6th Edition: Vehicular changes and Stealth Teams

My last article had a bit of an alarmist tone, noting the issues the current ways of playing Tau would have in the new edition. However, I figured I would take a few guesses at how Tau will be played up until the new 'dex based solely on how the new rules and FAQ have shifted the game. This will be segmented into a few articles, starting with this one. Onwards!

Big changes:

As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, 5th edition was mech edition. Everything you took was aimed to take down vehicles. Melta suicide squads, Long Wolf Missile spam, the works. For the Tau, a big part of that was maxing out on Missile Pods. However, 6th edition has changed the game quite a bit in regards to vehicles; not only can they never score (save that one mission), they can't contest. They also have taken huge hits to durability. While in 5th landing a glancing hit was nothing to write home about, now it chips off a third of the health of most vehicles.
So what does all this mean? First and foremost, it means vehicles are going to be less prevalent. We need to switch over to a larger focus on anti-infantry firepower. Other armies may be focusing on this through packing plasma guns where they can and making use of weapons like bolters and lasguns. Luckily, we excel at anti-infantry naturally, having a plethora of S5 options. That brings us to...

The Humble Stealth Suit

Stealth Suits were never that great in a competitive environment. While proponents of the meek weapons platform would prattle on about the versatility of being able to both Outflank and Deepstrike, their durability and armaments left a lot to be desired. Being only Toughness 3 with their Stealth Fields buffing them, they were not at all durable, and subject to counterfire. In addition, Deepstriking them left them unable to jump away from their targets (3+ save and Stealth Fields didn't matter too much against rapidfire), whilst Outflanking was unreliable at best. While this may sound like nitpicking (and it is), these are all notable flaws when compared to their bigger brothers in 5th, the Crisis Suit. For a mere sixteen points more per model, You could have a Crisis Suit with an additional toughness, wound, and a twin-linked Missile Pod instead of a piddling Burst Cannon. You could fight from a much farther range effectively. All you gave up was the weak Stealth Field and Outflanking.

Now things are different. While you could make the comparison that a TL-Burst Cannon/Black Sun Filter Crisis Suit would just be a better Stealth Suit (gaining a wound, a toughness, and a Twin-linked weapon for only 10 points more), Stealth Suits now have two excellent USRs thanks to the FAQ; Stealth and Shrouded. Shrouded increases your cover save by 2 points, while Stealth does the same by one point. This works even in the open, meaning if you would normally have no cover, Stealth Suits go from nothing to 5+, then from 5+ to 4+. Behind the weakest cover, they have 3+ cover saves. Behind the majority of cover, they go down to 2+ cover saves. 2+ cover saves. That's a huge deal. We all know that Tau are masters of obscuring themselves using their own units or terrain. Combine this with the new Stealth Suits and you have huge saves.
Furthermore, Stealth Suits make efficient vehicle hunters via Deepstrike or Outflanking in this edition, even without a melta. A full squad of Stealths shooting at AV10 get on average 1.5 Penetrating hits and 1.5 Glances... enough to drop a vehicle with the standard 3 hull points. While this may seem like little, it makes them something your opponent has to watch for and adjust for, and with the Stealth Generator giving us a 2+ cover saves, it makes them a difficult to crack force. Not to mention that they can still act their original role of dicing through infantry models. Unfortunately, we lose out on the old Stealth Field rules to get these bonuses, but this is a decent enough trade-off in my opinion.
I can see Stealth Suits being a much bigger part of the game.

6th edition: First Impressions

So, I got in a couple games of 6th this 4th of July weekend.
As a whole, it is definitely a good improvement on 5th. They give players much more reason to take troops, as well as to possibly eschew taking transports. The rulebook has a nice focus throughout on reminding the players that the game is about creating interesting scenarios and enjoying yourself, while adding flavorful rules (Look out Sir!, Challenges, a plethora of terrain options) to the game. In addition, we are provided with six standard mission types over the prior three, and the new allies system, which adds some interesting gameplay decisions.

Tau, it seems, will be an interesting army to play prior to their new codex. And by interesting, I mean a tad frustrating. Some of our better units took notable hits this edition; Cover was nerfed, hitting Kroot. Hammerheads and Devilfish (already pricey units) are far less durable, and in 5/6ths missions Fire Warriors can no longer score from inside a transport, nor can Piranhas contest objectives. In addition, Fast Attack units and Heavy Support units both have a mission where they count as scoring... but are some of the only things that give up Victory Points when they die. What this means is that the standard 5th edition list that maxes out on Piranha squadrons and Railguns is in fact incredibly dangerous to take, as they give up additional points (though something could be said for the scoring effectiveness of our Heavy Supports in the one mission they are allowed to score).

The new shooting allocation also doesn't help our Crisis Suits; no more wound allocation shenanigans to keep our guns alive, and our melta units are often the first to be targeted by the "closest model is hit" rule.

The random charge length is coupled with random Assault Jump length, which means that avoiding assault with suits is no longer a science but a gamble if we use rapid-fire or melta. This is a bit of a shame, as Crisis Suits are already terribly costly without losing them to bad dice.

Basically, we took hits all throughout the codex, which ends up hurting our gameplay even more than it already was. We need scoring units, but our defensive options (cover and transports) have been weakened. We need durable firepower, but Crisis Suits, Broadsides and Hammerheads die more easily. We need roadblocks, but Piranhas are not only less durable to Alpha strikes (reduced cover throughout, weaker vehicle durability), but also become more important to conserve in the mission in which they are conserved.

As of now, I can't see Tau seeing much time on the competitive table except for as opt-ins as allies for other armies; adding a Crisis team and some Kroot or Fire Warriors. Hopefully the new codex will have more options.

A final note; some of you may have noticed that Jet Pack infantry now have the bulky special rule, despite not being able to enter transports unless the rules specifically state they can. I believe this might be to open the way for a new Tau transport.

The Four Triggers, Part 5: Heal Triggers

Passive, Damage

Heal triggers, run four, article over.
Just kidding, I actually am going to talk about them.


Heal triggers are an incredibly powerful trigger type, and are thus limited to four per deck. They have the unique ability to remove damage from your damage zone, so long as you have more of it than your opponent. This can hugely swing a game around, and they are capable of turning the tables in a close game alone. They add a small element of chance into the game that can allow for devastating comebacks on your opponent if he didn't correctly track and predict your use of heal triggers.
Heal triggers have a downside, and that is that you have equal to or more damage than your opponent for them to go off. This is dangerous, as it puts you in range for Criticals to propel you directly into lategame. In addition, if you aren't behind in damage, heal triggers become disappointing slackers in your deck... worse than stand triggers!
Since the current meta is to run four in every deck, no exceptions, you should step in line and do the same in most cases. Your opponent having an effective 7 or 8 damage a game before death while you perish at 6 can be a huge deal. However, I'm not going to be the one who says that Heals should always be used, and I can think of a couple of circumstances in which they might be better left at home. But I'll get to that later. First I'm going to explain how to get the most out of your Heals and negate your opponent's.


Let's examine the Heal trigger's conditions for activation briefly:
-Drive or Damage Check the trigger
-Have at least one damage before check
-Have equal to or more damage than opponent


To ensure our Heals go off, we must fulfill all of those conditions. This means our Heals don't matter until we take that first damage. So if we want to get the most out of our heals, we need to take damage early. But that's bad. Early game is (generally) when we can guard attacks for small amounts of damage and thus can avoid damage for very little cost. Letting a damage through just so that we can maybe heal it off and save us the card we would've shielded isn't a very viable gambit, and seems rather silly. Or at least, it does in a vacuum.

Oh look, a card that rewards us for taking damage during early game.

Some decks excel when they let early damage through. Royal Paladins come to mind with the Blaster Blade superior ride chain. Combined with a card like Llew, taking this damage isn't a gamble or a detriment, it is an inherent part of our game plan.

Anywho, back on subject. To make our Heals work, we also need to keep our opponent equal to or below us in damage. That means taking more attacks on the chin to maintain this advantage (typically from the Vanguard), while focusing on keeping the game even. Instead of dealing that extra damage to your opponent, pick off a vital rearguard instead. Keep the heals available throughout Midgame.

Once Lategame comes around, we want to go on the offensive with the card advantage that we have. With any luck, we've healed off our little gambit, making any cards we conserved by not guarding earlier useful now. You can still try to stay even with your opponent here, up to the bitter end, but it really doesn't matter past 4 damage, as you're guaranteed your heal going off at damage 5 (if you check it). So before you and your opponent hit 5, you are expecting to heal and get your investment (taking a damage and conserving a card) back.

There is another important aspect to Heal triggers. Sealing off and negating your opponent's use of them. Looking up at the conditions, we notice that we can only control two of them; we can avoid dealing damage to our opponent, but that can only last so long, and honestly attempting to do that for a long period of time would mean giving up Drive Checks and thus being utter fools. What we can do throughout the game is stop our opponent from being at "equal or greater damage" than us. To do that, we need to make sure we stay at higher damage than our opponent until most of his Heal triggers have been exhausted from the deck (watch for them on Checks and Guards). The danger here is that your opponent has a small advantage in damage, which can blow out of proportion fast. 

When your opponent is at 0 damage, Heal triggers don't activate so you don't need to seal him. When your opponent is at 1 damage, you must be at 2 to seal him off. This means if he gets an attack through and Crits you go to 4 damage... Late Game! While your opponent sits pretty at 1 damage. This is a very difficult situation to fight out of, as you must desperately guard while your opponent has leeway to make choices and scale quickly. Be careful when you decide to seal off an opponent, especially if their deck runs Criticals.

Finally, a little bit of theory on when you can avoid to run Heals. Personally, I don't advocate dropping them at all, but I can see them not being completely necessary in certain decks.

First off, decks that have a Winning Image built entirely around on-hit Megablasts, can afford to drop them. Keeping them runs the risk of Drive Checking into them when you plan on Megablasting, throwing a huge wrench into your plans. Imagine going all out to get off CEO's effect, banking on those 5 cards to keep you alive next turn and then boom. Heal trigger sabotages you. Granted, giving up recycling Heal triggers like Lozenge Magus is a huge price to pay for avoiding a small chance of screwing up (especially considering that CEO can remove a Heal trigger from the top of the deck).

Another possible deck type that could (theoretically) go with out Heals are incredibly aggressive, damage based decks. If your Winning Image is to rush your opponent with huge amounts of damage, never having more damage then them and quickly ending the game, Heal triggers won't really heal any damage for you. In this case, you're better off with Criticals or Draws. Still this takes away your safety net; if your opponent gets that advantage, you don't have heals to help you get back.

Well, that ends this segment on triggers.

6th Leak: Rumor Mill

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/white-dwarf-6th-edition-rule-leaks.html

Faeit 212 has some nice new rumors about 6th edition.
In addition what might be the cover art, we have some interesting announcements, including:
-Hull Points
-Moving and shooting at full range
-Assaults are 2d6, giving a maximum of 12" charge range. This may hurt out Jump-Shoot-Jump playstyle for closer range weapons. Just another reason to use Missile Pods.
-Fly over attacks
-Special "Leader" abilities for HQs
-Flyers
-Purchasing terrain
-Units can go on Overwatch
-Monstrous Creatures can "Smash", reducing attacks to increase strength. Useful against vehicles, obviously
-Psychic powers split into disciplines
-Land Speeders (maybe all skimmers) have a permanent 5+ save
-New rules for removing models from shooting.

Check it out!

The Four Triggers, Part 4: Draw Triggers

Passive, Card

Draw triggers are the second most common trigger you'll see after Critical triggers. They have the one and only "unconditional" benefit out of all the triggers. While Crits and Stands are rather ineffective outside of your own battle phase, and Heal triggers only work when your behind in damage, Draw triggers always work. Regardless of when you check them, you will always get a free card to your hand. This would easily make them the strongest trigger type in the game, but Bushiroad was intelligent enough to add a single but important mitigating factor to these powerhouses. Unlike other triggers, Draws only have 5000 shield, as opposed to the 10000 that is standard. This is a rather large detriment as it means that for every Draw trigger you include you are slightly weakening your overall shielding.


Draw triggers are good choices for any type of deck, as they don't require any effort by the player to be effective. Unlike Stands, they don't require specific rearguards. Unlike Crits, you don't have to properly scale a field. Unlike Heals, you don't have to be constantly staying in the danger zone.

Lana! Lana!!

I'm going to make a point of saying right now: Draw Triggers are among the weakest trigger types to Drive Check, as they are weaker defensively. Draw triggers, however, are incredibly useful when checked during a Damage Check. Consider the following:


Checking triggers during a Drive Check:
Checking a Critical trigger will increase potential damage, and add a 10000 shield to your hand.
Checking a Stand trigger will force additional guards (if you have a proper field and aren't a fool, see Part 3) and add a 10000 shield to your hand.
Checking a Heal trigger *may* remove a damage from your damage zone, and add a 10000 shield to your hand.
In each of these cases, you benefit by gaining 10000 shielding for your next turn. This is quite a big deal, as it helps you adequately defend on your next turn. However, unlike these three, the random nature of the Draw trigger makes it less reliable as a defensive measure (though not necessarily worse).
Checking a Draw trigger adds a 5000 shield to your hand, and adds one card from your deck to your hand. For the sake of convenience, I'm going to assume we're using a deck with 4 Draw Triggers, 4 Perfect Guards, and the standard 17/15/10/8 Grade variation:
(43% Chance): You draw a Grade 1 or 2 that is not a Perfect Guard. In this case, your total gained shielding  is 10000, and you break even. You might have gained a valuable resource for next turn.
(24% Chance): You draw a Grade 0 trigger of a different type. You have unfortunately removed a trigger from your deck, but your overall gain in shield is 15000, a respectable amount better than if you had simply drawn a normal trigger.
(16% Chance): You draw a Grade 3, and you only gain 5000 shielding this turn. This puts you at a disadvantage defensively, though it may give you a valuable resource next turn (or you can sac the Grade 3 for a Perfect Guard).
(8% Chance): You draw another Draw trigger, reducing your trigger count and breaking even at 10k shielding.
(8% Chance): You draw a Perfect Guard. Assuming the average value of a Perfect guard to be 20000, depending on what you choose to ditch for the Perfect you've gained somewhere between 10000 shield (breaking even) and 25000 shielding (quite a bit).


So the value of a Draw trigger defensively is:
43%: You break even, or gain a resource and end up with less shielding. (Par)
24%: You gain 15k shield, at the cost of reducing your trigger count. (Above Par)
16%: You only gain 5k shielding but gain a resource. In addition, if you end up ditching this card for a Perfect, you effectively broke even. (Below Par)
8%: Break even, reduce trigger count. (Below Par)
8%: Anywhere from breaking even to a huge gain of 25000. (Above Par)


32% Above Par
43% Par 
24% Below Par


Keep in mind that every time you hit Par, you are still losing out on the secondary effect (Crit, Stand, Heal) that would be helping you during your Drive Check. So, in truth, Par is inferior to Crit, inferior to Stand (if the field is correct), and inferior to Heal (if it goes off). In addition, all scenarios in which you gain a resource are even weaker defensively if you use hold on to it and do not guard. Keep in mind this trade-off, as it could be your saving grace to draw into an important card.


Now let's look at where Draw triggers excel.


Checking triggers during a Damage Check:

Checking a Critical trigger will do nothing special, and you gain no shielding or resources. You have lost a 10000 shield from your deck.
Checking a Stand trigger will do nothing special, and you gain no shielding or resources. You have lost a 10000 shield from your deck.
Checking a Heal trigger *may* remove a damage from your damage zone. You gain no shielding or resources. You have lost a 10000 shield from your deck.
In each of these cases, you get very little out of the trigger apart from the possible defensive value of the +5000 (which Draw triggers also do). In addition, the 10000 shield is put into your Damage Zone, and is not usable for the rest of the match (with very few exceptions, Angel Feathers).


Checking a Draw causes you to lose a 5000 shield from your deck. It has an incredible boon, however. You gain a random resource (see the above percentages) that is literally free. Since none of the other triggers do anything special (save maybe Heal) Draw triggers give you what is effectively a free something. This free card could help you stay alive or defend, or could be a powerful resource for the next turn.

One more thing

It is incredibly important enough to note that Draw triggers have a special advantage that can change the game in huge ways. As the game goes on, more and more cards are gained through Drive Checks than through drawing. Eventually, a savvy opponent will know almost your entire hand (or the entirety of it). Draw triggers allow for you to hide information from your opponent. Your opponent doesn't know the defensive abilities of the card you drew, for example. Looking back at my section about the Drive Check, one should note that even though the defensive value of the Draw trigger may come up short, your opponent doesn't know if you drew a Grade 3 or a Perfect guard. This is incredibly useful, as it forces your opponent into situations where he must run his turn partially blind. If your opponent overextends their field for a Final Turn or big play, and that hidden card stops him, you could easily turn the tables on him.


Final article on the subject, Heal triggers.

The Four Triggers, Part 3: Stand Triggers

Aggressive, Card

Stand triggers see less play than Critical triggers, as not many builds can make use of their unique boons. While Critical triggers are rather simple and direct, threatening to deal an additional point of damage on a single attack, Stand triggers make an additional attack possible. While the possible boost in damage is the same overall, Stand triggers splits two possible damage over two attacks, whilst a Critical puts two possible damage into one attack. Thanks to this splitting, the effectiveness of the attacks vary greatly, peaking during early and late game.
The major disadvantages to Stand triggers are notable, but not unavoidable. The first is that they effectively misfire if you don't have a rested Rearguard in your frontrow. Fixing this is obvious; go on the offensive from turn 1 by calling at least one other unit besides your Vanguard. The second disadvantage, and the one that actually matters, is that Stand triggers are strictly inferior to Critical triggers unless the unit you are standing is of equal or greater power to your opponent's Vanguard or has a specific ability that activates when Stood. This is a bold claim to make, but I can support it with some simple theory.


Making use of a trigger would occur after or during your Vanguard's attack. This means that one of three decisions were made by your opponent before the trigger was checked:
1. Your opponent did not guard against your Vanguard. You have no reason to increase your Vanguard's power.
2. Your opponent guarded against your Vanguard for the minimum amount possible (meaning that they guarded assuming you would not be giving a power boost to your Vanguard via a trigger). In this case, you would most often increase the power of your Vanguard by +5000.
3. Your opponent overguarded (or Perfect guarded) against your Vanguard predicting that you would draw into a trigger and give power to your Vanguard. In this case, there is no reason to increase your Vanguard by +5000.
Now, let's assume your opponent is running an 11k Vanguard and you have a 6k booster behind your rearguard and Vanguard, and run the three scenarios four times each, looking at the difference that would occur if your Rearguard is 10k or 11k, and how the battle phase as a whole would look depending on whether you had a deck with Critical or Stand Triggers. For simplicity (you'll beg for simplicity by the end of this madness, trust me), I'm going to assume the opponent always tries to guard your Rearguard attacks. Onward!


With a 10k Rearguard, Critical Triggers (a):
1a. Your Vanguard is not blocked, and you give the Critical to him and the +5000 to your Rearguard. You deal two damage, and then your Rearguard attacks for 10k+6k+5k, requiring 15k shielding to be stopped.
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 15k
2a. You add the +5000 and Crit to the Vanguard. You deal two damage, and then your Rearguard attacks for 10k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be stopped.
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 20k
3a. Your Vanguard is blocked off completely, and you give the +5000 and Crit to your Rearguard. You deal no damage, and then your Rearguard attacks for 10k+6k+5k, requiring 15k shielding to be stopped, and threatening an additional damage.
Total Damage: 0. Total shielding expended by opponent = 30k


With an 11k Rearguard, Critical Triggers (b):

1b. Your Vanguard is not blocked, and you give the Critical to him and the +5000 to your Rearguard. You deal two damage, and then your Rearguard attacks for 11k+6k+5k, requiring 15k shielding to be stopped.
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 15k
2b. You add the +5000 and Crit to the Vanguard. You deal two damage, and then your Rearguard attacks for 11k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be stopped. 
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 20k
3b. Your Vanguard is blocked off completely, and you give the +5000 and Crit to your Rearguard. You deal no damage, and then your Rearguard attacks for 11k+6k+5k, requiring 15k shielding to be stopped, and threatening an additional damage.
Total Damage: 0. Total shielding expended by opponent = 30k



With a 10k Rearguard, Stand Triggers (c):

1c. You attack with your Rearguard for 10k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and since he was no guarded, give the Stand and +5000 to your Rearguard. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 10k+5k, requiring 5k shielding to be blocked.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 15k
2c. You attack with your Rearguard for 10k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and give the +5000 to Vanguard and the Stand to Rearguard. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 10k, which does nothing.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 20k
3c. You attack with your Rearguard for 10k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, who is completely shielded, and give the Stand and +5000 to Rearguard. You deal 0 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 10k+ 5k, needs to be blocked for 5k.
Total Damage: 0. Total shielding expended by opponent = 30k



With an 11k Rearguard, Stand Triggers (d):

1d. You attack with your Rearguard for 11k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and since he was no guarded, give the Stand and +5000 to your Rearguard. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 11k+5k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 20k
2d. You attack with your Rearguard for 11k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and give the +5000 to Vanguard and the Stand to Rearguard. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 11k, requiring 5k shielding to be blocked.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 25k
3d. You attack with your Rearguard for 10k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, who is completely shielded, and give the Stand and +5000 to Rearguard. You deal 0 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 10k+6k, needs to be blocked for 10k.
Total Damage: 0. Total shielding expended by opponent = 35k


Whew. That was quite a bit of work. At least we're done now and we can get on to... oh wait. We're not done. What about when your opponent damage checks a trigger from your Vanguard attack? Oh boy. Time to do additional scenarios. I'm going to be incredibly lazy and assume the chance of checking a trigger is going to be 33% every time you are forced to check (so for two checks, 56%).




With a 10k Rearguard, Critical Triggers, Opponent Checks a Trigger (a+): (Occurs 56% of the time)

1a+. Your Vanguard is not blocked, and you give the Critical to him and the +5000 to your Rearguard. You deal two damage, but your opponent checks a trigger. Then your Rearguard attacks for 10k+6k+5k, requiring 10k shielding to be stopped.
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 10k
2a+. You add the +5000 and Crit to the Vanguard. You deal two damage but your opponent checks a trigger. and then your Rearguard attacks for 10k+6k, requiring 5k shielding to be stopped.
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 15k



With an 11k Rearguard, Critical Triggers, Opponent Checks a Trigger (b+): (Occurs 56% of the time)

1b+. Your Vanguard is not blocked, and you give the Critical to him and the +5000 to your Rearguard. You deal two damage, but your opponent checks a trigger. Then your Rearguard attacks for 11k+6k+5k, requiring 10k shielding to be stopped.
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 10k
2b+. You add the +5000 and Crit to the Vanguard. You deal two damage but your opponent checks a trigger. and then your Rearguard attacks for 11k+6k, requiring 5k shielding to be stopped.
Total Damage: 2. Total shielding expended by opponent = 15k



With a 10k Rearguard, Stand Triggers, Opponent Checks a Trigger (c+): (Occurs 33% of the time)


1c+. You attack with your Rearguard for 10k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and since he was no guarded, give the Stand and +5000 to your Rearguard. Your opponent, however, checks a trigger. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 10k+5k, which does nothing.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 10k
2c+. You attack with your Rearguard for 10k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and give the +5000 to Vanguard and the Stand to Rearguard. Your opponent, however, checks a trigger. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 10k, which does nothing.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 20k




With an 11k Rearguard, Stand Triggers, Opponent Checks a Trigger (d+): (Occurs 33% of the time)

1d+. You attack with your Rearguard for 11k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and since he was no guarded, give the Stand and +5000 to your Rearguard. Your opponent, however, checks a trigger. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 11k+5k, requiring 5k shielding to be blocked.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 15k
2d+. You attack with your Rearguard for 11k+6k, requiring 10k shielding to be blocked. You then attack with your Vanguard, and give the +5000 to Vanguard and the Stand to Rearguard. Your opponent, however, checks a trigger. You deal 1 damage, then your rearguard then attacks for 11k, which does nothing.
Total Damage: 1. Total shielding expended by opponent = 20k



Finally.
So, looking at these scenarios, what are the differences between Crit and Stand? What do we notice?
First off, we can note that the frontrow Rearguard does not matter at all for decks with Critical triggers, only the overall attacking power of frontrow+booster (evidenced by the lack of change between scenarios [a] and [b], as well scenarios [a+] and [b+]). It is obvious, however, that this is not the case with Stand triggers.
Looking at scenarios [c] and [d], it is obvious that having a more powerful Rearguard than the opponent's Vanguard is incredibly important, making an important 5k difference.
Pitting scenarios [a] and [b] against [c], we see that without a powerful frontrow Rearguard, decks with Stand triggers instead of Crit are at huge disadvantages, being down a potential damage without forcing any additional effort from their opponent. They only have a small advantage in scenario [2c+], though the opponent can simply choose to go route [1] or [3] and make this advantage a non-issue.
Scenario [d], however, stands strong on its own. In exchange for dealing less damage on each attack, you force another 5k shield overall (compared to [a] and [b]), even in cases where your opponent checks a trigger. What this translates to is simple; if your opponent isn't willing (or able) to pay the additional 5k shield, the card breaks even with Criticals by dealing 2 damage. The real advantage, however, is in scenario [3]; if your opponent tries to stop each and every attack you output (say, Lategame at 5 damage?) you drain an additional 5k shield. This means that a Stand deck may only break even with Criticals or slowly chip at your opponent's cards, in Lategame it puts on a little extra heat... heat your opponent might not be able to deal with.


So, after that extensive amount of analysis, what does this really mean for Stand triggers? I'll keep it relatively short. In conclusion, Stand triggers are no worse than Critical triggers when the correct conditions are met. In addition, they become more dangerous than Criticals during the late game. They also happen to sync well with a lot of abilities in the game. 

Effectively Defending 13000 Power

Effectively Defending 12000 Power

Effectively Defending 13000 Power

                                                                                                                                                                                              
Unfortunately, Stand Triggers are absolutely inferior when you have Rearguards that are weaker than the opposing Vanguard, and with Majesty Blaster Overlord, Dragonic Overlord The End, and Phantom Blaster Overlord in existence in the Japanese meta and eventually coming to English, this is actually a lot more difficult than it sounds. This weakness means that your opponent can pick off the Rearguards that make the cut, and let you keep the ones that don't do much with Stands. In addition, they have the small weakness of allowing your opponent a choice; do they want to pay the extra 5k-10k to shield your now Standing unit? Or are they fine with you breaking even with a Critical Trigger. This allows them to effectively keep playing their game, whatever it is, instead of you forcing them to play your way.


Personally, I believe Stand triggers and decks that rely on them to be the weakest in the game right now, in both metas. They don't consistently give you advantage, yet they consistently give your opponent some control over how to play the game, a luxury that Criticals frankly do not.




Next up, Draw triggers.

The Four Triggers, Part 2: Critical Triggers

Aggressive, Damage

Critical triggers are one of the most common, and one of the most dangerous, triggers in the game. It is because of this trigger type that late game comes around at 4 damage instead of 5; once you hit your fourth damage, you are in range to be killed by a single critical. Checking into a Critical trigger during an attack pushes you opponent closer and closer to their demise, or forces them to guard more urgently than they would otherwise need to. Running a good number of these types of triggers means that every drive check could mean a huge damage threat gets added to one of your units that your opponent must deal with or take a massive hit. At best, Criticals can halve the amount of attacks your deck needs to win.

Criticals have few disadvantages. Being an aggressive trigger, it has a chance of misfiring and being nothing more than a +5000 when revealed during a damage check. It also has a much more slight weakness; your opponent needs only to guard against the unit with the critical avoid the damage altogether, normally without expending much more effort than needed to block normally.

To avoid this weakness becoming an actual problem, we must set up our field accordingly and attack accordingly to get the most out of our Critical triggers. The key to setting up our field is to have at least one Rearguard attacker who hits for high enough numbers that your opponent needs to expend 10000 or more shield through proper scaling. If at all possible for your deck, try to get an attacking Rearguard up to 21000 or more power consistently... there is normally some combination that is effective in each clan. In Royal Paladins, for example, Knight of Conviction, Bors and Little Sage, Marron can attack for 21000 with a single counterblast.

Once you have a strong field setup, you normally want to attack in a pattern of Rearguard-Vanguard-21k Rearguard. Your first Rearguard is let through or forces your opponent to expend shields. Your Vanguard attacks, and is either guarded heavily or not at all. If you draw a Critical trigger and your Vanguard is let through, give him the Critical and the +5000 to your 21k rearguard. If he was blocked, both effects go to the 21k. The 21k swings, and your opponent is left with several poor choices; he can take an additional 2 damage, drop 2k worth of shielding or drop a perfect guard. By giving your critical to an already difficult to stop Rearguard, you force large amount of shields to be expended.

Keeping in mind that you want to have a properly scaled field and a strong attacking force to make the most of Critical triggers, you should choose these triggers in decks that can most effectively pull of this setup quickly and efficiently. Clans that commit to the field early, such as Royal Paladin or Gold Paladin, benefit greatly from critical triggers. Decks that constantly have units moving on and off the field to attack, such as Spike Brothers or certain builds of Pale Moon, also benefit from Critical Triggers by amplifying the danger of the repetitive attacks. A good rule of thumb for Criticals: if the deck will be putting out 3+ attacks early and often, without the use of Stand Triggers, Criticals are a good choice to amplify the dangers of this playstyle.

The Four Triggers, Part 1: Introduction

In Vanguard, checking into the right trigger can really push your attack or defense over the edge and allow you to overwhelm your opponent. While the additional 5000 power gained from a trigger is useful regardless of which type of trigger you draw, the secondary effects should not be ignored. In fact, the effects that differentiate the four triggers from each other should be very carefully considered when building a deck. Having triggers that are nor optimal for your specific style of play will hamstring your ability and sabotage your chances of winning.

And that brings us to the purpose of this article. We will be comparing all the different types of triggers, their respective benefits, disadvantages, when you want to see them come up on a check, how to prepare your attack patterns and field for them, and how to select the right triggers to benefit your specific style of play.

To assist us in this, I have prepared the above chart. I've grouped the four types of triggers by four qualifying terms: Aggressive, Passive, Damage (Advantage), and Card (Advantage). Aggressive triggers are triggers that work best when activated via the Drive Check. If Aggressive triggers are activated during the damage check, their abilities tend to be rather lackluster compared to the other two. Passive triggers are the opposites of Aggressive triggers (go figure), in that their effects go off regardless of when they are checked, yet they tend to have alternate weaknesses which lessen their potential. Damage (Advantage) triggers aim to affect the damage zone in some way that will put you ahead of the opponent. Card (Advantage) triggers tend to change the game-state through changing (or at least threatening to change) the number of cards in the hand. Each type of trigger can be defined by two of these terms. For example, a Draw trigger would be a Passive Card trigger.

With all that out of the way, we'll move onward to the more specific analysis.

Alice and VMundi

So I've been doing some writing for Vanguard and I'll have a few articles out about that in a bit.
That said, I don't feel like going over all of the basics of the game and laying the foundation for work with game theory.
Fortunately, someone has done it far better than I ever could, so I'm gonna give you some outside reading.

I highly recommend anyone who is the least bit interested in Vanguard to check out http://vmundi.blogspot.com/. It's got a great collection of articles that really look into the mechanics behind the game.
By reading and understanding the articles there, it'll ensure that readers here have a good understanding of things that I'll be assuming my readers know.

So yeah. Homework. Get reading Fighters.

Cardfight Vanguard

Though 40k and Tau will be the focus of my writings here, I figured it would be nice to branch out and touch on or analyze the other games I enjoy. So for all of the Renaissance Men out there that tend to play a few TCGs along with their wargames, I figured I should introduce this game.

Cardfight Vanguard is my new focus in the card game sphere, after alternating between Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh! for years.

I've been staring at theory for this game for about a month now, using the online system occasionally to test an idea, and having been playing with the starter decks for about a week with friends. I've been enjoying playing this game quite a bit casually, as it is quite easy to learn and pick up to play, but my main interest in it is how different the underlying mechanics are; the higher level play seems to draw fondly from Chess, in that it is largely about resource management and transitioning through phases of the game, and thus the mechanics differ rather strongly from those of the more mainstream TCGs.

To start, it only has one "type" of card. While Yu-Gi-Oh! has monsters, spells and traps, and Magic: The Gathering has Creatures, Sorceries, Instants, Enchantments, Artifacts as well as variations and permutations of the above, Cardfight only has cards that could be classified as "creatures". Each card has the ability to act as a Vanguard, Rearguard, Guardian, or be turned into "soul" or damage.

In addition, almost everything is an available resource to be used by the players, and certain decks specialize in using one type of resource in ways that allow for huge plays, and require a "look before you leap" ideology in players. For an example, Counterblasting allows a player to activate powerful abilities if they have taken a certain amount of damage. These abilities can really turn games around, gain the player card advantage, and be absolutely devastating if played at the right time. While in other games a clear field might mean to attack, in Cardfight dealing two damage to your opponent early could spell your doom, allowing them to gain huge advantage through combos. Even the starter decks have traps like this available to them, so you must not only predict your opponent's plans but change your game so that they cannot make the most of their cards. This leads to tons of mindgames and meta play that really alters the core gameplay and screws with incentives to attack, defend and commit to the field.

Furthermore, the deckbuilding aspect of this game, along with the way mulligans function allow for a ton of consistency in each deck. Out of your 50 card deck, you pick 1 card to start on the field. You then draw a hand of 5, and can remove any unwanted cards, shuffle them back in, and draw again, similar to a game of Five Card Draw. In addition to this, from about turn 3 on players will be drawing 3 (and with decent luck it could be 4 or 5) cards per turn, resulting in your hand constantly being refreshed throughout the game. With four copies of almost any card that is important, you will be seeing your key players quite often.

Anyways, I highly recommend picking up the starter decks for this for anyone who is interested in TCGs or simply likes tinkering with cool mechanics.

Color Scheme

Did a good amount of painting today and yesterday, and I thought it might be nice to share the new paint scheme. While I used to shy away from bright colors while painting, preferring black, then a shade of dark blue, then my old purple scheme, I decided I'd switch it up and try colors that really pop this time.
I started with a tan primer, then followed it with a layer of Iyanden Darksun foundation to cover where I missed. This was in turn followed by Burnished gold, to brighten it up, and then drybrushed over with Shining Gold, which gave it a nice tan look that wasn't overbearing. Blood Red was then applied to a few areas to draw the eye and bring the model to life. Finally, since I never liked having models that were too sleek, I used Devlan Mud wash to make the model look weathered and textured on the front of the chassis.

I'm pretty sure this will be the scheme I stick with for the majority of 6th edition. It's a nice change, and it makes my shoddily constructed models look a bit more professional. It also has the added bonus of contrasting, but not outright clashing with, the darker colors of the Scythes of the Emperor, who I might pick up if the rumors of allies actually comes to fruition.

Sixth Edition and You

 So, Sixth Edition is a few months away, and we've got Tau rumored to be coming up soon as well. According to bloodofkittens, we're going to see Tau stepping into a slightly more important role in the grand machinations of the 40k universe*, with them apparently being key to fighting Chaos and Space Marines allying with them far more often. From the article:

"The Imperium is fracturing and the Space Marines are starting to separate themselves from the Lords of Terra. The heretical and xenophobia has gotten to a tipping point causing many chapters to take actions against the "best wishes" of many in the Imperium.
A discovery of galactic importance has happened.
At a time before right before the Horus Heresy the Emperor had intrusted Roboute Guilliman in the protection of one Xenos race that was completely immune the temptations of Chaos and would prove the ultimate key to the destruction of Chaos. The Horus Heresy ended such plans. Fast forward today with discovery of these lost correspondences, it is believed by the Ultramarines and others that the Tau are that lost race. So now instead of being charge with their destruction the Astartes are the Tau protectors."


Furthermore, Games Workshop has released a brand new ally matrix for their upcoming doubles tournament** (visible below), that vastly differs from their previous one that is used in Apocalypse games*** (also visible below). The changes between the two seem to support rather than refute the above rumors, with Space Marines and Tau going from incredibly unwilling to ally to Brothers in Arms.

New

Old

What does this all mean for the 40k universe as a whole? Let's examine the changes in the Ally Matrix as well as the above rumors and see what we can garner, shall we?
The first thing that jumps out at me is what appears to be a huge change in design philosophy. 40k has never had a clear cut good guy faction, with the Imperium xenophobic, dogmatic and territorial, the Eldar caring little for other races or outright killing damaging them as they selfishly scramble to survive, Orks fightan' for fun, Necrons being soulless horrors serving beings of immense, unspeakable power, Tyranids threatening to consume the whole galaxy, Chaos existing solely to mess with sentient life, Dark Eldar giving in to their basest instincts and Tau slowly encroaching on everyone else's territory with an only slightly brighter "join or die" philosophy. No one was a good guy here.
Now it seems that we have changed the scenario quite a bit. When the Space Marines were simply agents of the Imperium, they weren't exactly the good guys, merely the staunchest defenders of that faction. With the apparent change in interests, they seem to be moving away from the Imperium into their own faction, one that is more focused on defeating one of the greatest evil forces in the galaxy, a force that preys on both human and xenos alike. They are very clearly the good guys.
Looking at the ally matrices again, we see that Space Marines are tighter allies with the Tau than they are with the Sisters of Battle or the Grey Knights... the groups are clearly not getting along as well as we would hope. Couple this with the rumors above that the Imperium is splitting and that the xenophobia is reaching higher levels than normal, and you can easily come to the conclusion that the Space Marines are fighting their former allies.
So we have the Space Marines as good guys... who are protecting their population by fighting a force of chaos... and are quite possibly persecuted for their actions and painted as the bad guy by Imperial Forces...
Does this sound familiar at all? To anyone?

Well alright then. Looks like we've got "Dark Knight"-esque Space Marines running around as the good guys. That's kind of awesome.

The idea that Space Marines are going to go around being the Batmen of the 40k universe seems to be furthered by the changes to Chaos and Daemons; they now ally on a "Grudging Allies" basis with the Imperial forces, which might be a subtle indicator that the Imperium is falling to the influence of Chaos. This can be an interesting development if it is chosen to be pursued; the Imperium's need to defend themselves from the threat of Orcs, Tyranids and Necrons make them desperate enough to turn to Chaos for help. This could be a really interesting change for the Imperium and would throw the current game state into an even more complete state of disarray as Imperials defect or simply become more attune to Chaos as a whole, which is implied pretty heavily above.

Another change I see as noteworthy is that the Eldar are now equally friendly with the Tau. While this is not a huge step up, it might mean the Eldar are getting rewritten into the team of "good guys" that solve mysteries and fight crime fight Chaos. That said, they still aren't on the friendliest terms with Marines, being only "Grudging Allies" as opposed to best chums.

All in all, these are pretty interesting changes. They open up a lot cool ground for Chaos to duke it out with the Tau, Marines, and Eldar in some pretty spectacular fights. It is a step to polarizing the forces of good and evil in the 40k universe and gives some interesting progression to the universe, which makes it feel a lot more alive then before, and really excites me for what might be coming next.

* http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/05/05/network-news-the-6th-edition-leak-and/
** http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2290501a_40K_Doubles_Pack_June_2012.pdf
*** http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180099_Apocalypse_Allies_Chart.pdf

P.S.: If the correspondence that revealed the Tau as the key to defeating Chaos is simply Tzeentch tricking the Marines into weakening their defense of the Imperium so that Chaos can become even more rampant, I called it.