Can you build competitive and fluffy?

Before we go too deep into the lines of soul-searching, let's lay down some definitions first.  For me, the word competitive means to play your best.  This means improving on your generalship, optimizing your army list and designing an well-tuned army. I tagged an assload of articles I wrote previously and labeled them as "recommended".  These articles speak of list synergy, threat application and cost effectiveness.  This is the type of knowledge that I apply when playing competitively.

Now what about fluffy?  Or better yet, my definition of fluff:  You build your army how the army was designed to be played.  Space Wolves should be seeking a glorious death in combat and Blood Angels should be charging into the fray.  This is the element of fluff that I'm talking about and this is what I design most of my army lists around.  My recent article on BoLS called "Remembering Who We Are" covers my thoughts on this much more vividly.

As you guys have noticed, my blog's pretty much a competitive blog with a thematic twist.  You'll never see any Razorfang or RB spam lists here; instead you'll see well-tuned army lists trying to make my creations work.  I see army list construction a game in itself, and I take great pride in kicking ass with an army spewed from my own creativity.

Space Marine Mixed Armor Tactica

This is the long awaited vehicle tactica that deals with different armor groups, notably the AV13 toys that Space Marines have to play with.  One of the biggest follies in the 40K gaming community is that Predators and Vindicators suck because of their static nature and fixed firing ports.  A lot of people see this as a weakness because these two tanks, as dominate as they are in the front arc with their AV13 hulls, have AV11 side armor.  This means that every time they pivot and shoot, they're as durable as Rhino.

That must suck right?  Wrong.  This guide will show you the folly in your ways with some tested battle formations.  I took all these pics using my iPhone since my attempts at MS Paint sucked harder than it should have.  Keep in mind that this tactica is designed for a mechanized army.  Some elements in this guide may or may not work depending on what you field.

The sky is falling!

As expected, noobs from around the world are crying OP already at the new GK codex.  This happened for every single codex release that I've seen in the last 10 years.  Yes, I know, this thread comes from whineseer, but threads like this has appeared all over the net.  Guess what?  It's not going to stop.

Let me describe what's happening:  Bad players playing other bad players automatically result in a codex being overpowered.  When a veteran player analyzes a codex, several things take place inside his head that's completely alien to lesser players.  For example, I'll analyze myself; not because I think I'm the greatest player to have ever lived, but I have seen the rise and fall of army books since 3rd and have played in thousands of matches both competitively and casually.

When ahead, stay ahead

This is a RTS philosophy that I've used, learned and experienced the hard way in many years of practice.  Typically in StarCraft, once you get ahead of your opponents in terms of economy and expansions, it's very easy to stay ahead as long as you control the money game.  If you kill one of his expansions with a push, you can take another expansion and you'll be infinitely be more ahead than he is.  Chances are that no matter what he does, you'll remain ahead for the rest of the game.  This is a mentality that I took with me to miniatures gaming.

What does "cost effective" mean?

I know that by now, you guys must be asking yourselves:  Hey, this guy talks about cost effective units all the time.. but what the hell does it really mean?  In short, being cost effective means the "best bang for your buck".. in gaming terms.

This isn't going to be a terribly long post.. since I'm currently worked to shit and I'm kinda tired.  First, a short bio of who I am and why do I think cost effective choices are the way to do things.  For starters, I've played RTS games since I can remember clearly.  My first game was Command and Conquer, then I moved onto StarCraft, WarCraft, the expansions, played Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, all the BfME games, all the Age of X games... basically, every single RTS game ever made.  I'm currently in Diamond Legaue in SC2 and I barely get to play.  Not to brag or anything, but I have a natural affinity towards playing these kind of games.  I know how to optimize, adapt and execute on my strategy.

You know what all these RTS games have taught me over these long years?  That being cost effective is the way to victory.  There's no way in hell that I'm not going to take something that's cheaper and can do the same job as something more expensive.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  Like a computer trying to run a program in some language it doesn't understand.  When fluff players talk to me and brag how they like to take 10 Terminators in every game, my head draws a blank: A real life question-mark.  A state of confusion.  Pretty much a giant WTF.

When I first started playing minis games 10 years back, I used the same RTS mentality and skill and applied it to Warhammer 40K.  In a game like StarCraft, if I was given 2k minerals and I was told to construct a solid Terran army (pretend that nothing costs gas), I could hand you Marines, Medics, Tanks, Sci Vessels and some Goliaths.  Apply that in 40K terms, I'll hand you a bunch of Grey Hunters in Rhinos, some Long Fangs, a Rune Priest or two and some Terminators in a LRC.  That's just how my head thinks.  I see every table-top game as a small "macro" game in StarCraft which sole purpose is to maximize on damage vs. all types of enemies.  This is why my lists always come out strong, powerful and can take on any foe.  This, is the very definition of min-maxing and the only way you can truly understand how to min-max is by knowing your shit.  Maybe that's why I can play Marines effectively.  I understand the value of PPM (Points Per Model) and I know that wound saturation does not mix with a poor PPM ratio.  When building an army list, I make sure I use every available facet of knowledge I have in the game and construct a army that's both powerful and balanced.

I'd like to finish this post off with a very rewarding quote from a very respectable person.  It just comes to show you that no matter how many times you lose, you will always walk away a winner..  As long as you learn from your mistakes that is.

“I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”
-- Michael Jordan

PS - I'm currently looking into Flames of War stuff.  I'm a huge WW2 buff and I've always wanted to play Germans in a miniatures game.

Min-maxing is NOT WAAC

I'm going to be frank here: I hate it when people relate min-maxing to Win At All Costs. Being point efficient with your army because you want to be competitive does not mean you are a WAAC player. First, let me give you my definition of min-maxing and WAAC.

The min-maxer player is a competitive gamer that maximizes his army book and his army list.  He is first and foremost; a competitive player.  Not only does he understand the game, the rules, and his army book very well, he understands other armies very well as he believes that the key to victory, is game knowledge.  He likes taking units that best suits the needs of his army, often times being molded and shaped by the ever-changing metagame. He understands that the current meta has vehicles and thus melta weapons are the key at punching through armor at close range, just as an example.  The min-maxer also recognizes that to not take the most cost effective unit is to throw a wrench into a otherwise well-oiled machine (such as his army list) and thus he does not do so.  He is essentially the player that always takes what he views, is the best bang for your buck.  I am a min-maxing, power gaming, competitive player.

List synergy

A lot of the time I see people making lists that lack the synergy needed to carry out their battleplan.  You see lists that's supposed to be fast take slow units that slow the rest of the army down; or an army that takes too many reserves and it gets dissected on the field turn by turn.  This post will hopefully help people realize these issues and how to improve upon it.

Let's look at some example lists that preform well in battle and analyze why they work.

Eldar Castle list (Defensive):

Avatar

Eldrad

2x large units of Wraithguard

3x Wraithlords

A squad of counter-attacking Harlequins + Shadowseer

The entire army moves slow but the units here are incredibly resistant to damage.  The big to note about this list is that the army's movement speed is the same.  Everything moves as one, the tempo remains constant, and nothing is left stranded or out of reach of immediate assistance.  The Wraithguard, Avatar and Wraithlords are all really tough with their T6+ and 3+ saves.  Eldrad offers great protection to the army via zone wide psychic protection and Fortune on your units so you get that armor re-roll.  Your shooting is primarily short-ranged but with guide  your Wraithguards' no armor save instant death shots become really intimidating.  The main weakness of this army is CC, but that's why you have Harlequins with a Shadowseer hiding behind your Wraithguard as the ultimate counter-charging element.  Overall, this list favors a more defensive player's playstyle but has all the right tools to make it work.  It moves as one, shoots at one and reacts as one.

Making a good list

What makes a good list? I define a good list as a list that can win battles.

I've always viewed games as this: The point of the game is to have fun. The objective of the game is to win. Now since I come from a strong RTS background, there's only one outcome at the end of the game: You either win, or you don't. Victory or defeat. Winner or loser. There's no other way to really play a game with objectives otherwise. Now, I understand that wargaming is all about throwing dice, drinking a few beers and having fun, and I do that. But in the end of the day, you want to see your army victorious on the battlefield. You want to see that one Marine raise that flag ontop the corpses of your enemies. That's what the gaming aspect of Warhammer is all about.

Now, how do you accomplish that? How do you make a list that can slay your foes, capture objectives and emerge with enough collective bodies at the end of the game to claim victory? There's a method to that. Below, I will show you my mentality when constructing a competitive army list.