Using Output Estimations in Game

 I use a lot of estimated output on articles on this blog so I felt it was worth a glimpse at how I personally use those to help inform decisions.  One of the primary things to consider is that all in all this is a dice game and with how small the sample size is over the course of a game or even an event there will be wild variations compared to the estimates.  Given that variation I rarely take an action expecting that outcome will .  

Instead I often assume I am going to do a least a wound or two less and take a wound or two more.  You can't reasonably plan on huge swings but I think it is worth being a little bit pessimistic as doing so will often guide you into smart choices.  Typically that means I am going to pick out the really important things I need to happen in a round and build redundancy into my plan.

For example if I need to do 5 wounds to a regiment and my estimate is 5 to 6 wounds with a regiment I'm going to try to make sure a second unit is in position to clean up if I am below my estimate.  Sometimes this leads to arranging my activations such that a ranged unit can chip in prior to a regiment charging in and blocking line of sight to a priority target.  I'd rather get my priority engagements resolved and deal with a little bit of efficiency lost due to ensuring resolution than leave a regiment I really need gone on the table.

Defensively it also means I'm going to play a little bit conservatively in order to keep units on the table as long as possible.  Table state is going to play a big role into decisions here.  Sometimes you get forced into committing more than you'd like to not give up scenario advantage, but it is worth pointing out that the best defense is always distance - you can't get hit if your opponent doesn't get the opportunity to attack.  This can be especially true of very mobile units like Raptor Riders where it is easy to over extend them when it isn't really beneficial to do so.

I wouldn't recommend using estimates as a hard guide for what to expect at the table.  Dice simply provide for too much variation and an individual game simply isn't going to provide enough of a sample size to push all that heavily towards expectations.  However, knowing the most likely outcome range can gives you tool to help plan turns and inform decisions.  Personally I tend to lean a little more on the conservative side - expecting to need to use a little bit more resources than the estimate and expecting my opponent to do a little better than average this mind set informs my overall playstyle and has generally been reasonably effective for me. 

As alway thanks for reading

-K

Hunters and Slingers or Why You Should Probably Consider Running Both

 A question that seems to get asked rather frequently is which should I choose between Hunters or Slingers or why would I ever take Hunters over Slingers and I think attempting to answer that is worth it's own post.  I have already made posts about each of those units that I will link to at the end and it's also worth noting that Slingers seem likely to get at least a mild adjustment in the upcoming army list update.  That said I don't actually think the initial question is overly impacted by an update unless Slingers get hit really hard.  The reason for this is pretty straight forwad - I don't actually think the units are that similar or fill the same role.

Slingers are a primary ranged superiority unit.  With the notably longer range and a rule that functionally adds wounds rather than improving quality the expectation for Slingers is to sit back and volley as long as possible.  The potential upper end of their output is quite substantial and they can be reasonable expected to do well with just a base 3 stand regiment and the predator needed to take them.  The predator fits well here as it also has 18" range and will happily sit and shoot as long as possible.  I find the predator to be very efficient in terms of output per cost mostly because as a long ranged option it tends to last on the table quite awhile.  Slingers are really the only regiment that we have to fill this role.  If all you want is some ranged oomph this should be your first and probably only stop.

Hunters are much more a flexible unit option.  They can shoot reasonably well but even with having deadly shot and AP 1 the much shorter 14" range is likely to prevent you from being able to stand and shoot for large portions of the game.  To offset this Hunters have an additional melee attack.  A few extra attacks per regiment doesn't seem like a lot but against a d3/r3 target you are looking at a little more than an extra wound done per regiment.  Add in the lower base cost and Hunters are actually half way efficient in melee and take buffs quite well.  I've found Hunters to function very well as a front line.  The volley works to force opponents forward but running at Hunters just to engage as you would many other ranged units is a tactic that Hunters are often able to punish.

Rather than comparing Hunters to Slingers I'd be more apt to look at them as a comparator with Blooded.  You sacrifice some melee and a little bit of durability to instead pick up ranged attacks and improved mobility.  Hunters being light gives them the advantage of being a potential front line that is on the table early and getting up the board to threatening positions.  Both also have good officer options which can be quite valuable.  Hunters not being able to score on their own is a potential issue - it is always worth looking at a list and asking if you have enough potential scoring options.  I like to have 4 scoring options but have gotten by with 3 and the option to slide a character into some lights for a "false fourth" regiment.

As far as the sacrificed durability I've found it to not be overly important.  W'adrhun in general does not have much by way of bulky front line pieces.  We do have the additional wound on many stands (including all 3 mentioned in the article) that shifts the odds of survival a little but by and large I do not expect most of my regiments to survive contact unless it is something in a larger block.

To finish up here I've found Slingers to be a specialist and Hunters to be more a generalist choice.  If what you need in your list is strong ranged output you should be looking at a way to stuff in some (or some more) Slingers.  Ranged is what they do and they are very good at it.  If you need a piece you can move around and can fill some different roles Hunters are your huckleberry.  I personally find that using both is extremely effective.  Regiments of each should give you strong early board presence and the ability to dictate tempo.  You have options to overlap threat ranges to make it very difficult for your opponent to find safe spaces while being relevant on the table.  Hunters ahead of Slingers with some angling to provide sight lines gives you lots of options to punish opponents moving forward or make something like holding a zone largely untenable. 

As always thanks for reading

-K

Math on Slingers can be found HERE

Me gushing about how much I like Hunters is HERE