jervisjohnsons

I've been thinking lately about how to improve my skills as a player, and I've come to the conclusion that I am just not that good. I know the rules very well, I know the armies and how the units function very well, I know tactics. My problem is not with those individual details, but the final product - how do you win at warhammer?

So I pose the question to you guys, how do YOU win at this game? I figure it comes to 3 main points, though feel free to add more if I am missing something:

1. What makes a good army list?
2. What tactics do you apply to said army?
3. What is your metagame? For exampel, if you have magic and shooting, do you use it to kill off your opponents light units, weaken their mainstay units, both, neither? And so on.

Any help is appreciated!

Myke, your basic problem isn't that you’re a bad player you just take chances when you don't need to, and don't commit when you’re supposed to.

For years now you've blamed your dice, but it really has nothing to do with it, you need to build lists that are more resilient, and don't depend on one thing going right to win the game.

You and I always have good games, but I can always look back and see right where the mistake was made that cost you the entire game. Learning how to be better at this has allot more to do with studding how you lost and not how to win.

Ludwig, fair enough, this is why I have stopped playing elves. But that doesn't help me improve either!

See, back years and years ago in 5th ed. I played Chaos and I won a lot of games. I knew how to make the killer list and go for the throat. Some where along the way (I suspect 40K messed me up) I lost that killer instinct. Now I am trying to get it back. I am asking for advice on how to do that.

One thing I have discovered is that when I listen to my gut I do well. But when I listen to my brain I do poorly. The WE list I took to Crossroads got me 12th, to Colonial last year 7th. That was trusting my instinct. The DE and Chaos lists I have taken I listened to my brain, and did poorly. So I know to trust my instincts, but I don't understand what they are telling me. My hope is that listening to others advice will help me decipher my own thoughts on the game, and thus how to win.

If I were you i'd go back to basics and start there, build a list you think is effective. Will do some playtesting and start from there, Like I said back to basics.

mkistler wrote:I've been thinking lately about how to improve my skills as a player, and I've come to the conclusion that I am just not that good.

very true...

think more abstractly about your moves, take risks, play the player not the game. it isn't all numbers. Warhammer is a lot like poker to me.. minus the whole list construction part.

That's a good place to start.

Here's what I see, knowing you:

You intentionally hamstring yourself with both list design and playing style.

First, you pick lists that simply are not very good, but always with a good reason. You want to use the models you have, the models that are cool to paint, or the models that are part of a project. I've never seen you sit down and crank out a list that's primary objective was to win. Whereas most people hamstring themselves with comp, you tend to do it with paint.

Second, you don't play in a style that leads to consist performance. This amplifies the above. One of the reasons I do as well as I do is that I design sledge hammers into my lists, then go around turning everyone else's army into nails. I make sure that not only my list, but my core tactics put me at an immediate advantage against 75%+ of the opponents I'll face. So even with mistakes, they're working uphill.

What you do is you show up with a toolbox full of tools, with everything but a sledge hammer and then have problems when presented with an opponent with alot of nails.

(and a sledge hammer isn't an uber unit. It's a set of cost effective units)

This might seem like it's a matter of just army list, but it's not. It's a matter of tactics, which should be worked out long before tournmant day. One of the reasons I did well with the stank list (in addition to the fact that it was the stank list) is that I worked out in advance how to have a decent shot against the stuff I shouldn't have a decent shot against.

Here's my tip for you: start trading armies with your clubmates. Play brian's daemons and roll over your own elves, and you'll start to see the holes. Then plug them, even if it means leaving the best models on the shelf.

Over the years you've clearly lost some love for the game, and I think part of it is the frustration of never being able to fufill the bullshit dream of winning with a shit army against good players. Let the dream die!

Good stuff Ed, I think you pretty much nailed it. for whatever reason I could make those ruthless lists in 40k, but haven't been able to pull it off in fantasy for a long time.

I have gotten around to finishing my Demons finally and have been playing some games with them. The difference is so obvious it hurts. Only problem is nobody around here plays anymore...

Right now my list is similar to Brians list, but that is mainly due to models on hand. Note that this time its also an effective list! But I would like to work on my own DL army that is powerful but not 0 comp.

Now is anyone gonna post some more general advice? Seriously guys, I'm an engineer, I know you guys aren't, but just this once, engineer something for me. Walk me through the thought process. For example:

1. When making a list what are the key ingredients? Do you make sure to have something to deal with a BT? What if your army doesn't handle a BT well, do you ignore it entirely or do the best you can? If you are taking 2 RBT's in a DE list, do you bother to take additional units to protect them, or simply let the chips fall?

2/ When it comes to advance tactics what are you thinking about? Are you thinking this army will always rush up one flank? Or going for a more flexible army that can use multiple tactics?

3. What is your metagame? I know Ed usually tries to eliminate the opponents support units first, specifically fast units, then go down the line in target priority. Ludwig always shuts down the opponents magic phase and tries to dominate one phase of the game.

I'm trying to come up with a good mortals list right now I can't break the habit of taking what I think is cool, not whats effective!

Engineer to the rescue!

Or not. Maybe engineers are just bad at Warhammer...

I feel like I am pretty much in the same boat as you. I have been playing this game for longer then I can remember, and can't even seem to pull a 500 record lately. I have been having a tendency towards softer lists in the last few years as well, but honestly I think it's more fun to be the underdog.

My advice to you: Learn how to have a good time even when you are losing.

1. When making a list what are the key ingredients? Do you make sure to have something to deal with a BT? What if your army doesn't handle a BT well, do you ignore it entirely or do the best you can? If you are taking 2 RBT's in a DE list, do you bother to take additional units to protect them, or simply let the chips fall?



I would say the army has to work well together, take my lizardmen for example, there not the typical build, but the whole army is able to keep up with each other. I’d say as far as a BT or any large monster goes your army should at least be able to distract it if it can’t deal with it.
If you look at every army I’ve built that actually works, mortals lizards, VC they all do this

Mortals- gateway
VC- raise and dance
Lizards –poison

As far as protecting units go I really think you deployment should do this more than your army if you committing things to protect other units then your making you army less effective in my opinion.



2/ When it comes to advance tactics what are you thinking about? Are you thinking this army will always rush up one flank? Or going for a more flexible army that can use multiple tactics?


This is my favorite part of the process, I always try to build lists that either make my opponent kill what I want them to, or do something that takes there army out of it’s comfort zone. Again will take the lizards for example, I always no matter the opponent cut the board in half with my army by moving everything ahead 12inches turn one. You’re now dealing with my army on its best terms, instead of yours. Trying to do too much with a list always seem to be bad from my experience.

2. What is your metagame? I know Ed usually tries to eliminate the opponents support units first, specifically fast units, then go down the line in target priority. Ludwig always shuts down the opponents magic phase and tries to dominate one phase of the game.


This again goes back to the point I just made, I always think your army should do a few thing well and one thing extremely well. That’s why my armies always dominate one aspect of the game.
[/quote]

Screw that! Losing can be fun, but don't plan around it. That would be like going out looking for fat girls. Sure, they're fun if that's how it works out, but don't just accept that's the way it's going to be!

Mike, my in game tactics are pretty simple. I look at my army and my opponent's army and then line up my offense with their defense and vice versa in rock, paper, scissors style. (not line up literally, but that's how I do my threat sequencing)

I then try to smash their scissors with my rocks, their rocks with my paper, etc. The fast stuff has to die first because...it's fast!

It just happens that in alot of the armies I build I have alot of static elements like bolt throwers and cannons that are threatened by flyers and fast cav, so I also build in alot of stuff to deal with them, and apply it right away. That's why I tend to put in so much magic missile offense in my armies: to protect my stuff that kills bloodthirsters.

I think if you build an army that can reliably do the following, you're off to a good start:

1. Kill a blood thirster in two turns without engaging it in combat (shooting or magic)
2. Gut two fast cav\flyer warmachine hunter units a turn
3. Hold up two 'lanes' of traffic for several combat phases.

Excellent points guys, thanks for he help! I am going to write down a list o things I need to keep jn mind when making an army and how it plays.

Thought i'd chime in as well (paul from tfg)
I don't pretend to have the experience in fantasy that ed/ ludwig do, but through conversing with them and brain storming do have some thoughts on what helps me "win" or my goal of playing better.

1. What makes a good army list?
My army of choice is skaven. I have demons, beastman, but i like the rats. When building a list, I work towards the armies strengths, shooting, magic, numbers, I also eliminate units I know will not work with my play style IE plague priests, rat ogres, assassin are gone. I like high leadership, so I go with a warlord, I like heavy magic 3 engineers. Then I go 2 units of jezzails, and 2 gutter runners, because it works. Simple and effective. A "good" skaven army should have numbers, and also be able to handle or defray armies. So plague monks can work, that's what i'm building now.

2. What tactics do you apply to said army?
My army build is numbers, so I apply rank/ flank. Flee and flank. And typically refused flank deployment with a magic heavy concentration on 1 area of the opponents army. This allows me to focus on overloading that side, and then number really can help. I'm not going to beat a demon player head up, but i can beat them with careful sacrificing, and longevity of the game. I know I cannot massacre for a win, but a solid victory could happen. So I look at what I need to kill for points, then what can be killed, then what WILL kill me. I priority rank them, and go for it. Fuck it if dice fail me.

3. What is your metagame?
I'm always asking feedback from opponents most of the time. I ask them what worked? what were they afraid off? what impressed them? and what do they think needs to leave the list? From there I plug it into my phone or write it on the back of a copy of their army list. I read over and see if these will change my list. Example Rohen from Warmongers loved my list, but mentioned for me to slow down during deployment. So I started timing myself. I average deploying a 18 deployment army in less than 5 mins. IE i'm excited to play. But I need to slow down.

4. Know your army, what is its weakness.
Knowing your armies weakness is big because it will tell you want to kill. I noticed throwing an opponent off their game is big too. At the last showcase, I broke a unit of Knights Errant witha flank charge of slaves on turn 2, my opponent was appalled, but numerically i knew i needed 1 wound to win. I got that wound with a lot of luck, and 3 ranks+outnumber+flank is great vs opponent having a standard.. i'm up by 4 vs leadership 8 without a general or bsb, before 1 wound. Killing fast cav typically means i'm the only one re-directing charges in the game, and killing that 5 man unit of fast cav typically mean panic check. Hiding my army on turn 1, mean gutter runners into opponents cannons on turn 2.

All in all, i focus on fun. My goal in a 5 game event is 2 wins and a draw. I'm doing average to good this year with:

Colonial I went 2-3-1, close loss to a demon player, loss to vs dance spam, loss to lizardman player that I think in another go around I can beat because I knew nothing about the slaan+engine list.

Showcase last event 2-1. Draw to beastman that was a fun and great game. Massacred a bretonnian army, i deployed great, and my giant got
jump up and down. Massacre vs an orc army.

2999? Who knows, i think i'm in the good comp bracket with a skaven army, scary huh? Vs most of the field i'm probably playing from behind, god knows what i'll do vs VC at that point value, but my goal is fun, and laughs, i'm pretty sure I can succeed with that.

Ludwig wrote:If I were you i'd go back to basics and start there, build a list you think is effective. Will do some playtesting and start from there, Like I said back to basics.

I think that's really important and Ludwig makes a really good point.
I play soft lists because they are fun and that's what I want to use. Sure you can take pointers from other good players but I think it really depends on you, look at what you had success with and build up on that. Kind of like the WE list I took to baltimore which several people said would get rolled and ended up 4-1. You can borrow tricks from others but play style should be your own. I could never refuse a flank like Aaron can (I can't space units as precisely) and I could never play the stanks like Ed (I just feel uncomfortable). Just apply what worked for YOU in the past and apply it to everything.

Paul, thanks for the breakdown. Exactly what I was looking for, the though process someone puts into their army.

Nof, also agree. Like I said, when I take lists that *I* think are good I do good, but I listen to my brain, ie others advice, I do bad. Not that I know best, just that I know my style best.