles discussing certain commonly used (and sometimes misunderstood) terms and army building techniques, such as Balance, Redundancy and Duality. I think it's useful to establish a common framework for these concepts to help frame conversations, and also to help clarify my own thoughts on these matters. I have built up my understanding of these concepts from a large variety of different sources (many of which are listed under links!), and I certainly to not claim to be the originator of these various ideas!

What is balance?

Firstly, lets rule out some alternatives.

For me, balanced does not mean 'a large selection of different units chosen from a codex'. Often referred to as 'battleforce' or 'rainbow' armies, having an army with, for example, a squad of terminators, tactical marines, scouts, assault marines and devastators all lead by a captain may take a 'balance' of squads, but it is certainly not what we're looking at here.

In this context, it is also not 'avoiding taking too many of anything'. The antithesis of 'spam', I would expect that some players choose not to repeat particular elements at the risk of offending their opponent's or own idea of what would be realistic in a typical army of their choice. Examples of what this version of balance would try to avoid are 'missile-spam', 'razor-spam' and pure mech or footslogging armies. To a lesser extent this also rules out very characterful themed armies, like an all biker, deathwing or death company forces.

Neither is it necessarily 'having strong shooting, combat and movement abilities'. Whilst this is not ruled out in my understanding of balance, it is quite possible to achieve the criteria by focusing on one or two of these aspects. Of course, the best armies may well encompass all of these, but it is not always the case!

Before we get to my definition, a little background on my approach to gaming. I like the idea of having an army that can take on anything, whether it's going to be for a tournament or playing a friendly game against a random army. I also don't want to spend my limited time and money on stuff that never gets used, and I want to limit the number of games I get stomped just because of a 'bad matchup'!

All of which leads me to the following conclusion:

A truly balanced army is one that 'has enough tools in enough numbers to have a fighting chance against anything'.

What does that mean exactly?

To build an army that meets this requirement we need to understand not only what tools, or battlefield roles, need to be filled (e.g anti-infantry, anti-tank, threat ranges and scoring to name but a few), but also how our particular army/units/wargear work together to achieve this. Just one example would be if the best anti-infantry unit fills the same FOC slot as the best anti-tank unit, then there are some difficult decisions to make!

Creating a good balanced army is no easy task. Experienced or gifted players may grasp this straight away, but it should be possible for anyone willing to spend a little time and effort (like anyone reading this blog!) to persevere and improve their lists and gameplay.

So, food for thought then! Do you agree? How do you manage to balance your lists?

CONCEPTS: Fun?!?

Space Wolves

So since I'm the new boy in town, I thought I should try to get to know my audience! I'm always interested in why people play. I'm assuming the answer will be 'for fun' for all of us, but what is fun?

Do you like to test yourself and your list building skills to the max? Are you an uber-competative type who likes to play tournament armies? Do blogs like YTTH and 3++ sound familiar?

Our perhaps you're a master painter or modeller? Countless layers of wet blending or hours with power tools and greenstuff your thing? Not adverse to a bit of colour theory? Sites like CMON get your vote?

Or maybe it's all about rolling dice with your mates, setting up that epic combat or bragging rights after a grudge match? Or crafting a gripping narrative, immersing yourself in a campaign, or writing your own fluff for your army? Warseer, Dakka, BOLS or B&C your thing?

Personally, I want to kick butt with an army of models I think are great, and have a good time doing it! So a strong mix of all of the above, I guess. Winning is great, but not everything, and I'd prefer a close game over a stomping. I love list writing and reading blogs, and now that I'm gaming again, want to get good enough to try my hand at some tournaments.

So how about it then guys? I have the feeling that when people play a game without agreeing on the focus, someone's gonna get burned! Or at least walk away with a stour taste in their mouth. Playing your super fluffy list against a tournament list? Good game!

Perhaps I'm wrong, and it doesn't happen at your club or with your mates. Maybe your group finds its own balance. Who knows! Anyway, I'd like to hear what you guy's think and what keeps you coming back for more!