Topic: Konrad's attempts at playing shooty counterpunch TVI [T9A]

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Organ Guns are nowadays Range 30'', 2D6x2 shots. I think total game time was about two and a half hours. That, for three Empire and two Dwarf turns.

I think he didn't fully realize the extent to which Rangers can harass and interfere with movement, he's probably not used to thinking of them that way. He does recognize light cavalry as doing that, probably due to his most common opponent being a Highborn Elf player who uses light cavalry for that role. He usually deploys (quite correctly) his crossbowmen to counter such.

I concur with most of your analysis of what mistakes he made. I don't think though his combat blocks had much other choice than to charge my harassment units, they were placed close enough that going around them would have delayed his advance at least as much. Charged Rangers at least need to spend a turn rallying before they can do it again, unless they happen to rally in a fortunate position.

I think he put his left-flank crossbowmen there to counter maneuvers from my Reiters, but putting them behind the wall was unnecessary and suboptimal. There wasn't really anything seriously threatening them anyway over there that the wall would have made a difference against. With the Deep Watch and the Warriors side by side, it would have been harder for me to pincer off the Deep Watch.

I suspect a common cognitive flaw is to be stuck in thinking what a unit is ordinarily supposed to do, rather than what it can do under present circumstances. Like he put his crossbowmen behind that wall and his Organ Guns on the hill, positions that are usually advantageous for that kind of units, but might not be the best under present tactical circumstances. His plan might have worked if the crossbowmen had been on the outside the left-flank pincer arm, and one of the organ guns on the inside of it. To cling to a particular formation, as you mentioned, would be another example of this. By sending my halberdiers on that long march, I essentially broke up my own trademark formation. The same thing goes for shooting units, particularly the less mobile ones like handgunners and crossbowmen. You may feel like you "should" shoot with them whenever they have a target in their sights because "that's what they're supposed to do", even though situationally they might be more valuable doing the job of melee detachments.

I did commit my share of gambles though, that could have failed. The halberdiers could have panicked. Failure to snipe the Vengeance Seeker would have enabled the little git to block the maneuver, and cost my leftmost crossbowmen time they could have used to turn to face the left-flank pincer arm. Still, things went overall so swimmingly that I could have failed and still had a fairly good position left. Whatever happens on the left flank, I would probably have bagged the right flank by the Demigrpyhs sweeping away his warriors, followed by shooting up his deathstar so badly that I could have wiped it out with a combined charge of Imperial Guard, Halberdiers and Demigryphs, all before the left pincer arm manages to interfere.

Zygmund, I have to say, your stated aversion to a gaming scene where the players have an analytical attitude about the game surprises me. You seem to me more analytical than most 

[Zygmund]

Zygmund, I have to say, your stated aversion to a gaming scene where the players have an analytical attitude about the game surprises me. You seem to me more analytical than most 

Haha, I'm really not.

Armchair analysis after the game, and mathammering when choosing what units to take I like. But I love taking units I like without much thinking of my army cohesion and purpose, I love trying out new things, and I love taking chances and fluff-game.

The T9A scene over here kills the fun with dry (and correct!) notes of how I will fail, or how I could have improved my chances with cheesy power play. They have a partly unintelligible jargon to describe and analyze what happens on the table. I guess I'm mostly adverse to this kind of gaming attitude. That this kind of analysis IS the game, IS the sport, IS the language used at the table.

I agree the T9A players are very good at what they do, but I don't want to witness them doing it. It kills the fun for me.

-Z

[Konrad von Richtmark]

I think I would have to see it for myself to get what you mean by too analytic. I'm sure there's a pain threshold somewhere where the game simply ends up being demystified, though the height it is at would vary from player to player. On the opposite end, I'm sure there's someone out there somewhere who even balks at the simplest mathhammering of expected outcomes before declaring a charge.

What exactly do you mean with cheesy power play? Army compositions that rub your aesthetic sense the wrong way? Tricksy game-mechanical shenanigans like clipping and congalining? Or something else?

I also love to try out new things, and explore whole new ways to play. Do bold leaps of innovation, even. I think T9A is ideal for that, everything is so well balanced that everything at least *kind of* works, and there must be countless entirely (competitively!) viable ways out there that haven't been discovered, or at least not become known to the wider scene. You should see me on the T9A Dread Elves subforum theorycrafting lists. The regulars, quite predictably, are stuck in their conventional wisdom and tell me it won't work. I value all their assessment combined less than that of Herminard. If a man can have tournament success with an army of nothing but a prince and 300 spearelves, I will listen very intently to what he has to say, especially if it comes to do something outside the contemporary trends in the metagame.

But of course, none of that helps against the scene having the wrong attitude.

The difference between us, Zygmund, is that you are a fluffbunny through and through. Me, I might give the appearance of one, and it's true, I like to play armies that look like real armies when deployed. Under the fluffy exterior though, there's a creature being fed a steady diet of doping, warpstone and growth hormones with the ultimate goal of making it bite like the Rabbit of Caerbannog. Whether that makes me too analytical for you, well, I suppose we will find that out one day when we eventually meet for a game. 

[Zygmund]

demystified

This.

What exactly do you mean with cheesy power play?

The same you do, I hope. 

-Z

[Konrad von Richtmark]

I hope so too, Zygmund. But I realize these things are a bit ethereal, subjective and often ultimately come down to "I know it when I see it". I would not want to break your heart, so that's why I'm asking.

Just recently, I found myself pondering whether musicians are worth buying for my parent units, when polishing my current list. Doing so did make me feel a bit dirty though. Make of that what you will 

[Zygmund]

You should feel dirty. 

For civilized/drilled armies, full command should be obligatory at around 20 models and upward. This holds true especially for Empire Parent units, and especially in T9A, where capturing standards is not a typical objective. (Or is it?) T9A gives Musicians somewhat lacklustre rules. They should bring back the +1 for rallying. (If they haven't already.)

The game should somehow make it desirable and plausible to take a full command even for an independent archer unit. Full rank bonuses and volley fire could be tied to the presence of a full command.

All of this IMHO, of course.

Personally, I'm adding a full command when the unit gets around 15-20 strong. My only such unit that lacks the command atm is a 20-strong Militia unit. I can of course wield the units as smaller detachments without the command if I like.

-Z

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Zygmund, I would agree with you regarding standards and musicians. Those are means of relaying orders, something that would be especially necessary for Empire infantry and its detachment/support unit rules, and the close coordination between units represented by them. As for champions though, I wouldn't say so. We tend to think of the champion as a unit commander, but that isn't what the term literally means, nor do the rules (for the most part) reflect that. He's a guy who has no effect on command and control, he's a tough guy with an extra attack, a guy who will be first into contact with the enemy, and who will take on enemy champions.

The main utility of champs in T9A is for dueling, or keeping your characters from having to. A leibtrabant, in Renaissance German military terms. While I did feel dirty about thinking about dropping musicians, I have so far had no shame about not having a champ in units that have the rest of the command group, even though there's one guy in the front rank who looks different from the rest and like he might be a unit commander. Because that's what he is, just a unit commander, not a tough guy. I don't particularly like the duel rules in T9A, least of all how a champ can effectively shut down an enemy character for a round. I don't like to win by such trickery, so I would not pay points for him. Apart from at the unit where I expect to have characters that need bodyguarding.