Helping Others Play Like Me

Our group has started a list dojo. People will submit a list, or just a warcaster they like, and people will try to help them build a list, discuss it as a group, so on and so forth. It's very much a "it takes a village..." mentality, and I think it's great.

One of our players requested a list for two Legion warlocks he really likes - Rhyas and eLylyth. Fritz took Rhyas, and I opted to attempt eLylyth because my buddy John also really likes her. Fritz got his list out pretty quick, and a lot of his suggestions were on ways to take advantage of an assassination opening. The list was very aggressive, and very much matched Fritz's playstyle.

When I sat down to puzzle through eLylyth, I had a much different approach. I looked at how each piece would further the list's goal of fighting for scenario objectives. It focused on killing, like any Warmachine list does, but kills were a means of establishing control, not setting up a caster kill. When I did my writeup for the dojo, each model explanation focused on board control. My only mention of assassination was  "Assassination is possible with all your shooting, but that's almost an inevitability since a lot of stuff shouldn't survive to turn 3."

In my mind, the list will win whittling down the opponent and making it impossible for them to threaten an objective. In practice I'm guessing that the list will win by assassination 75% of the time, if not every time simply because it's going to decimate the opponent's threats early in the game. It's even possible that the list could be vastly improved by focusing on going for the kill, rather than controlling the opponent's effectiveness. So why didn't I build the list so it could shoot to thrill?




Because building for the assassination doesn't exist to me. I don't like the uncertainty of assassination, nor do I feel confident in finding that perfect opening that gives me a 90% chance of success. I like playing small-ball, taking small steps toward victory instead of trying to have that one explosive, yet decisive, turn. So when I'm building and evaluating a list, I view it through that lens.

I find myself wondering how dangerous that mentality is. If I'm helping someone build a list, they will handle it so much differently than I would. They might uses pieces aggressively where I would hold them back. They might kill something I wouldn't, or not focus on killing something I'd see as a greater threat. There are a lot of variables involved in playing a list well, and trying to take someone's list and play it is like buying Usain Bolt's running shoes and trying to become a better runner. Sure the style of shoes may be great in theory, but they were made for someone else and therefore may not jive with all my needs.

I'm not saying list dojo is bad, because it can be amazing. But I do see some danger in building someone an amazing list that leaves them frustrated when it doesn't perform how they want it to. They may accuse the builder of not knowing what they're doing, or feel like they suck because they can't play the list correctly.

I think this exercise has helped me appreciate tailoring my lists to suit my playstyle. I hear people say it all the time, but now it really makes sense. All my Khador lists used Widowmakers because they fit me perfectly, even though many other players may not like them. I quit playing them for awhile because I was trying to follow the popular opinion of "good," but I think it might be time for me to go back to models and lists that work for my playstyle, and not just ones that are deemed good by the small percentage of top-level players.


See you tomorrow!

Remember to follow me on Facebook! I'm doing a blog post every single day for 2013, and Facebook is a great way to stay up-to-date as well as take part in my monthly giveaways.