There was a great podcast (found here) that discussed a major problem with Shadowrun, wherein the traditional fiction from which it finds it's inspiration is constantly full of loners. Even in the books themselves the team is hired by a fixer or other shadow broker, presumably having never met before.
And then you break the entire premise by wrangling the team together for several missions. From a narrative stand point having runners you can rely on is good, but having runners that become close friends is a liability. That's typically not how they operate. Additionally, not all jobs need every archetype to succeed. If the footwork dictates that a Decker isn't needed then why spend the money?
In my own games I do a lot of hand waving to always include whatever characters the group can come up with. I believe this is just good Game Mastering, because it's our job to facilitate joy. If they are ill-equipped to deal with a specific task I play it down, and only present it in a circumstance where there are other means to deal with it. Challenge should always come with balance. But lately I was thinking of how one would go about running games within the Shadowrun universe without breaking the narrative contract of the source material (other than ignoring it).
The first one is to have player's roll multiple characters, so that there's a genuine pool of Shadowrunners in the city, and they're taking jobs with one another on and off as intended. The disadvantage is that the player may not become attached to any of their characters, OR they become attached to one in particular and try to shoe horn them into every mission, again breaking the narrative contract. Another option is to create non-shadowrun teams; Tír na nÓg specialists, Knight Errant SWAT or my favorite, DocWagon High Threat Response Teams!
Then there's the third option! Probably one I will run in the future. I'd like to see a group of Prime Runners who are tired of the deep shadows but still need to "get on with it". So they've formed bonds and maybe friendships (even when they shouldn't have) and they all have a good amount of Nuyen but can't quite retire. So they go legit, fill out the paperwork, cut through the red tape and open an investigation firm. Pulling strings for permits and greasing the wheels of bureaucracy drains the war chest. But now they don't have to get their hands dirty all the time. Now they can sell their skills to the little guy, maybe even do some work Pro Bono for the really hard up slummers. I think a smaller group of 3 to 4 players would do well. How would you shake up your next Shadowrun campaign?
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Death from the Skies - A Review
Warhammer 40k's Seventh edition has been chugging on at a pretty good pace for a while now. Even with the break to launch Age of Sigmar (more on that later) we've seen a plethora of great product in the way of campaign books and new models.
This brings me to Death from the Skies! Originally printed during 6th editions short run, Death from the skies gave us the general structure and mechanics for flying war machines in the 41st millennium. Most of the original content was folded into the seventh edition rule book upon launch. But that won't stop Games Workshop, oh no! A new edition of Death from the skies has graced my local hobby shop, introducing two new flyers and a smattering of additional rules.
Overall I like the book. It's a bit hefty at $58 but I think once you've reviewed the new mechanics you'll find they seem like a worthwhile addition. To be honest, the only bad egg is the Dogfight Phase which feels shoe-horned in to an otherwise smooth game turn. This phase is pretty much a simple guessing game set up on a completely different table that can remove models from reserve before they even see play. First, it takes very little of the original mechanics into account, forcing the attacker and defender to instead choose between three maneuvers and revealing them at the same time. These maneuvers are matched on a chart and the result plays out on AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE TABLE. Complete waste of pages, and it could have been used to make some real dog fighting rules! Perhaps after a couple test runs I'll change my mind, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
After that comes the modified flyer rules. First, each flyer is now given one of three combat roles; bomber, fighter, or attack flyer. These describe for better or worse the respective flyers use during a regular game of 40k. In addition to these new classifications each flyer has two new stats called Agility and Pursuit. Here's where the fun begins! Pursuit adds to the Flat Out range of flyers giving them a slightly larger threat range. Agility allows you to make a 90 degree turn MID-FLIGHT! Agility acts like a regular attribute test; roll equal to or under your Agility and you're allowed to make that second turn. These two stats seem to make flyers more dynamic without completely re-writing the core mechanics of the flyer vehicle type. I hope more people bring out their flyers just to try them out.
Aside from the new rules, the bulk of the book is full of new detachments comprised of 3 to 4 flyers from a single codex with bonuses themed for that particular army. If you don't like your particular detachment there are rules for generic Flyer Wings that allow you to purchase three or more flyers as a single squadron that may stay in formation for a bonus or break off for regular play. I like the Flyer Wing option, because it allows players with a certain play style to break the mold and still get some kind of advantage for running three Nephilim Jetfighters, for example.
All but one of the Air War missions seems really fun; and the one that stinks is the one that requires the Dogfight phase! Who'd have guessed! I especially like the looks of the air drop mission, where you're surrounded by the enemy on all sides and the objective markers are dropped by incoming flyers at random. I think my store will probably run an event with at least one of these missions in the future.
Overall I think the book is worth it, after getting over my dislike for the dogfight system and taking the rest of the book in I think there's plenty here to get an entire air campaign going. Perhaps we'll see a real air to air dogfight in my shop soon!
This brings me to Death from the Skies! Originally printed during 6th editions short run, Death from the skies gave us the general structure and mechanics for flying war machines in the 41st millennium. Most of the original content was folded into the seventh edition rule book upon launch. But that won't stop Games Workshop, oh no! A new edition of Death from the skies has graced my local hobby shop, introducing two new flyers and a smattering of additional rules.
Overall I like the book. It's a bit hefty at $58 but I think once you've reviewed the new mechanics you'll find they seem like a worthwhile addition. To be honest, the only bad egg is the Dogfight Phase which feels shoe-horned in to an otherwise smooth game turn. This phase is pretty much a simple guessing game set up on a completely different table that can remove models from reserve before they even see play. First, it takes very little of the original mechanics into account, forcing the attacker and defender to instead choose between three maneuvers and revealing them at the same time. These maneuvers are matched on a chart and the result plays out on AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE TABLE. Complete waste of pages, and it could have been used to make some real dog fighting rules! Perhaps after a couple test runs I'll change my mind, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
After that comes the modified flyer rules. First, each flyer is now given one of three combat roles; bomber, fighter, or attack flyer. These describe for better or worse the respective flyers use during a regular game of 40k. In addition to these new classifications each flyer has two new stats called Agility and Pursuit. Here's where the fun begins! Pursuit adds to the Flat Out range of flyers giving them a slightly larger threat range. Agility allows you to make a 90 degree turn MID-FLIGHT! Agility acts like a regular attribute test; roll equal to or under your Agility and you're allowed to make that second turn. These two stats seem to make flyers more dynamic without completely re-writing the core mechanics of the flyer vehicle type. I hope more people bring out their flyers just to try them out.
Aside from the new rules, the bulk of the book is full of new detachments comprised of 3 to 4 flyers from a single codex with bonuses themed for that particular army. If you don't like your particular detachment there are rules for generic Flyer Wings that allow you to purchase three or more flyers as a single squadron that may stay in formation for a bonus or break off for regular play. I like the Flyer Wing option, because it allows players with a certain play style to break the mold and still get some kind of advantage for running three Nephilim Jetfighters, for example.
All but one of the Air War missions seems really fun; and the one that stinks is the one that requires the Dogfight phase! Who'd have guessed! I especially like the looks of the air drop mission, where you're surrounded by the enemy on all sides and the objective markers are dropped by incoming flyers at random. I think my store will probably run an event with at least one of these missions in the future.
Overall I think the book is worth it, after getting over my dislike for the dogfight system and taking the rest of the book in I think there's plenty here to get an entire air campaign going. Perhaps we'll see a real air to air dogfight in my shop soon!
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Secondary Markets
We have a strong Magic: The Gathering following at our store. When you first think of something as simple as a card game you'd think that it might be easy money. But there's a lot of nuts and bolts when it comes to managing just one game.
The first myth that needs to get busted is the singles market. In a normal retail space the singles market doesn't work. Which is to say, it doesn't generate income. The singles market is best run by someone on their own time out of their own home with little to no overhead. When you bring the singles market into a retail space things change drastically.
A lone gunmen running singles out of an eBay store can set his own hours and trade at a very comfortable rate. The largest advantage they have is the lack of overhead in a retail space. The difference between their gross earnings and their net earnings is very minimal.
When it comes to retail space you quickly have to start analyzing a lot of different factors that modify the gross income and the percentage of that which becomes your final net earnings. Floor space, local competition, and manpower are some of these factors which determines how much effort you're allowed to place in the singles market.
If you run a store with the single purpose of running Magic events and trading singles you can probably break even; if you're smart. When you're attempting to supplement the income of a much larger store things become much trickier. There are two key elements I think of when considering the singles market.
First, how much manpower and time am I going to dedicate to this process? This has literally everything to do with how much an employee makes per hour, and if you're using that employee's time at maximum efficiency. Generally this means tracking my own time so the store is using me to my fullest potential. Second, how much floor space are we dedicating to the product? This has to do with product turn over rate, space efficiency, and the cost of that physical space in utility bills.
This creates the basic retail math. Does the cost of the manpower and the cost of the floor space exceed the income of the product? If the answer is yes then typically the product has no selling value and should be swapped out for something else. This is what big box stores do all the time. In my short time at Bed, Bath & Beyond I got to see several sheets of data that talked about sales potential per square footage. A local brick and mortar doesn't have a lot of this complex data, but the general principals work the same.
So if card singles never exceed the overhead to stock them, why stock them at all? The simple term we use for this is a loss leader. Typically a loss leader is a product that is sold lower than market value to stimulate the sale of other more profitable products. In our case card singles is a built in loss leader because of the secondary market as a whole.
The secondary market has existed for years based on the value of a product in an ongoing competitive format. It's become so ingrained in the gaming culture that wherever you go to play Magic, you're expected to see singles for sale.
Essentially, a loss leader is all advertising. If you have a modest amount of singles that rotate at a good pace people will come back to see them. Once a customer knows there's a singles market in the store they can begin to look for other products. Selling singles also encourages trade between the player base. This is all part of the secondary market ecosystem, and should be encouraged whenever possible. A healthy secondary market means the core product continues to move.
That's essentially it. Find the total overhead for stocking the product then measure it's worth against the market value. If it doesn't add up scrap it or turn it into a loss leader for a more valuable product with lower overhead.
The first myth that needs to get busted is the singles market. In a normal retail space the singles market doesn't work. Which is to say, it doesn't generate income. The singles market is best run by someone on their own time out of their own home with little to no overhead. When you bring the singles market into a retail space things change drastically.
A lone gunmen running singles out of an eBay store can set his own hours and trade at a very comfortable rate. The largest advantage they have is the lack of overhead in a retail space. The difference between their gross earnings and their net earnings is very minimal.
When it comes to retail space you quickly have to start analyzing a lot of different factors that modify the gross income and the percentage of that which becomes your final net earnings. Floor space, local competition, and manpower are some of these factors which determines how much effort you're allowed to place in the singles market.
If you run a store with the single purpose of running Magic events and trading singles you can probably break even; if you're smart. When you're attempting to supplement the income of a much larger store things become much trickier. There are two key elements I think of when considering the singles market.
First, how much manpower and time am I going to dedicate to this process? This has literally everything to do with how much an employee makes per hour, and if you're using that employee's time at maximum efficiency. Generally this means tracking my own time so the store is using me to my fullest potential. Second, how much floor space are we dedicating to the product? This has to do with product turn over rate, space efficiency, and the cost of that physical space in utility bills.
This creates the basic retail math. Does the cost of the manpower and the cost of the floor space exceed the income of the product? If the answer is yes then typically the product has no selling value and should be swapped out for something else. This is what big box stores do all the time. In my short time at Bed, Bath & Beyond I got to see several sheets of data that talked about sales potential per square footage. A local brick and mortar doesn't have a lot of this complex data, but the general principals work the same.
So if card singles never exceed the overhead to stock them, why stock them at all? The simple term we use for this is a loss leader. Typically a loss leader is a product that is sold lower than market value to stimulate the sale of other more profitable products. In our case card singles is a built in loss leader because of the secondary market as a whole.
The secondary market has existed for years based on the value of a product in an ongoing competitive format. It's become so ingrained in the gaming culture that wherever you go to play Magic, you're expected to see singles for sale.
Essentially, a loss leader is all advertising. If you have a modest amount of singles that rotate at a good pace people will come back to see them. Once a customer knows there's a singles market in the store they can begin to look for other products. Selling singles also encourages trade between the player base. This is all part of the secondary market ecosystem, and should be encouraged whenever possible. A healthy secondary market means the core product continues to move.
That's essentially it. Find the total overhead for stocking the product then measure it's worth against the market value. If it doesn't add up scrap it or turn it into a loss leader for a more valuable product with lower overhead.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
D Weapon Click Bait
So everyone is up in arms about the new D weapon arms race that Craftworld Eldar seems to have started. I had a moment to look at the eBook edition this morning. The thing I'm looking into specifically are Wraithguard and their respective Wraith weapons. At first glance they're pretty potent. The cannon is straightforward, and the D-Scythe's template weapon could also be potentially destructive (imagine getting to toss a flamer template over multiple vehicle hulls).
Their biggest weakness is the short range of their available weapons. Yes, strength D is very potent but what people are refusing to see is the larger picture. Wraithguard are bulky. You can only fit 6 in a Wave Serpent as a dedicated transport. There are a plethora of long range, high strength weapons that do not care about those Wave Serpents OR those Wraithguard. Leman Russ Battle Tanks, Chaos Defilers, and the Necron Doomsday Ark are just a few of the models that can vaporize .
The Codex hasn't changed much. Everyone see's the proliferation of D weapons and panics. The Eldar game is the same. They maneuver. The make the movement phase matter. People get caught up with the shiny weapons and the special rules they often disregard the basics. If you know how to control your army -no matter what army it is- you can control the movement phase. The Eldar have some built in mechanics to make their movement a bit easier. This is only "unfair" because people are lazy and won't read any other codex but their own. Know your enemy, and you know how to defeat them.
If you control the movement phase you can take objectives. If you control the movement phase you can out maneuver your opponent. This is why we decide -before the game even starts- what terrain does in respect to cover saves and line of sight. Because that's the knowledge you need to be an effective general in the movement phase. If you can position key elements of your force behind cover the shooting phase doesn't matter. If you can keep terrain between you and the howling banshees then the assault phase doesn't matter.
At the end of the day player's need to cowboy up and forget the news cycle that drops all that D weapon click bait. Remember your fundamentals. Continue to practice the universal rules of Warhammer 40k. Maneuver your models where they need to go. Force your opponent out of position. Follow through and punish them for whatever choice they make. But above all else be gracious, whether you win or lose. At the end of the day it's all about having fun.
Their biggest weakness is the short range of their available weapons. Yes, strength D is very potent but what people are refusing to see is the larger picture. Wraithguard are bulky. You can only fit 6 in a Wave Serpent as a dedicated transport. There are a plethora of long range, high strength weapons that do not care about those Wave Serpents OR those Wraithguard. Leman Russ Battle Tanks, Chaos Defilers, and the Necron Doomsday Ark are just a few of the models that can vaporize .
The Codex hasn't changed much. Everyone see's the proliferation of D weapons and panics. The Eldar game is the same. They maneuver. The make the movement phase matter. People get caught up with the shiny weapons and the special rules they often disregard the basics. If you know how to control your army -no matter what army it is- you can control the movement phase. The Eldar have some built in mechanics to make their movement a bit easier. This is only "unfair" because people are lazy and won't read any other codex but their own. Know your enemy, and you know how to defeat them.
If you control the movement phase you can take objectives. If you control the movement phase you can out maneuver your opponent. This is why we decide -before the game even starts- what terrain does in respect to cover saves and line of sight. Because that's the knowledge you need to be an effective general in the movement phase. If you can position key elements of your force behind cover the shooting phase doesn't matter. If you can keep terrain between you and the howling banshees then the assault phase doesn't matter.
At the end of the day player's need to cowboy up and forget the news cycle that drops all that D weapon click bait. Remember your fundamentals. Continue to practice the universal rules of Warhammer 40k. Maneuver your models where they need to go. Force your opponent out of position. Follow through and punish them for whatever choice they make. But above all else be gracious, whether you win or lose. At the end of the day it's all about having fun.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
The Colour and The Shape
There is a joke about guys & gals and how they see color. It is an old joke. I much prefer the analogy of geeks and norms. Because when anyone asks me "what color does this look like to you?" I'm hard pressed to find any real name I might attribute it to.
You see, all my colors come from my hobby. Any time I'm thinking of color I'm using the silly names given to those colors by game companies. Mostly Games Workshop, but also Vallejo. I helped some family members paint their house earlier this month. Every time we had a discussion about color quality I had to give very brief answers.
"Yeah, those go well together" or "I like the contrast"
What I wanted to say -which couldn't be said- was stuff like "The accent wall is great in 'The Fang' and the 'Administratum Grey' along the rest of the living room and kitchen really pulls it together. Reminds me of painting crumbling ruins for my 40k table"
You might think to yourself that those colors are actually awful for painting a house. But they were both mixed 10:1 with white scar, so the whole first floor still feels very bright and the two 'The Fang' colored accent walls really tie the entire first floor together as a cohesive living space.
At any rate I'm sure I'm not the only one. In fact I have proof. I discuss paint schemes with my co-worker who plays Warmachine & Hordes. We had a literal language barrier at times because he references P3 paints and my lexicon only called for citadel or vallejo. Luckily citadel became our common tongue because we stock it and sell it the most. So when I look at him quizzically he can rush off to the citadel display and call out a color he's actually trying to reference. Luckily I'm picking up on the P3 dialect so this hasn't happened in a while.
Yet my point of reference is still the same. My origin in painting miniatures is citadel paints. That's my native painting language. So when I finally go to paint my own house I'm going to bring a swatch of paints I've made myself from gaming colors. The paint department at Lowe's can scan them all because that's a thing they can do. When I get home I can paint my house in gaming colors and everyone else will have to speak my language for once.
You see, all my colors come from my hobby. Any time I'm thinking of color I'm using the silly names given to those colors by game companies. Mostly Games Workshop, but also Vallejo. I helped some family members paint their house earlier this month. Every time we had a discussion about color quality I had to give very brief answers.
"Yeah, those go well together" or "I like the contrast"
What I wanted to say -which couldn't be said- was stuff like "The accent wall is great in 'The Fang' and the 'Administratum Grey' along the rest of the living room and kitchen really pulls it together. Reminds me of painting crumbling ruins for my 40k table"
You might think to yourself that those colors are actually awful for painting a house. But they were both mixed 10:1 with white scar, so the whole first floor still feels very bright and the two 'The Fang' colored accent walls really tie the entire first floor together as a cohesive living space.
At any rate I'm sure I'm not the only one. In fact I have proof. I discuss paint schemes with my co-worker who plays Warmachine & Hordes. We had a literal language barrier at times because he references P3 paints and my lexicon only called for citadel or vallejo. Luckily citadel became our common tongue because we stock it and sell it the most. So when I look at him quizzically he can rush off to the citadel display and call out a color he's actually trying to reference. Luckily I'm picking up on the P3 dialect so this hasn't happened in a while.
Yet my point of reference is still the same. My origin in painting miniatures is citadel paints. That's my native painting language. So when I finally go to paint my own house I'm going to bring a swatch of paints I've made myself from gaming colors. The paint department at Lowe's can scan them all because that's a thing they can do. When I get home I can paint my house in gaming colors and everyone else will have to speak my language for once.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
The Rewards of Dungeons & Dragons
So I've taken up the mantle of Dungeon Master once again at my shops Dungeons & Dragons Encounters every Wednesday night. Of all the table top games that exist role-playing has to be my favorite. It's a shame that it's also seems to be one of the most complicated endeavors to plan and execute.
Along with D&D I'm hosting a Thursday night Shadowrun game that manages to fill every seat I have available to me. It's nice to run two games like this back to back. If the themes were similar that fact might be different. Shadowrun and D&D have very few meaningful similarities and that makes it easy to engage in each of them week after week.
There was a long time where I was 'done' with Dungeons and Dragons. It had been a rough run in 4th edition where the 'edition wars' here on the internet were the loudest. Every customer who wasn't part of a table on Wednesday nights had nothing but criticism. I'll say that in my heart Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition will always be my favorite; that doesn't make it a good game.
Now that I've come back around I can see the game (in it's current form) as it is. We're just having fun running into ancient dwarven keeps and bashing in monster domes. Granted, there's a greater story being told by Wizards of the Coast and the design team but the best parts of this game are the moment to moment scenarios. Dungeons and Dragons thrives on immediate threat and immediate reward.
The set pieces and their devious trappings are just as important -if not more so- than the over-arching plots scrawled within the campaign books. This is where the stories come from. The Barbarian who spends his bonus action and rolls a critical hit twice in a row? He saved the party from a powerful wraith! The mysterious slime oozing forth from an old tattered door? Only the druid knows what horrors might lurk beyond, and only he knows the stories of the ancient insects that might be borrowing beneath their very feet!
It's nice to take a break from high brow gaming, complex NPC's and interconnected plots. It feels good to present a group of players a straight forward challenge or a logic puzzle that can grant them immediate satisfaction. Even more satisfying for me that I can sit back and wing it every now and then and everyone still has the opportunity to have fun.
Along with D&D I'm hosting a Thursday night Shadowrun game that manages to fill every seat I have available to me. It's nice to run two games like this back to back. If the themes were similar that fact might be different. Shadowrun and D&D have very few meaningful similarities and that makes it easy to engage in each of them week after week.
There was a long time where I was 'done' with Dungeons and Dragons. It had been a rough run in 4th edition where the 'edition wars' here on the internet were the loudest. Every customer who wasn't part of a table on Wednesday nights had nothing but criticism. I'll say that in my heart Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition will always be my favorite; that doesn't make it a good game.
Now that I've come back around I can see the game (in it's current form) as it is. We're just having fun running into ancient dwarven keeps and bashing in monster domes. Granted, there's a greater story being told by Wizards of the Coast and the design team but the best parts of this game are the moment to moment scenarios. Dungeons and Dragons thrives on immediate threat and immediate reward.
The set pieces and their devious trappings are just as important -if not more so- than the over-arching plots scrawled within the campaign books. This is where the stories come from. The Barbarian who spends his bonus action and rolls a critical hit twice in a row? He saved the party from a powerful wraith! The mysterious slime oozing forth from an old tattered door? Only the druid knows what horrors might lurk beyond, and only he knows the stories of the ancient insects that might be borrowing beneath their very feet!
It's nice to take a break from high brow gaming, complex NPC's and interconnected plots. It feels good to present a group of players a straight forward challenge or a logic puzzle that can grant them immediate satisfaction. Even more satisfying for me that I can sit back and wing it every now and then and everyone still has the opportunity to have fun.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
The Eldar are coming!
It seems the 40k releases are coming at breakneck speeds as of late. Seventh edition has been a whirlwind of codices and supplements. Now that the gap between 5th and 7th have been closed Games Workshop turns It's attention to 6th edition, and there's no sign of slowing down. Codex Eldar: Craftworld will be out in a week, and with it comes the hope that our current meta will see some much needed change. Change that most people have wanted for a long time.
It's true that Eldar have been at the forefront of the tournament scene. But I believe this isn't so much about codex imbalance as it is about players taking the easy way out. Eldar used to be a codex that took a lot of finess. They had a speed about them, and each unit had a specific job. With the 6th edition book the wave serpent became an excellent utility unit. It's fast and has enough options that it can take almost any field role. Now some might be saying this is the exact reason the codex is broken. But what about the other armies we see on the field? Let's take the chaos players love affair with the heldrake as an example.
The heldrake has been spammed in many lists just like the wave serpent. Unlike the serpent the heldrake only has one specific job it excels at; killing space marines. It lacks the universal utility a wave serpent is praised for. A much better candidate for chaos utility is the Defiler. For an extra 30 points a stock Defiler kills marines at longer range, carries more survivability, and can hold down large threats in close combat. But we don't see three Defilers in lists do we? I wonder why that is.
Wave serpent spam has always been around because they've always been good at zooming in on objectives. It's an old tactic. Marines used rhinos to capture and land speeders to contest. Every army had that fast unit for claiming objectives during the end game rush. What the sixth edition codex gave us was an opportunity to step away from wave serpents for a while. Have you ever seen a war walker gun wall? It's terrifying, more so than wave serpents. But it's not easy. Wave serpents are easy.
And that's why we see that in the meta. Not because the codex is broken. I believe in the asymmetrical design of the 40,000 codices. I like that facing Dark Eldar or Orks makes me think differently about my tactics. I like that my Chaos Marines are a defensive force. They carry none of the leadership mechanics of a loyalist Marine force and therefor can't afford to be brave. There's so many little differences that make each codex great, and we waste time trying to min-max lists and argue about what's broken, what needs fixing. The truth of the matter is, nothing needs fixing. The meta has had us stuck in this rut for years. We don't pick fun models or interesting units and practice anymore. We try to guess the most broken thing and copy the next guy.
I dare you to build a list that doesn't use your favorite 'broken' model or squad. Omit the wave serpent, ignore the heldrake. Play that 'subpar' list until you know it inside out. Make it work for you. That's what these codices we're designed for. You get to choose the models you love and perfect those tactics. Play enough with an army you really love looking at and soon you begin to maximize their potential and minimize their flaws. Eventually you'll be giving your opponent tough choices, because those subpar squads will start to look like the real threats they are.
It's true that Eldar have been at the forefront of the tournament scene. But I believe this isn't so much about codex imbalance as it is about players taking the easy way out. Eldar used to be a codex that took a lot of finess. They had a speed about them, and each unit had a specific job. With the 6th edition book the wave serpent became an excellent utility unit. It's fast and has enough options that it can take almost any field role. Now some might be saying this is the exact reason the codex is broken. But what about the other armies we see on the field? Let's take the chaos players love affair with the heldrake as an example.
The heldrake has been spammed in many lists just like the wave serpent. Unlike the serpent the heldrake only has one specific job it excels at; killing space marines. It lacks the universal utility a wave serpent is praised for. A much better candidate for chaos utility is the Defiler. For an extra 30 points a stock Defiler kills marines at longer range, carries more survivability, and can hold down large threats in close combat. But we don't see three Defilers in lists do we? I wonder why that is.
Wave serpent spam has always been around because they've always been good at zooming in on objectives. It's an old tactic. Marines used rhinos to capture and land speeders to contest. Every army had that fast unit for claiming objectives during the end game rush. What the sixth edition codex gave us was an opportunity to step away from wave serpents for a while. Have you ever seen a war walker gun wall? It's terrifying, more so than wave serpents. But it's not easy. Wave serpents are easy.
And that's why we see that in the meta. Not because the codex is broken. I believe in the asymmetrical design of the 40,000 codices. I like that facing Dark Eldar or Orks makes me think differently about my tactics. I like that my Chaos Marines are a defensive force. They carry none of the leadership mechanics of a loyalist Marine force and therefor can't afford to be brave. There's so many little differences that make each codex great, and we waste time trying to min-max lists and argue about what's broken, what needs fixing. The truth of the matter is, nothing needs fixing. The meta has had us stuck in this rut for years. We don't pick fun models or interesting units and practice anymore. We try to guess the most broken thing and copy the next guy.
I dare you to build a list that doesn't use your favorite 'broken' model or squad. Omit the wave serpent, ignore the heldrake. Play that 'subpar' list until you know it inside out. Make it work for you. That's what these codices we're designed for. You get to choose the models you love and perfect those tactics. Play enough with an army you really love looking at and soon you begin to maximize their potential and minimize their flaws. Eventually you'll be giving your opponent tough choices, because those subpar squads will start to look like the real threats they are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)