News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: How to Win With Imperial Guard - Part 27: Not so much win, as play competitively  (Read 1522 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
HTWWIG – Part 27: Does Competitive Play Still Exist, and How Can I Play That Way?

NOTE: I don't have a problem with the name change to Astra Militarum. I'm just so used to calling them Imperial Guard that the new name still feels funny on my tongue. There's no real short form. You used to be able to call this faction, “The Guard” and everyone knew what you meant. Calling them, “The Militarum” just sounds militarded. As such, call them what you will. I don't care that the official name is now the AM. I'm just used to calling them IG, so that's what I use.

The Short Version: This is a reboot of a series I started quite some time ago. I feel like it needs to have the foundation relaid, so this is the start of that effort. I can't really speak about how to WIN with Imperial Guard anymore. There are so many combinations of Data-slates, Imperial Armour, Allies, Knights, Inquisitor Gangs, Lords of War, Fortifications... If a person wants to “WIN” there are just too many options to consider that it goes beyond my ability and interest to pursue. What I'm interested in, is the creation of Take All Comers lists. Lists that have a reasonable chance of winning, no matter what you face. I see this as playing competitively. Competitive play is a mindset that falls between...

Home-brew loving, Rules as Intended, Role-play inspired, loosey-goosey, do what you feel gaming...

and

Hardcore, RAW [No time to spell it out, Newb], model for advantage, win at all cost, do what you think you can get away with gaming.

This mindset does exist. It is shared by most of the people I play against in the London, Ontario area. The best part is that it is adaptable to both the Fluffy players, and the WAAC players. Competitive play doesn't require much from your opponents, in the grand scheme of things. It's all in your head, so to speak. Winning isn't the only thing, but it's still important... and fun!


I'm Baaack! I'm back in the saddle agaaainn!

That's a throwback from a song they wrote about getting back into something you enjoy. I'm pretty sure they used it in the movie How Stella Got Her Groove back, a fine documentary about war gaming, if my memory serves correctly. At one time, I was a regular creator of works about Imperial Guard, and I've lately had a desire to do so again. The previous installments can be found, and if you do a Google search for How to Win With Imperial Guard and scroll down a bit... you can still find it. Out of date, and rapidly losing relevance, but it remains.

So why get back into this now? Well, Guard have taken a bit of a hit, and they aren't as straight forward to play as they might seem. Several “tricks” have been pulled from the book, and it seems like the notion that “The only way to win with Guard is to blast the hell out of them until there's nothing left... but Serpents will pwn you.” has taken a rather deep hold on the community. And I don't like that. Our proud Guardsmen are still a competitive choice, and truthfully, I have yet to meet someone rocking 5 Serpents, or Trip-Tide, or Daemon-Star, or any of the “top-tier” tourney lists. I think I've played against one or two unbound lists, and they weren't too bad.

There's more to Guard than kill'em'all, and I want to explore that.


Defining Competitive Play:

In my mind, competitive play is a game in which both sides have a reasonable chance of winning. The game should be challenging for both parties, without either party feeling like they are without the possibility of winning. Competitive play requires that both players feel that seeing the game through, come what may, is a worthy endeavor even if the outcome seems nearly certain. Both players have some stake in the outcome of the game. Specifically, bragging rights, but not much else.

I find that poker is an excellent way to illustrate the different levels of investment in the game. There are obviously more than 3 levels, but I think that players can probably associate with one of the following categories.

I play poker with 5 of my friends, and we each buy in for $1.00. I really don't care if I win or lose, neither does anyone else. I'm apt to do things like go all in with a pair of 2's, I try things that I wouldn't if “real” money was on the line. We play for an hour, and the winner gets to buy coffee for a couple of days. The reward isn't the prize money. The reward is spending time with friends, having a couple of drinks, maybe eating some munchies, and just generally having something to do while we hang out. I liken this to “Fluffy” players, that enjoy the game for it's story telling qualities. Much like playing a pen-and-paper role playing game, the reward is less about the ending, but instead about the process of getting there. Telling a story, celebrating the creative impulse, imagining one's self in the shoes of your character/s as they slay the dragon / save the maiden / destroy the Land Raider. Win or lose, it was fun to play the game. I was never much for this end of the spectrum, likely because I was an avid Dungeons and Dragons player, so I got those kicks from that game. A competitive player may find playing a “Fluffy” player to be boring. There's no challenge to kicking a puppy, so to speak. A competitive player will likely need to engage in active self restraint to maintain a challenge level to their liking. Perhaps join the fluff, and give personality traits to your units, and try to play them with that mindset, while trying to win the game. It's disturbingly much like managing employees. You want them to work a certain way, but you have to play within the bounds you impose. I played a game against an opponent that I could have easily curb-stomped. Instead of going for the crushing win, I gave a few key units some “personality” for the game. My Commissar was hyper aggressive, leading his troops towards the nearest enemy. Kind of sucked for the blob squad that was running around snap firing their heavy weapons all game, but it was kind of fun. My Russes both had cowards for commanders, so they had to move as far away from any enemy within 24” as they could. They would also target those enemy within 24” ahead of other, more important targets. My Veteran's Sergeant had a death-wish, seeking to go out in a blaze of glory. He chased after whatever the nastiest unit on the board was, amusingly killing a bunch of stuff on his spree before being chopped up by a SM Lord. By artificially increasing my difficulty, I was able to enjoy a challenging game by only having “full” control of about half my units. :)


Next, I play poker with 5 of my friends, and we each buy in for $10.00. I would really like to win, because I could afford to buy a box of models with the winnings. That said, I'm wagering a meal at a fast food joint. If I lose I have to brown-bag my lunch for 5 days next week instead of 4. I'm not apt to go overboard with my wagers, but I'm still going to play a hunch if I get bored. We play for an hour or two, have lots of laughs, eat some munchies, have a few tense moments, maybe a couple of heated glares, but in the end we all have a good time. We shake hands, and congratulate the winner. We ask him what he's going to buy, and then mock that choice relentlessly, because that's how we roll in the GIA. [The Greater Ingersoll Area, for the uninitiated] In the end, it's about the bragging rights, and being able to classlessly flaunt your ill-gotten model a couple of weeks later at the next game. :) I see this as the “Competitive” mindset. I want to win, because I enjoy the bragging rights. I enjoy that little bit of acclaim or notoriety that goes along with being the local champ. I invest a bit of ego, and my opponent hopefully does the same, and whomever wins gets that sweet taste of victory... for about 10 minutes before the game dissection begins.

“I should have done this, you got lucky with that, your unit is cheesy, you can't say that while you're rocking that stinky block of cheese there, yeah, I should have taken Unit A instead of B...”

This is my personal sweet spot of gaming, and I've been fortunate to mostly run into like-minded individuals, even if they wouldn't call themselves competitive.

Then, I play poker with 5 complete strangers at a Casino, and I buy in for $100.00. I also relish the opportunity to leave the asylum for a while, because I've lost my mind, my wife, and my children. That's the only way I'm going to the casino with $100.00... That practicality aside, I am ONLY concerned with winning. That $100 could have funded the purchase of a couple boxes of models, and they would have brought me decades of gaming fun. Instead, I'm probably going to lose that money in the matter of an hour or two, to complete strangers. I'm not here for chit-chat, or camaraderie. I'm here to beat down my opponents, without mercy, and can expect the same. If I win, I can probably buy that entire army I have my eye on... I see this mindset as the WAAC way of playing. Not all tourney players fall into this view, but if you've paid an entry fee, and there's a financial prize for winning the tournament, then rational self interest would lead a person to attempt to win by any means necessary. Power-gaming, rules-lawyering, bribing the judge with pizza and beer... if the prize is awarded to the winner, and you want that prize, then “fun” doesn't mean a whole lot. Some people also “over invest” their ego in games, which can lead to a similar WAAC mentality. If your sense of personal worth is tied to the score of your game, then you're likely playing with a WAAC mind-set.

I'm not trying to sound judgey about that.

Cards on the table, I've been there. I occasionally slip into that mindset. Sometimes I even enjoy being in that mindset, if I run into another WAAC player. Maybe that's my inner, vicious, predatory self coming out to play, but if I can't be honest on the anonymous internet, where can I be? In the end, everyone, everywhere, runs into a WAAC player from time to time. They might even be a regular opponent. Complaining about it doesn't get you anywhere though, when you take a competitive mindset. A competitive player will take the opportunity to learn from the game, to improve their strategies, and maybe even discover a few new tactics on the way. A competitive player is never a victim. They always believe they have a chance, they just have to figure it out. They own their losses, take responsibility for them, and improve themselves for the next game.

A competitive player also recognizes that there's an imbalance in the wager that each player is investing. The competitive player invests a small portion of their ego into the game, while the WAAC player invests [nearly?] all of their ego. Defeating a WAAC player, using the competitive mindset, is ssssooooooooooo deliciously decadent that it is worth many defeats, just to savour that one amazing game in which you beat his nasty army into the dust. Hmmm... that doesn't sound very nice, but competitive isn't always “nice.” ;) Maybe I'll come back to that later.


So what does a Competitive game of 40k look like?

Battleforged vs Unbound:

Battleforged armies have limits that, ideally, prevent massive abuse of spammed units. Hypothetically, a competitive player isn't going to take units that simply overwhelm the game at the expense of their opponent's good time. At the same time, the competitive player wants to win, and since all players develop their own ideas about “good” and “bad” units, there is a tendency to take a couple of those “best” units in a given FOC chart, and maybe one other of the “good” units. Blood Angels, for example, can't really be faulted for taking a pair of fast Vindicators in their HS slots, though 3 is kind of cheesy...

My general view is that if you take 3 of something, you're probably not playing a game in which you're actively considering your opponent's ability to be on equal footing. Taking 3 Land Raiders, for example, is banking on your opponent simply not being able to deal with your Armour, rather than a serious strategic concern. Let's be honest, LR's aren't that great. Did I mention I'm not fond of Land Raiders? I've never faced Trip-tides, but that also seems like a reliance on your opponent not having an abundance of AP2 weapons to be able to deal with the punishment quickly enough to preserve their forces. Everyone's metagame is different, but only taking the “best” unit in a slot is probably not leaving many tactical options besides kill'em'all. I'm just sayin'. There are obviously some exceptions, especially in the Troops department. While Battleforged armies aren't guaranteed to be more competitive than Unbound, I find that the added structure makes it more likely to occur.

All of that said...

The benefits of being Battleforged are entirely metagame dependent.

An Imperial Tank Commander [HQ Choice] might be included in a list that very strongly wants a specific Warlord Trait. Because their trait list is only half a standard chart, they're much more likely to get the specific trait that they want, when compared to a CCS for example. Part of that list's strategy is to Outflank a nasty pair of units into their opponent's deployment zone. By going BF, that player has a 56% chance to roll the desired Grand Strategist trait.

Wait, building a “strategy” on a coin flip? And then you only have a 2/3 chance of getting 2 or more units to outflank? We're talking a “strategy” that only works 37% of the time! That's not a strategy, that's a bonus. Going unbound, the player would only have a 22% chance of that working, so we're looking at a 15% increase to the odds of getting our ideal trait / volume mix. It's still NOT going to happen significantly more often than it will. In my mind, the trait re-roll is hardly a reason to be Battleforged. A nice bonus, sometimes, but hardly game changing, especially if we're looking at trying to craft a strategy around it. That effect isn't sufficiently reliable to alter a list around.

So what about Objective Secured? Well, that's going to depend on your opponents play style, and whether you're playing Eternal War scenarios or Maelstrom of War scenarios. Objective secured is much more valuable in MoW missions, than it is in EW missions, and I'll come back to that claim later on.

For now, let's think about our opponent's play style in comparison to the Guard. We'll also assume EW missions, which I find to be more competitive. Again, I'll come back to that claim later on. Objective Secured comes into play when units are about 8” away, or less. For example, my unit is on one side of an objective, about 3” away. My opponent's unit is on the other side, about 3” away. Let's say that we're 7” away from each other.

We are going to have a relative power balance between two, or more units. To give us a starting point, I'm going to look at two Guard units. A unit of 10 Storm Troopers [Scions for you younger folks] and a 25 strong unit of Conscripts led by a Commissar.

In contrast, let's consider “weaker” units without OS, and with OS. Let's say a pair of Nob Bikers [non-troop] and 5 Fire Warriors.

Without resorting to Math-hammer, a brief thought experiment will probably show that the Stormies and Conscripts will dispatch both units. In both cases, the units will likely wind up “uncontested” so OS has little value there.

Now imagine the units paired up against “stronger” units. Let's imagine 12 Burna Boyz [no OS?] and then a 10 man CSM squad, with BP, CCW, and the Mark of Khorne [OS]... for the giggles.

Those Burna Boyz are apt to destroy the Scions outright, assuming they make it into a decent range. The Scions will probably put some hurt back on them, but too little too late, I'd bet. I'm going to say the stronger unit, without OS, will probably win out between the two.

The Khorne-ish Marines might not chop their way through every last Scion, if they're lucky and it's the end of the game. Sucks for them though, because the Khorners have OS! Booo! The same can probably be imagined for Vets with Carapace. OS probably doesn't help them much at all.

So how do the Conscripts fare? They'll probably survive both encounters, assuming late-game proximity. The Cons benefit from OS, because they're tough, and are going to survive to the end of the game... hopefully.

What I'm trying to point out, is that tough units gain a lot more from OS than flimsy units, when you're playing Eternal War missions. Unless you're blobbing infantry with a leader, chances are good that other armies have tougher units, or units that are so straight up killier than yours at close range, that OS isn't going to do much for you. Plague Marines are one of the Troop units that most thoroughly benefit from OS, as they're tough enough to resist all but the most destructive of close ranged combatants. Veterans that are camping an objective aren't going to survive multiple turns against an Elite / Fast Attack choice that's aiming to kill them. Not in my metagame, anyhow. Something to consider, in your own metagame.

Sooo, in my view, the benefits of building a Battleforged list are not particularly significant for Imperial Guard. They're nice perks, or bonuses, what-have-you. I personally like using infantry, and I like the benefits that using a CCS adds to those infantry, so I have little reason to NOT go Battleforged, and enjoy those perks that come along with it. It also helps to avoid that slippery slope that is...

[Ran out of space...]

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Unbound.

At what point does unbound leave the realms of competitive, and enter the realms of the broken, the brutal, the assy? Well, I figure that most armies have a character that turns something into a troop choice. So if you shift something from another slot, into the Troops slot, and then build what would then be a BF list, you're probably doing just fine.

If you have a solid idea for a “Fluffy” list that just can't work in a typical FOC, but you can break some unit choices into a re-imagined FOC, and you aren't just creating the most powerful force you can imagine... you're probably OK.

For example, I want to play an IG's Scout Company, using the Fast Attack options as the primary focus. I decide to put the following units into the following “FOC” slots. These aren't front line Vets. They're seldom involved in direct combat, so I'm trying to keep that in mind.

HQ: CCS, Commissars, Priest, Tech Priests

EL: Scions, Platoon Command Squads, Heavy Weapon Teams, Special Weapon Teams

TR: Scout Sentinels, Infantry Squads

FA: Rough Riders, Vendetta, Valkyrie

HS: Hellhound Squadrons, Armoured Sentinels, Conscripts

The idea would be to play a fast moving list, similar to what I think the Elysian list would be like... but since I don't have the book I don't know for sure. I see this modified list as having a sort of, “Scout units that call in Air Support when needed,” kind of vibe. Quite frankly, any Guard list that forgoes Russes isn't exactly playing a power-house build.

I decided that infantry should, by and large, be mounted in a Bird. I put anything that could fit in a Vendetta in the Elites section, as they have concentrated firepower that complements the high firepower Vendetta. I think these would be “destructive” pairings, so made them Elites. The exception would be Conscripts, which due to their minimum size would have to foot slog.

Scout Sentinels felt like the real Troops choices here, but since all armies should have more than one troop choice, I added the humble Infantry Squad as well, with a personal restriction that they'd need to have a Valk for a transport.

The Fast Attack are, well, the fastest Vehicles and the fastest non-vehicles. Just that simple, really. :)

The Heavy Support choices are the slower, generally tougher choices that this list could bring.

An Unbound list that, if it sticks to a standard FOC, should be competitive without being broken. I think. I haven't play tested it, it's just an idea.

If you're rocking a hundred Russes as a list, chances are you're taking advantage of what is probably our best point-for-point unit... so don't do that. ;)


So... Unbound doesn't necessarily mean wicked, broken, face-beating evil. If the ideals of the Competitive mindset are observed, you can certainly play that way without fear of being that guy. Of course, if you're going to take a couple of Troops and an HQ anyhow, there's precious little reason to not go for Battleforged. Unless you really, really want to use 5 separate Russes. But then you should look at the notes above.


Denouement:

So, this has been my opening look at what it means to play competitively, with a quick look at selecting forces. Next installment looks to see how competitive Eternal War missions are compared to Maelstrom of War missions. It will explore how the 7th edition rules for objective placement impact the use of Fortifications, and their impact on the broad roles that all IG units fall into.

Thanks for reading, good luck and good gaming.

Tom Parks

 


Powered by EzPortal