Flameguard, Wracks, and a Thought on Customer Relations

Well, folks.  This week has been a big hobby week for me in regards to Warmachine.  I have been able to fully paint 4 more Flameguard + UA, a full Choir, and 3 Wracks now.  On top of that, the wife got really sick during the night causing me to take a day off to help out with the boy.  That means that I have had a bit of extra time to paint one more model, the Avatar of Menoth.  So far, I have the metallics about 75% done.  Let me say that I am excited about this dude.  He is the big bad when you it comes to Menoth units, so suffice it to say that I am really excited to get him painted and on the board.  His inclusion will also mean that I can comfortably field a fully painted 35pt. army with either pKreoss or pSeverius. 

So, here are some picture updates. 

Side #1.  That is quite the porcupine of spears.

Side #2. 

Here is the unit leader, officer, and standard bearer.  I love these models.  Privateer Press really doesn't scrimp on these models.  The standard is large and well sculpted.  The officer and unit leader have quite a few unique details on them. I'm really pleased with this unit.  I think they will serve me well as a tarpit with shield wall and defender's ward. 

Here are the wracks.  Man, these were easy.  I had an extra hour to hour-and-a-half last night and decided to get these guys done,from bare metal to fully painted and based.  I was able to complete them easily.  I think the ease of painting these guys comes from the fact that the wrack itself is all metal and easy to paint with a couple shades of metal and some wash and from limited range of colors needed to paint the rest of the model.  Easy.

Here's a closeup.  My recipe for easily finishing the wrack is as follows, base coat the entire thing, chains, weights, and wrack with a dark metallic color.  I used Reaper Master Series Blackened Steel.  I then added a heavy drybrush of GW chainmail.  I wrapped up this porton of the model with a heavy wash of GW devlan mud.  Voila! Easy. From there, the victim on the wrack was simple as well.

Hopefully early next week, I will have some updates that show off a completed Avatar. 

Now, I wanted to mention something, more of a soapbx really.  I started out as a GW gamer and still play their games.  I've played WFB and 40k for around 8 years now. In that time, GW has had a lot of chances to disappoint its customers.  It seems that they take the logical, correct method and throw it out the window.  Now, this is just my opinion.  Many people still love GW.  I mentioned awhile back that I have been really impressed with Privateer Press for its customer relations.  I was again pleased to hear that they were exhibiting some professional courtesy when I read a blog about some updates coming out from PP this year. Among Colossals, a new Bodger game, and the return of Infernal Contraption, there was a note in one blog that PP is coming out with their very own army builder app and that consequently iBodger was going the way of the dodo.  At first, I was a bit angry as I thought, Another game company silencing good work from a private individual.  However, as I read, it was explained that iBodger was created and upkept with the full knowledge and permission of Privateer Press.  Furthermore, it was being given away for free. 

What!?

This totally blows my mind and I suppose it does because I started with GW.  GW defends its IP like an overzealous watchdog, threatenin private citizens with IP violation whenever they got a wiff of a possible violation.  GW rules by intimidation.  Privateer Press doesn't.  With the release of their new army builder, they simply ask the individual who originally had their permission to stop updating the software he had.  He obliged in what seems to be a very cooperative manner.  No threats, no fear.  Wow.  I like it.  It just shows you why people are dropping GW's stuff and running to other companies like Privateer Press. They've got my vote.

Here are some other Warmachine articles:
Warmachine the Way I See It: Warcaster Study, pKreoss
The Harbinger of Menoth: Model Review
How Important is the Front Arc, Really?
___________________________________________________________
Did you find this article useful? Subscribe to Gone to Ground for more great updates

Why People Cry Foul

In the past day or so on my google reader, I have seen a couple articles (Three Color Minimum and SinSynn's Nova Rant) bemoaning the fact of people calling each other cheaters and such in tournament settings.  Apparently this year, several notable cases have come up with "big name celebrities" supposedly cheating in tournaments. 

I have to agree that it paints a bad picture of the greater community.  Basically, it makes 40k gamers appear to be a bunch of jerks.  We are either cheating to win or being jerks by calling others out as supposed cheaters. Really.... It's like people lumping perfectly decent, church going folk with crazy, fundamentalists that protest soldier funerals.  It's a really bad generalization, but it happens nonetheless.

So, what do people get so up in arms, especially about things they aren't even participating in (as mentioned in the above articles)? 

I think there are a couple of reasons.  Perhaps you will agree with me on them. 

1) People are overly defensive of their little plastic dolls.  I mean seriously, we spend copious amounts of money on these little lumps of plastic, transfer facets of our personalities into them, and use them to prove that we are superior to an opponent.  Let's face it, none one wants to be have their "baby" bashed across the table, but it happens.

2) People are self-proclaimed defenders of the 40k universe and others' perception of that universe. They literally think they are doing everyone a favor by calling someone out and playing hall monitor.  They think that this will improve the community instead of spiraling out of control into a character assassination with loads of undue pack and forth between people who really don't even know what happened.  Apparently, the internet is a place to cast aside all inhibition and act like a jerk when you want.

3) People like to stir up trouble.  This is a sad but true reality of life, not just 40k.  There are just some sad, d-bag people out there.  They stir up trouble for the pleasure of seeing people go at it.  Stupid. 

I could go on and analyze a plethora of other reasons people go crazy over perceived wrongs, but let's face it, they don't help anyone. Even further, it doesn't help for people not involved in any way, shape, form, or fashion to make a big deal either.  Honestly, in a game, the only people who have any real right to take up issue are the players and hopefully, they will act like adults (or mature teenagers) and deal with it respectfully and honestly.

In closing, I know I would better spend my time wishing for world peace, but could we have some courtesy in games and out of them?  I mean, come on. 

Other Rants:
Really?!
Who Says What's Competitive?
Warhammer Mythology: One Meta to Rule them All
____________________________________________________________

Did you find this article useful? Subscribe to Gone to Ground for more great updates.

Warhammer Mythology: One Meta to Rule them All

Let me preface this article with saying that the following is purely my opinion and you don't have to agree because I am sure that the statistics are against me in this, but oh well.  I can't win them all based on logical reasoning, so here is my sneaky sucker punch to the gonads on the subject. 

I have talked about this briefly before here, but the idea of what is and is not competitive is quickly becoming my soapbox.  If I were to describe myself as a gamer, I would have to say that I am a fluffy competitor.  I love Warhammer 40k for its expansive story and character, but I also like to play and win the game.  Besides, this is MY army and it should be able to crush all before it.  It's my opinion that if a person gets into Warhammer 40k, they aren't doing it simply because they saw the ruleset and like it.  Generally, it's the fluff element that draws in players.  As such, most players also play and customize their armies based around their ideas and preferences as to what their personal army should be like. 

That leads us to the variety of lists built daily by thousands of players worldwide.  Enter "the internet".  The internet is a great way for players from all kinds of places to talk about the hobby and the game of Warhammer 40k.  Eventually, popular opinion and playtesting has distilled each army into what makes the most successful army on the board.  This has become universally accepted around the world as the end-all-be-all of what is and is not competitive. 

Phew....still with me?

So is the general opinion of the internet and overall community the definition of what is competitive and worth playing (i.e. necrons and tau suck. BA, GK, and IG rock.  Blah, blah, blah.)?  I don't think so.  We are getting into the realm of the metagame here.  For those not hip to the meaning of metgame, you can see a good definition here. 

We have to ask ourselves then, is there an overarching metagame for 40k?  Are Necrons always going to lose to Space Wolves or Imperial Guard?  Does MSU trump large units the majority of the time?  The defined metagame of 40k seeks to answer these questions and consequently forces players, new and old, to make decisions about which armies they choose to play and how they field those armies.  And this is where I get a little annoyed.  For a couple reasons really.  #1 is that GW makes an unbalanced game where not every army can compete on a level playing field. #2 is that the general population of gamers come to the realization thanks to #1 that there are only a few ways to competitively play (I'm using the term competitive losely here to mean win regularly.) with any army and so we have decreased creativity in army design and thus the game itself becomes a bit like the back of a shampoo bottle: lather, rinse, repeat. 

I, however, think that the community can influence gamers to branch out and be more creative with their army lists based on a few variables that make it possible to say that there is no set metagame. 

1) Army sampling, rules interpretation, and competitive level is regional.  What I mean by this is the fact that in one area of the world or country, players could vary in the armies they regularly play, the way they, as a group, interpret the rules, and how many players are truly "competitive gamers".  For instance, in the northeast United States, there appears to be quite a robust competitive gaming scene with many large tournaments offered yearly.  However, gaming in Montana and the Dakotas probably is a bit more casual (there are more head of livestock in the mentioned states than people). 

I have also heard many accounts of different rules interpretation from state to state, region to region, or even country to country.  One of the big things that Team USA mentioned after last year's ETC was that understandings about things such as terrain were a bit different to how they are generally interpretted here in the US.

Army sampling can also change.  For instance, one club might have a strong sampling of Tau and Tyranid players with relatively few Space Marine players while another my be exclusively Marines and their variants. 

2) Experience plays a huge part in what you can do with an army.  Again, an experienced player can play far more competitively with a sub-optimal list that they know inside and out than an inexperienced player can do with a fresh-off-the-line, optimized list.  Experience and tight gameplay trump lists.  Check out my post on that here. 

3) Imposed norms and comp can play a huge part in what an army can do.  If it is understood in a local club that MSU razorspamming is cheesy and powergame-ish, then fluffier armies might abound and do well.  Comp at larger tournaments does this as well. Points size at tournaments can do so as well.

So, the point here is that there are simply too many variables to consider in order to make one overarching metagame for 40k.  You can try to base your army preference and list building on the general consensus, but that doesn't mean that your local metagame or the metagame of tournament won't make all of your prep work for naught. 

That is where I just say, play the army you want to play.  If you really want to get to a point where you win games regularly, know the rules, play tight, and build lists that you like that have some competitive elements to them so that they are as balanced as possible.  You don't have to go out and get a hot of the presses netlist to enjoy the game and win. Play the way you want to.  Don't be intimidating into thinking that an army design or strategy won't work until you have tried it and proven that it does or doesn't.  Play on your own terms.

_____________________________________________________

Like this article? Subscribe to Gone to Ground for updates to other articles.

Who Says What's Competitive?

So, I really hate it when I see an army bashed because it doesn't have the textbook competitive elements.  Awhile back, I wrote an article that got some notice from House of Paincakes called, Guns to Kill People, People Kill People.  The premise of the article is that an army list alone doesn't win a game.  It requires a player, rules knowledge, startegy, and yes, a little luck with the dice.  I hate it when I see a post or comment on a forum that bashes an army list simply because it doesn't fit a set criteria for a competitive list. 

So what needs to happen when list advice is asked for?  I'm glad you asked! 

1) When a person proposes a list, they should also supply some kind of overall strategy for the army.  What do you hope to accomplish with the army?  How do you propose to win the three main BRB missions with the army?  What weaknesses do you see in the army?  How do you plan on protecting them?  Give me an idea of how you want the army to run.  This gives me some ammunition for helping you refine the idea.  You want to run an army of elite Blood Angel jumpers.  Let's talk about how you plan to do so.  You want to spam razorbacks in a Space Wolf list.  Tell me how you plan to cross the board. 

2) Tell what units you have to unconditionally keep.  In my Sanguinary Guard army I must have Dante and Sanguinary Guard.  Done.  If you want hordes of Thunderwolves for your Space Wolf army, tell me so. 

3) Tell why you are seeking advice.  Are you wanting to know if it can go 5-6 rounds undefeated in a competitive event?  That's a toughie.  Do you want to it for a local 3 game, 1 day event at your FLGS?  Do you want to run a theme-y army that can put up a bit of a fight?  That's a lot easier. 

4) Be prepared to hear criticism.  Then take it with a grain of salt.  You may hear some things you don't like.  That's cool.  If you think something will work in the army, try them out even if you are told they won't.  If you don't feel particularly attached to a unit and are told to drop it, do so.  Go with your gut.

For those giving advice:

1) Try to get an idea of what the person asking for advice is trying to do with the army.  Get a feel for the strategy they want to use.  Put yourself in their place. 

2) Try to stay true to the original vision.  If it just can't be done, fine, but if it can, don't squash the idea.

3) Give advice for where the person is.  If the asker isn't a tournament goer, but wants to win games, don't tell them their army won't work competitively.  Help them understand how it can put up a fight. 

4) Be kind.  Understand that different people have different playstyles and that they may actually be able to win with a list that doesn't look all that great to you. 

Here's the deal.  There is no overarching metagame for 40k.  Sure.  Some armies are grossly underpowered, but they can be made to play well in the right hands.  Various areas and gaming groups have different dynamics.  Whose to say a Necron army can't be the best army in a group.  Whose to say an Imperial Guard leafblower army won't lose with regularity in a local area of gamers.  Lists aren't made in isolation.  They are made within the premise of their authors' understanding, experience, and preferences.  When giving advice, try to help a person achieve their goal.  That is what most people want.  They want their ideas validated, not to be crushed into the interweb netlist machine.  Allow some creativity and individuality for crying out loud.

End rant. 

Really?!

Are Grey Knights really changing the entire game of 40k, folks?  I mean seriously, they aren't that bad. There are a few armies who seriously will just struggle (sorry Nids), but let's face it.  GW has done a fairly good job of keeping the game balanced.  If you don't believe me, take a look at 7th edition WFB for a look at unbalanced.  We have it made folks.  Now take a minute to stop crying, change your underpants, and relax.