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.

I posted something like this a few years ago and though I would post it once more. Basic what I want to know is how do you go about giving advice when someone asks about a list. I have seen a lot of people post a list and ask advice and then the next half dozen people tear apart the list totally rebuilding it to their own taste, a lot of the time not taking the OP in consideration. I am going to do this in two parts.
The other thing have been noticing is that if someone post a “Fluffy List” no seems to give advice, but if the some list is posted without the words “Fluffy” or “Non-Competitive” the same list will get a lot of comments.
As a note these are my Armies
Space Wolves [since 1st Edition/Rouge Trader Days]
Space Marines [since 1st Edition/Rouge Trader Days]
Imperial Guard [since 1st Edition/Rouge Trader Days]
Grey Knights [Since 2nd Edition]
Dark angels [Since 3rd Edition]
Blood Angels [Since 5th Edition]
Chaos Space Marines [This is one of my new 6th Edition Army]
Tau [This is one of my new 6th Edition Army]
Eldar [This is one of my new 6th Edition Army]
Another Note: my plan is to make a 2,000 point Army for each Codex.

Fist some Definitions as I read them:
Tournament List: This is a list to go and win in a competition.
Take on All-Comers: This is a list obviously meant to take on any army.
Competitive List: This is a strong list to play vs. someone else’s Competitive List.
Non-Competitive List: These are one of my Favorites, these are obviously list just to have fun with.
For Fun List: The list is usually about pulling out cool looking Figures or units you just want to try with no expeditions of Victory, only pushing Plastic and Blowing crap Up!
Fluffy List: This is obviously a list build to a theme. These are similar to the Fun List, but these usably have a more competitive nature, but the player is more concerned about “Narrative” than Victory.
Tried and True List: These are list players have played and done well with.

First: What I would like from those who give advice.
Second: How I go about giving advice.

Now to the part I started writing this about

Asking for Help or at least to Show off my List:
I usually start by giving some information like, this is a for Fun List or I have an upcoming Game up and I want to know were a few places were there is a need for something. I will also say weather or not I have the models or I am planning on purchasing/buying the models. I also sometimes will post a list wanting options on a single or small number of squads. This one usually goes bad as I get two pages on every unit but the one I asked about.
I am also very hard on myself when it comes to WYSIWYG and my models so usually when I post a list I already have the models built, I will try to start making sure this is noted in the introduction.

Giving Advice:
This is were I think most of fail on. I have actually changed how I give advice.

Now this is how I give advice:
When I read the post or even the title to see what I am getting into, is it supposed to be a Super-Competitive or is the player looking to just have fun. Then I try to see what he is looking for in the way of advice on, is it just on a few units or is it the whole list? Are they looking for a complete overhaul or just tweaking? Have they already build the Models and making a list to fit around them or are they building a list and then are planning on getting models? [Something I think a lot of people don’t take in account or don’t bother posting to start with]

Then I usually then only make some minor suggestions, like changing some Wargear or changing some units around. I also usually give a reason for such not just that “That Guy Sucks!” I get a lot of that and it usually puts me in a defensive mode derailing the thread for a page and a half as I defend my choice.
I also usually praise units that I usually don’t see, like Long Fangs without Missile Launchers.
One of the other things I don’t do unless the OP ask is Post your own List, I have been seeing a lot of these recently.

Tournament List: I stay away from these nowadays. One I have no clue of the local Meta and I would hate to give advice that gets the player crushed under waves of armor when I helped build a list to take on hordes. Two is I really don’t like the environments that most tournaments take pace in.
Take on All-Comers: This is another one I stay away from because my Local Meta is mostly Marines of some flavor, with some Orks and Nids. I can’t tell you how to win vs. Dark Eldar or Necrons as I have never faced them.
Competitive List: Some of these can be Cheese or WAAC. This is another I usually just lurk and read them only something when I see a rules violation and then usually only with Space Wolves.
Non-Competitive List: These are one of my Favorites. Mostly because I get to see some interesting units being pulled out you never usually see. That or the player just wants to experiment, which I always feel is a good thing.
For Fun List: This actually is what I mostly do nowadays. The list is usually about pulling out cool looking Figures or units you just want to try with no expeditions of Victory, only pushing Plastic and Blowing crap Up!
Fluffy List: These are on of my favorite list to help with. Now I usually only do it with Space Wolf List as there my Number One army.
Tried and True List: I usually leave these alone other than suggesting Minor Wargear changes.


Then we get to what could be a few touchy subjects:
Special Characters:
I have seen a lot of advice about getting rid of Special Characters on a list. I tent to not do that, when some puts a Special Character in a list it is usually for a reason, and I try to respect that.

Tried and True List:
I have one when I post the latest version I get two pages of “That is a Horrid List, You Can Never Win With That List!” or “My Necron Flying Wedge Of Gouda Doom Would Mop You Up On Turn One!” this is another one that I tread lighting on when I see them. I don’t know the local Meta so I really can’t say anything other than maybe making minor suggestion.

Mathhammer:
I ing loath Mathhammer, I know it has its place, but I try to avoid it. It makes some people’s head hurt and there is no better way to derail a thread than 2-3 people taking over a tread with Mathhammer. As a list poster I hate this, but I will leave this to another thread. I will put it this way; I trust Real World experience over Mathhammer.

High Cost Units:
I have noticed that a lot of people the first thing they do is look at a list and see a high priced model and say “That model is to Expensive, I could by a whole Squad for that price” or “Why Buy a model for that many points when one shot can kill all of those points.” One more is “Why did you pay that much for that one Squad I could buy 3 for that cost.”

I will sum it up with this: When I give advice I try not to disrupt the OP’s list as much as possible, only giving advice to make sure they are within the rules and try to keep it to its original theme. With the exception of Drop Pods; it’s all or nothing with them, one Pod will die.

I know this is overly long and I probably rambled a little, but I would to hear what goes on in your brain when you ask for or give advice.

 Anpu42 wrote:
The other thing have been noticing is that if someone post a “Fluffy List” no seems to give advice, but if the some list is posted without the words “Fluffy” or “Non-Competitive” the same list will get a lot of comments.

That shouldn't really be surprising. The general assumption is that people are posting a list to find out if it is any good competitively or if it can be made better.

The moment you explain that it is a fluffy list, people are going to assume that you're not as interested in improving it power wise... at which point there is not really anything to comment on apart from whether or not people agree that it is fluffy... which isn't really the focus for most of the sorts of people who are interested in commenting on army lists.

 insaniak wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
The other thing have been noticing is that if someone post a “Fluffy List” no seems to give advice, but if the some list is posted without the words “Fluffy” or “Non-Competitive” the same list will get a lot of comments.

That shouldn't really be surprising. The general assumption is that people are posting a list to find out if it is any good competitively or if it can be made better.

The moment you explain that it is a fluffy list, people are going to assume that you're not as interested in improving it power wise... at which point there is not really anything to comment on apart from whether or not people agree that it is fluffy... which isn't really the focus for most of the sorts of people who are interested in commenting on army lists.

Yes this is the thing that saddens me.
Fluffy list still need some help sometimes, not alot most of the time, but sometimes.

Also the ocaisinal "That looks Cool!" would be nice.

'That looks cool' is pretty much a junk post and to many people, probably not worth the time it would take to type out. It's a nonstarter. Much like a lot of your points.

Praising uncommon units solely for being uncommon is faulty logic. That's like praising a baseball team for having a pitcher batting cleanup. There's a reason it's not commonly done.

Many special characters are woefully inefficient points-wise or even outperformed by unnamed paralllels.

The inherent problem with mathhammer is the same problem as with math. The modeling is fine, people just don't understand it. They take 'average' to mean most common result (lolno) and so on. They misinterpret 'low chance of outcome' as 'impossible.' Trusting so-called 'real world experience' over mathhammer is like saying 'well, I know one guy who won the lottery, so that's a great retirement plan for everyone'. A Lascannon *can* kill a Leman Russ in cover from across the board. I've done it, there's Real World Experience. It's not reliable. If you're looking at performance in more than one instance, congratulations, you're performing mathematical analysis. Or you're doing it wrong. Either or.

Cost of units is very relevant. The more fragile something is for the points, the faster your army dies. The more guns you have, the faster you kill. Quantity is a relevant factor. Simply not having enough boots on the board can be a real problem.

Most of the things you avoid are very real potential flaws and even common ones.

If people are looking for comments on a list, they are usually looking for one of two things. They want either validation of their genius, or they want genuine advice. Either way you're not doing them any favors by softsoaping your commentary.

First of all you're making the traditional mistake that "competitive" and "fluff/fun" are on opposite ends of a single scale. They aren't. A list isn't more "fun" just because it's less competitive, and it certainly isn't more fluffy. Lists can be all possible combinations of them, you can have a competitive list that is also extremely fun to play (and would be less fun if you replaced the powerful units with weaker ones), and you can have a weak list with lots of rarely-seen units that is boring to play with and completely against the fluff.

 Anpu42 wrote:
The other thing have been noticing is that if someone post a “Fluffy List” no seems to give advice, but if the some list is posted without the words “Fluffy” or “Non-Competitive” the same list will get a lot of comments.

Because "fluffy" and "fun" are subjective. Nobody can tell you how to have fun, so a topic that starts with "here's my fun list" doesn't have any room for discussion. So the only way to have a constructive discussion about a list is to analyze how well it wins games and suggest ways to improve it. Yes, this often means moving to a cookie-cutter list, but that's what you get in a game with such poor internal balance.

I will put it this way; I trust Real World experience over Mathhammer.

Too bad, because you're wrong. This just isn't something that's up for debate, statistical analysis of the game (when used appropriately) gives accurate information. If the math says unit X is better than unit Y at doing Z then that's all there is to it, and no amount of anecdotes about how your unit Y "always rolls well" will change this fact.

 Peregrine wrote:

I will put it this way; I trust Real World experience over Mathhammer.

Too bad, because you're wrong. This just isn't something that's up for debate, statistical analysis of the game (when used appropriately) gives accurate information. If the math says unit X is better than unit Y at doing Z then that's all there is to it, and no amount of anecdotes about how your unit Y "always rolls well" will change this fact.

This is the only one I disagree with.
Yes Mathhammer has its place, but one thing to remember a d6 does not roll with a statistical average for some stupid reason.
If you sit back and watch two people argue over the odds of something you 90% of the time they are both correct. Now I admit that at times it use a very basic Mathhammer.

When I state I trust Real World experience over Mathhammer. it is because I have constantly seen “Mathhammer Statistically Worthless Units” win games.
For example Blood Claws:
If you only use Mathhammer you would never field them, only Grey Hunters. Yet when I field a Pack or two of them they usually perform well and usually do something that wins the game for me. Be it tar pit a Death Star, kill off the enemy Warlord or find them holding an important objective. By Mathhammer they should not do this vs. many lists, but they do, sometimes better than Grey Hunters.

The same thing with Plasma Weapons:
By “Mathhammer” when I field a list with 21 Plasma Weapons I should be loosing models left a right, but I generally loose 1-2, maybe. Yet the next guy will loose 9-10. this is why I will use “Mathhammer”, but I don’t “Trust” it to make my decisions.

See you've fallen prey to the classic failure of analysis. There is no such thing as statistically worthless, only statistically inferior. As long as a thing isn't literally impossible (ie S3 attacks wounding T8), it *can* happen. It's just a matter of likelihood, and how many attempts you are going to have to take before you get it to happen.

The actual mathhammer on Grey Hunters vs Blood Claws is also narrower than you think it is. Against non-WS 3 targets, Claws actually do outperform GHs on the charge. Their problem is that they are the SAME ppm, carry LESS wargear, and have weaker special weapon options. They also have a stupid rule governing their behaviour, and will take more damage back from WS4 units. They're bad because they bring less flexibility for the same points value, not because they're unable to do anything. The actual question at hand is, what do they do better than Grey Hunters? The only answer is, charge down WS 2 or WS4/I(3 or less) soft units that don't have defensive grenades. Grey Hunters fight WS4/I4 more efficiently on the charge and shoot far more effectively, and don't demand a WG babysitter. Statistically, Blood Claws aren't actually a bad torrent attack melee unit, they just suffer in overall comparison to Grey Hunters because both are 15ppm Troops in the same book.

Also, 'I have won games with them' is just as useful for determining their relative value as 'I have won money at roulette tables' is for determining how much of a living you can make at gambling. Sometimes long shots *work*. Mathhammer actually tells us this.

By mathhammer, with 21 plasma weapons all firing 1 shot every time on power armour models, you'll usually lose 0-2 per shooting phase. Zero casualties isn't as uncommon as you'd think. Especially if you're not firing constantly. small chances tend to have broader standard deviations anyways.

One final note. Don't forget that mathhammer is predicated on fair dice, and many rounded-corner dice are not fair. It's much more common that the deviation is caused by biased dice.

 GreyHamster wrote:
Said stuff

Let me rephrase Loathing of Mathhammer: I have been getting this on another thread.
I suggest using a Power Maul instead of something else on a Thunderlord.

I then started “The Mathhammer” about how it is completely “Worthless”, when it’s not “Worthless”.
I also saw this on a thread about Heavy Bolters were Side A shows how No they are “Worthless” and then Side4 B shows there are not “Worthless”.

Fine, just hide your work, I have abandoned many a thread over the fact I spend three pages of scrolling to get back to the discussion.
The worse part is if you state, “But it works for me!” that seem to only make them work harder to change your mind. Mathhammer should be discussed in Length in the Tactics, not when some guy is asking weather to take a Power Sword or Power Maul on his list.

Currently I have found myself in that trap, but I am trying to keep the Math out of my Warhammer.

I never give advice. I'm asked occasionally, but I just refuse. Nor do I ask for or welcome other people's appraisals of my armies. I know they're worthless and uncompetitive, but they're mine. If I changed them to fit someone else's suggestions, they'd be less so. Sadly, the world is full of people who think they're doing me a massive favor by piping up with their comments. If more people took the time you've taken to think about the topic, it'd be much more pleasant.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Yes Mathhammer has its place, but one thing to remember a d6 does not roll with a statistical average for some stupid reason.

Yes it does, over a sufficient number of rolls. You aren't going to roll the exact average outcome every time, but the math doesn't say you do. Anyone who actually understands the math knows that the average value is just the most convenient way of analyzing something, and the actual outcomes will follow a nice predictable bell curve.

When I state I trust Real World experience over Mathhammer. it is because I have constantly seen “Mathhammer Statistically Worthless Units” win games.

Nobody has ever said that "worthless" units can't ever, under any circumstances, win games. Now that Aun'va has decent rules I can't think of a single unit that is so bad that you'd rather have nothing at all than put it in your list. Every single unit is contributing something, so eventually if you play long enough it will make a significant difference. But that doesn't mean that it's good, or that it wins more frequently than an alternative.

By “Mathhammer” when I field a list with 21 Plasma Weapons I should be loosing models left a right, but I generally loose 1-2, maybe.

No you shouldn't, unless you play nothing but flak armor IG. And if you think you lose significantly fewer models than average you either haven't played very many games and are making a big deal out of a bit of above-average luck, or you just suck at remembering your dice. If you pay closer attention you'll find that over a large enough number of games your losses to your own plasma guns will be approximately the average.

I'm very much in agreement with OP's posts.

Can't speak for the other armies, but I go out of my way to help every single Ork player who posts in the army list section. Sadly this favour is rarely returned...

When I give advice I often have to ask "competitive or fun" first because the OP doesn't make this clear. I then try to help them build a list along the theme they've decided. I also point out if the strategy is at the strong or weak end of competitiveness ~ because I know many new players are looking for a strong list and have no idea what units or strategies are effective. If they're ok with running a weak list (which is fantastic IMO) then I help them make it a bit stronger but keeping in theme. If they decide they want to throw the theme out for moar power I give them the same old "lootas and shootas" rhetoric.

I agree with a lot of the OP's points too, particularly that posters should be clear what they want and then responders should take that into account when they provide advice.

I see a lot of posts where the original requests made aren't followed - sure it may be good generic advice, but it doesn't fit what was asked for.

In respect of mathhammer there is no question that it can work. However, imho, the way units are played often skew the results for a unit (because mathhammer is often done by looking at Unit A vs B in isolation). On a table, that doesn't often happen. So in the "Real World" widely varying results can be obtained from Unit A vs Unit B.

In fact, in some cases suggesting a unit, but not including the tactics required to make it work, can have worse results, even in mathhammer tells us otherwise.

I think a key point not raised by the OP is "Who should give advice?"