View Full Version : Remove the randomness

01-09-2009, 18:35
If you were to put together a tournament sized army, and your only consideration was taking as much of the randomness or dice rolls out of the equation as possible, what you you build your army to look like?

For example, undead and deamons automatically don't care about fear, terror, or panic and are unbreakable. Dward handguns are +1 to hit and Longbeards are immune to panic. Rungfangs auto wound with no saves.

I'm configuring a Dwarf army around the "minimizing dice rolls" theme, and I'm curious if anyone has tried this with any other armies.

01-09-2009, 18:52
Not for the entire army, but with my WoC it's pretty standard issue to give most units Mark of Slaanesh or Mark of Khorne to make them immune to fear, terror and panic respectively immune to psychology all together. It really helps for fighting VC so your units won't autoflee when they fight a massive block of skeletons for example, go near something terrorcausing.

01-09-2009, 19:01
If you want the most stable armies, you probably want Dwarfs or Tomb Kings honestly. Very little randomness, you generally know what your units are going to do before they do it and dice have little impact on it (warmachines and the Bone Giant aside). You just do what you do, methodically and relentlessly until your opponent can counter or are run off the table/into the ground.

Sure it's more complicated than that, but that's how my TK games play out in a nutshell. I play my game without worrying too much about my opponents game plan (except their magic offense since I have terrible magic defense comparative to my "offense") because I know what my units can and will be able to accomplish in battle. Very little surprises me or catches me off guard...except lucky catapult shots, rolling 14 on my Light of Death roll or unexpected Killing Blows to important enemy characters. :D

01-09-2009, 19:07
Well, HE can be pretty psych resistant too, with high Ld and a couple magic banners along with a couple Fear/Terror causers too.

I've run a "everything but warmachines and throw-away core" is immune to fear/terror and it does well against fear/terror causers but throws quite a few points away against things that don't cause psych.

01-09-2009, 19:09
Have to agree w/Enigmatik. If you want reliability and want to lose the random factor, Dwarfs are one of the best choices besides Undead/Daemons.

TK and Dwarfs would probably rank highest on a list that rated the armies from most stable to least, while O&G and perhaps BoC would rank lowest. Naturally, every player tries to design his list in such a way that it's effective and leaves as little to chance as possible. Even O&G players do this when they write in, say, 2 units of wolf riders instead of 1 and send both after the same target; reliability is something you just don't get w/O&G so lists need to be written w/this in mind.

01-09-2009, 19:48
If you want to minimize randomness then one way is by maximizing rolls. I find my Khorne Cavalry is very consistent because I roll a ridiculous amount of dice in every round of combat (of course as long as they're frenzied they're also ITP which helps).

01-09-2009, 21:02
TK must be the list that is least dependent on your own dice rolls. Magic always goes off and all units are undead. they beat VC due to more reliable magic and dwarfs due to never running from combat. Although dwarfs used to be stable the LD bomb can actually make them run (or at least try to)

02-09-2009, 14:13
I was thinking that the Dwarfs are the way to go, but interesting points about the TK too. I've got them both available, although I've not played the TK much. I'll toy with their list and see what I come up with.

02-09-2009, 14:21
The most reliable warmachine is a bolt thrower, due to its inability to misfire.

02-09-2009, 14:26
A deamon army with big blocks (for the static combat res) backed up by a BSB. Would be even mroe reliable if those big blocks were deamonettes so you could give them the stubborn banner.

02-09-2009, 14:27
Don't play Orcs and Goblins.

02-09-2009, 15:05
In general, if you want to avoid bad/good luck swings that can change a game, get more dice rolls in. The more dice you are rolling, the less that luck sways things. Playing an army mimizing dice rolls is doing the opposite of removing randomness. If you could simplify it down to "I win on a single roll of # or higher" it would be swayed completely by luck, for example (regardless of that number, assuming 1 is fail).

It always amuses me when people have worked out the "statistical average" number of wounds their character is going to do on their charge, when it has maybe 3-4 attacks. "I was supposed to get 2.125 wounds! ...But only got 1! What awful terrible luck D:"

I dont get too upset when my plaguebearers fail 3/3 regenerates. Rolling so few dice, you can't realistically expect any statistical consistancy.

As for a reliable army, I play mono-god Nurgle demons. Big blocks mostly, with a BSB and heralds in there. Very reliable in the way that I can completely expect how well they will survive. Not particularly reliable in their damage output, untill epidemius kicks in for the 4+ poison.

Its an army that, in most cases, ignores the enemies profile. It always hits and wounds on a roll of 4+, and always saves on a 5+, 4+. The upside: doesnt matter if you have strength10 auto-hit attacks, you just dont do that much damage. The downside: It doesnt matter who is attacking, I am as vunerable to a goblin spear as a giants club. Smile when that unit of heavy knights charges and gets one wound, frown when the goblin wolf riders charge and get 2; Smile when a cannon bounces of your unit, frown when noblars throw **** and kill 4 guys.

02-09-2009, 21:40
I play VC because of the reliability. The good thing about them is that not only are they very reliable but they've got some extremely powerful units and heroes

02-09-2009, 21:48
I play VC because of the reliability.

That's what I used to do too... then I rolled a miscast of double 1 for my vampire lord... :eek::cries:

Personally I think randomness is fun. Maybe that's the reason I give most of my generals items that grant stupidity... :p

03-09-2009, 02:18
I recognize that there's always going to be randomness. If I wanted to play a game without chance, I'd play chess. However, I don't want to win or lose based on those a much as possible.

I took an O&G list to a tourney a few months ago. I was set up to charge two units in a beautifully played tactic. I proceeded to roll a 1 on my animosity roll for both units. That cost me the game. That wasn't my only example, but certainly the most blatant one.

03-09-2009, 02:35
Redundancy is really the only way to minimize bad luck, as items that do something precisely without fail (ie. the Runefang) are priced very high because you don't have to worry about rolling 1's.

One unit of Fast Cavalry may not get to the War Machines because a lucky template fell square onto them, but two units will have a much better chance. One Great Cannon might misfire on that fateful shot to bring down the opposing monster, but 2 are not likely to both misfire on the same turn. 5 Knights might miss horrendously on their charge, but 15 from 3 units likely will not.

When dice roll bad, the best consolation I can think of is having a second unit for a second chance at the same scenario. Minimize luck through maximizing models on the table is a good way to start. I think GW had this in mind when they designed the system that the surest way to win is to have more dudes. :p