Non-Basic Army Building: Psychological Warfare

I file psychological warfare as a non-basic part of army building because it's in your head, and in your opponent's head. As such, it's harder to guess what will work on any given individual. The short version of psychological warfare: the percieved danger of a unit causes an opponent to deviate from their battle plan.

Note this is the percieved danger, not the actual danger.

Psychological warfare is, simply put, about screwing with the other guy's head. At the moment, the best I can think of is to offer some examples of psychological warfare units, and how/why they are percieved as such. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of psychological warfare units; it's just an example of some and a few thoughts on why they qualify.

The Doom of Malant'ai

Well, let's go right on ahead and start with the one everyone's talking about. See, part of its impact is the fact that everyone seems to be talking about it. It's all 'OH MY GOD! IT CAN GET 10 WOUNDS AND THROW OUT AN S10 AP1 BLAST! IT CAN KILL 10,332.77721 INFANTRY IN ONE PHASE!' And then there's the whole rules debate about whether or not infantry in transports are effected by the whole 'psychic vampire' deal.

Now why, exactly, do people worry about it? Here's what I can think of:

1) On a good drop, it can potentially effect several infantry units

2) It can potentially force morale checks/retreats on said infantry units

3) It turns around, has 7-10 wounds to its name, and applies a thermonuclear psychic blast to something important

4) Oh, and it also arrives via drop pod, so there are fewer issues with mishaps

So, we've established (in people's minds) that it can potentially ruin your day single-handedly. Ok, now let's pierce the psychological veil:

1) the average roll on 3d6 is 10-11; most units have ld 8-10. This is 1-3 casualties. Big whoop.

2) S8 doesn't care how many wounds you have after you fail a save

3) Can't shoot that psychic blast if you're in assault

4) Psychic hoods, etc. still stop the Cataclysm

Now, the Doom probably WILL kill some infantry (if it hits 'em in transports), but unless you really cluster up and give the doom a sweet spot to land in, it'll kill a few, and hopefully your army has some S8 around to deal with the problem. Can you hit it with three S8 wounds? Then you can probably solve the problem. Or, can your army take out a marine squad in a turn? Then the worst the Doom did was absorb fire.

Guardsman Marbo

Marbo is, in my mind, a bit more credible of a threat than the Doom. Marbo is a mere 65 points for a guy with Stealth that appears where he wants to. Once there, he has a nasty pistol, a demo charge, and poisoned melee attacks.

Why is he scary?

He can't be within 1" of the enemy. He is one infantry unit. It is very easy to leave a hole (as he only needs a 2inch + 20mm hole to appear in) he can inhabit. Then, he chucks a demo charge at something expensive.

Rambo basically makes you ask 'did I deploy in such a manner as to deny the enemy a demo charge shot into the rear of a vehicle?

Basically, he's enough of a bargain (in non KP missions, anyway) at 65 points to make the other guy deploy a little more carefully.

It's nastier against armies that have multi-wound T4 creatures, as S8 can insta-kill priority targets like Crisis Suits, Tyranid Warriors, and Zoanthropes just to name a few. It also can harm vehicles, especially if you tag them from behind.

On the other hand, once he chucks the demo charge, Rambo is not THAT frightening. He'll throw out pistol shots, or try to stab something, but you can usually turn around and just shoot him down or assault him. All he does after the demo charge is beg for bullets and a gruesome death.

Indirect-Fire Artillery

This is actually a category as opposed to a specific unit. Basically, something like a Whirlwind or Basilisk sits back and chucks explosives at you, and you can't shoot it back (unless you have ordnance of your own). This is frustrating because it feels 'unfair'; nevermind that your opponent paid points for it normally. It's shooting YOU, but YOU can't SHOOT IT BACK! It's frustrating for some folks.

Outflanking Troops

But, but, what happens if they're suddenly on your flanks? The scare value of outflankers depends on the outflankers and what they can actually do when they get there. You're gambling that you'll get your troops on the right side (66% chance, or the same as a power armor save before any re-rolls) at the right turn (...good luck computing those odds) and they'll be able to do something (which is rather up to your opponent).

If you're outflanking a smaller unit or only 1-2 selections, it's not a credible threat. If you outflank too much, you risk diluting your main forces. I mean, you COULD outflank a Land Raider full of Terminators*, but what happens when it shows up on turn 5 and 600 points of your army did precious little?

It's a gamble, but it's one I honestly don't think much of. However, that's me.

Psychological Warfare versus Legitimately Deadly Stuff

Some units draw fire because of their percieved danger. Other units draw fire because they actually ARE that frightening. Here are some examples of units that draw a heap of fire just because of the damage they can reliably do to your army, and they'll rarely last a match.

Space Marine Land Speeders w/ Multi-melta, heavy flamer

Did you bring tanks? It can nuke 'em. Did you bring non-power-armor infantry? We can roast 'em. It's an AV10 platform that's in your face, threatening your assets with death on turn 2. The only armies that don't abjectly worry about them are those that tend to 'spam' stuff like razorbacks or chimeras. Anyone relying on heftier tanks or camping infantry have GOT to pay attention to these things, or risk losing expensive tanks or swathes of infantry.

Tau Piranhas

They have BS4 meltaguns. They are fast. They can get in your way. They are AV11, so you HAVE to use anti-tank weapons on them. Oh, and did I mention they'll block you and/or kill your expensive stuff if you don't handle them? They may not always kill stuff, but they CAN impede progress and buy time for the Tau player, which is well worth it.

Eldar Fire Dragons

How do 5 meltaguns at point blank strike that Land Raider, monstrous creature, T4 multi-wound unit, etc.? I think the answer is 'very nicely' if you're Eldar, and 'OW!' if you're not. Fire dragons draw so much fire because they really ARE that good (and cost-effective) at killing stuff. They're a legitimate threat to any armor short of a full-on infantry horde.

The Real Perk of Psychological Warfare

The real goal of psychological warfare is to make the enemy make a mistake. You're bringing a unit whose percieved danger is out of proportion to their actual danger, or at least you hope that's how the other guy views it. Is it viable? The answer is actually the two most powerful words in the English language: 'It Depends.' It depends on the unit you're calling on to do this task, and on how the other guy percieves it.

That's why I consider psychological warfare a gamble. It will work on some people some of the time, and you're hoping that's enough.

*Provided you take Khan, and take the Land Raider as a dedicated transport.

Army Building 101: Essential Capabilities

This article springboards off of my posts on evaluating units honestly and making tradeoffs. This is a little basic, but you need to bring the tools to do three basic things:

1) Hold Objectives
2) Stop Enemy Armor
3) Kill Enemy Troops

You need to hold objectives in 2/3 of the games, but make sure that you don't actually hurt yourself when it comes to killing the other guy. When it comes to stopping the other guy, you want to be able to stop vehicles AND enemy troopers.

1) Controlling Objectives
Objective games break up into two categories: 2 objectives, or 3+ objectives. The number of objectives changes the way you play, but not necessarily how you build. Controlling objectives comes to two things:

1) Hold Objectives
2) Deny Objectives

Hold Objectives
You need troops to hold objectives. Once you hit 1500+ points, I suggest 3 troops just as a rule of thumb. The number you take ultimately depends on your army, as some troops selections are nastier/more resiliant than others. If you take too few, the other guy might decide to just KO your troops and make you fight for a draw. It's a very real risk, and it's happened to me.

You have two basic choices for holding objectives: You can take a dedicated squad to hold it, or you can just bring several mobile choices and make sure you have troops on the objective by the end. If it's a dedicated squad, ideally it's got a long-range weapon or two in it (IE: Space Marine Scouts w/ Sniper Rifles, Missile Launcher, Telion, camo cloaks).

Deny Objectives
There are two ways to do this: kill the troops on/near them, or contest the objectives. If you have stuff within 3" of the objective, then he doesn't control it. We'll cover the 'killing them' part later, but the short version is that corpses don't hold territory*. Contesting objectives usually involves swift, cheap units. Sometimes it's a Tau Piranha or Marine Land Speeder, but empty transports can do the trick as well. In a pinch, you can tank-shock people off objectives as well, unless they're in a transport.

2) Kill Armor
Vehicles (and monstrous creatures) are a fact of life in 40k. You need to be able to stop them, or they'll run roughshod over you (sometimes literally, see 'deny objectives'). In terms of killing vehicles, you're looking at two basic types: lighter, and heavier. Lighter vehicles are AV10-12; Heavy is 13-14. You need different kit to take them out. Note that vehicles may not always DIE when you damage them, but sometimes it's enough to shake/stun them or knock off the main gun.

Light Armor
Usually, weight of fire is enough to harm/kill lighter armor. Things like scatter lasers and autocannons are your weapons of choice against lighter armor; S7 lets you threaten AV12 and usually comes in decent numbers. Most S8 weapons don't have the weight of fire to do the trick.

Most light vehicles are faster, and most transports are lighter-weight vehicles. Additionally, some heavier-weight vehicles have weaker flank armor (IE: A Predator has AV13 in the front, but only AV11 on the side).

Heavy Armor
Sometimes, the autocannon just isn't gonna cut it against your target. Sometimes, you need melta weapons or rail guns. Why melta? If you can deliver it to 1/2 its range, you get 2d6 for damage penetration, and s8 + 2d6 averages to 15, which is a penetrating hit. AP1 is icing on the cake, since it's +1 to damage results, or a 50/50 shot of killing the vehicle on a penetrating hit.

Some armies have access to S10 shooting (Tyranids and Tau), and this has the raw strength to go through AV 13/14.

Taking it for the Team
Note that with melta weapons, you probably WON'T get a second shot, AND you are close to the enemy. It behoves you to have some cheap, sacrifical melta units just so you can take out higher-cost targets. Triple land raider sounds fun until someone trades 3 landspeeders or 3 squads of guardsmen for 750-800 points of your army.

Vehicles and Assault
Most vehicles have AV10 in the rear, so monstrous creatures, powerfists, dreadnoughts and the like can damage or kill them. Vehicles can counter this by moving and making it more difficult to hit, but lose the ability to use some of their guns.

On Monstrous Creatures
While there are some differences between vehicles and monstrous creautres, know that the same stuff that hurts vehicles usually wounds monstrous creatures. You generally want to throw AP2-3 fire into monstrous creatures just to deny them armor saves.

3) Killing Troops
Like vehicles, troops tend to come either in larger numbers of cheap, not-so-durable guys or fewer, tougher troops. Compare the Termagant, at 5 points, with an almight S3, T3, 1 wound and 6+ save to the Plague Marine, with T5, a 3+ armor save and Feel No Pain. Note also you can get 4 termagants for one plague marine...

Now, with infantry, you generally want to pile on the wounds. Weight of fire works on infantry in general, as you'll generally wound/kill the lighter troops and you'll force the heavier ones to take more saves (which they will eventually fail). Note also that infantry love cover and will generally have access to at least a 4+ save; marines and their ilk can operate in the open and fear far fewer weapons.

Weapons of note for anti-infantry work:
1) Flamers
2) Blast Weapons
3) Small Arms
4) Assault

Flamers
These are generally for killing lighter stuff; S4 AP5 or S5 AP4 combined with no cover saves is good for nuking as many orks/termagants/non-marines as you can fit under a template. It'll still force saves on marines and the like.

Blast Weapons
Blast weapons LOOK good on paper, but if the enemy uses their 2" coherency to the max and lines up properly (IE a line instead of a group hug) they can make sure you don't hit that many troops with a large blast. On the other hand, blast weapons in crowded areas are likely to hit at least SOMETHING, but this can include your troops if they're nearby.

Small Arms
Frankly, most infantry have these. It's not your ideal weapon, but if you catch the enemy out in the open or shoot enough of them with these, they'll work. Everyone laughs at lasguns until 30-40 guardsmen point them at you...And even a 10-man tactical squad can crank out a fairly respectable number of wounds.

Assault
Not everyone belongs in assault. Those that do tend to have either a LOT of attacks, or good quality of attacks (IE: ignore armor saves and decent strength) or both. The poster child for heavyweight assault troops is the Thunder Hammer/Stor Shield Terminator. While they only have 2 attacks each, they are hard to kill (T4, 2+ armor save, 3+ invulnerable save) and hit hard (S8, ignore armor saves, and survivors go at I1 next time). The flip side is something like the Hormagaunt, which is only 10 points for something with S3, poison, and 3 attacks on the charge with Furious Charge and I5 base.

In Summary
While this IS a critical-hit wall o' text, I (and others) could easily go into more detail on the various points. I think I've covered the salient, basic points for the scenarios you'll commonly see. I mean, most of the time you'll have to deal with objectives, and all armies can bring vehicles (or MCs) and infantry. I will probably try to break these points out in greater depth for my next few non-hobby articles.

In the mean time, I've got a heap of bugs to paint, and still have Tyranid Primes, Hive Tyrants, Hive Guard, and Harpies to convert. There's also 30,121.57 Termagants to paint. Finally, there are the Trygons to build...but it's all good.

*Unless it's zombies.

Evaluating Units Honestly: Opportunity Cost

Aside from being a stupidly catchy song and amusing video, the song emphasizes a point: "You can go with this, or you can go with that," (Or you can blow it up, but we're trying that too, aren't we?). Blame Haihastur too for this one, since he touched on it in the comments here.

Defining the Term
'Opportunity cost' is a $20 term you'll hear in economics class that explains the idea that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch.' So, let's say someone buys you lunch. You spend time, go with them, eat, and may or may not enjoy yourself, the food, the company, etc. Right? Perfectly plausible.

See, the thing is that the lunch never cost you MONEY, but you still had to spend the time. You could have eaten somewhere else with different company, or simply worked through lunch and gone home early that day (assuming your workplace would let you).

The fancier definition is that when you pick one option, the opportunity cost is what you give up from the second best option. IE: I have $1 and a vending machine. I can buy a Nutty Bar (mmm, peanut butter and chocolate...) or a Coke (mmm, cleans engine parts AND refreshes!). If I buy a Nutty Bar, the opportunity cost was the coke. If I buy a coke, the opportunity cost was the Nutty Bar. If I don't buy anything, the cost of $1 was not eating from the vending machine.

Make sense?

Opportunity Cost in 40k Terms
Let's walk away from the vending machines in the break room and look at the force organization chart. I'm allowed 2 HQ choices, 3 elites, 6 troops, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. I'm also allotted a certain amount of points per game, and I'll generally have to field one HQ and two troops selections.

We'll have to compare Opportunity Cost two main ways in 40k: force org slots and points.

Force Org Slots
Here, we're comparing options within a given force organization slot. Well, we have to have an HQ, and we have to have two troops (and will often go for at least a third, depending on the army). These are non-negotiable slots, so what we put in them is part of the army's 'theme' (in that you want something like light or heavy mech, or foot, or massed MCs, or horde, or whatnot).

Similar Roles
Here, we're talking support. It's simple, because we can limit our comparison to the slot. This is where Haihastur started this. If I recall correctly, he's not a fan of Vindicators in the Marine codex (and frankly, I'm not either), but prefers Whirlwinds to Predators.

Well, we have 3 heavy support slots, and we probably want to at least duplicate the choice for sake of reliability/resiliency (aka, redundancy). So, we're comparing the capabilities of two potentially disparate units. We should ask ourselves:
1) What capabilities does it bring/what does it kill?
2) What does this do for the rest of my army, potentially?
3) What's the point cost?

The Heavy Bolter/Autocannon Predator is more or less the same price as the Whirlwind, so price isn't an option. We then need to ask what do they do, and what do they bring for the army. This is a nutshell example, so I'm not going to give you all a full Vindicator vs Predator comparison. Short version:

Predator
-Worry light armor w/ heavy bolters, autocannon
-worry medium armor w/ autocannon
-durable AV13-front vehicle; one more target to deal with
-worry monstrous creatures & infantry, but loses effectiveness to cover

Whirlwind
-maim up infantry w/ S4, AP5 ignores-cover shot
-prefers to hide
-single weapon system = one damage result to gimp it.

My opinion leans towards the predator because it can do more than the Whirlwind (engage vehicles/MCs/infantry), even though the Whirly can scare lighter infantry even if it's in cover (assuming they're AP5) and can still respectably wound heavier infantry with the S5 shot.

Disparate Roles
So, let's look at Fast Attack for Space Wolves. They can bring the respectable space marine land speeder, but also have Thunderwolf Cavalry. Both need to be brought in numbers, so they generally preclude the other. Here, we're talking about something that potentially flavors the army; bringing 10-15 thunderwolvs is a hefty points investment and makes them the centerpiece of the army (and they can be a bloody scary one at that).

A tyranid example would be 2-3 Tyrannofexes versus 3 trygons. Taking Tyrannofexes means you've got a ranged shooty core to the army, whereas 3 Trygons means you're going to be in the enemy's face and that'll dictate how you build the army.

The same can easily be said for any Space Marine commander with Chapter Tactics in lieu of combat tactics, or any strong supporting HQ figure (IE: Farseers for psychic support/defense, Hive Tyrants for reserves manipulation/preferred enemy, etc.)

Comparing Capabilities
The other basic form of opportunity cost comes in the form of similar capabilities in different slots. This is something you'll find more of in newer codices, as this allows you much greater flexibility in terms of making an army, but complicates army building a bit since you're weighing more options. (I'll take the extra work, personally).

Let's look at the IG book. I don't know about you guys, but I like poofing infantry in great bloody swathes. Do you like that? I also like chunky spaghetti sauce, but that's unrelated.

So, if I want to KO swathes of infantry, I have several choices, including:
1) Hellhounds in Fast Attack
2) Valkyries with Missile Pods in Fast Attack
3) Multiple Chimeras w/ Hull Heavy Flamers in troops, other slots
-possibly Platoon Commands in aforementioned chimeras with flamers, too
4) Leman Russ Eradicator in Heavy Support
5) Colossus Siege Mortar in Heavy Support

All of these are capable of doing horrifically graphic things to infantry, though not all capabilities are necessarily equal.

My evaluation will also depend on what other essentially capabilities I can get in other slots, so I'm still doing some intra-slot comparison. I could take Hellhounds (which can get hull multi-meltas for some duality), which means I need to get some more reliable anti-tank elsewhere (Maybe troops or heavy support, but not Vendettas. Maybe Hydra flak tanks and meltagun squads?). Or, maybe I take the Russ Eradicators, filling up my heavy support and leaving me with the need to bring anti-tank in other slots (Maybe vendettas or melta squads?).

Wrapup: Opportunity Cost and Army Design
Basically, you need to start by knowing what your army can give you in what slots. Some armies make this simpler than others. With Eldar, I know I want to bring Fire Dragons to kill heavy tanks, because they're a solid option (...and I don't really have other good options for killing tanks). I can supplement it with S8 guns from transports and falcons, but I just don't have any other comparable punch, so the rest of my army can fall in after these choices are locked in.

On the other hand, better-designed armies can bring the capabilities in various slots. Here's where you have to do the work and take the concept of opportunity cost into account: you want redundancy so SOME of your tools live to do the jobs, so you're going to generally make one choice for the non-troops slots and duplicate it. That's why you need to get a grasp of tradeoffs.

Hopefully, this has been beneficial (or at least thought-provoking), but it seems like tradeoffs are A) a complicated part of army-building at times, and B) sometimes overlooked.

Evaluating Units Honestly: 'Making Back Your Points' is Overly Simplistic

Now, in all honesty when you analyze units, you can't just math-hammer them and say "Well, this unit is more effective at killing XYZ than that unit." Sometimes, you have to take a look at what a unit does for you, or to the opponent, and it's not always 'kill lots of things.' I'll start with a few simple examples.

The Rhino (and other Transports)
It's 35 points. It has a storm bolter. How often does a lone storm bolter do something more spectacular than take out the odd infantry straggler? The Rhino doesn't kill things. It might tank-shock someone and kill some moron trying Death or Glory.

So, how come you see people taking them? This one's the 'gimme' example. The Rhino (and any transport) keeps your infantry from eating small-arms fire from the get-go, and gets them places faster. For 205 points, I can take 10 tactical marines with a flamer and multi-melta, and get them into position to use them. I can drive up, pop smoke, and move up again and make the enemy worry about a multi-melta near their lines. Or, I can tank-shock infantry, pile out of my box and flamer/rapid-fire my new friends. Or, I can take a shorter tank-shock and do the same thing.

All that for 35? That's a bargain.

Kroot (and other 'bubble wrap')
I pay around 120 points for 10 Kroot and 7 Hounds. How often do they kill stuff? Well, there was that one time they took out a chaos Raptor squad... But beyond that, no, they really DON'T kill stuff. They fold like wet paper sacks in hand-to-hand, they die to flamers in a comedic and terrible fashion, and can kind of rapid-fire stuff. Kind of.

So, why do I take them?

It's called a 'meat shield.' Bubble wrap is another term I've heard, but I prefer meat shield since I've bought lunch meat that comes in tupperware containers explicitly for carting around heaps of plastic infantry that have a generous amount of clear coat on them. Plus, it's good for a laugh when you put your meat shield back into a meat container.

Case in point today against Tyranids: A Trygon pops up near my lines. There are a heap of Kroot between it and juicy targets like a Hammerhead, Broadside Team, and a couple of Crisis Suit teams. Had I not taken the Kroot, I would have had ONE turn to kill the Trygon (which is not necessarily a given, with 6 wounds at T6 with a 3+, even with plasma rifles) before I lost something important. Instead, I took off four wounds with a heap of gunfire, lost a Piranha to it, and then had a Crisis Suit squad go up to BS5 from markerlights and nuke it.

Against meltaguns and the like, you have to do something like tank shock the kroot out of the way to deploy within 6" and get your crucial 2d6 penetration. S8 on AV13 is not a gimme by any stretch of the imagination, but S8+2d6 is a Hammerhead in trouble. It does stop annoying alpha-strike tactics like scout-moving a Vendetta up, and meltagun+meltabomb rushing a Hammerhead, provided you space out and deploy properly.

The Piranha (and other fast, generally-expendable threats)
Here's another short story abou Tau and sacrificing units for the greater good. I field two squads of two Piranhas; they pack Fusion blasters, BS4, and one mounts a Disruption Pod while the other carries the wargear that lets me split fire.

So, one of my buddies was getting into Black Templar, so he's rolling a pair of Land Raider Crusaders with furious charge lightning claw terminators. Ouch. Well, we set up in table quarters, so I rush my Piranhas up in front of his Raiders. He HAS to deal with them; there is a very real chance I can trade 300 points of my army for 500+ of his, and force his terminators to run at me. Considering plasma rifles and markerlights are involved, this doesn't bode well for the Terminators.

So, he shoots at them a little, and I get my shots at his Raiders. Four meltaguns and three railguns later, I've managed to...shake...a single Land Raider. Even with smoke, you'd think all the fething AP1 fire might do some damage. Nope. Sorry. HOWEVER, since these are vehicles, he can't tank shock through them. At this range, he can get an S4-5 ram off on AV11 with a 3+ dodge save. If he does NOT halt and engage them, they'll simply try again next turn. So, he spends a turn or two repositioning and brutally gunning them down.

The Piranhas did not kill a bloody thing.

The Piranhas cost him two turns of movement.

The Piranhas dictated his game, and in turn gave me the time I needed to immobilize one Raider and kill the other.

My Point on Meat Shields and Other Expendables
Sometimes, just being there is enough. Cheap infantry can buy you a turn against assaulty armies, and cheap, fast vehicles that are a credible threat (IE: Multi-melta/Heavy flamer land speeders as well as Piranhas) HAVE to be killed. It's the fact that you can pay points and troops for time, or make them dictate your opponent's movements that makes them worth it.

Rambo, Deathleaper, Doom of Malant'i, and Company
Another category of 'doesn't make points back' is the type of unit that makes you change your deployment and target priority.

Let's be honest: Rambo doesn't often kill much. Marbo appears, chucks a demolition charge, and draws some fire. If you left the opening, Rambo chucked it at the back of a vehicle or at some infantry that weren't in cover. I mean, some good deployment counters that. Additionally, if you spread out in terrain, you minimize the places that Marbo can actually be placed.

Deathleaper and the Doom fall into the same category (though the Doom kind of needs some clarification on its Psychic Vampire crap. At least it's not sparkly like diamonds, right? Right). Worst comes to worst, the Doom kills some infantry, and then you hit it with S8 until it fails a save. Doesn't matter how many wounds at has if it suffers Instant Death.

Outflankers: Or, sometimes the bluff isn't worth it
Now, another category came up from an onlooker. He talked about "Man, you have a hammerhead right on the flank. Some genestealers would be nasty, there."

Not really. First, I can deploy away from the flanks. Oooh. Ahh. It's not THAT hard to get away from foot infantry. Second, in this particular situation, the Hammerhead had moved 12 inches. Had 8 genestealers actually charged it, they might have gotten ONE penetrating hit. (8 stealers = 24 attacks; 6's to hit means 4 hits, which means MAYBE one penetrating hit). Oh. Then the Hammerhead zooms away 12", takes a shot, and some of the rest of my army nukes the stealers, or weakens them sufficiently for me to ignore them.

Ok, outflanking CAN be annoying. On the other hand, there are some problems with it.
1) Reserves. Did you show up on time?
2) Entry Point. Did you show up where I needed you?
3) Impact. Did you do something useful when you showed up?

See, with Khan, I could theoretically outflank a Land Raider Crusader (provided I take it as a dedicated transport) full of assaulty goodness. I could also not see it 'til turn 4-5 and have it arrive on the other end of the table, and there's 450+ points that did not actually KILL anything.

Admittedly, some armies have reserves manipulation and outflank entry manipulation (IE: IG command squads). That helps to an extent, but you can still use things like, oh, meat shields to work around it.

This isn't to say that outflank is ALWAYS useless. However, if you want the enemy to pay attention to your wildcard threat, it should be less of a threat and more of a promise.

In Summary
When you're analyzing a unit, lethality isn't everything. You have to look at the army as a whole; what can each part bring to the table and what does the sum of the parts do for you? If you're going to play expendable units, make sure they're expended usefully. I mean, stuff's gonna die, so get the most out of it and make it work for you. If you're going to bring a bluff card, make sure it's something the enemy HAS to take seriously and make sure it's a somewhat reliable bluff card.

Army lists: One Solid, or Several? Or, why I'm (probably) getting a Tyranid Army

Honestly, there is only so far that theory-hammer will get you. You know that things like redundancy and mobility are important. You can do some math-hammer in your head. However, you need to play games in order to really see concepts in action, to see them succeed or fail.

Playing the game of course involves an army list. And here lies my point: are you one of the folks that aims to have a single army list, or do you switch among several?

The Single Army List
Technically, I have a couple of 'single' armies right now. My Tau army is a Stelek army. My Black Templar are an adaptation of a Stelek army (Credit where Credit is due). The BT are also build so because I had a bunch of Termies laying around from Deathwing days, but no urge to play with the DA codex.

The goal of the single army list is, well, to get one generalized all-comers-capable list. The Tau are prone to this because the codex doesn't have a lot of options. The Black Templar are this way for me because I have no great urge to re-start a marine army.

The basic pro of the single army list for a codex is that you stop worrying about building the army and can focus solely on using your army. I've played a decent number of games with them, and most of the time after the game I'm asking myself 'How could I have used my units better' instead of 'how could I change my army build?'

In a sense, this is the major benefit of the single army list. Once you have decided on the list, you are free from worrying about changes to the list. It is a way to cut down the brainpower associated with the after-action analysis. It also increases the benefits of practice: you will gain a better idea of what each unit can do on its own and in the context of the army list as a whole.

Economically speaking, the benefit of a single army list is that you have fewer models to buy. You buy everything, paint it, acquire foam trays (or whatever your storage/transportation solution is) and you are done with the economics and logistics consideration.

Multiple Lists or the Evolving List
This approach involves changing up your list. In a sense, everyone will start here at one time or another unless you pull a solid-looking list off the 'net. You'll start with the basics, expand to a full range of models, and experiment with your list. You'll change based on your fancy.

The bright side? You start to get an appreciation for the various units of the codex. You can learn and adapt. You can take a fresh list, and take a break from another list you run. This is what I'd done with my Eldar before I started scrapping builds bit by bit, and settled on a small core (or, more accurately, got fed up with the lack of options). This allows you to own a lot of the cool stuff in the codex, even if you couldn't conceivably use it all the time.

You'll probably have a core you start from; at the minimum it'll be a couple troops units. You might change up the supporting elements, increase the number of troops choices and change, or whatnot. It's kind of an organic expansion; you decide this will be neat so you proxy it, run it, decide it works, and buy it. Once you have enough stuff, you can change your list from week to week.

Economically speaking, you're always going to have some surplus units. Why? Because your unit stock rotates. One game you might use a unit, another game it might sit out. Some stuff might get used all the time; this is usually a couple of troops units and HQs.

Some chassis might be useful all the time, but in different configurations. Marines are the prime example for configurable chassis; the Rhino body covers so many designs. I mean, with magnets you can make a Rhino chassis double as a Predator, or you can simply replace the top to make it pull double-duty as a Razorback. Similarly, a Land Speeder can drastically change roles from, say, a multi-melta/heavy flamer suicide job to a heavy bolter/typhoon fire support model.

Sometimes, it's just a squad with slightly different loadouts. You'll always want some bolter marines, but sometimes you want to switch special and/or heavy weapons, or the sergeant's kit. In this case, you'll have some spare models on a squad level, but you'll generally get a lot of use out of the basic grunt with the standard weapon. (Hey, you'll always need some bolter marines...)

Pros and Cons
Pros
The Single List
-Less effort involved in post-mortems; only ask 'how could I have done better?' instead of potentially getting distracted with 'what could I bring?' Analysis is simplified, basically.
-Easier to pack/carry
-fewer models to buy
-Easier to gain experience with a specific set of units/armies/scenarios; mastery of the list comes faster.

The Evolving List/Multiple lists
-Better idea of what any given unit of your codex can do.
-Opponents always on their toes if they're not sure what you bring
-Variety is its own reward; you can avoid being stuck in a rut

Cons
The Single List
-entirely possible to get 'stuck in a rut'; sometimes you just want a break from The List
-opponents may start getting an idea how a well-tuned version of your list works; this con's magnitude depends on whether or not they start gunning for you, as it were.

The evolving list/multiple lists
-Harder to analyze/attain mastery of the lists; you may be asking yourself 'how could I make a better list' in addition to 'how do I use my assets better?'
-More money/time involved in modeling; and you will always have some excess.
-More special rules to remember, especially if your different lists are across codices

Overall
This is one of those 'different strokes for different folks' kind of deals; I don't think there's a right answer. However, I'm more a fan of the multiple-list approach. The BT and Tau are pretty much static for me. However, between the two of them, I can radically switch the type of army I have from pure shooty to semi-shooty/punch, from hybrid to foot.

Why is this a good thing, if it makes it harder to master a specific list?

The answer is that it lets me take a break from the list. The more you play the same list, the more you adopt the mindset involved. In a sense, this is useful; you start remembering the idiosyncracies of units (IE: Eldar psychic buffs at the beginning of the turn, weapon capabilities for the Tau, all those special rules for Marines...) and making use of them.

On the other hand, it can potentially give you blinders: you start looking at everything from one POV. If you expand your point of view and know the mindset of your own army AND the army across the board from you, then you have an advantage. Knowledge is a source of power, after all.

Then, your real question is whether you want multiple lists out of multiple codices, or you want to get several lists out of one codex. Personally, I think that multiple lists out of one codex is a solid idea: if most/all of the units out of a codex are useful, then people will buy them, collect them, and get attached to the army (and thus the game). That's more of a personal opinion, though; I don't have any research to back that up.

*Any incoherency in this article may be due to the fact that I had a drink or two while blogging to celebrate A) being off for the holidays for a bit, and B) having officially picked up my MBA. HUZZAH! also, C), I have the Guinness and Irish Creme necessary for Irish Car Bombs.

Math-hammer and You

What Is Math-Hammer?
I'm going to use Math-hammer as a term to describe the rudimentary application of statistics to 40k in an attempt to figure out the outcome of a discrete round of harming the other guy.

Math-hammer usually takes the form of something like this:

Number of shots * chance to hit * chance to wound * failed saves = Number of casualties.

Let's put this neat little model into action: I fire my 10 Dire Avengers into your Imperial Guardsmen that are in cover. The pertinent facts are:
1) Dire Avengers are BS4
2) Their guns are 2-shot, S4, AP5 jobs
3) Guardsmen have T3, and a 4+ cover save.

Let's turn that crank with the following data:
Number of shots = (10*2) 20
Chance to hit (at BS4) = 2/3
Chance to wound (S4 vs T3) = 2/3
Failed saves (4+ cover) = 1/2

Ergo: 20 * (2/3) * (2/3) * (1/2) =...
20*(2/3) = 13.333 hits * (2/3) = 8.8886 wounds * (1/2) = 4.44 Casualties.

Hooray! We just killed some Guardsmen!

Except Not
So, what's the problem with this model? There are a few: namely, the dice, the laws of statistics, and template weapons.

The Dice
Dice are not necessarily impartial random-number generators. Some people suggest that Chessex dice (the default, little rounded-corner boggarts) lean towards the 1 a little bit. There are also some nasty tricks you can do to manipulate dice. My personal bias involves just playing with the Chessex dice, and the hell with the bad rolls you get. Actively trying to rig your rolls is a punk thing to do, and should realistically get you kicked in the dice bag.

The bottom line is that the dice do not always behave in a perfectly predictable manner, but we can still make some basic assumptions about how they'll act any given time we roll them.

Laws of Statistics
Think about most the times you roll dice in 40k. Maybe it's an ordnance shot or blast weapon; then it's 2d6 and the scatter dice (...just TRY running some math-hammer for scatter. It's pretty rough). Maybe it's your Predator Destructor kicking out 8 shots in a turn. Maybe it's your tactical squad rapid-firing someone with about 16ish bolt-weapon shots. Maybe it's terminators on the charge with 15 attacks.

What do a lot of these have in common? It's not a lot of dice. Statistics works best with large samples; a good statistical sample has a minimum of 30ish trials. Some units can indeed pull that off in a single action (IE: Orks shooting/charging, Fiends of Slaanesh in assault, 30-man guard squad w/ First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire), but most cannot. Some units cannot throw thirty dice in the course of the game, even if all seven turns happen.

What's that mean for you? Even through the course of a game, you cannot necessarily expect 'average' performance out of a given unit.

Template Weapons
Now, if we take a basic weapon that has fixed chances of hitting, we can run the rest of our formula from there, yes? Same goes for assault. The problem lies in predicting how many hits you can slap on a target with a flamer or blast weapon. Templates have to take into account how close models are, and the formation they are arranged in. If everyone is standing shoulder to shoulder with a 2" max coherency spread, it's a much different picture for blast weapons than if they're all in base-to-base contact with each other like a fresh Deep Strike formation, for example.

The best we can do for Blast Weapons is model their scatter, armed with the knowledge that 2d6 averages about a 7, and there's a 33% chance of getting a 'hit' result on the scatter dice. So, right off the bat we know a blast weapon will hit 33% of the time. 33% of the time, scatter will then average 7-BS, so we have some idea how far the center dot might go. About the only place we can use this knowledge is when we try to apply it to vehicles and how big their hull is; we have a better chance of landing a blast template on a Land Raider than a Killa Kan, for example.

Why use Math-hammer, then?
Why, indeed? Because it gives us a starting point for making decisions. Common sense tells us that one Guardsman is unlikely to beat up a thunder hammer storm shield terminator, but it IS still possible. On the other hand, some things get a little closer. Math hammer gives us tools to make a guess at the outcome of shooting or assault, and that's at least something to base your decision on.

The numbers are not always accurate. However, it's a darn sight better than just using wishful thinking and sacrifices to the 'dice gods' as a means of making decisions with your army's firepower.

Using Math-Hammer intelligently
Here are some suggestions for using Math-hammer to your advantage:

1) Know the limits of the stats
-You need 30 rolls to get an accurate 'sample size'; if it's below that than you're not really guaranteed an 'average' result

2) Know the limits of the dice
-Dice are not perfect random-number generators, either through manufacturing processes or human interference a la practiced rolling.

3) It's Still Math
-Math, when done right and mindful of its problems, is STILL a reasonably reliable when you follow the steps.
-At least, math is a reliable tool given an understanding of the tool. It's like a computer: it can only do what you tell it to do, how you tell it to do.

4) Know what the 'Average' means
-The 'average' result is the midway point, which means that IF you roll enough dice, THIS is what happens about 50% of the time.
-What you're really dealing with is a Normal Distribution (aka bell-shaped curve)*. You're hoping that your dice will land somewhere in the middle, but it is still entirely possible to see a given set of rolls fall way the hell away from average (hey, it's possible to see 5 1's, [0.01% chance, theoretically] and you have the same chance of seeing five 6's in a row as well)

5) Know that Things Can Still Go Wrong
-The dice are still fully capable of throwing complete outliers at you. We call this 'the wheels coming off', when you fire five bolters into a single guardsman in the open, and he still lives, for example. (Worse still, he kills 2 guys on the charge, and lives.)
-In other words, you care about math, but math doesn't give a flip about you, and can screw either of you over, or both of you, or neither of you. Crap happens. Deal with it.

6) Realize the limits of Math-Hammer
There are things Math-hammer simply will not do, and they are:
-Tell you WHERE to move
-Tell you what your opponent will do
-Gauge range
-Tell you how many of your infantry will actually be in range of your target
-Tell you a blessed thing about how many people you actually will hit with a template-based weapon

Math-Hammer CAN give you an idea on:
-How much fire you need to kill a target
-How much fire you need to force a morale check
-Whether or not you might make assault (remember, you just need base-to-base with ONE guy)
-The chances of immobilizing yourself in terrain
-The chances of you winning/losing an assault, and potential morale results

Conclusion
Math-hammer is a tool. No more, no less. It's not perfect, but it's a workable enough basis for making decisions about dice in the game. As such, I suggest a working knowledge of it, since this IS a dice game, and Math-hammer DOES tell us a little how the dice work. It's a more reliable basis than all the little pre-concieved notions that your brain tends to have.

Any kind of theory makes assumptions. The more you know about the assumptions, the more use you can get out of the theory. At the end of the day, theory itself is a tool. Theory simplifies the world, loses some resolution, and usually gives you a (reasonably reliable) method of making decisions and/or learning about an aspect of life, the universe, and everything.

Math-hammer just gives you a rough idea of what can happen when you throw the dice, and that's better than nothing, in my book. There are days where the average will happen every single roll, there are days where the dice will roll sub-par on a game level for you, but in the end, across enough games, the dice will roll average.**


*Disclamer: I'm being a little lazy here and linking to Wikipedia. Note that since Wikipedia is open to anyone who wants to edit it, anyone can (and in some cases, has) tweaked the data in an incorrect manner. If you really, truly want solid info, wikipedia is a good start, but then you'd better check out the sources they've listed in the article, and move from there.

**Unless you're a bloody dice cheat. Or the other guy is.

Flow of Battle, Article 1: Basic Infantry/Monstrous Creatures

This article on the Flow of Battle will focus on basic infantry. By 'basic infantry' I mean infantry units, and infantry units with fleet of foot. In the name of brevity (and common sense) I'll touch on the faster infantry types (IE: Beasts/Cavalry, Jump Infantry, and Bikes) in a seperate article.

I also feel that infantry are a fine place to start because there's really no getting around them. Every army needs at least a little infantry in order to claim objectives. Note this movement also applies to monstrous creatures that do not have wings. I do not believe there are many Fleet monstrous creatures (The Daemons have the Keeper of Secrets and Skarbrand, and that's all I've got for fleet MCs), but there ARE some that are oversized jump infantry.


Movement Basics
Warhammer 40k is a tabletop war game. Given terrain features, there are three dimensions to the game: up/down the table, left/right on the table, and up, on terrain (or skimmer stands, or the Valkyrie/Vendetta stand, or on top of burnt-out vehicles). I'm going to touch on the more 2-dimensional movement, which is on the tabletop. Note that moving through terrain to get atop things takes 3" of movement, so you'll lose some horizontal range in order to get atop a building.

Basic Movement in the Open

Infantry can move 6" by definition. Infantry may also run 1d6 inches, which translates to about 3.5 inches per run. This picture demonstrates the 'average' infantry movement in the open, though note that the actual movement radius is 7-12 inches, depending on your run roll.

Basic Infantry and the Assault

Infantry may also assault 6", so an infantry's assault range is a total of 12". Assuming a victory in assault, there may be additional movement in the form of consolidation. Note that an infantry assault can move the unit up to 12" in a turn, and an additional 1d6 if you beat the other guy's face in.

Fleet Infantry and Assault

Infantry with Fleet of Foot differ from regular infantry only in the assault phase, with regards to movement. Fleet infantry may run, then assault. This means a Fleet unit's assault range is 13-18 inches. Now we're talking some movement, right? Note, though, that the average is about 3.5 inches in the assault, so a fleet unit's average assault range in the open is 15.5 inches. Not bad? Wait 'til we discuss cavalry.

Infantry and Terrain

Terrain is infantry's friend: lurking in terrain grants you that 4+ cover save you always wanted. Guardsmen, for example, prefer terrain to their armor. However, terrain slows you down, as you must roll 2d6 and take the higher instead of assume you'll get 6 inches.

Odds of a given outcome:

1 inch: 2.7%

2 inches: 8.3%

3 inches: 13.8%

4 inches: 19.4%

5 inches: 25%

6 inches: 30.5%

4-5 inches is the norm for a terrain move. Note that the actual range is 1-6 inches, and there's nothing like rolling snake-eyes when you actually needed to be somewhere.

This also applies to Slow and Purposeful infantry; Obliterators are a prime example.

Terrain and Movement As a Whole

You can run in order to maximize your movement through terrain, which gives you a range of 2-12 inches. This will usually be around 6 to 8 inches total, and if you are fleet and assaulting through terrain, then you'll have a range of 3-18", or around 9 inches as a rough average.

The morale of the story? Well, first, bring grenades if you want to assault through terrain (terminators with powerfists/thunder hammers are exempt...). Second, Terrain slows you the hell down.

Note that Monstrous Creatures benefit from Move Through Cover, so they are more likely to see a 5 or 6 on the 3d6.

Movement and Shooting

The basic infantry weapon is the 24" rapid-fire gun. If you want to move and shoot, you get your regular move (6 inches in the open, or about 3-4 with cover) and then a 12" double-tap. In the open, this means your effective range is 18", and with cover your effective double-tap range is 13-18, or an average of 15-16 inches.

A Warning on Rapid-Fire

12" is also the magic number for an assault in the open. If you are in cover and rapid-firing out of it, then the enemy will probably get a 6" move, and then another 3-4" into terrain, which may or may not be enough to get them there.

In other words, if you can rapid-fire into the enemy, he can probably punch you next turn (unless you kill him). Moral of the story? If there's going to be a fistfight after you rapid-fire the other guy, make sure you can WIN the fistfight. Note also that you cannot assault after a double-tap, so you WILL be on the recieving end of any charge more often than not.

A Note on Assault Weapons and Pistols

These weapons may fire even if you have moved, so use the maximum range of the assault weapon in lieu of 12" in your calculation. Pistols usually have a 12" range, though some melta pistols have a 6" range.

Shooting without Moving

Stationary rapid-fire weapons may fire once at their max range (24" unless you're a Fire Warrior or Krootox), or twice at 12". The benefit to a stationary close-range rapid-fire is that any troops who are 13-24" away still get a single shot. Or, you just might not have anything better to do with the guys. Rapid-fire guns at max range usually don't put out a lot of shots, so their ability to do damage is somewhat diminished. As with close-range rapid-fire, Imperial Guard squads with 'First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!' are a notable exception since they get +1 shot for each lasgun.

On Infantry-Born Heavy Weapons

Stationary firing ALSO permits you to fire heavy weapons to their full range. Some infantry, such as Terminators or Obliterators, may fire heavy weapons even if they have moved.

Flow and the Game

These pictures cover a single turn of action for infantry. What can we learn from these diagrams? Infantry are not exactly mobile. The best you'll get out of Fleet infantry is an 18" move, IF there is something to assault at the end of the road. More often than not, infantry are slogging 3-6 inches a turn, and up to around 9 on average if we want to run them and not use their guns. Sometimes, you don't need them to shoot; last-minute objective grabs come to mind.

Some Numbers for your edification

Infantry in the Open Through Five Turns of Movement: 30" + 5d6, or about 47.5 inches average maximum. Not bad, until you consider that you have to do nothing but move and run all game, avoiding terrain (which may mean taking a winding path, mind you).

Infantry in Cover Through Five Turns of Movement: 5 turns of ~4 through cover, and 5d6 gets you 37.5 inches. Again, all you're doing is running, but at least you're in cover.

What's this tell us? Infantry are slow. If you're playing table quarters, for example, I can slap my objective in the back corner. If you start infantry as close as you can, you're still looking at a good 51-55 inches to get to the objective. In other words, you just may not have enough time in the game to get there, even IF all you do is move. Now, if you luck out against an enemy that's playing Pitched Battle, you might have as little as 24"-36" between you and the objective, but it depends.

Other Problems with Infantry in the Open

There's this little thing called 'shooting'. It may or may not be a problem for you. If you are Terminators and the other guy didn't bring a lot of AP2 guns, you might be fine. Or, you might have just brought a LOT of Orks/Guardsmen/'nids. Otherwise, you're probably looking at an uphill game. The big problem with moving a lot of infantry is, of course, time.

Dealing with the Speed of Infantry

As I have shown, basic infantry are just not that fast. So, what do we do about getting them where we need to go?

1) Mount Up

Vehicles are faster than basic infantry, generally speaking. Infantry in a transport are more survivable (since you have to get them OUT of it first) and of course the thing can move, barring an immobilized result.

2) Don't Move Much

Infantry camping on objectives (ideally with long-ranged weapons) don't need to move to contribute to the battle, for example. The counterassault element behind a static gunline only needs to be able to move out and punch someone in the face. Sometimes, the relative immobility is moot; you either don't need to go far or you have the range to reach out and touch someone.

As an added bonus, some stuff just gets nastier as you close with it. That lone heavy weapon is suddenly a heavy weapon with a bunch of rapid-firing friends, now.

3) Careful Planning

Foot armies that advance on you require careful advance planning. I have to point to my experience with the Black Templar list I'm running. Deployment makes or breaks you, as you WILL have to walk to the objectives. Your foot troops will be vulnerable to gunfire, and in some cases morale checks. Foot troops may also be corraled by things like assaults, tank shocks, and so on.

Foot Troop Flow Conclusion

My aim with the diagrams here is to give people an aid and example of what your footsloggers can pull off in the space of a turn. The real goal to learn via experience is chaining several turns of action together, and figuring out where that might leave you. Is it easy? No. My hope is that I've offered people some tools and/or food for thought for noticing the flow of battle.

Knowing how units may act during a single turn should give you some insight into how units can act over the course of a game.

Comments and Feedback welcome.

*As usual, thanks to readers; math credit goes to hastur first. TOO SLOW, DVERNING! Though, I completely agree with you on the infantry horde problem. It's realyl the only downside I can come up for something like pure foot guard; they'll shoot the crap out of you, and in a tourney setting you'll get ~3 turns, maybe four, just because of the setup.

**Regarding pictures, I think a radius probably IS the way to go. The problem is that without scaling it somehow, it's easy to lose definition because I'm looking at a 48" diameter for infantry stationary rapid-fire and fast vehicle movement. I think what I'll do next is try to show a sample of several turns and what they can look like for an individual unit.

The Flow of Battle: Introduction

The flow of battle is something I've been speaking on recently. I feel it deserves an expanded mention, as I believe an appreciation of it is an important skill in Warhammer 40k (...and, frankly, a lot of other things, but 40k has its own understanding).

Defining Terms: What do I mean by 'Flow'?
Each unit has its own rules for movement: Cavalry, Terminators, Rhinos, Land Speeders, and Drop Pods all move differently, but they all still move. They move a set distance a turn [even if that's zero inches for a drop pod on the field], and may do other things like move and shoot.

Each unit, then, behaves in distinct ways. They can do a few actions a turn, but that turns into potentially 7 turns across the game. A unit can start on one end of the board and move all the way across (...in some cases, several times, potentially). Other units start in one spot and stay there all game. Most of the rest fall somewhere in between.

What Does Flow Do For You?
The Flow of Battle speaks to the movement of your units, and your enemy's, across space and time. Basically, an understanding of flow of battle allows you to plan out your next few turns, up to the end of the game. Thus, you can set up a solid battle plan, and can often read your enemy's plan by knowing their units and/or their deployment.

Flow In Armies
Slower armies need more understanding of the flow of battle for deployment. Speed leads to flow; immobility is the utter lack of flow. In other words, the Eldar have a much faster flow of battle because of their grav tanks, while space marines and the Imperial Guard have a slower flow because of their vehicles.

Foot armies are usually slower, unless they are heavy on bikers and/or cavalry.

Speed Kills
Note that most armies get (or give up) speed in exchange for other things. I will tell you, though, that it is harder to predict where an Eldar Wave Serpent will be in two turns than it is to figure out where a unit of 5 terminators on foot will be in two turns. Speed gives you options, but does require you to think a little more.

On the other hand, there is nothing quite as fun as maneuvering and denying your opponent his strategy.

More To Come on Flow
I will attempt to break down flow on a more individual basis for various types of units. Frankly, a good, honest look at the flow of battle has to be fairly in-depth, so this series of articles will take time. There will be pictures, and those will speak volumes.

A Final Introductory Note on Flow
I suspect a lot of us out there have at least dabbled in writings on tactics. I have, I'll admit it. One of the things that always kind of miffed me was the occasional line in something like my (probably very abridged, bought on a whim a while ago) copy of Book of the Five Rings. It was something to the effect of "Do this a lot and get good at it."

Man, that line annoyed me. I spent one of my customary christmas/birthday bookstore gift cards on it to LEARN something, not to be told to DO something.

There is a note of truth in that line. Now, I realize it means "learn from experience, boyo." What I write in this and the following articles should be food for thought, but to truly internalize it will take time, effort, and games. You will have to look back over a game, and look ahead in a game to really, truly get it. Once you get it, though, you should be a more effective player.

Personally, I think there's no sin in improving your game.