Fyi, I don't think Tzeentch holds elections. ;)
Chaosgerbil wrote in this thread:
While we're on the subject, what about how many units to take?
I know you're a spam fan, but I want to make things work with just one unit and a bunch of F. wolves. For now.
Here's my latest SW list version, I am still trying to figure out what to do with my last troop selection and trying to get a transport for them.
http://chaosgerbil.
Reply:
I'd actually like to not have to spam units, but you have to be realistic CG. Time for a story...
I explained the whole concept of 'soft scores' to my wife yesterday. Her response was "that's stupid". Made for a good laugh.
I explained how many TO's decide to become game designers and change the basic rules to match what they think should happen, aka 'comp'. She didn't really understand, so I explained it in depth. I think sharing this with you will help you (and others) understand why 'spam' is our only choice.
Leaving out duality, something regulars to the blog should be aware of by now...why do people spam units?
Two reasons. The first is GW's business model. If the old unit GW isn't pushing anymore was as good as the one they are pushing now--sales would suffer. Of course, retail space has a huge impact here--with big silly boxes, you can only pack so much into a store before you are SOL. You realize GW doesn't have to pay for prime retail space, in fact they make stores pay them for the right? Quite humorous, considering how real retail works (the exact opposite).
The second, is a bit more complicated.
Let's compare Magic: TG with 40k.
Magic has something like 800 cards available for the 'current' set.
If those are split fairly evenly between colors (there are five, for those of you living under a rock), you end up with something like 100+ cards of every color and 200+ multi-color cards.
Now when you build a deck, you generally have lands which don't really count towards your 60 card total (well it varies, but for this discussion we'll leave it at 20). This leaves 40 cards.
Of those cards, you usually take 4 of each (cough spam) to increase your chances of drawing said card. (Yes, sometimes you only take 2 or 3, but for this discussion we'll leave it at 4.)
So you really only have 10 "different" cards in your deck. Let's say you are running a dual-color deck, red and green. If split evenly, you have reduced the total number of cards from 10 to 5 twice. This means you've got 5% of the total available card pool for a single color. (likely less, but for now we'll leave it at nice round numbers). That leaves you with many many more combinations of cards you could possibly take. 800 vs only 10 cards, quite a difference.
Now let's compare that to 40k. Most individual armies have, at best, 5 selections available in a certain Force Org category. Most have 2-3. Some only have 1!
Talk about a lack of options. Even having more "colors" available doesn't really change much, as they are all very limited. GW's refusal to truly allow multi-color armies (because they cannot playtest it) means instead of having an almost limitless supply of different variant armies like Magic does (you can make a 3 or 4 color deck nowadays, fyi--so the possibilities really are endless) you instead have single-color armies with no real variety.
You think zot deck players would enjoy the game if they couldn't access the other colors, for things like counterspells, fliers, weenie creation, etc? They wouldn't, obviously.
Yet GW persists in the belief that you can (and should) enjoy playing a mono army, and they've repeatedly removed all multi-color armies from the game. Many tournaments do too. What, is the game too complex for you? You have one good choice out of three in Fast Attack, which do you take? One of each, just to show the rest of us? Well, fine. When we kick your ass because you are being obstinate, what then? Going to pack up your 800$ army and go home?
Lack of choice, vs so much choice it's mind boggling.
Magic is successful. Magic has a competitive scene.
Don't wonder why people spam things, wonder why GW doesn't open the game system up so I can bring multiple units from different codices along that do different things for me. GW seems to think everyone will buy 10 different ebay units and call it an army. I don't think that's true for most of us, and it sure would make my life difficult if I could include even half of the armies (the good half?) in my calculations.
Now I'll answer your question: I think your army has a few flaws.
Vindis + T5 expensive Thunderwulf cav = fail.
Blood Claws are terrible. Invest the points in more Thunderwulf Cav.
Oh, and whatever format you are using for your army list--it's virtually unreadable in a browser.
Just thought I'd add in the debate to give you something to chew on. :)
Home Debates Space Wolves Warhammer 40k » Debate: Chaosgerbil's "The Elect of Tzeentch": Spam or No Spam?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Debate: Chaosgerbil's "The Elect of Tzeentch": Spam or No Spam?
By
Stelek
Labels: Debates, Space Wolves, Warhammer 40k
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
24 lands. Twenty-four! Never run twenty in a 60-card deck unless everything in it costs less than 3 mana. :-P
Back in Warhammer land, another consequence of the lack of choice is that themed armies are forced to spam units just as much as the competitive ones are. And because the community is as divided and distrustful as it is, you end up with the ridiculous scenario where people who've deliberately handicapped themselves for the sake of a theme get treated with the same opprobrium as Teh Evul Powergamerz - because they're OMG spamming units!
(it's one of the peculiarities I've noticed in Australian comp systems - any actual attempt at theming will necessarily sink your soft scores to the bottom of the ocean. How dare you run multiple similar units!)
About "spam": I know why it is more effective, efficient, necessary, etc. for builds. I can see you understand why many players have a distaste for it, it's nice to know that even the "competitive players" long for better options.
Some spam is inevitable, just look at the SW book with its amazing two options for troops. You can play around with different transports and weapons but you're generally going to see a meltagunner or two in a Rhino. The more time passes with fifth edition the more I'd rather see all infantry and jump infantry be able to score instead of just troops, just to get some more diversity out there.
If you are building a Magic deck you will normally try to get 4 of the same card, maximising your chances for effective combos and all that jazz. If you don't attempt to duplicate your power cards you will get crushed by optimized decks.
When I build a 40k army, effectiveness is a high priority but not the only thing I value. IMO, The difference between good and bad decks in Magic affects your chances a lot more than the difference between good and bad army lists in 40k. Having cool, well painted and converted models and some kind of theme or background are also quite important to me. Partly this is becuase I build and paint far more than I get to play, and also I just have different priorities. What I'm looking for is a balance where I can maximize all three categories as much as possible. Model availibility and budget plays a small part also.Since I can't have everything maxed out compromises will be made, I am looking for a sweet spot where I can have variety without totally gimping everything.
The army format is just an armybuilder export, in past blog posts I took more time to make everything clear and simple and I guess I should return to that standard.
GW is quite restrictive about their codexes, having no allies system makes the game more stale. Don't get me started on yet another Lost and the Damned rant. ;) Arguably it makes the game more balanced but since the game is NOT balanced anyways that claim doesn't seem all that great. Once again, GW takes the lazy design route instead of putting in reasonable guidelines for mixing codexes.
About the Vindicator: I've seen vindis do amazing things, and I'm not planning to fire them on top of my TWC. I figure the board is big enough they should have some safe targets, and they are a good defense against both hordes and expensive elite units vulnerable to instant death. Since I have three AV 13 tanks I think my heavy support has some good toughness for the price.
About the Bloodclaws: I felt I needed more scoring units, and they are honestly an excuse to include a unit of converted mutant models. As far as durability, point for point I can get 9 scoring wounds for marines versus about 5 or six non scoring for the TWC. (TWC could potentially get taken out by instant death.) The killing power and charge range of the TWC is much better of course. I do have more Spawn I could rebase on sculpted gribbly disks and at some point I'll probably put together a second unit. I'm still undecided about how many TWC to fit in, maybe some more elaboration on them could push me over the edge.
Cheers!
By dropping the bloodclaws and doing some tinkering I brought the thunderwolves to 2 units of 4, including two with meltabombs and one with a fist. I also have a total of 25 fenrisian wolves.
Having only 3 scoring units scares me a little but they are mech marines and I have a lot of scarier stuff that my opponent might target.
Post a Comment