A Hard Day at the Fail Factory | Reflections on a losing streak
So this weekend, I played a "test game" against Young Apprentice's Thousand Sons. We both wanted to try out some competition-type lists in a competition-type game, in the hopes that at least one of us wouldn't eat dirt with a wooden spoon in our next encounter.
 |
| How it started. |
 |
| How it's going. The Necrons on the bottom left are the "dead pile." The Scarab Occult Terminators on the bottom right are very much not dead. |
It wasn't a complete failure - I did pick up two units of Rubric Marines, an Exalted Sorcerer, Ahriman and one of the two Daemon Princes in evidence - but I'd been left with no effective answers to the two big lads and the Thousand Sons cleaned up my reinforcements on the turn they arrived.
As usual, I can spot the individual things I did wrong.
- I didn't adequately protect my Monolith from the Knight Tyrant, and lost it on turn one.
- I subsequently forgot I had a Detachment Rule at all and didn't correct any matchups in my favour (swapping the two Immortal units around and getting my Skorpekhs somewhere upfield on the top left would have been Ideas).
- I didn't know the Knight Tyrant had a 12" you may not Strategic Reserve near my enormous base bubble, which kept the Void Dragon out of effective range.
- I didn't touch enough divots because I had it in my head that I could score at the end when I'd cleaned up enough Sons to make a push viable.
It's that last point about the divots that I want to investigate further. See, I've been losing a lot recently: my last six games have all been defeats, and as much as I enjoy being the designated heel, the cartoon villain, the antagonist not the deuteragonist and so on... it's getting a bit depressing. Army lists cannot be the problem as I've been changing those up: there has to be something in how I'm playing, not what I'm using, that's consistently messing me up.
When I look at this scoresheet in detail, I see we were pretty close on secondary objectives and it's the primary where I visibly fell apart. Going back to review the tournament scores from last week reveals a similar pattern: acceptable scoring on secondaries and challenger cards, but next to no presence on the primary objectives.
Then it occurred to me to investigate the games I'd won, and correlate the observation. Depressingly enough, the same was true of those games - Crusade missions where a last-minute surge from an end-of-game objective was possible, which at least explains where my understanding of How To Win Games came from. Primary scoring was minimal for both sides, maybe one divot or two here and there, probably reflecting the smaller size of the games themselves.
Then I looked at my Crusade defeats and - yep, two missions where there was only one primary objective with progressive scoring. Very, very clear where the skill issue lies. I clearly understand the essentials of divot touching, but I'm having execution problems.
To figure out what those are, let's look at the patterns in when I score and see if there's anything interesting there. There's a minimal score on turn two, and a peak in turn three or four, followed by a collapse into nil points. By contrast, my opponents are taking big leads in the second round. This says, to me, that I'm not making decisive enough moves in turn one, not getting my bodies onto points to score or contest objectives at the first opportunity. If I go first, I need to get out there and score first. If I go second, I still need to get out there to deny scoring and be in an effective position to clear things off so I can pick points up in my turn. (mem. sel. Heroic Intervention is a stratagem that exists, use it.)
Deep Strike won't do it: in Matched Play you can't bring on Reserves until the movement phase of turn two, after the scoring. Good for a comeback, not great for establishing a lead. Infiltrators aren't the answer - all I have access to are Flayed Ones and, with the greatest of respect to them, they occupy a space for long enough to get something else in behind them, and die. Scouts? Scouts are a possibility. I have a trio of Triarch Stalkers, and the game in which I was at my most decisive early on ever was with three of those in Starshatter Arsenal. Beyond that, bullying forward and... yes, the least worst scoring game at Molten Crown was the one where I had Warriors gritting their teeth on the middle point.
And now, with those thoughts in mind, we can turn our attention to the army list itself. Here's what I have in mind.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ FACTION KEYWORD: Xenos - Necrons
+ DETACHMENT: Hypercrypt Legion
+ TOTAL ARMY POINTS: 2000pts
+
+ WARLORD: Overlord with Translocation Shroud
+ ENHANCEMENT: Arisen Tyrant (on Char4: Plasmancer)
& Hyperspatial Transfer Node (on Char5: Royal Warden)
+ NUMBER OF UNITS: 16
+ SECONDARY: Bring It Down: (4x2) + (1x6) | Assassination: 6 Characters | Cull The Horde: 1x5
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CHARACTER
1x Chronomancer (65 pts)
1x Hexmark Destroyer (75 pts)
1x Overlord with Translocation Shroud (85 pts)
• Warlord
1x Plasmancer (80 pts)
• Arisen Tyrant (+25 pts)
1x Royal Warden (65 pts)
• Hyperspatial Transfer Node (+15 pts)
1x Skorpekh Lord (90 pts)
BATTLELINE
10x Immortals (150 pts)
• 10x Tesla carbine
20x Necron Warriors (200 pts)
• 20x Gauss reaper
OTHER DATASHEETS
2x Cryptothralls (60 pts)
3x Ophydian Destroyers (80 pts)
• Plasmacyte
6x Skorpekh Destroyers (180 pts)
• 2x Plasmacyte
1x Canoptek Doomstalker (140 pts)
1x Monolith (400 pts)
• 4x Death ray
1x Triarch Stalker (110 pts)
• 1x Heat ray
1x Triarch Stalker (110 pts)
• 1x Heavy gauss cannon array
1x Triarch Stalker (110 pts)
• 1x Heavy gauss cannon array
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Royal Warden, Plasmancer and Cryptothralls join the Immortals, creating a slightly beefier unit which is guaranteed a 6" advance and thus a 35" threat range on turn one. The Overlord and Chronomancer have similar effects on the Warrior unit, which will have to choose between advancing and shooting but will move after it shoots. The Stalkers, all else being equal, can Scout into a decent firing lane and threaten up to 40" away if they move full pelt (realistically, if I'm hiding them when I set them up, it's more like 32").
All of which means I have no excuse to not move forward: that's the gimmick I've built into here, and I don't need to castle up on my home objective and cover the midfield with Overwatch threat: I need to castle up on the middle objective and cover everything with Overwatch threat.
That's a plan worth testing out at some point.
Now. If you're worried about this recent detour into Sweat Country, have no fear. Comrade Garbutt and I have been discussing the next steps in our Narrative, and found terms from which we might be able to approach Crusade again. With our rosters realigned and dud abilities rejigged by mutual assent, and with New Recruit now supporting a Crusade roster that actually includes all your bells and whistles in one document, we have high hopes of being able to play the bloody thing. We'll talk about that later, assuming that nothing else... exciting... comes up in the meantime.
"It's not a losing streak - it's a Tet Offensive"
ReplyDeleteI have spent long years trying to educate the importance of grand strategy in Warhammer. Far far too many people don't realise that just like real warfare, planning for 40k hinges on the policies at the grand strategic level, and trickles down from there.
It if be true that all 40k is competitive because that's fundamentally how the game operates, then it is *also* true that all 40k is a *campaign* because that's fundamentally how the game operates. Campaign here meaning the classical military definition of a series of battles fought to accomplish a strategic goal. Even if you only ever play tournaments and pick up games your whole life, you are still conducting a campaign (just a very narratively disjointed one), an operation to accomplish a particular goal.
The importance of all this here is why grand strategy is the most important step, because just like in real life, the grand strategic level is where you answer the most crucial and fundamental question to both real and tabletop warfare - how do you define 'winning?' What does 'winning' even look like?
And all to often 40k players just don't answer that question properly, and the result is exactly the same as what happens in real life - they get stuck in an endless quagmire of a war that becomes a political and economical nightmare, until they're finally forced to retreat entirely at a ruinous cost. In 40k that normally takes the form of suffering extreme burnout at the constant repetitive pick up games and shelving or selling off one's models and abandoning the game entirely for a long time.
The point here is that as well as taking a look at the tactical mistakes and working out ways to correct them, it's also a good idea when working through a streak of losses to consider what it even actually is you want to achieve in your 40k games in the first place - even if the answer is as simple as "I want to have a fun night out on Friday night with my gaming friends".
This helps with the depression problem, because with the right framing you can still win even if you don't get the right divot math. Consider the following:
DeleteI show up to a 40k event with the goal of impressing everyone with my paint schemes when I show them off. I completely fail to touch any divots and complete zero of the mathematical scoring conditions, but everyone there marvels at how good my models look, I get hundreds of comments of admiration over them, and half-way through the game my girlfriend who looks exactly like a 26 year old Eva Green glides through the event space in a stunning dress and wishes me good luck.
In that scenario, did I really lose? I never managed to complete any of the game conditions, but I achieved everything I set out to do and I'm going home with 26-year-old Eva Green (hey look it's my hypothetical and I'm going to milk it for all it's worth).
Contrariwise, say instead I show up to the same 40k event looking to make an enjoyable day out of it, and I touch all the divots and get all the numbers and clean out every single mechanical win condition... but in the process I have to bring an army full of models I hate, I'm bored out of my mind in each game, and I walk away feeling completely drained and frustrated with everyone.
In that scenario, did I really win? The game math certainly says so, and I did walk away with a little gold trophy that says so, but I spent the whole day being bored and miserable when I could have instead stayed at home making out with Eva Green (again, you are damn right I am going to milk this hypothetical for all it's worth).
This is all illustrated with my OWN losing streak, which has lasted years now but is really a losing streak in name only. Because while I have suffered a string of crushing tactical losses - almost every game has seen me either tabled or close to it - in the process I have also managed resoundingly achieve my strategic goal of building up a dedicated 2004hammer group in my area. In 40k, much like real warfare, it is possible to suffer horrendous tactical losses and still gain a strategic windfall.
"It's not a losing streak - it's a Tet Offensive"
This... is some transformative thinking, once we disregard the bits about milking Eva Green. (You put that one on the tee for me: taking a swing was simply good manners.)
DeleteI do have a perennial answer to this top-line grand-strategy question of "what does winning look like," though, because it's the same as it's always been: sustained, meaningful participation in the play. I don't mind being beaten - there are some defeats on my docket from ninth edition where that happened, and they were cool and good games because I was still doing stuff right up until dice down.
The recent streak of absolute tonkings have... not been that. There have certainly been *moments*, where the randomly drawn secondary objectives and challenger cards have kept me interested by giving me something minor to accomplish, but given challenger cards have been banished from the competition packet because they were exploitable by competent players, the incompetent players like what I am can't have even ONE nice thing, grumble grumble...
If anything puts me off further competition events it's likely to be that, if I'm honest, and I am rethinking my participation in the December event. If I don't even have a long-shot comeback to keep me interested, I'm worried the games will reduce down to one bad deployment, two turns of confirming the consequences, and around ninety minutes of simmering my temper down to socially acceptable. I don't need a truth table to know that's exactly not what I want.
My secondary objective (strategic level) is that whole "putting on trousers, leaving the house, occupying a third space and vaguely remembering how to talk to people" bit. As below, so above: I pick up secondaries, and do a good enough job of it that the game is still worth playing for a while at least. I would do a better job on this if I wasn't such a salty bastard, which is why we return to "sustained and meaningful participation in the game" as the crux of the conversation. I'm a much nicer person when I'm not pissed off at a non-interactive play experience.
I feel you. Non-interactive play experiences ended up burning me on Nu-Kill Team so badly that I'm still very hesitant to take up an otherwise very good friend's offer to socialise over it.
DeleteSustained and meaningful game participation is a perfectly valid grand strategic aim for ham-slamming - heck 'I want to have a good time this Friday evening at the local gaming store' is already golden - what's important is to keep those goals in mind and frame game outings in that context, and to be careful of mission creep.
Of course, it also often pays to have a good exit strategy planned in case the goal becomes too untenable - the play becomes just too non-interactive - so you can at least still achieve a peace with honour.
... I think you've talked me out of further Matched Play endeavours. To save face, and manage temper, I need to be able to walk away from a game without messing up anyone else's fun - whether that's to re-rack and play again or stand in the rain in the car park for a bit, wondering where Eva's got to.
DeleteBut, when I'm feeling *really* down about my losing streak, which does still happen - especially since a lot of the time I don't even have the excuse of playing as the weekly villain - I just remember a certain four other powers in 1939, who also lost just about every single battle for two years, and a lot more after that, until finally they started to get some serious wins, hit their stride and started winning battle after battle after battle no matter how much the other guys tried to optimise their lists. And the rest is literally history.
ReplyDelete"It's not a losing streak, I'm just in my 1939 - 1941 phase"
I must say the '39-'41 analogy is... well, "durin' the Woer" is something of a poisoned phrase for me now, living as I do on Normal Island where we like to pretend that very little has happened in the last eighty years and we're still Saving The World and all. I appreciate what you're trying to say, though I think I might be in the "land war in Asia" stage of my career instead...
DeleteWell I mean I could do a '14 - '17 analogy instead, but that was really more a prolonged streak of draws rather than losses.
DeleteAt any rate the '39 - '41 parallel is the the one *I've* been clinging to during my own losing streak, not least because it's not actually a million miles away from what's actually been happening in my tabletop antics (right down to only really being crushed in ground battles while the almost complete reverse happens in the air-naval arena).
Point is, history is full of examples of armies and powers that suffer very long losing streaks only to suddenly and dramatically reverse their fortunes with a vengeance. There's even a nice alternate '68 analogy in the earlier part of my comment trilogy.
Ironically, '14-'17 is close to what I'd want - in terms of entertainment value out of wargaming, anyway. Prolonged streak of draws with plenty of carnage and small strategic gains? That feels like a game that went the distance.
Delete