Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

Izural wrote:
This is weirdly apropos because I am actually running intro games for newbies at my local gaming club this week. What i've done is make it so their army has a distinct advantage, it won't seem like it to them, but to vets they'll take one look at the board and know xD.

We'll be using High Elves V Chaos. I'll be using chaos and the army is nothing but loads of marauders, some hounds, and 5 WoC. The elf list contains Archers, Seaguard, Swordmasters, Dragonknights and a Boltthrower, oh and a Mage.

This way the newbie gets to experience all aspects of the game with an army that's pretty good at each aspect. They can decide from there when they go away what type of army they want, and more importantly, there is a margin of error for the high elf player where if they don't think their moves through, they could lose to my Marauder horde.

Oh, and since its Elves pasting Vikings (with some made-up fluff) it should also be FUN. Apparently a word lost to some gamers these days xD

If you're teaching mechanics to new players this works but otherwise I think you're gimping yourself a bit too hard. I say you need a mage because it will teach them the importance of dispelling & when to hold dice for the next spell.

Oh yeah, sorry, I do actually have a sorcerer. I'm going to give each of us pre-determined spells aswell, a direct damage spell and a buff/hex each so they can see those in action. And yes, I am gimping myself a wee bit, but i've left enough margins open for me to win solidly, each Marauder is GW/LA and comes in 2 groups of 24, so they'll have to quickly learn target priority or get crushed underfoot.

Izural wrote:
This is weirdly apropos because I am actually running intro games for newbies at my local gaming club this week. What i've done is make it so their army has a distinct advantage, it won't seem like it to them, but to vets they'll take one look at the board and know xD.

We'll be using High Elves V Chaos. I'll be using chaos and the army is nothing but loads of marauders, some hounds, and 5 WoC. The elf list contains Archers, Seaguard, Swordmasters, Dragonknights and a Boltthrower, oh and a Mage.

This way the newbie gets to experience all aspects of the game with an army that's pretty good at each aspect. They can decide from there when they go away what type of army they want, and more importantly, there is a margin of error for the high elf player where if they don't think their moves through, they could lose to my Marauder horde.

Oh, and since its Elves pasting Vikings (with some made-up fluff) it should also be FUN. Apparently a word lost to some gamers these days xD

So you're teaching them in a bubble? And when they step out of the bubble, they'll have to learn a whole new game. Which defeats the point of teaching them in the first place.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Izural wrote:
This is weirdly apropos because I am actually running intro games for newbies at my local gaming club this week. What i've done is make it so their army has a distinct advantage, it won't seem like it to them, but to vets they'll take one look at the board and know xD.

We'll be using High Elves V Chaos. I'll be using chaos and the army is nothing but loads of marauders, some hounds, and 5 WoC. The elf list contains Archers, Seaguard, Swordmasters, Dragonknights and a Boltthrower, oh and a Mage.

This way the newbie gets to experience all aspects of the game with an army that's pretty good at each aspect. They can decide from there when they go away what type of army they want, and more importantly, there is a margin of error for the high elf player where if they don't think their moves through, they could lose to my Marauder horde.

Oh, and since its Elves pasting Vikings (with some made-up fluff) it should also be FUN. Apparently a word lost to some gamers these days xD

So you're teaching them in a bubble? And when they step out of the bubble, they'll have to learn a whole new game. Which defeats the point of teaching them in the first place.

And yet, "teaching" a new player the game by mercilessly crushing them with your finely honed 'Tournament' list is the perfect way to ensure that new player quits faster than you can say, "lolz!L2P Noob!"


The first couple games should be softer lists as you're simply trying to teach the very basics of how the game mechanics work. Warhammer is pretty complicated, especially to a brand new player. Trying to teach someone how to play at your normal expert level will only result in information overload as there's just far too many little rules & exceptions to take in all at once.
Unless the new player is looking to jump strait into cutthroat competitive play, essentially throwing them into the deep end of the pool and saying, "now swim or drown" is the absolute worst way to go about encouraging new blood into the game.

Once a new player has the game basics down, then you can start going more 'advanced' by teaching them all the sneaky tricks & tactics and club them with harder lists.
But it should be up to the new player to decide whether or not they even want to go that route. If you're incapable of ever playing the game at anything less than hyper competitive 'Tournament' formats, then don't bother trying to teach new players unless they're the same mindset as yourself... You'll never get the kind of response you want from the newer player, and they in turn will likely develop the mindset that the game is full of foaming at the mouth donkey-caves and end up quitting in short order.

Or look at this way:
You're teaching someone how to ski for the first time. Do you take them to the beginner's 'bunny hill' for their first few runs, or do you take them to your normal 'advanced hill' and just pray they don't kill themselves?

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So you're teaching them in a bubble? And when they step out of the bubble, they'll have to learn a whole new game. Which defeats the point of teaching them in the first place.

I'm getting the impression you're a tournament/WAAC player, and that's fine.

But, if they're still learning mechanics you need to tone it down. If they don't even know how to calculate combat res or how spells are cast you shouldn't be crushing them as a "well you need to learn". I find it just discourages them.

The game should be FUN. Winning is secondary to FUN. I don't think it's FUN to crush people who are new or to be crushed when I was new. You shouldn't hand them the game by any means that's equally as bad. But when I was learning my teacher would inform me when I made a bad move, explain exactly why it's bad, we'd play it out to show me why it's bad then he'd suggest a better move. So instead of "well that got me fethed" I learned "Ok, this is WHY that move was bad and WHY this move is better". Granted he'd always win but I felt like I learned more about the game and became a better player because he tought me not just what NOT to do but what I should have done & why it was better. Now this didn't happen for everything, just the insanely stupid moves new players make.

Think of it like lifting weights, you don't just strap 200lbs on the bench press & tell the person "Well you've gotta get used to it". You don't give a grade 1 student calculus and say "Oh you've gotta learn".

Don't go kid gloves then all at once all-out. Slowly ramp up your list / play to the level you would normally be at. I find the sink-or-swim teaching method is discouraging to new players, nobody wants to get trounced for months, sure winning feels great & I'm not advocating for throwing games to make them feel better. I'm advocating for not taking a player who has never played before & putting them up against your GT winning Dark Elves and crushing them on turn 2. Play out a full game, make some suboptimal moves & if they miss it, tell them. Tell them why they SHOULD make that charge because they will learn more by seeing it happen rather than getting their unit destroyed & saying "well you shouldn't have done that"

 captain collius wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
Yeah there is a difference between teaching the rules and being a donkey. I generally take a good list and explain how to play an options and let them learn. We also adhere to the order of play i.e charge compulsory remaining moves etc. this teaches them how to play.

Teaching them in a bubble does more harm than good. They'll learn, but be clueless in the real world, then they have to learn a whole new game. Whereas teaching them with real lists, which may vary in your meta, but mine is rather competitive, will do much more for them than ANY toning down can EVER hope to do.

you are getting the jist. As in ogre players using sabretusks to pin a unit in a poor deployment. FAnatics and manglers destroying a unit. skinks shooting a monster. I mean things like BOtwd portaglyph epidemus, and a small handful of other stupid items.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 namiel wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
Yeah there is a difference between teaching the rules and being a donkey. I generally take a good list and explain how to play an options and let them learn. We also adhere to the order of play i.e charge compulsory remaining moves etc. this teaches them how to play.

Theres also a difference between teaching and playing someone who is new but knows the rules. If you are teaching then its less of a game more of a q&a session. If you are playing a noob just play them and let them take the beating. It will make them better so long as they are mature enough to handle the beating. Every time I got my ass handed to me it just made me work harder and push to be a better player in all things not WHFB.

You know that is a great point. I do spend the first game or two teaching rather than actually playing. Also my most important game of warhammer ever was when the best player in our store showed my terminator armor playing no clue what a movement phase was for self how important movement is in fantasy. It was a bloody slaughter but boy did i learn a lot. Consequently i have never lost against Ogres again.

You have played against MY ogres yet. Sounds like we need to get a game

HAHAHA BRING IT!

Its on like donkey Kong

Limit your lord and hero builds and stick with a higher core minimum. Then limit special and rare untis to 1 each. That way he is still getting a broad range of things to do and think about but he has the advantage. As you work up his interest and skills, start curving your build towards the more compettive builds. Then he can slowly learn to adapt to a more difficult level of game play. This should insure you dont send him running away.

 Khorvahn wrote:
Just like it says, when your teaching new players or fighting newer players, how does it affect your list building. What tactics or "on purpose" mistakes do you make to help make sure you don't completely destroy them, while still giving a good challenge??

No mistakes, no blunders, I give 'em all that I've got. I don't tell them what to do or give them any clue apart from some rule explanations if needed. I usually take a small picture of the battlefield after each deployment phase or major event of the game, so we can discuss how things went, after the game.

I play scenarios, and don't really care about who won or not.

I often use :
- Unbalanced army values: attacker vs defender. Note it's not always a siege, it may be an army that was sent to grab and bring back home a magic item of great value and is attacked by local armies trying to prevent me from stealing their holy stuff.
- Crappy deployment: all units in columns, packed together in the middle of the table, he's got one (flank) or two (pincer) deployment zones and the first turn: my army is on travel, and my opponent is ambushing me.

I take the easy win for tournament practice. They've gotta learn, right?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I take the easy win for tournament practice.

Because crushing a new player is such good practice for tournaments...

They're going to make mistakes you'll never see in a tournament if anything it dulls your edge to bring your hard as nails list. Better practice would be trying to win with a shittier list & working more on your fundamentals of tactics & positioning. You can still win and chalk up that all important W on your stat line /sarcasm but at least make it a challenge for you to win. Crushing them turn 2 does nothing for you to learn how to be better or for them.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I take the easy win for tournament practice.

Because crushing a new player is such good practice for tournaments...

Nice catch.

Eh, the problem is I ACTUALLY know people who think like that.

I simply can't agree with the "they've gotta learn" take on this.

If they're starting out, one of two things is probably true:

1) They usually don't have too much money invested yet.
2) They're using a borrowed army.

If they get stomped 3 times in a row while doing nothing, of course they're going to walk away and spend thousands of dollars on something else.

That said, don't let them win- give them a fighting chance with a list that isn't WAAC, but don't load up on trash units.

Example: A good friend of mine has been eyeing my miniature cases for some time and, one night when he and his wife were over, I started explaining the game to him. I happened to have a 1000 point high elf army laying around that I never really used and hadn't started painting, so I sent him home with it and advised him to pick up IoB- if he wanted to play high elves, I gave him a ton of core, and IoB would give him a nice supplement to that (mage, griffon prince etc.)

A week later we got together after work, grabbed some beer, and played about three games. I used a fairly run-of-the mill Chaos Warriors army (one I keep mainly for theory-hammer and training purposes). As we went along I explained each phase, and why I was doing what I was doing. To further drive home the point, I had my BRB open as I did things (unit placement, screening, etc. etc.).

Now, the first 2 games were victories for my meh-Chaos army... but he didn't do badly. His elves ended up taking down a unit of Chaos Warriors, Marauder Horsemen and a loan Dragon Ogre. Of course, the Chaos Knights and Chosen w/Exhalted cleaved through his ranks pretty easily... but hey, not bad for a first-timer.

Over the next few weeks he began picking up more models and ended up building a High Elf Cav/Flying Circus army. This was spawned through trial and error against a fair opponent (me) and research on Dakka, WHF and 1D4chan. I gave him one final swing at the Chaos army which he won by a slim VP margin. At that point, I decided to up the ante. First up, he had to play my goblin war machine army of death. Tabled on turn 3. He said that game taught him a lot, more than any other game, but had he been given such a beating the first few games, he wouldn't have invested the time or money into it.

We still play often, about 3 times per week. His army is beginning to dwarf my Dark Elf force (main army these days) and he's already thinking about his next army project.


TL;DR
-Don't be a dick.
-Give them a reason to pick up the hobby (owning a starter set or 700 points is barely an entry)
-Teach them, don't show your superiority to make yourself feel good (pathetic).
-The game grows and flourishes because of new players, not old veterans beating on the "noobs".

Welcome to Dakka.

 Skargit wrote:
If they get stomped 3 times in a row while doing nothing, of course they're going to walk away and spend thousands of dollars on something else.

Being nice with beginners is just something that's part of "Social Skills 101".

I'm no GW representative or shareholder, I just don't care if a beginner is dissatisfied with one game and is going to spend thousands of dollars on Firestorm Armada, historicals, ukulele, bass guitar, harmonica. Or cooking lessons.

And I don't care if GW disappear either. It's their business, not mine. And I don't need them to play any wargames (including Warhammer).

 Khorvahn wrote:
Just like it says, when your teaching new players or fighting newer players, how does it affect your list building. What tactics or "on purpose" mistakes do you make to help make sure you don't completely destroy them, while still giving a good challenge??

In terms of "list building", not much.
What it has been affecting is scenarios/table layouts.

I recently ran a match-up of 10 Waywatchers and a Waystalker against 1k points of Skaven, taken as a genuine army and given a sort of "recycling" on the Skaven slaves/Clanrats.
And you know what? Everyone had a blast. He got to see something that could be considered a "dirty trick" played as just that one single unit which gives him ideas as to how to counter it when he sees it as part of a big army.

Litcheur wrote:
Welcome to Dakka.

 Skargit wrote:
If they get stomped 3 times in a row while doing nothing, of course they're going to walk away and spend thousands of dollars on something else.

Being nice with beginners is just something that's part of "Social Skills 101".

I'm no GW representative or shareholder, I just don't care if a beginner is dissatisfied with one game and is going to spend thousands of dollars on Firestorm Armada, historicals, ukulele, bass guitar, harmonica. Or cooking lessons.

And I don't care if GW disappear either. It's their business, not mine. And I don't need them to play any wargames (including Warhammer).

I think the point is that if you regularly alienate new players by crushing them their first few games, there will eventually be less players around to play with.

It has nothing to do with caring about GW as a business and everything to do with maintaining a healthy local gaming scene.

And yeah,basic social skills play a part, too. It's generally a lot more fun playing with nice, friendly people than with "the silent type" or the "passive-aggressive WAAC type". And fun is what it's all about, right?

There's a weird amount of wargamer machismo in this thread. Perhaps its a misunderstanding or disagreement on who exactly we're defining as a "noob".

But practically speaking, what learning process doesn't start with things toned down at first?

- You don't jump on the freeway the first time you get behind the wheel of a car.
- You don't start basic trainees off on day 1 with live fire exercises.
- You don't learn to read by starting with Shakespeare.
- You don't learn math starting with calculus.
- You don't learn to play basketball by having Lebron James dunk on you.

I'm not saying there's no example where you might learn by being thrown in at the deep end, but certainly its easier to think of examples of the opposite. Warhammer is fairly complex. There are concepts that are going to be difficult to understand and may take some easing in to.

I certainly believe that there are players who want to learn by getting their teeth kicked in each and every game. But that seems unlikely to be a universally acceptable method.

To answer the original question:

- If the new player seems receptive, I'll offer advice, particularly in situations that might be game ending.
- I take a list that is fun. A learning game can take a while. Its a rare person that would enjoy walking across the board with their new battalion of O&G, getting shelled into submission by a gunline.
- I take experimental things- I can learn a little something by taking things I might never have taken in a more "srs bzns" game. So its like pulling punches in a way that's fun for me too.

 Red_Zeke wrote:
There's a weird amount of wargamer machismo in this thread. Perhaps its a misunderstanding or disagreement on who exactly we're defining as a "noob".

But practically speaking, what learning process doesn't start with things toned down at first?

- You don't jump on the freeway the first time you get behind the wheel of a car.
- You don't start basic trainees off on day 1 with live fire exercises.
- You don't learn to read by starting with Shakespeare.
- You don't learn math starting with calculus.
- You don't learn to play basketball by having Lebron James dunk on you.

I'm not saying there's no example where you might learn by being thrown in at the deep end, but certainly its easier to think of examples of the opposite. Warhammer is fairly complex. There are concepts that are going to be difficult to understand and may take some easing in to.

I certainly believe that there are players who want to learn by getting their teeth kicked in each and every game. But that seems unlikely to be a universally acceptable method.

To answer the original question:

- If the new player seems receptive, I'll offer advice, particularly in situations that might be game ending.
- I take a list that is fun. A learning game can take a while. Its a rare person that would enjoy walking across the board with their new battalion of O&G, getting shelled into submission by a gunline.
- I take experimental things- I can learn a little something by taking things I might never have taken in a more "srs bzns" game. So its like pulling punches in a way that's fun for me too.

It's easier to teach with a hard army, but not play it as such, than teach them with soft armies in a soft environment. As the latter forms a proverbial bubble, which will be burst the moment they step into a real game, and realise, "This is unlike anything I've encountered." and then have to learn how to play in a completely different environment.

So, how do I tone down my army? I don't. I just don't play like I'm playing an actual game.

A lot of repetition, here. Let me bring something new to the table:

When I first got into Warhammer, I was walking into a very involved game. There are a lot of rules to this thing, and it demands a lot of time, both in preparation and in playing.

I think I lost...maybe 9 out of 10 of my first games? The next 10 were probably more like 5 and 5. And by the next 10, I felt like I'd gotten the hang of it.
I lost so many games at first because there are so many aspects to the game. And I had no access to what people called "common knowledge".
Like, I didn't realize that charging some Chaos Warriors in the front and flank was much, much worse than just charging them in the flank. I figured, Hey! More bodies, amiright?, and got crushed.

So, when I teach new players, I basically tell them "this game has a pretty steep learning curve. You'll lose a lot, before you understand it completely. But things will get better".

The last time I introduced a new player to the game, he wanted to try it with my friend's Dwarfs. We played 1500pts. He did a little lookin' around online, and determined he wanted to try the Dwarf Ninja list (from the old book). I warned him about the high risk-rewards of Deathstars, but he really wanted to do it.
...and then my Warp Lightning Cannon and Doomrocket were right smack on target, and 35+ Longbeard Rangers turned into 7 of them and 3 characters. And he was, not surprisingly, very, very frustrated. We just called it after my first turn, and he went back to the drawing board.

Another thing I like to do, when possible: no magic for the first game or two. It allows the player to focus on the other phases first.
Granted, if they insist on playing Vampires or Tomb Kings, we'll have wizards. But other than that, it just makes things easier to handle if you portion out the rules a bit.

So I run into this with my current meta with friends. We are all just coming back to WHF after breaks. My friends play HE, WE, TK, Empire, Lizards and I play WoC.

It is starting to frustrate them but they don't want me to back off and let them win either. I bought and build units that were usable and good in many situations, and it seems even when I try to make it more fluffy they still lose most times. They have come close and there were really good games but I am not sure how to let some loses through without just throwing games. Here are my models.

DP
Sorc on horse
Sorc on foot
Hero on daemonic mount x2 (one built as BSB)
24 warriors
5 knights
10 warhounds
5 horsemen
hellcannon

I know WoC is a simple strategy but we have known eachother for years and know I am a strategist and call me if I try to throw a game.

The lizard player is new and I am helping him build a good list, so any suggestions on how to build would be welcome. when playing friendly games with friends the win count starts to get old as things go on (currently 12-0-0) and would like to know if anyone has thoughts on how to help aside from helping them build better lists (which we are doing)

My approach towards learning fantasy was participating in a group battle, so I can piggyback on the expertise and get guidance from my teammate. Afterward, we would play 1v1 with him providing some guidance (ie to clarify if I'm redirecting properly, or to point out any rule interpretation mistakes, etc). Finally, I suggest another team battle where you take charge and allow for your partner to provide feedback after you've made your decision. It builds confidence, allows you to gain a perspective outside of your own, and gives you much needed experience in a new game (with guardrails).

Afterwards, go nuts.

No magic. Done.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Nah I agree with not toning it down. You learn best from failure, not being treated like a special snow flake.

You learn a lot from failure. You learn almost nothing from being crushed.
You need to be at the level where you can look at your failure and discern what you did wrong to learn from it. First time players are not. They're still trying to grasp the very basics, so pulling out your special strategies learned with years of playing your army will give them nothing but a boring game.

Just point out obvious mistakes as the game progresses and a nice AAR. Also advise against anything super bad and explain why.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
No magic. Done.

I can't agree with this. Magic is too central apart of the game & some armies (VC) can't function without it. They need to know about the magic phase, I'm all for toning down on super complex rules but I can't agree with eliminating an entire phase of the game.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Magic is too central apart of the game & some armies (VC) can't function without it. They need to know about the magic phase, I'm all for toning down on super complex rules but I can't agree with eliminating an entire phase of the game.

Like I said above: this is just for the first few games. Let them figure out movement, shooting, and combat. Once they feel they've got their head wrapped around it, add magic.
That's how I was introduced to the game, and it works beautifully.
Vampire Counts can't function without magic, you say? Well, I was considering starting Vampire Counts. But I learned how to play with other armies.
If the new player absolutely will not play anything else but Vampires or Tomb Kings, you obviously can't leave out magic. But if they're willing to wait a bit, it's a great way to establish a foundation, and then build on it.

Fair enough & VC just have no way to function without magic. Invocation of Nehek (Our ressurection spell) is just too central a mechanic.

Our skeletons may suck balls but when they reroll hits & wounds with ASF & extra attack they're pretty scary. Granted that's a perfect storm of casting but it's not undoable using a lvl6 & a mortis engine.

I'm coming from the other side of this discussion - I am a new player who played my first game yesterday, against a veteran opponent.

Before the battle started he explained to me his overall strategy ("I am going to try and match up my unit A with your unit B, this unit will attempt to flank that unit", etc), which I thought was pretty helpful since that made it easier for me to plan out my overall strategy. (Experienced players can look at the battlefield and have a pretty good idea of what their opponent plans to do, so I think that him explaining this to me just evened out the battlefield a bit. It was certainly helpful for me to know what his units were and how they functioned before we started the battle.)

I brought what I have from the IoB set (HE), supplemented by a few units from his HE army (1000pts total). His Empire army was obviously tailored to be a decent match against my list. I never got the impression that he dumbed down his decisions, but instead opted to explain to me his moves and why he made them, and also gave me recommendations on how I should move my forces. After the first round (where he explained everything in detail) I made most of my decisions on my own, with occasional input from him and the opportunity to undo really bad moves.

He also brought along a mortar, which I thought was pretty cool since that gave me a chance to see in how my Reavers can be of use. (They knocked out the mortar on turn two.) Up until then they had gotten slaughtered every time I pitted them against my LGS on the kitchen table at home (just to try out the game and the units), so it was fun to learn what fast, light cav -can- do. (The following round they were flanked by a unit of halberdiers and promptly ran off the table. )

We did skip some of the advanced rules, like terrain rules and sieges/assaults. Also, since it was my very first game ever he did all the calculations for what dice results I needed. Next time I will request that I can look them up each time so that I can learn how to do it myself, but yesterday I had so much else to learn that I found it very convenient that he just took care of all that.

Lastly, I would like to mention that I agree that throwing people into the deep end of the water is a really bad idea. If my opponent had done that yesterday it might not have deterred me from playing the game again, but I certainly would never have played against him again. Games are only fun if they are evenly matched, and until I know the game as well as my opponent the only way to create a balanced match is to start in the easy end and slowly increase the difficulty.

Announcement wrote:
I'm coming from the other side of this discussion - I am a new player who played my first game yesterday, against a veteran opponent.

Before the battle started he explained to me his overall strategy ("I am going to try and match up my unit A with your unit B, this unit will attempt to flank that unit", etc), which I thought was pretty helpful since that made it easier for me to plan out my overall strategy. (Experienced players can look at the battlefield and have a pretty good idea of what their opponent plans to do, so I think that him explaining this to me just evened out the battlefield a bit. It was certainly helpful for me to know what his units were and how they functioned before we started the battle.)

I brought what I have from the IoB set (HE), supplemented by a few units from his HE army (1000pts total). His Empire army was obviously tailored to be a decent match against my list. I never got the impression that he dumbed down his decisions, but instead opted to explain to me his moves and why he made them, and also gave me recommendations on how I should move my forces. After the first round (where he explained everything in detail) I made most of my decisions on my own, with occasional input from him and the opportunity to undo really bad moves.

He also brought along a mortar, which I thought was pretty cool since that gave me a chance to see in how my Reavers can be of use. (They knocked out the mortar on turn two.) Up until then they had gotten slaughtered every time I pitted them against my LGS on the kitchen table at home (just to try out the game and the units), so it was fun to learn what fast, light cav -can- do. (The following round they were flanked by a unit of halberdiers and promptly ran off the table. )

We did skip some of the advanced rules, like terrain rules and sieges/assaults. Also, since it was my very first game ever he did all the calculations for what dice results I needed. Next time I will request that I can look them up each time so that I can learn how to do it myself, but yesterday I had so much else to learn that I found it very convenient that he just took care of all that.

Lastly, I would like to mention that I agree that throwing people into the deep end of the water is a really bad idea. If my opponent had done that yesterday it might not have deterred me from playing the game again, but I certainly would never have played against him again. Games are only fun if they are evenly matched, and until I know the game as well as my opponent the only way to create a balanced match is to start in the easy end and slowly increase the difficulty.

Welcome aboard!

For the dice calculations, it boils down to a few simple formulas that become rote once you get them down. They're just not exactly intuitive, so it takes some practice. Definitely take the time to work through them yourself and let your opponent confirm you're right or wrong instead of telling you, as you plan to do.

Here's the big ones:

To Hit (Ranged): 7 - BS + Modifiers. BS 3 will hit on 4s. Long range is a -1 modifier, so you hit on 5s. BS5 would hit on 2s without modifiers. Remembering the 7-BS for baseline is the big thing here, the modifiers always just stack on top of that in the end. 7+ to hit means 6s then 4s, 8+ to hit means 6s then 5s, 9+ to hit means 6s then 6s. I've seen 7+ to hit a bunch of times, but I don't remember the last time it's ever gotten to 8+ or worse, so just remember the 6s then 4s rule for the weirder cases.

To Hit: If you have higher WS, you hit on 3s. If you have lower WS, check if the opposing WS is double-plus-one or higher. If so, you hit on fives. Otherwise you hit on 4s. For example, WS4 against WS3 will hit on 3s. WS3 will hit WS4 on 4s. WS3 will hit WS6 on 4s. WS3 will hit WS7 on 5s, because 7 is 3*2 + 1. This is the weirdest formula to remember, but it becomes super easy once you do it enough times.

To Wound: The baseline is 4+. For every point that Strength is higher than Toughness, it gets easier. 3+ for one higher, then 2+ for 2 or more higher. 1 is always fail. Likewise, for every point of Strength under Toughness, it gets harder. 5+ for one lower, then 6+ for 2 or more lower. 6 is always a wound.

Armor save: For every point of Strength above 3, reduce armor by 1. 5+ goes to 6+ against Strength 4 (3 + ->1<-). 2+ goes to 5+ against Strength 6 (3 + ->3<-). Just straight up add the difference to the armor save, and if it goes to 7+ or more, armor is negated completely.

Ward Save: You roll it. That's it.

It's daunting at first, but hang in there and try to remember the formulas instead of looking up the tables! You'll thank yourself later once it all clicks.

That was exceptionally well explained aha! I wish I had that when I started

 Evertras wrote:

It's daunting at first, but hang in there and try to remember the formulas instead of looking up the tables! You'll thank yourself later once it all clicks.

Thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to write down these formulas. It'll make it much easier to learn the damage part of combat resolution for sure.