All lists are not created equal. Sure player skill is important, and perhaps THE defining factor of a win or a loss, but the “list” goes a long way in masking or making player skill.
So over in this corner we have what I will call a tournament list.
In building that list we want two things- redundancy and reduction of random factors. True, 40K is a dice game, and subject to good and bad rolls, but anytime one can take the dice out of play, you are usually better off.
With a focus on competition the first step is to know the rules! Look at the framework of 40K and what is best protected under those rules. Ex- vehicles are cheap in point cost, protect scoring units (unless you are Tyranids) and are very survivable. Shooting is king, assaults are underpowered, and monstrous creatures are over costed and tend to go down like a wet sack of potatoes in most games- hardly monstrous at all!
These “realities” of the game influence unit decision despite what the fluff and game background would tell you. You must and will not be blinded or bound by fluff traditions. Psycannons are the rarest form of imperial tech in the galaxy- maybe a few dozen at most still left in the Grey Knights, and your army is currently carrying more than half of the entries chapter arsenal? Doesn’t matter!
Competitive play is about winning so what units perform best in the rules is your god. Layer over this the strongest and often newest marine codex and your selection is clear.
With that in hand you move onto redundancy, which makes sense in competitive play if we are trying to banish randomness. You need to have all your bases solidly covered- anti-tank, anti-infantry, blocking units, assault units, psychic support, etc. The old saying one is none, two is one, and three is two. Three plus of each unit across the entire army, which is also why competitive play only works at higher point levels- where you can get all your toys in and not have to make any real decisions or sacrifices. You can have your land raiders and speeders, and terminators, and HQ choices, and six plus troop choices, etc., etc.
This “spam” is important since it cuts down on the dice. One predator tank might miss or fail to pen/explode it target, but three have a much better chance. Three backed by missile or melta speeders are even better- overlap is key.
Finally the last vestige of randomness is banished by not taking wargear that relies on a die roll to happen- such are Tyranid regeneration rolls, etc.
Follow this formula and you have your competitive list that has all the tactical points covered with minimal exposure to the dice.
In terms of my own collection, I really don’t have a competitive army, actually, scratch that, as per my definition I don’t have one at all- which leads to the semi-competitive army build till we can cook up a better term.
As a core the two share the same idea up to about 80% of the point value- units are selected based on exploiting the rules mechanics and codex, reducing randomness, and having redundancy across the board. But then that remaining 20% is used to actually inject some randomness into the game- since that offers the flexibility to go both ways, and if you are a gambling man (or woman) and will chance it with the dice, you might just get lucky…
A fully competitive army build piloted by a competitive player seeks to control every aspect of the game on the table. They know how their army is going to perform 90% of the time and they follow the formula through to victory. Since they have removed randomness they are not equipped to handle it- so that is what we want to inject into their list!
From the semi-competitive build perspective let’s examine my updated Necron army. On the surface it is actually pretty boring- maxed out scarabs, and maxed out immortals- yawn and yawn for the 80%. But then I inject some C’Tan shards and the Stormlord for the random factor, and let’s see what happens. I’m paying points for non optimized units- and in this case a lot of points for something that may or may not work- lighting and worldscape as examples. But with my 80% core I can cushion this. Inject some controlled chaos theory if you will.
From a player perspective I find this type of army build the most fun to play- I can hold my own for the most part, but both my opponent and I really never know what is going to happen till it happens and the dice get rolled- and there is no way to stop it! Of course when, from time to time, the randomness bites me in the ass also, I have no man-excuse about it since I invited it.
On a side note, I do have to say that the fincecast C’Tan…excuse me C’Tan Shards are really awesome and mad props. I normally hate finecast with a passion for what it is- a marketing sham, but in this case, my Nightbringer…sorry again…C’Tan shard want together with two zaps of glue, and had no holes, bubbles, flash or seams to fill like the god awful metal model- and I’m a big fan of metal. Only metal model worse than the C’Tan were the old metal nurgle daemon prince and the Tyranid hive guard…shudder….
Finally on the other end, way over actually is the fluff or gamers army- with my Saim-Hann being the example in my collection. One plays a codex or faction because they identify with it, and based on a background you build on that. Saim-Hann fly around on jetbikes and vypers, all ground troops ride in skimmers- look and feel comes first over actual gameplay.
Of course that is not to say you can’t win game with a fluff or historical build, but they require a much different approach and analysis- leverage if you will to win.
So how do you break down and define the lists you see at events or even play yourself. Does the event or environment itself dictate what kind of list you bring?
0 comments:
Post a Comment