How to Win a game of Warhammer

[thrawn]

Just felt like sharing my observations over the past several months of playing (with 2 very differnt armies, WE and Chaos Dwarfs). i have also been playing for 15 years, but this is what's sticking in my head now more then usual, who knows, in 15 years i might be saying the complete opposite!

What I have found is that 90% of the game is nothing. You don’t need anything to work as nothing is happening. It’s that first clash, that crucial turn, when you need your spells to get off, you need to hit, you need to wound, that one turn that will swing the game one way or the other. That’s why I always try to take something that will minimise chance. Re-rolls, are amazing, dispel scrolls, auto hits or +1 to hit, etc. this I think makes or breaks a game. You see, both you and your opponent are doing the exact same thing, lining up your best unit against his, doing some quick numbers in your head, and thinking to yourself “so long as I roll average I should win here.” It’s when you fluff your attacks that cost you they game. an example is the Hurricanum with it’s +1 hit, or the mortis engine that gives you +1 to regen., this helps to make sure that once you make contact with your enemy, you don’t rely too heavily on chance and totally fluff it up with bad rolling.

That’s also why I love steadfast. It’s the best thing in the game. On Monday, my Orc ally charged his horde of big’uns into the opponents horde of bloodletters. 2 combat turns in a row he fluffed his attacks (rolled bad) but because he had like 60 guys, he was steadfast. Eventually he rolled normally, and wiped out the bloodletters. What’s just as good as re-rolls/+1 to hit/+1 to wound, etc? bringing so many guys that no matter how bad you fluff, you’ll stay in combat long enough until eventually your luck turns.

Anyways, that’s my opinion on how to win warhammer. We can all customise great lists, do math hammer all day, and calculate what’s going to win combat against what all day. The problem is the dice might not co-operate. Use everything you can to minimise chance. If you can reduce the odds, and you know your unit can beat his, in my opinion you got the game in the bag.

That’s my 2 cents.

[Bring_Back_Chaos_Dwarfs?]

Well, I don't know if 90% of the game is nothing. Setting up your troops initially and then positioning them and maneuvering them each turn isn't nothing, it's still doing something. I guess I find this confusing :

"You don’t need anything to work as nothing is happening. It’s that first clash, that crucial turn, when you need your spells to get off, you need to hit, you need to wound, that one turn that will swing the game one way or the other. That’s why I always try to take something that will minimise chance."

I mean yeah I get the point to an extent (things can turn on a dime and the best laid plans can go to waste). But still, you are also constantly trying to set up the best situation at any time - it's not nuclear physics, but it's enough to occupy your mind or be somewhat engaging.
Anyways. What I really wanted to say is
You play Wood Elves AND Chaos Dwarfs?!! HOLY COW YOU ROCK!

[Sloppyjayman]

Alot of what you say is true. The dice can make or break any game. Strategy is in increasing your odds of doing well. Firstly, you need to assume you are going to roll average and go from there. The great part of warhammer is dealing with none average roll and adjusting to it.

In a game this week, 30 Graveguard with GW (+1 to hit banner) are charged by 35 Dwarf Warriors with GW. We attack at the same time. We both have 31 attacks. I am rolling 3+ to hit and 2+ to wound. He is rolling 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound. I kill 11, he kills 17. The graveguard go on to die in the following turn.

What I am getting at is you need to be ready to roll poorly and still be able to come out on top. Steadfast does midigate bad rolls, as you dont flee or break. In the example above I assumed I would win combat, but I did not. I should have had a unit waiting to flank or some other way of increasing my odds of doing better.

This is why those 1000 point units do well, because the chance of them rolling poorly is midigated by their number of attacks or how good the unit is. But, when they do roll poorly, the game is over.

If what you are saying is true, you should be taking a unit of 50 Infernal Guard with General and BSB and just wait for someone to come close enough to charge. Doesn't work does it....

[thrawn]

Alot of what you say is true. The dice can make or break any game. Strategy is in increasing your odds of doing well. Firstly, you need to assume you are going to roll average and go from there. The great part of warhammer is dealing with none average roll and adjusting to it.

In a game this week, 30 Graveguard with GW (+1 to hit banner) are charged by 35 Dwarf Warriors with GW. We attack at the same time. We both have 31 attacks. I am rolling 3+ to hit and 2+ to wound. He is rolling 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound. I kill 11, he kills 17. The graveguard go on to die in the following turn.

What I am getting at is you need to be ready to roll poorly and still be able to come out on top. Steadfast does midigate bad rolls, as you dont flee or break. In the example above I assumed I would win combat, but I did not. I should have had a unit waiting to flank or some other way of increasing my odds of doing better.

This is why those 1000 point units do well, because the chance of them rolling poorly is midigated by their number of attacks or how good the unit is. But, when they do roll poorly, the game is over.

If what you are saying is true, you should be taking a unit of 50 Infernal Guard with General and BSB and just wait for someone to come close enough to charge. Doesn't work does it....

am i saying that? yes and no.

if he has a horde of 50 guys, good tough guys, then yes that's what i'm saying. because like i said, the first couple of turns is manuevring (deployment, moving) to line up the battles you wanna win. your opponent is doing the same. what that being said, i don't need 50 infernal guard with a BSB, cause if he has a unit i cannot handle, instead of taking a bigger unit to beat his, i'll just tie him up as much as possible and re-direct.

but when i do want to engage one of his units with mine, i need to make sure i minimise chance. because if i do line up my unit, i'm thinking in my head, according to math hammer i'm going to win this, i just gotta make sure i don't fluff my dice. that's what i'm saying.

[Valaraukar]

The piece I find frustrating about Warhammer is that what is effective as you have stated above does not always make for a very fun or tactically rich / mentally stimulating game, especially the sort of game where due to imbalance in books the game is mostly decided in the list building / deployment phases. You say yourself that 90% of the game is nothing, not sure I quite agree but I know what you mean but that really depends on your meta and certainly doesn't sound like a fun way to spend several hours, I champion and try to spread a local meta of taking balanced lists and using tactics on the battlefield to win games as this is what makes a good game for me personally.

This clashes very strongly with the natural desire most of us have to win to one degree or another as then strategy dictates you try and stack the odds in your favour in every way possible which is what you describe above. In my experience contrary to what 'competitive' players like to think this does not make for the most challenging / tactical game possible in fact it is very simple for anyone with a decent grip of maths to abuse the most broken combinations and run the math in your head to find the build which minimises variation especially psychological effects and maximises overall damage etc. hence the prevalence of 'net lists' at tournaments.

However IMO a much greater mental challenge lies in winning when the odds are not stacked in your favour but this is very hard to get across to people who get some kind of satisfaction only from winning, I hope in the long run most of them realise like me that it is a very hollow victory in those cases and shouldn't use it as an ego boost as some seem too or to fill a void in their life. It is this sort of mentality that in my experience leads to the sort of situation you describe and whilst what you say is true I can't recommend it as when I used to do exactly this it got old very quickly and does not make for a fun experience for both parties which is what this game should be about.

I know some people get great satisfaction from competitive tournaments and the challenge of beating all comers but this rules set really doesn't suit itself to it as it is not a balanced set of armies. Ask yourself this is it more of an accomplishment to have beaten them through finding that perfect build and executing your pre-laid plan to perfection or from starting on an even footing and outwitting your opponent across the table over the course of 6 turns? I find the latter to be more satisfying and also a more useful life and work skill.

/end rant not particulalry aimed at anyone and that has been working its way around my head for a while and this just happened to remind me of it and bring it out

[thrawn]

Well, I don't know if 90% of the game is nothing. Setting up your troops initially and then positioning them and maneuvering them each turn isn't nothing, it's still doing something. I guess I find this confusing :

"You don’t need anything to work as nothing is happening. It’s that first clash, that crucial turn, when you need your spells to get off, you need to hit, you need to wound, that one turn that will swing the game one way or the other. That’s why I always try to take something that will minimise chance."

I mean yeah I get the point to an extent (things can turn on a dime and the best laid plans can go to waste). But still, you are also constantly trying to set up the best situation at any time - it's not nuclear physics, but it's enough to occupy your mind or be somewhat engaging.
Anyways. What I really wanted to say is
You play Wood Elves AND Chaos Dwarfs?!! HOLY COW YOU ROCK!

Thanks! they are my fav armies.

[Valaraukar]

am i saying that? yes and no.

if he has a horde of 50 guys, good tough guys, then yes that's what i'm saying. because like i said, the first couple of turns is manuevring (deployment, moving) to line up the battles you wanna win. your opponent is doing the same. what that being said, i don't need 50 infernal guard with a BSB, cause if he has a unit i cannot handle, instead of taking a bigger unit to beat his, i'll just tie him up as much as possible and re-direct.

but when i do want to engage one of his units with mine, i need to make sure i minimise chance. because if i do line up my unit, i'm thinking in my head, according to math hammer i'm going to win this, i just gotta make sure i don't fluff my dice. that's what i'm saying.

Perhaps you are closer to my train of thought after all, in the game this is exactly what one should be doing of course I just dislike the odds being stacked one way or the other at the start of a game which is difficult given the inherent variation in army lists.

[Oogie boogie boss]

I agree with sloppyjayman. The 'point of impact' moment of any battle is important, and can be the point at which games are won or lost, but the relevence of the moment is determined by what comes before it. Deployment, manuevering, magic and shooting are all crucial in ensuring that when you do reach the enemy (or when the enemy reaches you), you have the advantage. I've seen a lot of games which have been won and lost by these factors, probably more than i've seen determined by the moment of impact.
Luck obviously has a huge part to play in every game, but, as mentioned above, the skill lies in creating a situation which minimises the influence rolling poorly has. As Wellington said, 'Victory does not go to the general who has the greatest force, but to he who makes the fewest mistakes'.
But then again, Napoleon said, 'Men would sooner follow a lucky leader than a skillful one'.

[Valaraukar]

Part of what you describe above is also made more true in 8th by the prevalence of lists with only a few large units plus some chaff rather than many medium sized units largley due to the horde and steadfast mechanics. This tends to result in that one critical turn where everything collides and if magic is with you and you can get the right buffs / debuffs off compared to your opponent it decides the game and I have certainly seen and participated in many games like this but it doesn't have to work like this, there is no reason you can't have a somehwta staggered battle line and try to use counter charges, or try to turn a flank and these tend to result in more multiple turn games but they are harder to acheive and rely on both players wanting to engage in combat than the situation above where either both armies rush forward headlong to combat or one is happy to sit back and wait whilst the other has to come to them.

[thrawn]

Part of what you describe above is also made more true in 8th by the prevalence of lists with only a few large units plus some chaff rather than many medium sized units largley due to the horde and steadfast mechanics. This tends to result in that one critical turn where everything collides and if magic is with you and you can get the right buffs / debuffs off compared to your opponent it decides the game and I have certainly seen and participated in many games like this but it doesn't have to work like this, there is no reason you can't have a somehwta staggered battle line and try to use counter charges, or try to turn a flank and these tend to result in more multiple turn games but they are harder to acheive and rely on both players wanting to engage in combat than the situation above where either both armies rush forward headlong to combat or one is happy to sit back and wait whilst the other has to come to them.

valaraukar, i think you and i are close in our thinking of the game.

i agree, that this game should be about strategy. you pick your army. you deploy your army based on what you want your units to fight of his. you manuever to make sure you get into the combats you want, and use chaff to tie up or re-direct combats you don't.

the crucial part though, the part that makes the battle is when you finally make contact with your opponent.

here's an example; i'm playing with my wood elves. i use my archers to kill his chaff. i use my great eagles to re-direct his hordes/hard units. i fly around with my hero's on great eagles. in the last couple of turns when it's time to get some points, i charge his weaker units with all my flying characters/fast cavalry. this is the turning point of the game. i need to ensure i win this combat. i picked it, as i knew according to math hammer i would have a chance of winning this combat. 3 heros on great eagles, a lord with fast cavalry and if i can a treeman or unit of dryads all charge one of his units. and i totally fluff my attacks. i inflict like 3 wounds. that's it, game is lost. i spent the whole game, deployment, movement, setting up the fight i could win, and luck leaves me and dice come up ones and twos. how to prevent this? bring magic items that let you re-roll! bring characters/magic/warmachines (like mortis engine) to buff your units, to help prevent this from happening.

how do i know this is how you win a game of warhammer? let me show you. when was the last time shooting/magic won you a game? now i know as soon as i ask, people are going to jump, "no! there was one game i got off purple sun and killed his whole unit of chosen with his lord and that was it! i won because of magic!" ok great. now lets see, how often has this happened? once? twice? compared to what, like 20 other games? getting a really lucky magic phase/shooting phase may win you a game once in a while, but more often then not it's that grind that determines who wins. and that grind is being patient, picking your fights (fights your gonna win) and then making sure you win them. that means buffs, to minimise lady luck.

[Sexiest_hero]

The tactics come from beating what the other guy is doing, for instance against wood elves one would seek to surround and use shooting/magic missiles to envelope them, They will run over the two steadfast shadow/life armies. After you have been stung by wood elves enough you'll learn to fear MSU. I will add that WFB is all about choices and risks. Some players hope to catch a mistake to win. I think the best option is to force players to choose between a bad choice and worse choice. Out deploying them with chaff, setting up LONG charges for them, getting a unit behind them, and threatening a flank charge. I do believe getting the other guy on the back foot and reacting to what you do is just as important.

[Djekar]

What's interesting is the level of reactionism (?) that happens in the deployment phase - especially considering your example of lots of chaff.

One of the big uses for dummy drops in the deployment phase is to see where your opponent is committing his resources. Or, put another way, to react to him. So tempo is less important than deployment. But once the game starts, tempo becomes very important - picking combats and making them happen on your terms is key to winning - so you can get that crucial magic phase off to buff the right units and what-have you.

I guess I say that to say that reacting isn't always bad, in fact in the deployment phase it is something to strive for - to make your opponent take the lead.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm wondering if there are armies that benefit from forcing others' hands in the deployment phase rather than trying to out-chaff their opponent?

[Sexiest_hero]

Beastmen, wood elves, Vampire counts are among the few. Although most games are lost in deployment. however I don't think it is reactionary in the sense that the other player isn't forcing me to do anything I wouldn't already be doing, on the other hand he is forced to deploy his whole army and battle plan before I commit anything.

[Private_SeeD]

I'll admit I do suck when it comes to deployment, my main goal is to have a strong centre and that my cannon has its field of view isn't blocked and the rest of my army gets deployed in reaction to my opponent


Sent from my Omni tool via the Sol System Mass Relay

[thrawn]

I'll admit I do suck when it comes to deployment, my main goal is to have a strong centre and that my cannon has its field of view isn't blocked and the rest of my army gets deployed in reaction to my opponent


Sent from my Omni tool via the Sol System Mass Relay

ya that might not be the best way to deploy . . .

interesting you guys bring up deployment, i wanted to touch on it on my last post aswell but didn't want you all to think i was rambling. yes, this game is all about picking your fight, and deployment is so crucial to it.

here's a tip, next time your at your local games store watch a game. expecially watch deployment. i have noticed that the players are watching their opponent deploy more then themselves. DO NOT GET CAUGHT IN THIS TRAP!! here is a great tip. before you deploy your next unit, walk to his side of the table and look at your army. believe me, this other perspective changes a LOT!

[Sexiest_hero]

Its never to late to ask questions and learn though!

[thrawn]

Its never to late to ask questions and learn though!

touche!

[Djekar]

@sexist_hero:

So if watching an opponent deploy most of his important bits before you doesn't change your deployment, then you are doing what I talked about - creating tempo in the deployment phase by making your opponent react to you. In this case, I feel like you might be better served deploying the meat of your line first, forcing his/her hand, and then your chaff in reaction to his units - that way you are reacting with much fewer points/% of your army and you are grabbing the reins of the game from the very beginning.

[DeathlessDraich]

i have also been playing for 15 years, but this is what's sticking in my head now more then usual, who knows, in 15 years i might be saying the complete opposite!

What I have found is that 90% of the game is nothing. You don’t need anything to work as nothing is happening. It’s that first clash, that crucial turn, when you need your spells to get off, you need to hit, you need to wound, that one turn that will swing the game one way or the other. That’s why I always try to take something that will minimise chance. You see, both you and your opponent are doing the exact same thing, lining up your best unit against his, doing some quick numbers in your head, and thinking to yourself “so long as I roll average I should win here.” We can all customise great lists, do math hammer all day, and calculate what’s going to win combat against what all day. The problem is the dice might not co-operate. Use everything you can to minimise chance. If you can reduce the odds, and you know your unit can beat his, in my opinion you got the game in the bag.

That’s my 2 cents.

Hi

A few comments on your comments if I may:

1) "nothing 90% of the time ... first clash is important". You 're omittiing strategies needed in good deployment. Deployment is crucial - 9 basic types of deployment to cater for different situations. Closest proximity comparison is just as important in the 1st turn. I spend twice as much time planning during these vital stages than in later rounds.

2) "1 turn that swings the game" - you mean the 1 'lucky dice roll'? Yes that happens and is part of the uncertainty of the game which helps the unskilled and inexperienced novice to sometimes beat the reigning champion. Just part of the charm of the game I tend to suggest to my opponent to re-roll his unlucky rolls in the first 2 turns because I prefer skill and good tactics to the chance element always.

3) "you and your opponents doing the same thing ...l" - not really.
"lining up best units against his" - never! Sorry but that's a terrible strategy. Against good opponents, I play Warhemmer the same way I play chess and expect my opponent to do the same, otherwise the cerebral aspect of Warhammer is lost; and the enjoyment with it, for me. There are ways (more than 1) of perceived weak units e.g. warhounds, of effectively neutralizing a strong unit e.g. Mournfang or Bloodthirster. Have a look at my sig.

4) Minimising chance & Maths (hammer) ( I prefer not to use these awkward concocted phrases) - Yes, your comments are valid as well. The predictability (and in a way, the inverse of variance and expectation) from a single dice roll is much smaller than rolling a large number of dice i.e. rolling 40 unbiased dice is more likely to follow the statistical prediction of normal (or binomial) distribution than rolling a single dice.
So in a game, evaluating shooting (sometimes) or combat (where a large number of dice is rolled) using probability theory, is more accurate than evaluating misfires for a warmachine.
The maths I use extends to geometry and trigonometry.

I sense you are stagnating or experiencing ennui - hope you find some aspects to rejuvenate your interest

[Malorian]

here is a great tip. before you deploy your next unit, walk to his side of the table and look at your army. believe me, this other perspective changes a LOT!

Exactly! A good way to get you thinking in that way is to actually play the entire game from the other side. To be honest I've never done it in warhammer, but I did it several times during my chess years and it really opens your mind to looking at the board through your opponent's eyes and seeing your own weaknesses.