Assessing army lists - what to consider when building lists?

[Myzyrael]

Hello Folks,

there is a thought wandering around my head for some time now, that I'd like to share with you. Or, in different words, which I need your feedback and input on ?

(Skip this if you're in a hurry) 
With very little time for actually playing AoS games I often find myself in the strange place that I have some hour here and there to just think about possible lists but playing them might happen weeks later or maybe even never. That wasn't really an issue before, because I knew I'll have fun on the next gaming night anyway. But our group has shifted, latest with AoS2, towards more competitive play. And there are days you face armies that you don't lose against but that crush you to the wall, take what is left of your body, smash it towards the ground, hop on your neck, rip off your head, ... you get what I mean. 
(/end skip)

So now for me to enjoy the game on an even level, I have to "git gud"  Jokes aside, it seems like I seriously need to level up a bit. 

The idea I'd like to discuss is if it is possible to come up with some sort of "tool" (e. g. checklist, excel sheet, formula, ...) that you can use to test/assess your army list versus typical obstacles that you will have to overcome.

So for example, let this tool be some checklist that says: Hammer, Anvil, Charakter Sniper, Alpha Strike Protection, ... You will take your army list and try to explain to yourself which units in your list will fulfill which role and HOW. You might, on the one hand, see where you have "holes" in your plan and, on the other hand, get a better feeling for what to do with a unit (and how) once it actually hits the battlefield.

"Basically" I'd like to come up with some sort of practice tool to use for becoming a bit better as a player without the intense investment of playing weekly. This might even include multiple parts, like tools for the list building stage, the pre game stage and post game assessment. 

 

What I'd like to ask you is
a) share feedback about this idea,
b) tell me about similar things from this domain or totally different ones and
c) tell me what, from your experience, might be possible elements of such tool.

 

Sorry for these quite vague descriptions but I'd like to refrain from too narrow discussion right now to leave the solutions space wide open.

 

 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

If you design this you will be a millionaire...

Seriously though, people have tried for years to make tools of this nature for many similar areas not just AoS. It’s a very hard thing to do as there are just so many variables. 

Saying that, there are steps you can take to make a fairly generic check sheet, even an app could be made that could read from an army list to analyse a list for simple flaws etc. But I don’t know how much better that would be over a check sheet. 

I big problem with his idea is that different lists approach problems in different ways, for example something with a high save could be countered by: MW, high rend, movement denial spells, chaff, etc... so to see if you have a hole in your list is too subjective, you need a human mind. 

[Overread]

A few thoughts

1) You probably can't do this unless you build an AI and a computer game built around the games rules. However you can take some steps toward better informing yourself

2) Probabilities. A huge part of what makes a unit work is the probability of that unit performing on the table. So its about not just know its "D3 to hit" but what the probability of that hit is for the whole unit, assuming 100% survival of the unit to combat. Then you've got your to wound and finally the damage plus any rending or other abilities

Ergo through probability theory you can at least work out the general damage that a unit can output in ranged or close combat. You can then compare this to the units points and give yourself a rough idea of how powerful the unit is. It also helps to note if they are normal or mortal wounds as they are very different in how they affect things in game; mortal wounds being far more powerful as they deny saves

 

2) You have to keep in mind context. One might might have a woefully low damage output compared to another; but the one with lower damage output has a higher rending score and thus has a greater chance of damaging units with a higher save modifier. So now its not just considering the damage output but the nature of that damage.

3) Deployment and speed. Some units are fast and some are slow

4) Questions and answers. Try to think of an army as asking questions of your opponent and answering questions they ask of you. 

For example a unit that has a very good save and lots of health would be asking a question of how you can defeat such a damage soak; Similarly its an ideal answer to an enemy unit that puts out a lot of attacks that might not have much if any rending or mortal wound abilities. When you add the context of a known enemy faction you can put together the rough properties they have in typical armies to know what you might have to counter. Eg if you knew your opponent was  Daughters of Khaine you'd know to expect very fast movement, powerful leader based combos and a hard hit - but similarly less powerful tarpitting and less powerhouse units besides morathi. So already you've got some idea of what questions their typical army might be asking of you to answer. This gets easier if you know roughly what your opponent is going to bring

5) Combos - making all the above harder is combos. Some units might appear weak, but they cast a spell or ability that buffs another unit, making another wise good unit into great one. Of course combos can be risky, but they offer you means to improve performance of your army. It can also form a cornerstone of how you choose to deploy and move units; if you know you've got to keep some close to use combos that already starts to tell you where to roughly deploy them.

6) Map context - big and complicated one here and very influenced by the local tables you play on. Knowing the rough table setup is important. If you know its open space with little cover then you know that its going to favour ranged units; or abilities that let you deep strike behind enemy lines; teleport or otherwise close the distance faster without taking hits. 

Similarly if you know that hte boards are highly dense with terrain then taking a selection of big base models might hinder you in moving them around for best effect. 

[Myzyrael]

5 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

If you design this you will be a millionaire...

Seriously though, people have tried for years to make tools of this nature for many similar areas not just AoS. It’s a very hard thing to do as there are just so many variables. 

Saying that, there are steps you can take to make a fairly generic check sheet, even an app could be made that could read from an army list to analyse a list for simple flaws etc. But I don’t know how much better that would be over a check sheet. 

Becoming a millionaire is not my intention, at least with this idea, there are others...

My inspiration is coming from totally different domains. In my work, we are running many innovation workshops with people from different companies and we design the workshop materials specifically to facilitate their thinking into the right direction. You might know about this thing called "Business Model Canvas" which has inspired an insane amount of people thinking different about how to describe their companies efforts. The tool itself is simple (just some empty boxes on a sheet of paper that you write in) but the discussion about what to write in there is vital. So I don't believe that we will be able to take out the human brain of the equation, but more like supporting it to think in the right direction. 

 

[pseudonyme]

Tom Lyons discussed it with Sigmar & son a couple of weeks back 

 

[Ben]

I always try to make sure I have options to react to anything and the potential to chase things around the table.  

Sounds vague, but generally if you have the means to move to focus on a new threat, and the means to hold up/retreat from overwhelming force you are most of the way there.  

Last year at SCGT I used 2 star drakes.  great on paper but the biggest issue was lack of mobility when opponents split up or could move around the table freely. 

My Legion of Azgorh really struggle with this, so I have had to develop a particular play style when using them.  In some matches it just doesn't work.  But thats the dis advantage of that faction.  My Daughters of Khaine on the other hand excel at this.  Ran and Charge.  Retreat and pile into combat with sisters.  Teleport with Khalibron.  They are very strong because of it.  

Don't for get that when you react to something you do not actually need to kill it.  Just hold it up or out number it is enough

[RuneBrush]

Just to echo a few other posts.  I don't think there's a formula you can apply to an army to gauge how it should perform in practice because there are so many different variables in play.  But I can see the logic behind roughly ranking an army.

I've felt for a couple of years that broadly speaking the primary components of an army are:

• Movement (ability to get round the table in some form or another - includes deployment shenanigans)
• Ranged damage (self explanatory - includes magic, abilities & shooting)
• Damage absorption (ability to soak up damage - includes armour saves, ignore damage rolls, replacing slain models/units)
• Mortal Wound output (another self explanatory, but should bear in mind the range you can pump them out)

This is followed by the following secondary components:

• Damage output (how much damage you can pump out over the course of a turn & battle)
• Board control (how much of the board can you dominate)
• Reliability (can you depend on an army/unit performing*)
• Speed at which you inflict damage on your opponent (an army that can unleash 200 mortal wounds on turn 5 isn't as useful as one that can inflict 12 each turn)

In my eyes, an army needs to have 3 out of 4 primary components in order to be classed as a "competitive" army, if you only have one or two primary components then you're going to struggle against an army that has more of them.  Secondary components can win games, but are more situational

Now, I'm not saying that the above are hard and fast rules - it won't take much to "break" the logic.  However as a rough ball park I've found it to be a quick way of assessing my own army.

 

* A good example of this is the Skull Cannon - it has one really good shot, but you're only going to hit with it a fraction of the time

[AaronWilson]

I think what's important about list building is to direction in a list and make sure everything inside the list has purporse.

[Ben]

yeah thats a good one too. 

[amysrevenge]

I guess it doesn't help much in the quest to automate list design, but the thing that I, seasoned mid-table gamer that I am, always try to look for is things that "break" the rules.  Kunnin' Rukk shooting in the Hero Phase being a prime example.  There are a lot of movement shenanigans that break the rules  (teleports, stormcast lightning, etc).  Things that can interrupt and go first in the combat phase, or attack more than one time in the combat phase.  Extra high resistance to MW or spells.  That sort X-factor thing that's hard to quantify.

[paul7926]

I don't think you can come up with a 'list' or an 'app' for this but there are some general suggestions to keep in mind.  The above comments cover a lot of what I was thinking so no point repeating them.

What I will add is that if your group is going more 'competitive' and your goal is to 'git gud' or at least be on a level footing then you also need to understand what you might be facing.  Some call it the 'meta game' but whatever you call it the important point is this:

You need to consider what you might face and how you will deal with whatever that opposition does.  I don't play enough AoS to give real examples so I'll just make something up....

Imagine there is an IronJawz list that puts up good results and becomes popular and the focus of that list is a massive alpha strike turn 1 based on the movement enhancement and multiple stacking Whaaagh's.  Sure it's a bit of a one trick pony but if it's posting good results and you will play against it you need to understand what your list will do to counter that.  It might be leaning towards really hard to kill 'rock' style units that can weather the storm turn 1 and then counter attack after the opposition has been unable to kill you.  It might be a magic heavy list that buffs everything turn 1 so that the alpha strike is less potent.  It might be your own version of the alpha strike that you just hope to deliver first.  It might be an army that can summon back most of what is killed making their alpha strike meaningless.  Whatever it might be you must have a way to deal with it.

So not only must your list have tools to accomplish what you desire but it must have answers to the lists that are popular and that it will play against.

[Myzyrael]

Wow ? thank you for your input. I feel like there was a lot in there that gives me some nice insight. Last week I was out of order headbanging and drinking way too much beer but there are already some ideas lurking in my head how to proceed. I will share my work in progress as soon there is something to share.

I love this helpful place here, thanks again!