Article Draft: Powerplay - The Art of Pushing

[Curu Olannon]

See page 2 for the latest draft of this article!

Following a recent poll it emerged that you, the members of Ulthuan, would like to see an article on High Elf Pushing, a.k.a. Powerplay.

Powerplay - What, Why, Who, How?


Silver Helms combat reformed to create an inescapable trap for Plaguebearers

:: What is "Powerplay"? ::

Powerplay is pretty much a term I`m coining for this article to detail a list whose purpose is to run across the table, kill the opponent`s units and win big. By nature, powerplay is performed my mobile lists. We will delve more into this under the how section. It`s a pushing style of play which rewards creative thinking and seeing opportunities: By nature, the aggressor tries to create situations whereas the defendor tries to deny them. One could say that a Powerplay list is the action list, whereas the opponent has a reaction list.


Skaven feeling the wrath of a carefully planned move

:: Why Should You Play Powerplay? ::

In a singles setting (i.e. not a team event), you need to score big points to win. Assuming you go to an event to win, scoring big points is your number one concern to reach this goal. Every list can win big, however in a typical tournament setting you need to win big concistently and capitalize on the advantages you get, either due to brilliant play or due to an opponent making a mistake. Why? Well let`s for a moment imagine that you`re playing a Dwarf gunline. You`re facing Warriors of Chaos and they have their bells and whistles DP, double 3++ heroes and Skullcrushers heading in your direction. In a lucky break, you manage to kill the DP and one of the heroes in one round, and he`s not even able to charge you next turn! While a weaker player will maybe throw caution to the wind and storm all-in, securing you a 20-0, a stronger player should (and will!) abandon the charge and consolidate the fact that he`ll at least get 5 or 6 points. Turn this situation around: you`re WoC storming onto Dwarfs and in a lucky break you kill both their cannons. Suddenly, your DP is free to cause havoc and there is nothing the Dwarf player can do about it. Thus, the initiative and capability of capitalizing on an advantageous situation inherently lies with the aggressor.

:: Who - What Units Can Play Powerplay? ::

First, let`s look at some maths and evaluate deployment - a very important aspect of Warhammer. Armies deploy 24" apart, at the minimum. An opponent going all the way back to the boardline is essentially 32" away from your deployment line. Assuming you have M5 infantry you march for 2 turns and are still 12" away: that`s assuming your opponent hasn`t moved! Also, remember that drop advantages can see him create a diagonal setting as well, where the distance is significantly greater. In reality, what happens is you can`t engage unless it`s on his terms before T3 at the earliest and even the simplest of redirectors will ruin these plans. Realistically, if the infantry unit can handle incoming fire, you won`t be in meaningful combat before T5 or T6. Because of this, a Powerplay army cannot have a core of M5 infantry unless said unit has a lot of damage output at a distance (DE can powerplay quite well with Darkshards, although they`re forced to play a defensive game against certain lists). That`s not to say M5 infantry cannot be taken, just that they cannot alone provide what`s needed. Implicitly, this explains the popularity of the cavalry prince - a perfect element to rush an enemy with his super-strong offense @4S7 ASF attacks. Defensively, 1+ re-rollable is no joke either.

The general rule of thumb is that the more mobile and hard hitting a unit is, the more capable it is of playing powerplay.


Star Dragon and Frostheart Phoenix, regular choices in Powerplay armies

Let`s take a step back and take a broader look at the situation: units in Warhammer never work in a vacuum and we need to consider overall armies. Obviously we cannot take 4 Star Dragons and call it an army because it is illegal, and regardless of how we configure our armies we are bound to have certain elements that out-run and out-hits the others. Because of this, board control is essential: we want these units to be able to perform surgical strikes without being overwhelmed. Enter the best support unit in the game: the Great Eagle. With fly, T4 W3 this supporting unit is super-mobile, hard to catch if it doesn`t want to be go and surprisingly resilient to small-arms fire and near-immune to panic. It can keep up with anything in our list and takes up fairly little space: as such it is very easy to block stuff out with it. The Reavers aren`t far behind and have the advantage of being core tax. Together, these allow us to control the board so well that it`s ridiculous. Opponent`s often feel that it`s our hitty elements that are overpowered when in truth we could not work at all without these humble supports. Take a look at this report and pay attention to how my opponent`s continued efforts to make his units support eachother are failing throughout the entire game: every single engagement that occurs happens on my terms: HE vs EMP. Despite this next game being obsolete due to a new book having come out, I feel this report also features just how effective chaff units can be: HE vs DoC.

So: any kind of power-playing list needs support and you need to learn how to master these units. Explaining that is beyond the scope of this article and regardless, lots of experience is required. In my opinion, this is the hardest part to master about powerplay, despite the insane mobility of our support I`ve often found my Eagles and Reavers to simply be too far away when I need them. Practice this, master this and playing High Elves will forever be easier. How much you need is up to personal preference, however I have never seen a successful High Elf Powerplay List get by with less than 3 elements. That is not to say it`s impossible, just that it`s unlikely that a list is optimal with less than 3 elements.


Reavers holding back an entire flank of huge Skaven units

Now, onto the more important stuff. First of all, I have a claim to make: No High Elf Powerplay List can get by without Silver Helms. Silver Helms are a weak unit, they don`t hit very hard and have few good matchups, but they are the bread and butter of a Powerplay List: They are durable, fast, provide excellent character protection and lastly, some much needed static combat resolution. I have had many games where I count the kills and see that they even my opponent`s static, ish, then I remember "Oh and banner + 3 ranks" and suddenly the +1 combat is +5. The question then remains how best to utilize the Helms. The answer depends on the rest of your list, so let`s consider some options:

- Star Dragon Lord
- Cavbus + support, alternatively dual-bus
- Cavstar

The first build is perhaps the most typical for a Powerplay list, typically featuring a Star Dragon supported by a Frostheart (or two!) with a flexible list configuration capable of contesting board control with virtually any army, with enough magic to make a real threat out of the phase despite no lord level mages and mobility that is second only to a very few lists in Warhammer.

The second is less popular now but has been used on-and-off for the last year that I`m aware of. Basically it`s a Cavprince + Level 4 in a bus with either a supporting cavalry unit or infantry unit (the latter frequently being WL with BOTWD). Furion ran such a list quite a bit last year.

The last is a more recently emerged list style where it`s all about shoving as many points as possible into a stubborn, BOTWD-protected unit of Helms. Typically 5-6 characters filling Lords + Heroes, leaving only 600 for rare + special (typically goes into Eagles, Frostheart and RBTs). Very few configurations in Warhammer can stand up to this unit, but it grinds poorly (a Stank can hold it for multiple rounds of combat for example: an Iron Daemon can potentially hold it for a game). Furthermore, it suffers from the list inherently having few drops - a cunning opponent might be able to out-deploy you severely, partly negating the mobility advantage.

Rather than quote lists I feel I`ve now described the basic elements and how they function together in these 3 distinct playstyles.

:: How Do You Play Powerplay? ::

Powerplay is all about applying pressure and playing aggressively, without losing your head completely. Having witnessed a Star Dragon cause utter destruction, it`s easy to conceive of it as invincible. This is far from the truth and it`s worth bearing in mind: no unit in the High Elf army can be played headlessly aggressively. When you do commit to a fight, consider what the combat res is likely to be, whether the enemy will hold or break, what happens in both cases and, most importantly of all, what possible responses and counters does your opponent possess? For example it might be juicy to charge that mage-bunker, but if your Star Dragon is all alone and he has a champ and a throwaway hero or two and that mage just happens to have Purple Sun, you could have a bad time really really fast. Likewise, a bus can often find itself overcommitting to units it cannot grind whatsoever. A Steam Tank at full wounds with Regrowth and Lifebloom backup is a perfect example. Know your limits, apply the pressure, but don`t go overboard.


Having waited an extra turn to strike against the Dwarfs, the High Elves are now in a perfect position to launch a devastating, coordinated assault

When you look at a strong army on the other side of the table it can be a daunting prospect. Frequently you will have defeatist thoughts like "how on earth am I supposed to deal with x y z at once, they`re all there!". The short answer is, you can`t. If you take a look at the statlines in Warhammer, the slower things are the harder they hit per point you`ve invested. Dwarfs, and Hammerers in particular, are a very good example of this. For this reason, a defensive unit is inherently stronger than an offensive unit. This means that the offensive unit needs to isolate the defender and engage one unit at a time. I`ve already discussed at some length the importance of chaff, but there are multiple other ways to ensure isolation as well: multiple charges, sweeping manoevres, flanking an opponent and combat reforming can all help to achieve isolation.

Speaking of combat reforms and overruns, understanding these concepts is hugely important to your success as a Powerplay general. Combat reform is among the most powerful moves in Warhammer: like a normal reform it allows you to completely rearrange the unit. However unlike normal reforms, your center doesn`t have to stay the same. This can be used to slide single models or entire regiments, create new angles, deny enemies a prepared charge and much, much more. Always consider your options for a combat reform. Normal reforms after a combat are also hugely important, this out-of-turn re-arrangement can catch opponents completely by surprise. In this game, such a move enabled me crash home to my opponent`s bunker, scoring really big points: HE vs SK. See also this game where an unexpected combat reform allowed me to catch a unit that should not ever get caught: HE vs WE If you play a Silver Helm unit with a Crown of Command character, your reform possibilities are endless. You can create huge openings and tie up insane amounts of space. With a 20-big unit, you can engage with a 5" wide front and combat reform 2-wide, rotated by 90 degrees so that you basically have a 20" long roadblock that is just so hard for many armies to deal with, the bus being 2++ vs magic as well as 2+ armour save. See this report for an example, where I wanted to lock down most of his army to combat a key unit without interference: HE vs SK.

When you play an aggressive list you`re always trying to create opportunities, however when an opportunity arises you need to consider possible responses from your opponent. Does he have a decent counter etc, as discussed previously. To make sure you jump on the right opportunities, you need to think long-term: try and visualize the moves that will happen in the next 2-3 turns and how your decisions affect that, what the situation will look like given optimal responses from your opponent and so on. This is your baseline, and it should always be clear. When you move a heavy hitting unit, the plan should always be what`ll happen with said unit 2-3 turns ahead. Having tunnel vision and jumping at a poor target can be an easy way to defeat. Likewise, not moving with a plan can quickly lead to your indecision tearing you apart: an aggressive army has to play the active part. Balancing this with holding back is key: there`s nothing wrong with holding back as long as there`s a sound plan behind it. If you are holding back because you don`t know what to do, chances are you`re making (or have already made!) a big mistake. As this is a timeless concept, I would like to bring out yet another example with an army from our old book. I remember this game very well as I was frustrated that I couldn`t get big wins in this tournament and then finally, game 5 saw me get the opportunity I needed. My goal in this game was to win the chaff war, set up multiple units and engage whatever went too far. The turning point proved to be his over-zealous Hexwraiths, which I by charging took very little risk had the charge not hit home. By hitting home however, the benefits were huge. Notice the movement from the flyers here leading up to the situation and how I do everything I can to just position for the big strike: HE vs VC A report I linked early highlights a similar but different style of play, here I engaged a fairly healthy steam tank. My plan here was to await its demise and then multi-charge whatever came too close. Because of this my bus was very cautious up until the right moment, yet I always had the angles and ranges I needed to react on a moment`s notice, all due to planning ahead: HE vs EMP. Learn to always consider multiple turns ahead and factor in the best play you can think of for your opponent.


Several turns of setting up has lead to the Empire knightstar being engaged by nearly 2000 points of troops

I made a point earlier about Silver Helms being a core element in any Powerplay list, but it is very important to remember that these, like all our other core choices, are S3 with no benefits what-so-ever, apart from when they charge. Thinking of Silver Helms like "almost Swordmasters" is a huge mistake: all too often you suffer rubber lance and you`re stuck trying to grind stuff with S3. Not good. What they are good at, is staying alive and protecting points, usually characters as well. Many people like to play them stubborn, which is a safe and conservative choice (and a must-have if you are going for the Deathstar), but it is also possible to tool it up aggressively for more hitting power. This somewhat mitigates their poor grind, but even an Ogre Blade on a Noble won`t make a huge difference if you`re in the wrong fight.


It`s very satisfying when a big charge hits home

In conclusion, I believe Powerplay is the most promising style of play for single-player competitive events. That is not to say it`s the right choice (or best choice) for everyone, people prefer different playstyles and enjoy different units. However when it comes to scoring big points, I think this is the best we`ve got. Mastering the concept is inherently harder than mastering defensive play (see my earlier action-reaction description), but also a lot more rewarding as you`ll start seeing Warhammer in a completely new light. I no longer see unit matchups, I see blockers, counter-blockers, units I can`t touch unless I get X in, units that cannot touch me unless Y spell goes off etc. If you try this style of play (which I`m hoping you will!), I anticipate that it`s only a matter of time before you will view it the same way

This article is still in draft mode, please provide feedback below so I can improve on it before submitting it to the Articles Forum

[high elf]

Great article. This type of tactic won both my local tournaments this year (Prince on stardragon, dragon mage, 2x5 silver helms, 1x5 DP's w/ BoWD, sky cutter chariots, and eagles). Unfortunately I wasn't the one who brought that list!

I'm running something similar and finding it very fun to not rely on magic (I'm only running a level 2 light).

[Ferny]

Thanks - read it last night very tired. Will read again a few times to take it in properly, especially when I pick up playing again properly and can test it out with an aggressive list.

Now - being greedy (seen as my last request proved to be popular) - reading this and some other things you've written I'm coming to think that the key difference between a good player, who knows the rulse, deploys well, makes sensible decisions about when to commit and when to hold back etc, and a top player - at least in the scene you play - is knowing and using 'hidden/advanced' rules. By which I mean the sort of rule which at the club no-one really knows the answer to so you'd spend ages looking it up trying to find 'where I think I saw it' or end up 4+ing it.

The combat reform is the most obvious one from your article. I think challenges - and the horrific fog of grey which descends on who moves where, when and how, and how that impacts on B2B for the rest of the units involved - is another key one.

Maybe the ogre classic of allocating hits between models of a different profile, which is so important for the helm bus and character-loaded lists you've been running recently.

Obviously the list is subjective - after all, these are all rules - black and white in the rulebook and there for anyone to read, but I think there's definitely a class of rules which fall into this category (albeit the class will be different for different people). I don't know whether you'd agree with me on this, but I reckon an article which collates some of the more important ones (maybe like the ones I've listed, or a few more, or different ones - which is subjective - and gives examples of how to use them would be ace. Like the charge phase thread - I actually printed that off and took it to my last tourney it was so good. Might you be tempted to add this to your list?

[Curu Olannon]

Well it`s kind of hard to compile such a list, because it`s hard to tell the difference between "normal rules" and "exploitable/hidden rules". While great players almost always use these things, I think their greatest advantage over a good player is to plan multiple turns ahead. Many sound players set up decent plays, but end up failing to pull through because they forgot to prepare a secondary element in the turns leading up to this.

Combat reform: just practice it. Challenges are easy: if the one who accepts can move into b2b, he does so. Otherwise, nothing happens but the models are virtually base-to-base. Note: you can combat reform a character in a challenge away from the other challengee, but they are still virtually in b2b (i.e. TOTS etc will work).

[Cold Phoenix]

A very nice article .

There is one thing I'm not sure about though:

First, let`s look at some maths and evaluate deployment - a very important aspect of Warhammer. Armies deploy 24" apart, at the minimum. An opponent going all the way back to the boardline is essentially 32" away from your deployment line. Assuming you have M5 infantry you march for 2 turns and are still 12" away: that`s assuming your opponent hasn`t moved! Also, remember that drop advantages can see him create a diagonal setting as well, where the distance is significantly greater. In reality, what happens is you can`t engage unless it`s on his terms before T3 at the earliest and even the simplest of redirectors will ruin these plans. Realistically, if the infantry unit can handle incoming fire, you won`t be in meaningful combat before T5 or T6. Because of this, a Powerplay army cannot have a core of M5 infantry unless said unit has a lot of damage output at a distance (DE can powerplay quite well with Darkshards, although they`re forced to play a defensive game against certain lists). That`s not to say M5 infantry cannot be taken, just that they cannot alone provide what`s needed. Implicitly, this explains the popularity of the cavalry prince - a perfect element to rush an enemy with his super-strong offense @4S7 ASF attacks. Defensively, 1+ re-rollable is no joke either.

I feel that this may be a little to absolute if you have Timewarp or Walk Between Worlds and get them cast at the right time, because you have Banishment, or Fiery Convocation/Arcane Unforging to draw dice and/or scrolls. I understand that this wouldn't work against double scroll Lizzards, Bretonians or Dwarfs and I'm not saying that you could make an ideal Pushing list with a block of M5 infantry and 6+ levels of High or Light, but I feel like you might have written off a viable possibility.

Are you going to expand this article as time goes on? I'd very much like to see you write down your thoughts on getting/keeping points with a pushing list, dealing with matchups where you don't think you can crack a deathstar and the integration of magic and shooting into your strategy.

[NexS]

Nice writeup Curu! Your points about chaff are great and apply to all situations, not just the power pushing armies. For example, I'll castle my Lizardmen combat units and wittle away units with shooting or magic for a couple of turns before using chaff to ensure the charges I want.
As you've pointed out, chaff is invaluable to many situations!!

[Prince of Spires]

I feel that this may be a little to absolute if you have Timewarp or Walk Between Worlds and get them cast at the right time, because you have Banishment, or Fiery Convocation/Arcane Unforging to draw dice and/or scrolls. I understand that this wouldn't work against double scroll Lizzards, Bretonians or Dwarfs and I'm not saying that you could make an ideal Pushing list with a block of M5 infantry and 6+ levels of High or Light, but I feel like you might have written off a viable possibility.

Are you going to expand this article as time goes on? I'd very much like to see you write down your thoughts on getting/keeping points with a pushing list, dealing with matchups where you don't think you can crack a deathstar and the integration of magic and shooting into your strategy.

On the other hand, when the aim of your list is high mobility, relying on a specific spell going off is very risky. You could easily only get 3 PD in that crucial turn. Or have your opponent decide moving your key unit is more important then protecting his unit from banishment etc. And, it's only 1 unit per turn you can move. Which could easily lead to one unit being out on its own and thus ending up an easy target.

I think the point was not that you should never bring M5 units in an aggressive list. But rather that they will not be the main unit of such a list but rather are brought in addition to the other units. The main aggressive elements of a list are highly mobile. And then the slower units are there to support them.

About combat reforms, I feel that it should be mentioned that combat reforms can never reduce the number of models in combat. And that it can't get character models out of combat. They can be easy to overlook, but they do reduce what you can do with them.

One thing that can be expanded upon is how favorable matchups are created. Probably the most difficult thing to achieve and to explain, since there are so many variables involved. But the how to play could be expanded a bit perhaps. Also, how do you decide what a favorable matchup is? What odds do you use, how do you calculate them on the fly. What is acceptable risk wise for charges. When do you feel you need to sacrifice something.

Rod

[Curu Olannon]

Cold Phoenix - I`m not saying they can`t be an element, I`m saying they should not be your core element. This is because they are unreliable. When I took a Star Dragon in our old book I almost always had Lions with +1M banner, which actually made a big difference. It`s the difference between marching 24" in 2 turns and marching 20" in 2 turns, which is a lot more than it sounds like. M4 is truly horrible, M5 is barely not enough (you can see Ogres powerplay well with their M6).

I'd very much like to see you write down your thoughts on getting/keeping points with a pushing list, dealing with matchups where you don't think you can crack a deathstar and the integration of magic and shooting into your strategy.

Getting points = killing stuff, which is what I`ve largely tried to describe above. I could possibly delve into more specific examples if you want me to. Keeping points is usually a no-brainer with this list: you don`t! If it`s an impossible matchup you can hide in a corner and go for 10-10, but apart from this I think a powerplay list will frequently find itself committed.

What Deathstars do you feel that such a list cannot engage?

About combat reforms, I feel that it should be mentioned that combat reforms can never reduce the number of models in combat. And that it can't get character models out of combat. They can be easy to overlook, but they do reduce what you can do with them.

While true, I feel this is a given and something I expect people to know. It`s a rule I have never encountered an opponent that didn`t know, because if it were allowed everyone would combat reform their characters away all the time.

As for favourable matchups, it depends on your style of list. A cavstar likes most versions of Dwarfs because they can`t shoot it to death and furthermore Purple Fun really ruins them. A Dragon on the other hand does not necessarily like Dwarfs. Terrain could mean it´s possible that it`s a good matchup (see my latest BR for a truly good example of this), but in general a Dragon doesn`t like cannons and catapults raining death on it from 40" away. With 3 types of lists described I could provide a quick rundown of their good matchups and why these are good, but would it be valuable?

Odds are very, very fluent. The rule of thumb is that the better the game goes, the less risks you have to take. The worse it goes, the more risks you have to take. All the vital stats I have printed out with me when I play, I never calculate a charge I simply look it up (although I remember most of them by now). I also have charts for casting % and LD tests. I feel that playing the odds is hugely up to the game at hand and mastering it is a very difficult thing to do. Most of us tend to lean towards too safe or too risky, but in order to maximise our potential we need to adapt to the situation at hand. I could include a small paragraph about this, but in general I think this could be an article of its own: the topic is so big.

[RE.Lee]

Very interesting article and nicely illustrated as well! I used to prefer a more mobile approach back in 5/6th edition - cavalry was essentially the only choice back then. Lately I've been trying more balanced tactics and its been fine. Sometimes, however, there's nothing better than smashing a star dragon into someone's face Pushing, like you described, brings a lot of satisfaction - bold maneuvers, applying pressure makes opponents scrabble to rearrange their lines and inevitably make mistakes you can take advantage of. Thanks for reminding us of that

[Curu Olannon]

Ah yes, the good old +D6 combat resolution was ace on a cavstar back when steadfast was non-existant and stubborn was rare. During 5th I only just learned how to play so I pretty much ran around with an Emperor Dragon and won games (we played until there were no models left on the tabletop, so needless to say this statline-8 madman usually took it home).

Today I believe a number of different approaches can work, which is a big indicator of our internal balance being way above most other fractions. It does appear that the meta is gravitating towards mobility, hitting power and multiple threats though, a game we can play very well!

[Ether Dude]

Hi Curu,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to post this. You've summarized your thoughts on the game nicely.

That said, this feels more like a stump speech than a tactical article because there are so few specifics. Again, I do not mean to demean the work that you have put into this write up.

For example, you show an encircled dwarf army using a bus and a star dragon. I am very curious how you arranged it this way given the power of dwarven shooting. By waiting to engage, you've exposed frosty and the dragon to at least two turns of firing, which in my experience, has been deadly. You certainly have excellent positioning and are in a good place to engage, but the advantage of a tactical article is the how of what was achieved.

I think you hit a lot of the positives of a concentrated high character investment army, but you gloss over the negatives of such an army. There are things this list will struggle against, such as green dwarfs, endless waves of skaven and even the bog standard chaos super men. Beyond these factors, you don't deal with the specifics of how to clear out enemy blocking units and deal with the defensive armies that exist and will cause you problems.

Deathstars that can deal with the bus? I'd guess rear-facing skaven bell units, the nurgle demon prince, 3++ stubborn tzeentch flyboy, life'd up temple guard, warlock busses, anything that can own the shooting/diverting war. Because so many points are invested in characters, anything that can sequester those characters safely while the helms get ground down will do ok. That sequestration can happen either via combat or in redirection.

I really would like to hear more on the ins and outs of winning the movement war; without doing so I would contest that the aggressive approach does very little because a defensive army has so few threats to counter. As such, this is more of a problem of delivering concentrated power than it is of concentrating that power.

Looking forward to your thoughts! (And diagrams of movement trickery)

Ether

[Curu Olannon]

Specifics are hard to detail because they are dependent on your exact army configuration, your opponent`s exact army configuration, the map and LoS system, to name but a few. I could provide more examples, what would you like to see examples of? In the Dwarf case, as can be read in the BR, my Dragon + Frostheart weren`t exposed to shooting. Since we play SLoS the hill blocks vision and all I had to wither were indirect GT shots.

As for a powerplay list`s hard counters - it again depends on configuration. I don`t find Dwarfs to be a problem with an infantry unit alongside a bus, nor with a cavstar. Even with the Dragon, as shown above, it can work. The same goes for Skaven: I find this to be a better matchup this way than by playing full infantry. Again though, it depends on the exact army configuration which in my opinion means it`s outside of the scope of this article. The general advantages I`ve outlined are universal, the weaknesses are not. If you could provide an example of something you want me to elaborate on I could certainly try to do that

Now, as for the cavstar counters: A Bellunit has no chance whatsoever. Its only damage output is from the mandatory assassin. With stubborn, even if they win a round, they will lose the grind eventually. Nurgle Daemon Prince just dies to our Prince. Sure it might take 2-3 rounds, but so what? Besides, he usually isn`t too fond of showing his face with 4 RBTs on the table. 3++ Chaos Lords also just dies, remember that such a bus typically has a TOTS in it (or High Magic, or both!), alongside D&D. Temple Guard are M4, so they never get the charge off against a skilled cavstar wielder, meaning they won`t engage unless the High Elf player is ok to do so. Warlock busses can admittedly be a small problem, but then again they lose heavily to combat resolution.

I really would like to hear more on the ins and outs of winning the movement war

Again though, highly list-dependent. A star dragon moves completely different to a cavstar, which in turn moves completely different to an infantry/bus approach. I`ve tried to supply reports to examplify the various ways this can happen and I really feel that it`s hard to generalize. I`ll see what I can do, but the more specific you could be about what you feel is missing, the easier it would be for me to elaborate on that

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

I have just read the article and I am afraid I must agree with Ether Dude. Let me address the details, I am going to start with those in the order they appear in your post.

1. Silver Helms combat reformed to create an inescapable trap for Plaguebearers

It is nice to see pictures as they help to illustrate the idea but I am confused what the first one is suppose to show. You demonstrate a situation from one of your games at the very beginning of the article. There is no explanation how that situation was created, what was the purpose of the formation and how is that connected to the main idea simply because it was not explained yet.

If it appeared later as an example of setting up a trap and delivering the powerful hit in the heart of enemy army, resulting in huge points collection, that would make sense.

2. What is powerplay?

In the first sentence you provide the explanation as what is going to be the subject of the article, I quote:

...article to detail a list whose purpose is to run across the table, kill the opponent`s units and win big

It shows that you are going to focus on army list building. I am afraid it is not enough for tactics article. While reasoning behind the choice of tools (units/characters/items etc.) is important, tactics focuses on the way how to use these tools to the best effect.

3. Why should you play powerplay?

It is true that to place good at a tournament you need to win big. But why do you think your list is better in achieving that goal than others?

4. What unit can play powerplay?

It is a good point about distance to be covered by the army in order to get to the enemy, even if it is simplified a little, I understand it is there to illustrate the point and you reasoning behind the fact you don't trust infantry to do the job.

However, infantry based armies did succeed in winning tournaments so clearly mobility is not only about speed. For example, US Masters winner probably achieved that with the use of High Magic. It would be good then to know why do you think cavalry based army is superior in that regard.

It is very important to acknowledge the role of support units. However, you only listed the reasons why you use eagles and reavers in the army list. In fact, you even say that explaining how to use them is beyond the scope of the article. I must say I disagree because it looks like a crucial element of the entire idea. You want your powerful hitters to get in combat where and when you want so showing how it is done would be the best part of the tactical article. While it may not necessary be good time to do so in "what" section, it definitely has to be explained. Otherwise, as I have mentioned before, it is just army list building focused post.

You even added a picture captioned: Reavers holding back an entire flank of huge Skaven units. It begs explanation what is the situation on the board (as not whole is presented), why it was crucial to position the fast cavalry in that way and what were other units doing in that time. Experienced players will notice double flee situation but may wonder if you are not risking panic checks since there is no information on BSB position. New players may not notice that at all.

5. No High Elf Powerplay List can get by without Silver Helms.

That is a very strong statement and may be understood in the context of the speed advantage you mentioned before. You state their advantages such as being fast, well protected and providing static resolution. However, why did you feel the need to make such an authoritarian statement? Again, there are successful lists without Silver Helms that win big. Explanation on the preference might be good here.

6. How do you play powerplay?

Please, note that it is the first time that promises tactical approach. However, all you do is providing very general slogans.

- Play aggressively
- Combat reform is important
- Create opportunities
- Hold back sometimes
- Plan few turns ahead

These are good titles for sub-chapters but need examples. You provided some picture but as Ether Dude said, you don't explain how the situation on the picture was created. Yes, I can see the report but the idea of the tactical article is to illustrate the principle and if one wants more details, then he can move to the linked report.

What part on "how?" lacks is the following:

- how do you deploy your army? - while it always depends on the enemy and terrain you have very few units and can usually be deployed before the enemy. It means the opponent can see where your main regiment is and can counter that. Also, there might be generic approach while facing certain type of the enemies. Do you deploy the same against Dwarven/O&G castle? What if you face another army that plays in the same way as you do? What are the other dangers that can be avoided in that phase? For example, in one of your games you have made a mistake that saw your whole unit running off the table but could have been avoided with better placement.

- how do you make sure you deliver the unit where and when you want? - this is perfect place for discussion how you use support elements. Big cavalry bus is easily diverted. Especially if the enemy has more units than you do and when they could use that advantage during the deployment phase. You also have a limited amount of support in your army, how do you protect them so that they are there to help the main elements to hit where they want to hit or grind the enemy without being flanked?

- how do you play if you get difficult match up? - in the typical tournament you have to be prepared to face the enemies you might not like to play against. It is not only about winning big but also about losing small sometimes if it is difficult to win in the first place. I remember your game where you played against Ogres and lost badly because your charges didn't hit home and you could not coordinate the attack. What would you do to prevent such situation again? Or at least make the margin of defeat smaller?

While there are many details that matter in each game and each game is different, it is even more important for a good tactical article to provide examples. While it will never cover all the possibilities it will illustrate the "how". If it is under special LoS then state it and make it clear that you used the rule to help you cover the advance and create the favorable situation. If it is against particular army, show that too and provide explanation how to create that opportunity. If the enemy made a mistake, show how your army exploited that in a way no other army could.

This post is better than the one you wrote some time ago about BotWD but it still needs a lot of work if it is to be tactical article and not army list building one. Here is a very good example of such article, divided into few posts, on how to use Dark Riders but provides in depth knowledge on how to use fast cavalry to the best effect:

Dark Riders can do it better!

[Curu Olannon]

The article you link Swordmaster is an excellent article detailing a single unit`s flexibility. Its in-depth nature also explains why I feel it is outside the scope of this article - what I`m detailing is an overall army concept, not how to micro-manage all possible list elements that could make up such an army. I guess you could say that this article is more strategic in nature, whereas the Dark Riders one is more tactical. I set out to answer 4 questions and most of your feedback is centered around the lack of concrete details for part 4: How. I`ll see what I can do to flesh it out some more, but given the various permutations which can create a powerplay list, I am very reluctant to go into specific examples. Besides, multiple reports are linked where actions with specific lists can be seen.

It is nice to see pictures as they help to illustrate the idea but I am confused what the first one is suppose to show.

As you can tell from the formation of the Silver Helms, their center is very far away from the Plaguebearers. What happened previously was that they charged a central element and then combat reformed to 2-wide to trap the Plaguebearers, essentially something my opponent didn`t see coming. I thought it would be clear, given where the center is along with the text, what had happened. Unfortunately I cannot link the report because I accidentally deleted it some weeks ago whilst editing what I thought was another report.

The what section is deliberately kept short because, as you say, this is not the focus of the post. I suppose I should add the word concept, so it reads: "...to detail a list concept whose..."

But why do you think your list is better in achieving that goal than others?

This is explained during the why section with a concrete example.

It is a good point about distance to be covered by the army in order to get to the enemy, even if it is simplified a little, I understand it is there to illustrate the point and you reasoning behind the fact you don't trust infantry to do the job.

It`s not that I don`t trust infantry, but for this style of play infantry cannot, by definition, be the focal point of the list.

However, infantry based armies did succeed in winning tournaments so clearly mobility is not only about speed. For example, US Masters winner probably achieved that with the use of High Magic. It would be good then to know why do you think cavalry based army is superior in that regard.

Of course! Infantry aren`t static, but neither is mobility required to win a tournament. The record here in Norway is 95 points if I remember correctly (20-0 system, 5 game tournaments) which is currently held by a Dwarf player. Any type of list can win, but it is besides the point. Also, as has been discussed at some length previously, the US Masters had a huge lead in soft scores. If I remember correctly he was some 20-ish battle points beyond best general, who happened to play a Powerplay list.

It is very important to acknowledge the role of support units. However, you only listed the reasons why you use eagles and reavers in the army list. In fact, you even say that explaining how to use them is beyond the scope of the article. I must say I disagree because it looks like a crucial element of the entire idea. You want your powerful hitters to get in combat where and when you want so showing how it is done would be the best part of the tactical article. While it may not necessary be good time to do so in "what" section, it definitely has to be explained.

I disagree. This article assumes you understand basic concepts. It is not my intention to write a guide for a complete beginner here. Inherently, when discussing list concepts, some level of expertise is required. Furthermore, we have an excellent article on Great Eagles and you just found an excellent one on Dark Riders, who are by and large similar to our Reavers (they just shoot a whole lot better). If every strategically-minded article were to delve into depths on all these units, they would be too large for anyone to even begin writing, and furthermore they would be too bloated: the focus is easily lost.

You even added a picture captioned: Reavers holding back an entire flank of huge Skaven units. It begs explanation what is the situation on the board (as not whole is presented), why it was crucial to position the fast cavalry in that way and what were other units doing in that time.

The report is linked in the article for anyone wanting to explore this situation further. I feel the reports are like the great eagle/dark rider threads - good to link, but not to include directly. With that said, I should include links to those threads the same as I have links to BRs, so players wishing to understand these concepts better can take a break from this article to read up on the specific tactics related to how those units can be played. Also, while discussing relevant threads: Please link more if you have any that relates to this concept.

That is a very strong statement and may be understood in the context of the speed advantage you mentioned before. You state their advantages such as being fast, well protected and providing static resolution. However, why did you feel the need to make such an authoritarian statement? Again, there are successful lists without Silver Helms that win big. Explanation on the preference might be good here.

Because it shapes the core for this concept. It`s not say that other lists cannot be good, just that a Powerplay list by (my) definition has a unit of Silver Helms.

Please, note that it is the first time that promises tactical approach

Which is deliberate. This is also the biggest part of the article, but it clearly needs more content. I do provide general slogans indeed, because I don`t want to go into specifics. I could create a diagram about how a Star Dragon deploys against Dark Elves, but what good would that do for someone whose interest in Powerplay is based on the Deathtrain? Likewise I could explain how a Deathtrain is well suited to combat DoC, but what will this help a player looking to Powerplay with a cavbus + support WL? For this very reason I`m trying to keep it abstract, supplying reports for people to read so they can choose the specifics they want. Covering all permutations in this one post I feel would do more good than harm: the post would be too long for many people to bother reading, you lose focus and lastly, it`s too list-specific. Perhaps I`ll expand on this article with concrete list instances, in which case these examples you feel is missing should definitely be.

Oh and the BOTWD-article should definitely be finished as well.

---

I`ll flesh out some sections and provide a new draft as soon as I have the time. I`ll also make sure to add relevant references, e.g. Eagle thread and Dark Riders thread. If you feel more such unit-specific articles are relevant, please leave a reply with a link

[SpellArcher]

In general I agree with Curu that an offensive list should not be built around M5 troops. Having played essentially M5 lists for a long time with both HE's and WE's, too often I find the initiative is seized by faster enemies. Infantry are good at resisting. They are also good at taking ground, which can be very helpful for faster troops to use as an attacking springboard. Once an army goes over a certain proportion of infantry, I feel it benefits greatly from a substantial shooting phase (like the US Masters list) for those match-ups where the enemy can use speed to otherwise seize the initiative.

The likely exception I can see is an MSU list. This has deployment and redundancy advantages not available to most infantry lists, which allow it to better contest the movement phase.

[Curu Olannon]

I just realized I confused the US Masters with another tournament yet again, indeed the PG-star had the most BPs. Regardless, it is besides the point as that list is, by definition, not a Powerplay list. That`s not to say it isn`t good, can`t work or whatever, simply that it`s another type of list than I`m discussing here. The same goes for the Coven of Light-Loremaster-WL-block list for example.

Once an army goes over a certain proportion of infantry, I feel it benefits greatly from a substantial shooting phase (like the US Masters list) for those match-ups where the enemy can use speed to otherwise seize the initiative.

Exactly! Warhammer is won and lost in the movement phase, largely. To create board control you need to create threat arcs. One way to do this is to have fast elements, another is to have lots of shooting.

[Ether Dude]

I do provide general slogans indeed, because I don`t want to go into specifics.

This sentiment for me is what I'd like to see you conquer. You have many games with this style of army and I think we as a community could benefit from your experience.

I think you focus too much on lists. It can be important, or it can be general. Here's what you do when there's a unit you don't want to fight. Here's what you do when their army can blast away large chunks of yours. Here's what you do if their army is fast enough to get out of the way. Now, that could be 3 different armies or 3 similar armies. There are units star dragons do not want to fight (skaven slaves) and there are units that a silver helm unit do not want to fight (white lion/phoenix guard with banner of the world dragon). There are similar techniques to ensure you get the combats you want in both cases. Redirect what you don't want to fight and use your mobility to keep out of getting trapped. What do you do if you do get stuck in a fight you don't want to be in? It feels like you take this for granted and as such the article comes off as superficial. At its present state, it's a fine read but I'll never revisit it because it's not saying anything yet.

If you were to show me how to keep a deathstar from being redirected, how to catch a DE flying circus, how to break a dwarven/empire castle, or how to harvest points from a skaven denial list I'd find it much more interesting and valuable. THAT would be a tactical article. Outline the strategy (fast powerful units), show some examples of tools to be used (units that do well in this style), finally showing how these pieces can be put together to good effect. What are some common pitfalls? How does one avoid them in play? How can you recognize opportunities? What IS an opportunity? What can you do to recover from dice going against you?

I wouldn't worry about length. It will get read if it's worth reading. The question is, are you up to putting your experiences forward in such a manner? It is no mean feat, and consequently why there are so few tactical articles pinned.

Thanks for your time and effort!
Ether

[Curu Olannon]

Thanks for the specifics. Will see what I can do

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Let me try to address the problem in a different way.

Essentially, what you say in the original post is: "If you want to win tournaments you need to win big. If you want to win big - take my list".

Could you please, explain, what do you consider to be tactical advice in general and in this case in particular?

[Curu Olannon]

First of all, this is a concept, not a list, as I tried to elaborate on in my last reply. Secondly, it`s not mine. Furthermore, it`s not the only way to win a tournament, as shown above. Lastly, this is how I see things. Feel free to differ, but please provide solid grounds if you do so. Anecdotal evidence is lacklustre, at best, irrelevant at worst (given the random nature of Warhammer).

Could you please, explain, what do you consider to be tactical advice in general and in this case in particular?

Tactical advice in general is telling people how to use their units well. I suppose the line between strategy and tactics is blurry at best, but in a nutshell, that`s it. In this case in particular I consider tactical advice to be explaining how the army overall should be played, highlighting the key assets a Powerplay army has. For example I`ve highlighted the importance of combat reforming to take advantage of opportunities because, while combat reform is always powerful, with Silver Helms in a big unit you can essentially use it to move your frontage many inches. Having a 20-big unit go from 5-wide to 2-wide nets you 6" and that`s not even counting the change in direction you get to make whilst performing such a move.

I`m hoping to have a new draft up later today where I will try and add some weight to the relevant section: Basically everyone feels the "how" part is what needs more content.

[Curu Olannon]

Following a recent poll it emerged that you, the members of Ulthuan, would like to see an article on High Elf Pushing, a.k.a. Powerplay.

Powerplay - What, Why, Who, How?


Following a refused flank deployment, the Silver Helms have a clear charge towards the Beasts of Nurgle in the middle of the table. Engaging them allows for a number of options...

...such as combat reforming to create an inescapable trap for Plaguebearers. Note that the DoC player moved in the meantime and the last Beasts crumbled at the end of his turn.

:: What is "Powerplay"? ::

Powerplay is pretty much a term I`m coining for this article to detail an army concept whose purpose is to run across the table, kill the opponent`s units and win big. By nature, powerplay is performed my mobile lists. We will delve more into this under the how section. It`s a pushing style of play which rewards creative thinking and seeing opportunities: By nature, the aggressor tries to create situations whereas the defendor tries to deny them. One could say that a Powerplay list is the action list, whereas the opponent has a reaction list.


Skaven feeling the wrath of a carefully planned move

:: Why Should You Play Powerplay? ::

In a singles setting (i.e. not a team event), you need to score big points to win. Assuming you go to an event to win, scoring big points is your number one concern to reach this goal. Every list can win big, however in a typical tournament setting you need to win big concistently and capitalize on the advantages you get, either due to brilliant play or due to an opponent making a mistake. Why? Well let`s for a moment imagine that you`re playing a Dwarf gunline. You`re facing Warriors of Chaos and they have their bells and whistles DP, double 3++ heroes and Skullcrushers heading in your direction. In a lucky break, you manage to kill the DP and one of the heroes in one round, and he`s not even able to charge you next turn! While a weaker player will maybe throw caution to the wind and storm all-in, securing you a 20-0, a stronger player should (and will!) abandon the charge and consolidate the fact that he`ll at least get 5 or 6 points. Turn this situation around: you`re WoC storming onto Dwarfs and in a lucky break you kill both their cannons. Suddenly, your DP is free to cause havoc and there is nothing the Dwarf player can do about it. Thus, the initiative and capability of capitalizing on an advantageous situation inherently lies with the aggressor.

Furthermore, if you`re playing a defensive army you will always have some matchups where an opponent simply can push you really hard and there`s nothing you can do about this. These games inevitably end up with a terrible loss, frequently 0-20 and given the nature of the army, is very hard to avoid. With a mobile, aggressive list, you almost always have the option of playing the avoidance game, making a tough matchup not necessarily go beyond 10-10. Granted, this assumes a correct understanding of the matchup as this hinges a lot on deployment, but my point is that it can be done. A defensive list does not have this option, and having a bad matchup go 8-12 instead of 0-20 can be the difference between a top placement (as ~80 battle points are easily achievable despite one 8-12 game) and a decent placement.

To summarize then, a mobile, aggressive list has an easier time mitigating losses if the game turns sour and it has an easier time playing a hard matchup without losing big.

:: Who - What Units Can Play Powerplay? ::

First, let`s look at some maths and evaluate deployment - a very important aspect of Warhammer. Armies deploy 24" apart, at the minimum. An opponent going all the way back to the boardline is essentially 32" away from your deployment line. Assuming you have M5 infantry you march for 2 turns and are still 12" away: that`s assuming your opponent hasn`t moved! Also, remember that drop advantages can see him create a diagonal setting as well, where the distance is significantly greater. In reality, what happens is you can`t engage unless it`s on his terms before T3 at the earliest and even the simplest of redirectors will ruin these plans. Realistically, if the infantry unit can handle incoming fire, you won`t be in meaningful combat before T5 or T6. Because of this, a Powerplay army cannot have a core of M5 infantry unless said unit has a lot of damage output at a distance (DE can powerplay quite well with Darkshards, although they`re forced to play a defensive game against certain lists). That`s not to say M5 infantry cannot be taken, just that they cannot alone provide what`s needed. Implicitly, this explains the popularity of the cavalry prince - a perfect element to rush an enemy with his super-strong offense @4S7 ASF attacks. Defensively, 1+ re-rollable is no joke either.

The general rule of thumb is that the more mobile and hard hitting a unit is, the more capable it is of playing powerplay.


Star Dragon and Frostheart Phoenix, regular choices in Powerplay armies

Let`s take a step back and take a broader look at the situation: units in Warhammer never work in a vacuum and we need to consider overall armies. Obviously we cannot take 4 Star Dragons and call it an army because it is illegal, and regardless of how we configure our armies we are bound to have certain elements that out-run and out-hits the others. Because of this, board control is essential: we want these units to be able to perform surgical strikes without being overwhelmed. Enter the best support unit in the game: the Great Eagle. With fly, T4 W3 this supporting unit is super-mobile, hard to catch if it doesn`t want to be go and surprisingly resilient to small-arms fire and near-immune to panic. It can keep up with anything in our list and takes up fairly little space: as such it is very easy to block stuff out with it. The Reavers aren`t far behind and have the advantage of being core tax. Together, these allow us to control the board so well that it`s ridiculous. Opponent`s often feel that it`s our hitty elements that are overpowered when in truth we could not work at all without these humble supports. Take a look at this report and pay attention to how my opponent`s continued efforts to make his units support eachother are failing throughout the entire game: every single engagement that occurs happens on my terms: HE vs EMP. Despite this next game being obsolete due to a new book having come out, I feel this report also features just how effective chaff units can be: HE vs DoC.

So: any kind of power-playing list needs support and you need to learn how to master these units. Explaining that is beyond the scope of this article and regardless, lots of experience is required. In my opinion, this is the hardest part to master about powerplay, despite the insane mobility of our support I`ve often found my Eagles and Reavers to simply be too far away when I need them. Practice this, master this and playing High Elves will forever be easier. How much you need is up to personal preference, however I have never seen a successful High Elf Powerplay List get by with less than 3 elements. That is not to say it`s impossible, just that it`s unlikely that a list is optimal with less than 3 elements. For a more in-depth discussion on these units, I highly recommend the following 2 excellent articles:
Great Eagle Tips and Tricks
Dark Riders can do it Better!!


Reavers holding back an entire flank of huge Skaven units. Their sheer size meant it took them several turns to wrap around the central impassable piece of terrain. By holding the Reavers in reserve, it was trivial to block them out and keep the Reavers in range of BSB/General to avoid panic messing up the situation. The blocked Skaven units never made an impact on this game.

Now, onto the more important stuff. First of all, I have a claim to make: No High Elf Powerplay List can get by without Silver Helms. Silver Helms are a weak unit, they don`t hit very hard and have few good matchups, but they are the bread and butter of a Powerplay List: They are durable, fast, provide excellent character protection and lastly, some much needed static combat resolution. I have had many games where I count the kills and see that they even my opponent`s static, ish, then I remember "Oh and banner + 3 ranks" and suddenly the +1 combat is +5. The question then remains how best to utilize the Helms. The answer depends on the rest of your list, so let`s consider some options:

- Star Dragon Lord
- Cavbus + support, alternatively dual-bus
- Cavstar

The first build is perhaps the most typical for a Powerplay list, typically featuring a Star Dragon supported by a Frostheart (or two!) with a flexible list configuration capable of contesting board control with virtually any army, with enough magic to make a real threat out of the phase despite no lord level mages and mobility that is second only to a very few lists in Warhammer.

The second is less popular now but has been used on-and-off for the last year that I`m aware of. Basically it`s a Cavprince + Level 4 in a bus with either a supporting cavalry unit or infantry unit (the latter frequently being WL with BOTWD). Furion ran such a list quite a bit last year.

The last is a more recently emerged list style where it`s all about shoving as many points as possible into a stubborn, BOTWD-protected unit of Helms. Typically 5-6 characters filling Lords + Heroes, leaving only 600 for rare + special (typically goes into Eagles, Frostheart and RBTs). Very few configurations in Warhammer can stand up to this unit, but it grinds poorly (a Stank can hold it for multiple rounds of combat for example: an Iron Daemon can potentially hold it for a game). Furthermore, it suffers from the list inherently having few drops - a cunning opponent might be able to out-deploy you severely, partly negating the mobility advantage.

Rather than quote lists I feel I`ve now described the basic elements and how they function together in these 3 distinct playstyles.

:: How Do You Play Powerplay? ::

Powerplay is all about applying pressure and playing aggressively, without losing your head completely. Having witnessed a Star Dragon cause utter destruction, it`s easy to conceive of it as invincible. This is far from the truth and it`s worth bearing in mind: no unit in the High Elf army can be played headlessly aggressively. When you do commit to a fight, consider what the combat resolution is likely to be, whether the enemy will hold or break, what happens in both cases and, most importantly of all, what possible responses and counters does your opponent possess? For example it might be juicy to charge that mage-bunker, but if your Star Dragon is all alone and he has a champ and a throwaway hero or two and that mage just happens to have Purple Sun, you could have a bad time really really fast. Likewise, a bus can often find itself overcommitting to units it cannot grind whatsoever. A Steam Tank at full wounds with Regrowth and Lifebloom backup is a perfect example. Know your limits, apply the pressure, but don`t go overboard.

Case Study - Applying Pressure Vs Dwarfs
In this game, I played a Star Dragon vs gunline Dwarfs who sported a T10, W5, 1+ save Lord. We rolled the following map:


Note that all hills, impassable pieces and houses block line of sight completely. The North side is terrible for a gunline, regardless of which corner they choose there is a column of advancement where the artillery cannot see my monsters. I was lucky and won the roll-off, forcing him to go south. With 5 chaff drops, he had to commit before I deployed any of my heavy hitters. I put the bus in the open, both monsters outside of his Cannons and GTs line of sight and the RBTs had a clear view to tear apart his Longbeards. Just killing a few could be game-breaking here as wiping stuff out and moving on is key vs Dwarfs so you don`t get stranded in front of their super-hard troops and artillery.

Here you can see the deployment:

With the monsters hidden and the bus directly across their preferred target, the Elves are ready to advance

Advancing took 2 turns to put everything in place to avoid risking unlikely charges. At this point, I had bus + Dragon threatening Longbeards and the Frostheart threatening the Irondrakes. Note that I was still out of his WMs LoS with the monsters.


Having waited an extra turn to strike against the Dwarfs, the High Elves are now in a perfect position to launch a devastating, coordinated assault

This game ended 20-0, I even killed the tanklord before Turn 6 was over! You might notice that had he won the roll-off for sides, things would be harder for me. In this case, one needs to evaluate whether it`s worth pushing or cornering for a tie-ish result. This depends on your standing in the tournament, what you need to achieve, and what you could likely achieve. Even one full turn of shooting from 2 runed Cannons and 2 runed Grudge Throwers could easily bring down enough of a High Elf army to make an assault nothing but suicide.

When you look at a strong army on the other side of the table it can be a daunting prospect. Frequently you will have defeatist thoughts like "how on earth am I supposed to deal with x y z at once, they`re all there!". The short answer is, you can`t. If you take a look at the statlines in Warhammer, the slower things are the harder they hit per point you`ve invested. Dwarfs, and Hammerers in particular, are a very good example of this. For this reason, a defensive unit is inherently stronger than an offensive unit. This means that the offensive unit needs to isolate the defender and engage one unit at a time. I`ve already discussed at some length the importance of chaff, but there are multiple other ways to ensure isolation as well: multiple charges, sweeping manoevres, flanking an opponent and combat reforming can all help to achieve isolation.

Speaking of combat reforms and overruns, understanding these concepts is hugely important to your success as a Powerplay general. Combat reform is among the most powerful moves in Warhammer: like a normal reform it allows you to completely rearrange the unit. However unlike normal reforms, your center doesn`t have to stay the same. This can be used to slide single models or entire regiments, create new angles, deny enemies a prepared charge and much, much more. Always consider your options for a combat reform. Normal reforms after a combat are also hugely important, this out-of-turn re-arrangement can catch opponents completely by surprise. In this game, such a move enabled me crash home to my opponent`s bunker, scoring really big points: HE vs SK. See also this game where an unexpected combat reform allowed me to catch a unit that should not ever get caught: HE vs WE If you play a Silver Helm unit with a Crown of Command character, your reform possibilities are endless. You can create huge openings and tie up insane amounts of space. With a 20-big unit, you can engage with a 5" wide front and combat reform 2-wide, rotated by 90 degrees so that you basically have a 20" long roadblock that is just so hard for many armies to deal with, the bus being 2++ vs magic as well as 2+ armour save. See this report for an example, where I wanted to lock down most of his army to combat a key unit without interference: HE vs SK.

When you play an aggressive list you`re always trying to create opportunities, however when an opportunity arises you need to consider possible responses from your opponent. Does he have a decent counter etc, as discussed previously. To make sure you jump on the right opportunities, you need to think long-term: try and visualize the moves that will happen in the next 2-3 turns and how your decisions affect that, what the situation will look like given optimal responses from your opponent and so on. This is your baseline, and it should always be clear. When you move a heavy hitting unit, the plan should always be what`ll happen with said unit 2-3 turns ahead. Having tunnel vision and jumping at a poor target can be an easy way to defeat. Likewise, not moving with a plan can quickly lead to your indecision tearing you apart: an aggressive army has to play the active part. Balancing this with holding back is key: there`s nothing wrong with holding back as long as there`s a sound plan behind it. If you are holding back because you don`t know what to do, chances are you`re making (or have already made!) a big mistake. As this is a timeless concept, I would like to bring out yet another example with an army from our old book. I remember this game very well as I was frustrated that I couldn`t get big wins in this tournament and then finally, game 5 saw me get the opportunity I needed. My goal in this game was to win the chaff war, set up multiple units and engage whatever went too far. The turning point proved to be his over-zealous Hexwraiths, which I by charging took very little risk had the charge not hit home. By hitting home however, the benefits were huge. Notice the movement from the flyers here leading up to the situation and how I do everything I can to just position for the big strike: HE vs VC A report I linked early highlights a similar but different style of play, here I engaged a fairly healthy steam tank. My plan here was to await its demise and then multi-charge whatever came too close. Because of this my bus was very cautious up until the right moment, yet I always had the angles and ranges I needed to react on a moment`s notice, all due to planning ahead: HE vs EMP. Learn to always consider multiple turns ahead and factor in the best play you can think of for your opponent.

Case Study - Creating Opportunities vs Empire

In this game, I faced an Empire list with a hard bus, rocking an L4 Life Wizard, Grand Master with Runefang and BSB with 1+ re-rollable and The Other Trickster`s Shard. In addition he had 2 cannons and a steam tank. From the get-go, this is a difficult matchup for a Star Dragon as there are continuously threats to be handled: if you´re at a distance, cannons are bad. If you`re closing in, Runefang can tear you apart. Additionally, he had 5 Demis as well...

Having played Empire before, I know they lack board control and have huge footprints. Furthermore, the Stank being random movement makes it hard to plan properly what to do with it. My plan going into this game was to deploy far away, outside of Dwellers range, and see if I could create a flanking opportunity. I managed to keep my flyers out of LoS during deployment (Hills blocking LoS):


The fence in the middle allows for some degree of cannon protection should the Empire play too defensively. He is thus stuck at threatening the middle and risking a flank, and staying defensively and risk me grabbing the fence before ramming into his units with both flyers.

He went first and sent the Stank towards me. Furthermore a cannon blew up. This allowed my Dragon to begin its flanking movement: by moving close to the piece of impassable the Stank cannot neither charge me nor shoot me (the terrain piece cuts his route) and the cannon only barely has a point it can see. From here on, the plan is to use the Stank as a safety point. Eventually it will go down and that`s when I can strike. My opponent lacked regrowth so I knew I wouldn`t suddenly be back to square one.


The flanking begins. Note also how Reavers disrupt the West, RBTs have a commanding presence in the center and Eagles are close to the monsters, ready to move up when needed

Eventually the stank goes down and at this point I have everything in position. Even though it goes down at the end of my turn, the Reavers have managed to engage and silence the Cannon so the worst he could throw at me was Dwellers (which did kill the Prince).


Empire try and come back from a poor position by threatening the bus/a flank charge with demis

With so much chaff still alive, I could be ok for another turn by blocking his bus and focusing on the demis. To this end, I charged the Demis with the Dragon and, predictably, he fled. The way was clear then...


Several turns of setting up has lead to the Empire knightstar being engaged by nearly 2000 points of troops

By making sure his Grandmaster wasn`t in base-to-base with the Star Dragon, it would only be a matter of time before the big beast would drag down the Knights. Indeed, in T6 the Knights were all dead and the Grandmaster`s damage was largely negated by BOTWD.

I made a point earlier about Silver Helms being a core element in any Powerplay list, but it is very important to remember that these, like all our other core choices, are S3 with no benefits what-so-ever, apart from when they charge. Thinking of Silver Helms like "almost Swordmasters" is a huge mistake: all too often you suffer rubber lance and you`re stuck trying to grind stuff with S3. Not good. What they are good at, is staying alive and protecting points, usually characters as well. Many people like to play them stubborn, which is a safe and conservative choice (and a must-have if you are going for the Deathstar), but it is also possible to tool it up aggressively for more hitting power. This somewhat mitigates their poor grind, but even an Ogre Blade on a Noble won`t make a huge difference if you`re in the wrong fight. Note also how, in the above case study, the Silver Helms were nothing but a bunker for the characters and static combat resolution.


It`s very satisfying when a big charge hits home

Risk Assessment and Evaluating Matchups
Certain matchups are good, others are bad. In a singles setting, you have no control over what you meet. What you do have control over however is what you can do about the hand you`re dealt. Dealing with it correctly assumes you understand the matchup. Different lists have different hard things to face. One trait they all have in common is that they don`t like being blocked out or stuck. Flyers can move over almost any impediment, but our flyers inevitably rely on block support if they want the big win. When chaff is combined with powerful counter-charging elements, it becomes dangerous.

Case Study: Being Blocked By Tomb Kings

I played a Star Dragon vs a Tomb Kings army consisting of lots of magic, 4 Sphxines and lots of shooting. Consider the following deployment:

A fan of fast cav makes my life hard

While the flyers can largely ignore this, one quickly realizes that it becomes very hard to advance with the bus here. Furthermore, the flyers cannot really head for the juicy stuff because the threat arcs deny them the opportunity. In a nutshell, the flyers rely on isolating the Sphinxes with support from the bus (static resolution is super-important here) and this deployment makes that very hard. Despite having high magic and thus access to Soul Quench, even with RBT support I cannot reliably kill enough fast cav quick enough to make this possible. The mistake here was not deploying in a skewed manner (see the Empire case study), which allowed his blockers to achieve him victory. Correctly assessing the matchup I should`ve seen this and deployed differently.

The case study above highlights a typical pitfall for these lists: Their speed and hitting power lure you into thinking it`s all about a head-on charge hitting hard and fast. Unfortunately (or perhaps I should say luckily?), Warhammer isn`t that simple. A skewed deployment is often favourable for a Powerplay list, simply because it allows the cavalry to capitalize even further on its movement advantages: By hitting a corner the opponent has to cover a lot more ground to set up a decent, defensible position, whereas hitting him straight in the middle of his battle line allows him to envelope the advancing forces a lot easier. See the Empire case study for how hard it was for his Demigryphs to make a difference here. Furthermore, if you have an infantry element in your list, a wide flanking manoevre from the cavalry creates lots of space and board control, as well as mitigating the speed differences.

Case Study - Combined Arms Powerplay vs Dark Elves
In this game I met a typical shooty-avoidance DE army. I deployed the cavalry wide and swept a flank with them.


With the Dark Elves deploying a little too far forwards, the cavalry has an excellent shot at dominating his weak flank and sweep towards the middle with the PG lategame

This game boiled down to a risk assessment on my part where I made a judgement call: A mistake on my opponent`s part allowed my cavalry to hit home alone without PG support. By doing this I risked a killing blow on my Lord but that was the only way I believe he could have a chance. The more conservative play would be to clear more chaff and await the PG. Regardless, the strategy of sweeping wide proved solid.


The cavalry have a dominating position from which they can choose a number of actions: engage chaff and reform to buy PG time, engage chaff and overrun or engage shooters on the hill. Notice how close the PG are (relatively speaking) despite being M5 compared to M9. Cavalry can sweep wide and have movement left to wheel towards the centre, making this an excellent manoevre with them.

We`ve now looked at the importance of skewed deployment and flanking manovres, vital aspects of mastering Powerplay. However, what if you need to deploy directly opposite to just engage head-on as soon as possible to grind?

Case Study - Deathtrain vs Skaven

In this game I deployed the cav-unit directly opposite. I knew the Skaven would try and delay me with Slaves and hide the Bell + bunker. Engaging as soon as possible is essential to a big win here. The idea was thus to run right at him: on average a unit of Slaves goes down in one round of combat since the Deathtrain has so many ranks and deals so much damage on the charge.


The High Elves grab the initiative and move up

The Skaven counter-move saw him set up a seemingly favourable situation: the Slaves are easily engage-able, but is it worth it?


By keeping the bus out of combat I can focus on Death snipes vs his characters and magic missiles on the Hellpit. Furhermore, I can engage with the Frostheart, block the center and just completely lock down the battlefield. This allows me to choose my fights and I have plenty of time left: Be patient, pick your fights.

By sending the Phoenix into Slaves, keeping the bus back and sending Reavers to block him, I force his Hellpit to make a move, or stay put:


Phoenix starts chewing

The Hellpit commits and I start clearing Slaves. The Hellpit is now down to 2W I believe (might`ve been as low as 1) and it has taken fire damage. The situation is looking bleak for Skaven:

Will he commit and hope for the best, or try his best to play safe?

Biding my time and focussing on the Hellpit allowed me to put him in a very tough spot. He commited the Hellpit to the Phoenix, died, blocked the bus with Slaves. I killed the Slaves and combo-charged his bus, securing a big win for the High Elves.

There are very few armies in Warhammer that sport lots of chaff and combat units that a Powerplay list fears. Tomb Kings is one of the few examples. When you encounter this, you basically have to bide your time and bring down the chaff. Deploying skewed helps you a bit as it gets hard to move all the chaff around (remember: lots of chaff units are typically deployed early so could take some time to re-deploy) fast enough. DoC typically enjoy a lot of chaff as well and the hard part here is getting big points in the first place because they have lots of drops, lots of chaff and are immune to panic. As shown in the pictures at the top of this article, the best we can hope for here is for an opportunity to arise from which we can use combat reforms, overruns etc to create unforeseen threats.

However, not only armies with lots of dedicated chaff units will want to delay you. Pretty much any list will throw cheap stuff in your way to delay you. There are multiple ways of dealing with this, but an important thing to remember is that a bus always consists of multiple elements.

Case Study - Battlestar Galactica vs Wood Elves

In this game I had a long way to move, with few drops and scouting Waywatchers it would inherently be hard to reach the important units from the Wood Elves. Here you can see him blocking me with an Eagle, its angling ensuring that an overrun isn`t particularly useful:


Eagles are hard to cope with, but not necessarily impossible

The Deathtrain has a lot of tricks, so in this case I reformed to move around the Eagle, killing Wood Elves with magic missiles instead. The RBTs took care of the blocking Eagle. My reform shenanigans however allowed his Archers to reform and block me, just barely.


What my opponent hasn`t realized is that I can solo-charge out...

Like the Battlestar Galactica can send out vipers. In this case, a cavalry prince, to tie up a bunker. This eventually lead to his collapse. Taking the Deathtrain requires careful planning and coordination. When up vs multiple units of chaff, you need to recognize the situation and what it calls for. As shown above, reforming past and shooting, throwing magic missiles and charging out solo characters are all viable options. There is unfortunately no template you can use to know what to use what, but being aware of all possibilities are crucial as this unit does not play like a normal Deathstar whose only purpose is to maim and kill as an unstoppable object.

Enemies You Do Not Want to Fight

When you encounter this, which is very rare, you have 4 options: Bide your time to reduce the situation to something you can handle, isolate the elements, run away, kill the rest. Example of biding your time: the previous TK example is hard to fight because 4 Sphinxes are too much T8 to handle. However a few rounds of RBTs and Soul Quench could reduce them to 2-3, which it`s possible to engage. A skewed deployment would make it easier to achieve either this or isolation, depending on your opponent`s reactions. Some elements cannot be reduced effectively: an Ogre Gutstar for example. In this case, you can save your chaff as best as possible to simply isolate him out while using the rest of your forces to (hopefully) kill the rest of his army. With the exception of multi-threats such as Tomb Kings` Sphinxes, I don`t think I`ve ever encountered something I don`t want to fight with a combo-charge. With a properly designed Powerplay list, they are very few and far between. What could happen however is that you lose something vital during the game, which forces a change of plans. As this could happen at any time against any army in arbitrary positions, it`s impossible to give general advice as to what the best course of action is here.

In conclusion, I believe Powerplay is the most promising style of play for single-player competitive events. That is not to say it`s the right choice (or best choice) for everyone, people prefer different playstyles and enjoy different units. However when it comes to scoring big points, I think this is the best we`ve got. Mastering the concept is inherently harder than mastering defensive play (see my earlier action-reaction description), but also a lot more rewarding as you`ll start seeing Warhammer in a completely new light. I no longer see unit matchups, I see blockers, counter-blockers, units I can`t touch unless I get X in, units that cannot touch me unless Y spell goes off etc. If you try this style of play (which I`m hoping you will!), I anticipate that it`s only a matter of time before you will view it the same way

This article is still in draft mode, please provide feedback below so I can improve on it before submitting it to the Articles Forum

I lack:
- typical meta opponents

[Curu Olannon]

Ok, big update has been posted. Thanks a lot for the feedback so far, please keep it coming! I lack a section on typical meta opponents and another one on "identifying opportunities". Anything else you`d like me to flesh out/elaborate on?

[Malossar]

Looks good so far, but I think you need to mention that only in the ETC do hills, buildings and impassable terrain block LOS.

[Curu Olannon]

That is not the case though. Simple Line of Sight is used often, regardless of ETC. In Norway I don't think we ever play TLoS on tournaments regardless of comp. I think this is also standard for many european countries

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

I didn't have time yet to read the updated version but the fact that you saw the importance of case studies (and not anecdotal evidence as you suggested) in tactical article to illustrate the way particular tools are used is promising.

A few comments to the previous remarks:

1. I didn't criticize the concept and I didn't imply this approach is not a good one. I pointed out that the concept (supported by examples of army lists) is not yet tactics.

2. If it is not your concept then the right thing to do is to acknowledge the player who introduced it. If you don't know who did it, then at least add acknowledgements of people who inspired you to use this concept in your games. The way the post is constructed suggests it is your design. I presume it was not intentional but I am sure you would want to avoid accusation that you present somebody's else idea as your own.

3. You mentioned that your post is not aimed to reach beginners and that in your understanding, tactical advice is to tell people how to use units well. What do you think you can offer to the veterans? And how would you convince others that you are the right person to provide such advice, in particular to experienced players?

[Curu Olannon]

1. A problem with the current state of things is that strategy and tactics are very intertwined. I agree that from a strict point of view, tactics necessarily involves micromanagement examples, anything broader than that is by definition strategy.
2. As far as I know nobody introduced this concept. It is basically just a term to describe a variety of builds - some of them uniquely mine - that all play according to the same fundamental principles. As for the originators of the lists that aren`t uniquely mine, I frankly don`t know where they came from. I know that at the ETC last year, Italy and Spain had some revolutionary thoughts with regards to the Star Dragon, which is now pretty much the standard. Whether they were first or not, I don`t know. Anywho, it wasn`t until a Norwegian player picked up a very similar list and started doing well in a singles setting that I noticed its potential. The question then is where does credit go? I had been creating and playing Star Dragon lists before I saw those ETC lists and every step of the way from there til now, small steps make up what I eventually present in this article. With that said, I could include a short paragraph with what I do know. Frankly I don´t care much for credit in this hobby because I think it`s close to impossible to prove that you were first with something. Also, some ideas are so obvious that multiple people independently converge towards the same point. Case in question: the HE Deathbus popularity at this year`s ETC. If someone were to use my reports/thoughts/whatever to further an idea, either here on Ulthuan or another warhammer forum, I wouldn`t care whether they used my name or not. At the end of the day, I do what I do to improve my own game first and foremost and to teach other people, secondly. Therefore I don`t care much for neither giving nor taking credit.
3. There are multiple types of players, it`s not black and white like beginner vs veteran. The way I see it, there are 5 logical sections of players: complete beginners, beginners who somewhat know the game, decent players, strong players, expert players. This article is primarily intended for decent-strong players. What do I think I can offer these? An insight into how to play High Elves in a Powerplay manner with explanations of overall strategies and the advantages this brings. Hopefully I can offer expert players a new point of view or two, but I don`t believe I`ll have many things to reveal to them that they didn`t already know. Hopefully a pointer or two at least though. Likewise, for beginners these concepts are simply too advanced and regardless of how I structure the article it will be over their heads: the examples will too far away from how they perceive and play Warhammer to be relevant. How I would convince others that I`m worth listening to? I have no plans for doing so. They can either read it and judge it themselves or they can choose not to. The article should carry the same weight regardless of who wrote it.

Looking forward to your feedback on the updated version, I`m sure you`ll have comments

[Axiem]

Finally had time to read through everything; it was a good read, so thanks for that!

There is however a problem and it is this:

Essentially, what you say in the original post is: "If you want to win tournaments you need to win big. If you want to win big - take my list".

I think this is poorly phrased by Swordmaster, but the essence is there. I would phrase it to you, not as he has, but as a generalization of the definition I feel you've conveyed throughout the article. Here's the argument I feel you've presented:

"Powerplay is playing aggressively, with a list that is both mobile and hard hitting, that tries to win (often by large margins) each time it faces off an opponent. It does this by consolidating elements into a small, manageable number, utilizing movement and positioning well, and choosing combats carefully, which can assuredly be won."

If you feel I've mischaracterized the essence of your article, feel free to disagree. However, that is the message that I felt you were conveying with the explanations and examples you were giving. If this isn't the message you planned to convey, perhaps a revision is in order, but I don't feel I've missed the mark by much, if at all.

The problem with such a definition is that it is both incredibly broad, and biased by itself.

Firstly, it's too broad in that it includes basically all of the vastly different, tournament-winning styles, regardless of what elements they included, the variation between them or, in many cases, the fundamental philosophy that separates them. For instance, by my estimation, there's nothing separating Furion's Flamespyre ETC and the winning Crossroads GT list (Linky) from both falling into your definition of Powerplay, even though they are completely and utterly different. This is a problem if you're trying to articulate precisely by what you mean: are you referring to the former, or the latter, both, or something in-between.

There's also another, more fundamental problem with such a broad definition which is that as new lists (or lists that already exist and are diametrically opposite in nature) are, for lack of a better word, discovered this definition will absorb them, and claim that it had been preaching such effects all along. You can see the example of Star Dragon list v. Crossroads GT list existing as an example of diametrically opposite in nature and still falling under the same categorization. If / when someone wins a tournament running Skycutters, Shadow Warriors, Swordmasters, and a Helmbus do they also fall into this category of Powerplay, assuming they still play "a pushing style of play which rewards creative thinking and seeing opportunities," to quote your article.

Secondly, it is biased by the presumption that playing Powerplay innately makes you more likely to perform better (in my above definition, the assumption that a list can win by a large margin each time it rolls up), which is what I think Swordmaster was disagreeing with. By your own admission, and rightly so, anecdotal evidence doesn't make your experiences applicable or even meaningful: they are simply a data point. If we were to draw a conclusion about Powerplay making players innately more likely to perform well in tournaments, we'd need mountains of data showing how such lists, as opposed to others, have effectively and continually proven to be "the best," whatever that means. That doesn't seem to be feasible, given the vast scope of such a project, and the inherently different levels of play, player-skill, environment, etc. that influences such information, not to mention data-collecting, and it's various biases as well.

This assumption that Powerplay is innate "the best" also flies in the face of the results of such tournaments as Throne of Skulls, the U.S. Masters, 2013 ETC and others. This is a problem, and one you'll have to address before you can attempt to convince others of your position.

Then there are statements like this:

Now, onto the more important stuff. First of all, I have a claim to make: No High Elf Powerplay List can get by without Silver Helms...I have had many games where I count the kills and see that they even my opponent`s static, ish, then I remember "Oh and banner + 3 ranks" and suddenly the +1 combat is +5.

The bit after the ellipses is pure anecdote, and doesn't add anything to the argument. It could also read: "Instead of taking additional Silver Helms, I always buy as many Nobles as possible, to ensure I hit as hard as I can on the charge, meaning I win by at least +5," or "Always take Dragon Princes because they hit harder than Helms, meaning you won't have to spend as many points on Nobles, and can spend Core points on Reavers and Archers, to get plenty of misdirectors and shooting." I know you might argue against the merit of such a choices (and I tend to agree), but each argument is just as flimsy as the others, hasn't been disproven by the evidence supplied, and doesn't add anything to your position.

The bit before the ellipses, has many examples that disprove it. For example, 2014 ETC list from Serbia:

Josip Jakić

Prince on Barded Elven Steed: General, Dragon Armour, Giant Blade, Enchanted Shield, Dawn Stone, Ironcurse Icon, 282
Archmage on Elven Steed: Lvl 4, High, Crown of Command, Dispel Scroll, 300
Noble on Barded Elven Steed: BSB, Dragon Armour, Shield, Sword of Might, Dragonhelm, Potion of Strength, 172
Noble on Barded Elven Steed: Halberd, Dragon Armour, Star Lance, Charmed Shield, Golden Crown of Atrazar, Potion of Foolhardines, 147

16 Archers: Musician, Champion, 180
2x 5 Silver Helms: Musician, Shield, 2x125
2x 5 Ellyrian Reavers: Replace Spears with Bows, 2x85

11 Dragon Princes of Caledor: FCG, Banner of the World Dragon, 399

3x Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower: 3x70
1 Great Eagle: 50
Frosthart Phoenix: 240

Total: 2398

Is this, or is it not, Powerplay? Does it have the option of playing like a Powerplay list, or is it something completely different, a whole different beast? What happens if the Serbian ETC player had not taking 2x 5 Helms and instead taken more Reavers for example, is that Powerplay; these don't perform the role you've laid out after all? I'll also remind you that Norway's 2013 ETC list was the following:

Norway:
Asbjorn Willersrud (C), High Elves

Prince on barded Elven Steed: General, Dragon Armour, Shield, Giant Blade, Dragonhelm, Dawnstone, 285
Archmage on Elven Steed: Level 4, High, Crown of Command, Dispel Scroll, 300
Noble on barded Elven Steed: BSB, Dragon Armour, Sword of Might, Enchanted Shield, Luckstone, Potion of Strength, 170
Noble on barded Elven Steed: Dragon Armour, Star Lance, Charmed Shield, Golden Crown of Atrazar, Potion of Foolhardiness, 145

2x 5 Ellyrian reavers: Bow for Spear, 85
2x 15 Archers: Musician, 160
10 Archers: Musician, 110

11 Dragon Princes: FCG, Banner of the World Dragon, 399

Frostheart Phoenix: 240
2x 1 Repeater Bolt Thrower: 70
5 Sisters of Averlorn: 70
Great Eagle: 50

Total: 2399

No Silver Helms. So is this Powerplay? By the essence of what you've written, I would say yes, but you have blatantly said that a list has to include Silver Helms. So what is it then? I could keep quoting, but I don't want to clutter up the thread.

There's also the issues of comp and environment which have a drastic impact on what you're saying, and can wildly differ from your solutions, neither of which you've really addressed. Are we talking about, ETC Warhammer, Out-of-the-box Warhammer, Swedish Warhammer, or all Warhammer, regardless of comp, environment, etc. Are we also talking about a specific point in time (namely now) or are the ideas you're presenting suppose to at least last until the next army book comes out, for the rest of the edition, maybe more? If you're talking about a strategic idea, then ultimately it should endure at least for a while, in multiple environments, or otherwise you need to preface what you're saying by confining it to a specific environment you're envisioning.

-----

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I think you need some focus, clarity, and to be brutally honest with yourself about what you mean. There's too much vagueness in the article, juxtaposed by strikingly blatant, and often fallacious in the case of the statement about Silver Helms, positions which aren't backed up with any real proof, just anecdotal experience.

Let me also say that I agree with, if not the heart of the article, at least it's thrust, or direction. Not only do I understand what you're really trying to say (or at least I think I do), but I think it has merit, and will certainly be useful for people to absorb. I don't agree it is "the best" or "most optimal" or however you want to frame it, but I would say it is "quite strong," again, whatever that means

Ultimately, I think your argument suffers from a lack of conciseness, which in turn is affecting your article. I'll close by giving some pointers on how to address this, and if you want, I can help work with you to rewrite some of the more problematic portions.

Here's what I'd suggest:

1) Choose your position very carefully and make sure you can support it, beyond anecdote.
2) Find a definition that articulates that position precisely, and doesn't leave much wiggle room.
3) Identify what group you're addressing. ETC players, Swedish Player, Comp Players, Uncomped Players, All Warhammer Players, etc. Adjust the tone, relevance, and findings of the article accordingly
4) Present your position, to the group you're addressing and support with logical data (not anecdote). "Generally, it makes more sense to take Helms in Core because otherwise we're spending points on Archers and Reavers, which get out shot by the cheaper Eagle Claw Bolt Throwers in Rare and otherwise requires the including of Dragon Princes, which compromises any other Special inclusions. The alternative is taking Dragon Princes in Special, however then Core has to be filled with mainly Archers and Reavers, both of which we would rather have as Bolt Throwers and Eagles respectively," or whatever your position is on why the Helms should be taken.
5) Present hard data to support, if needed. "Why do we take Helms in Core over Reavers and Archers? It comes down to the shooting, where against T4+ or armor save 3+, we'd much rather have points spent Bolt Throwers than Archers, especially against such match ups like WoC and DoC where chaff, chariots, and characters tend to be harder to deal with with Archers alone. Here's some quick math showing how 10 Archers do less damage than a cheaper single Bolt Thrower against chaff types x y z," or, again, whatever your reason for taking Silver Helms in Core is. This is just an example.
6) Address what stylistic measures need to be taken when playing such a list, or selecting such units. Taking 10 Archers v. 1 Bolt Thrower, plays very differently (in deployment especially). What needs to be done to adjust for this, and how best should players react? Is this always the case, or only in certain match ups, environments, etc.
7) Now add any anecdotes if applicable. "In Norway, the top HE players have been seen winning with lists that fit this bill. I myself use these kinds of lists to great affect. Here are some examples." Link reports.
8 ) Only now, do you draw conclusions about what this means about the group you selected in Step 3. Is it the best way to play? It is a "strong" way to play? When is it good, when it it bad (and there are times when it is bad, or rather worse than other alternatives).

I hope to see this article finished in completion, and am happy to help get it there. I just don't think it's there yet.

Hope that helps!

Axiem

[Curu Olannon]

Thanks for a lengthy reply, Axiem! Just to make sure: you read the latest draft, not the first post, right?

So first of all, your problem with the definition, which you boil down to this:

The problem with such a definition is that it is both incredibly broad, and biased by itself.

It is broad, but it is broad to highlight the importance of getting across the table and getting points and why cavalry is essential to us doing so. The fact that a vast amount of tournament winner lists conform to these principles is no concern, the way I see it. I`m merely trying to coin a term to frame a concept I think people ought to be consciously aware about. That is not to say that I invented it, by far, simply that I`m categorizing what typical pushing list looks like. You mention Furion`s ETC list and the Crossroads dual-block cavbus list as a problem here, which I just fail to see: yes they are vastly different but the means they use to win are largely the same. They are both striving to get across the board to score points, the tactics they have to employ share a lot (as explained in my article which uses fairly similar example, e.g. PG + bus vs SD build) which is what I`m trying to cover here. Yes, indeed a specific article for pushing style of play with a given build (e.g. SD + bus) would be more specific and deal with less permutations. Perhaps I will write such an article as well, but this is not what I`m trying to do here.

There's also another, more fundamental problem with such a broad definition which is that as new lists (or lists that already exist and are diametrically opposite in nature) are, for lack of a better word, discovered this definition will absorb them, and claim that it had been preaching such effects all along.

I`m not claiming to do anything but coin a term to frame a discussion with regards to how a High Elf list can push. Thus, I don`t see the above as a problem. Why is it a problem? The article`s too broad to even be able to claim such a thing in the first place.

Secondly, it is biased by the presumption that playing Powerplay innately makes you more likely to perform better.

This, I never stated, nor did I try to imply it. I specifically said that personal preferences affect this, but a Powerplay list inherently has a higher potential.

This assumption that Powerplay is innate "the best" also flies in the face of the results of such tournaments as Throne of Skulls, the U.S. Masters, 2013 ETC and others.

In an earlier reply I detailed why Powerplay lists don`t always win. It`s natural variance, simply put. Any faction can win Warhammer and we frequently see a wacky build take a big win (e.g. Khalida-TK). The fact that something is best doesn`t mean it`ll always win. Take soccer for example, how often do the result of the World Cup directly reflect the FIFA rankings? Just about never. It`s not about deterministically saying a will win, it is a statistical statement saying a is more likely to win, given b, c, d where player skill, preference, meta, comp pack etc will all affect its opportunities to do so. The fact then that non-powerplay lists score tournament wins are a huge testament to player skill. As for the ETC, this follows completely different rules than any singles tournament so I don`t view it as applicable. I do believe I also stated this explicitly in the article, if not I`ll make sure to add it as the playing grounds are totally different when the optimal play is to have an entire team average 12.5bp per game.

Next point: Silver Helms. This article is inherently talking about well designed Powerplay lists. Thus, any wacky configurations don`t necessarily count, nor do ETC lists that are meant for team events. Asbjørn did not bring them last year, but I know he would have done so now, given the current meta. Again though, his list was for ETC only (as far as I know he never took it to a singles tournament) and variations of it for singles play inevitably have Helms.

No Silver Helms. So is this Powerplay? By the essence of what you've written, I would say yes, but you have blatantly said that a list has to include Silver Helms. So what is it then?

The answer to this then is in the text above: These are ETC lists and if they had been taken to a singles tournament, I don`t expect that they`d do well. While they might be Powerplay lists in principle, they are not well designed as such: hence my claim that a well designed Powerplay list has to include Silver Helms. Perhaps I should clarify this even further as it is of course possible to construct a list that follows these principles without Helms, but it will be lacking a crucial element and thus it`s not well designed.

There's also the issues of comp and environment which have a drastic impact on what you're saying, and can wildly differ from your solutions, neither of which you've really addressed.

I don`t offer any solutions. I`m describing a way to play High Elves conceptually. Whether it fits a certain comp system is not what this article is about: there are so many different kinds of comp systems around, the vast majority of which are hugely biased, so this is impossible. You could specify what comp systems you would design for, but this will quickly turn into a very shallow/narrow article. I don`t see the value in doing such here. The essence is pushing with High Elves, the only requirement being Silver Helms (which I`ve explained why need to be around). You can do this under any sensible environment/comp system.

I don't agree it is "the best" or "most optimal" or however you want to frame it, but I would say it is "quite strong," again, whatever that means

And I welcome your differing opinion as this is not the only way to play High Elves. As discussed previously, multiple tournament winners feature lists that aren`t designed to push - even High Elf lists! Every player has a playstyle he`s more comfortable with than others, metas matter greatly etc. I am however convinced that pushing is the best way for a High Elf list to score big points in a singles setting, so I guess we`ll just agree to disagree on this point. I`m curious, what do you consider the best playstyle for High Elves in this context?

Ultimately, I think your argument suffers from a lack of conciseness, which in turn is affecting your article.

In a nutshell this is the same as Ether_Dude and Swordmaster of Hoeth asked for. Basically you`d want me to take one particular instance of this playstyle, for example Deathtrain, in one specific comp system, for example ETC, in one particular meta, for example the current one in Northern Europe. The problem with this is that it`s not what I`m looking to do, for several reasons. I`m trying to elaborate on the concept of pushing with High Elves from a general point of view, examplified as much as possible to give the readers an understanding of what this means, why I think it`s the best approach, which units in our book can do this and lastly how you play this style.

In the light of this, let`s review your final pointers:

1) Choose your position very carefully and make sure you can support it, beyond anecdote.
2) Find a definition that articulates that position precisely, and doesn't leave much wiggle room.
3) Identify what group you're addressing. ETC players, Swedish Player, Comp Players, Uncomped Players, All Warhammer Players, etc. Adjust the tone, relevance, and findings of the article accordingly
4) Present your position, to the group you're addressing and support with logical data (not anecdote). "Generally, it makes more sense to take Helms in Core because otherwise we're spending points on Archers and Reavers, which get out shot by the cheaper Eagle Claw Bolt Throwers in Rare and otherwise requires the including of Dragon Princes, which compromises any other Special inclusions. The alternative is taking Dragon Princes in Special, however then Core has to be filled with mainly Archers and Reavers, both of which we would rather have as Bolt Throwers and Eagles respectively," or whatever your position is on why the Helms should be taken.
5) Present hard data to support, if needed. "Why do we take Helms in Core over Reavers and Archers? It comes down to the shooting, where against T4+ or armor save 3+, we'd much rather have points spent Bolt Throwers than Archers, especially against such match ups like WoC and DoC where chaff, chariots, and characters tend to be harder to deal with with Archers alone. Here's some quick math showing how 10 Archers do less damage than a cheaper single Bolt Thrower against chaff types x y z," or, again, whatever your reason for taking Silver Helms in Core is. This is just an example.
6) Address what stylistic measures need to be taken when playing such a list, or selecting such units. Taking 10 Archers v. 1 Bolt Thrower, plays very differently (in deployment especially). What needs to be done to adjust for this, and how best should players react? Is this always the case, or only in certain match ups, environments, etc.
7) Now add any anecdotes if applicable. "In Norway, the top HE players have been seen winning with lists that fit this bill. I myself use these kinds of lists to great affect. Here are some examples." Link reports.
8 ) Only now, do you draw conclusions about what this means about the group you selected in Step 3. Is it the best way to play? It is a "strong" way to play? When is it good, when it it bad (and there are times when it is bad, or rather worse than other alternatives).

1) My position is that "this is how you play Powerplay". It`s not a specific list. I feel this is backed up beyond anecdotal evidence by looking at how successful, pushy High Elf lists are designed. I could provide a list of all pushy High Elf lists with merits that I know about, but I doubt it would serve to benefit this article.
2) I feel there is little space for wiggle room here. When you design a list, you either intend for it to push or you don`t. That doesn`t mean it always has to push, for example a Deathtrain can often find itself on the back foot for the start of the game given the right opponent, but it means that the list is designed to run across the table and score points. Again, it`s about the concept of pushing, not about a specific list.
3) All Warhammer players, with some experience with Warhammer (see my earlier reply to Swordmaster). What parts of the article do you feel fail to address everyone? I know that certain examples in the article features the usage of a Star Dragon under SLoS which is next to useless for people who play TLoS, but that was what I was reluctant to include case studies in the first place. In hindsight I think the article`s better off with them than without, and the principles remain the same under TLoS given that the piece(s) of terrain in question do block LoS to your SD.
4) I feel you`re over-focusing on my position with regards to the Silver Helms. I could elaborate on this even further I suppose, might flesh out another paragraph to further help people understand this.
5) See above.
6) I don`t think I need to do this. I`m not looking to help people create a specific list, I`m looking to teach them how a certain principle works. I want them to experience for themselves what works and what doesn`t. If they specific lists, there are several report references here. If they want to use some of the elements here but experiment beyond that that`s perfectly fine as well.
7) Anecdotes are spread throughout the article to provide examples. This was primarily something I did on the request of Ether_Dude and Swordmaster, but I think they are right that it adds to the article despite being very list specific as they overall show general concepts. Again though, I don`t want to dive into specific lists here which I`ve deliberately tried to avoid. Some lists are of course in the case study reports,
Again, kind of a repetition of 4. My aim with this article is not to convince everyone that this is how they should play High Elves. I have a short part about this to show people why I believe this style of play holds so much potential, but my primary aim for this article is to elaborate on how to play this style, not why people should play it. At the end of the day, some of us prefer Dragons, others prefer defensive lists with Teclis while yet others again prefer combined arms.

What I`m struggling to understand from your reply as a whole Axiem is what you would want this article to be about. From your feedback, in particular the last 8 points, it would seem that you`d want me to have this as more of a "you should play Powerplay HE" article rather than "this is how you play Powerplay HE". What I want is for people with some experience to be able to read this, get some ideas and hopefully have it in mind when they design a list and play a list. Note that all this requires them to want to play like this in the first play. If you`re not into the pushing style of playing High Elves then this article is not trying to convince you to do so. As such, I`m primarily looking for pointers on how to improve the "how" section. To this end, I picked up the following pointers from your reply:
- revise the why section to make it clear that this is my point of view and that the purpose of the article is not to convert anyone and everyone to play this style
- include a small section, perhaps an introduction, stating the target audience and purpose of the article more clearly
- in the definition of powerplay, ensure that I`m not trying to claim I invented anything or that all ideas about High Elf pushing comes from mere, merely that I`m coining a term to discuss this style of play which many people are already aware of at a conscious level
- provide more elaboration and examples as to why reavers, eagles, rbts and silver helms are superior to archers, spearmen, sea guard and dragon princes for this style of play. Dragon Princes is a bit iffy because some people make them work. As I`ve stated before in other threads, I cannot fathom how they do it, but the results speak for themselves so I can`t really question it. Note that the DP lists I have seen work well still feature Silver Helms though. I`ll need to think about this.
- I also need to consider the way I write things. It`s obvious that some people feel I`m trying to teach the word of God as to how to play High Elves, which is not my intention. Yes, I do want my statements to be bombastic, but bombastic without being faulty. Also, I need to make people realize the difference between a bombastic statement such as "Silver Helms are a must-have in a Powerplay army" (which I firmly believe) and "I believe Powerplay to be the best way to score big points", which several of you seem to be interpreting as a missionary message, which I don`t intend for it to be. Yes, I do want you to bring Silver Helms if you want to Powerplay High Elves unless you`re trying out a wacky, novel approach (e.g. Noble with Wayshard in Spearelves to support a Star Dragon), but no, I don`t want everyone of you to start playing pushy High Elves. In a nutshell, I think you nailed it here:

Not only do I understand what you're really trying to say (or at least I think I do), but I think it has merit, and will certainly be useful for people to absorb. I don't agree it is "the best" or "most optimal" or however you want to frame it, but I would say it is "quite strong," again, whatever that means

If you re-read the article and ignore the "Powerplay is strong" parts, what do you think stands out as needing more work, i.e. how can I expand on this draft to better show people the central concepts of pushing with High Elves? As I summarized above I have a few pointers but I feel I could need even more. I`m also hoping for further replies from Ether_Dude and Swordmaster, which I`m anticipating before too soon.

[Axiem]

Briefly, the problem you're encountering has everything to do with how you've presented the argument and nothing to do with your Warhammer skills, analysis, or conclusions. I haven't even been able to address whether or not I agree with your thesis mainly because it's too convoluted in it's current state. I don't care what the article is about, just as I don't care whether or not your name is on the Coin. Nor am I calling you out as being arrogant, placing yourself above others in some heighten Warhammer-god status, proclaiming to the world your findings as scripture. Whatever your argument is about, I'm just trying to get it to a point where it's logical, applicable, and understandable. Please take the following as that.

Also, before we start, we need to address what Swordmaster's comment is innately about, which I feel has ben swept under the rug a bit. Because you want to tackle everything from Crossroads GT to Furion's Flamespyre ETC list, you're inherently going to be covering a lot of ground, which means you either need to focus your thesis or otherwise expand your arguments (or both). This is, again, where I feel Swordmaster is calling foul, and I agree with him here: if all you're doing is renaming "winning tournaments" to "Powerplay," why do we have this article? You're basically including all winning lists, except a few which you call "exceptions." If it's merely a mindset change, the article should also be very short: basically saying "play more aggressive and you'll win more" but it isn't, and it isn't, which means you need to address things very particularly and in a complete way. Are you perhaps coining Powerplay to mean "tournament standard," in which case perhaps call it that instead?

These aren't questions to you that need to answer necessarily, so much as they are markers for holes in your argument and areas you can tighten up or refine your position. More of this at the end.

Alright, responses. Starting from the bottom up:

What I`m struggling to understand from your reply as a whole Axiem is what you would want this article to be about. From your feedback, in particular the last 8 points, it would seem that you`d want me to have this as more of a "you should play Powerplay HE" article rather than "this is how you play Powerplay HE". What I want is for people with some experience to be able to read this, get some ideas and hopefully have it in mind when they design a list and play a list. Note that all this requires them to want to play like this in the first play. If you`re not into the pushing style of playing High Elves then this article is not trying to convince you to do so. As such, I`m primarily looking for pointers on how to improve the "how" section.

The 8 final points were a specific step-by-step guide to how I think you should present your article, given what you've already put forth and in order to address the issues raised in my first post. They were not bullet points simply to hit: in short, the order in which you present the information maters as much as whether or not you're presenting it. This is the part I feel you need to work on the most. Your core conviction, hypothesis, thesis, whatever you want to call it is inherently weak, which in turn is making your arguments unfocused and unconvincing. Furthermore, you're missing steps 3-6, which focuses on establishing a common level of logic that puts everyone on the same page. The lack of this is leaving a large disconnect between your position and your findings.

This is because people won't make the same conclusions you are. If you're wanting to make a strategic article that can stand the test of time, you need to get everyone on the same page, without glossing over very important elements of your thesis. I understood what you meant in a lot of it, even where I pointed out there being problems. That doesn't mean I think the average, medium-experienced Warhammer player will make the same conclusions now, let alone 6-months from now, and I feel that needs to be a goal of your article. Heck, any strategy article. I'll touch on this below.

Let me present this to you, perhaps more blatantly than I did before. If I'm an average, medium skilled Warhammer player, reading your strategic article, I'm looking for three things. They are: 1) Why should I incorporate what you're suggesting? 2) How do I incorporate what you're suggesting? 3) What is the result of incorporating what you're suggesting? It is your job as the author to not only address these, but to make the argument clear enough so that anyone, falling into your target audience, can understand how you got to your conclusions.

You haven't done this yet.

That's precisely what steps 3-6 are for in the list I gave you. First, you're establishing your Core Conviction (Position and Argument), before supporting it with logical assumptions. Then you're backing up those assumptions with data (perhaps maths, matchup analysis, etc.) before talking about what changes are involved. Only then do you give evidence, including anecdotal experience, as to how your position has been successfully embodied and fulfilled by the examples your giving and how that supports your Argument. Then you draw conclusions. You've done the latter two (anecdotes and conclusions) but you haven't touched on the points that get the reader to understand the anecdotes fully, or appreciate the conclusions (logical assumptions, data, changes, etc.). Build the reader up, get them on the same page as you, then take them on a journey, moving their thinking and mindset around as you see fit.

How the article should flow:

Strong Core Conviction (Position, Argument) => Data (Logic assumptions, maths, changes) => Testing (Evidence, anecdotal and otherwise) => Conclusion (Why does it work? Perhaps, but not necessarily why it is "better," "stronger," etc.)

How the article currently flows:

Vague Core Conviction (Argument, but no Position, see below) => Anecdotes => Conclusion

-----

1) My position is that "this is how you play Powerplay". It`s not a specific list. I feel this is backed up beyond anecdotal evidence by looking at how successful, pushy High Elf lists are designed. I could provide a list of all pushy High Elf lists with merits that I know about, but I doubt it would serve to benefit this article.

This is not your position, but rather what your article will explain. Your Core Conviction is what you believe inside yourself, which you don't need to tell us. Your Position is what stance you take on that Conviction, as opposed to alternatives. Your Argument is the reasons behind why you think your Position is better than the alternative. I'll give examples below.

2) I feel there is little space for wiggle room here. When you design a list, you either intend for it to push or you don`t. That doesn`t mean it always has to push, for example a Deathtrain can often find itself on the back foot for the start of the game given the right opponent, but it means that the list is designed to run across the table and score points. Again, it`s about the concept of pushing, not about a specific list.

The point here being that it is two parts: a) a way of thinking, mainly aggressive and, b) a type of list, mainly mobile and condensed. A definition that agrees with your Argument will be confined enough to work with. It shouldn't be "a pushing style of play which rewards creative thinking and seeing opportunities," which is too broad to fulfill b) and too broad to refute the argument that nearly any list falls into it. This doesn't mean you build lists for people, or talk about a very specific list. It means you talk about choices, and what those choices bring to a list and an aggressive style of thinking.

3) All Warhammer players, with some experience with Warhammer (see my earlier reply to Swordmaster). What parts of the article do you feel fail to address everyone? I know that certain examples in the article features the usage of a Star Dragon under SLoS which is next to useless for people who play TLoS, but that was what I was reluctant to include case studies in the first place. In hindsight I think the article`s better off with them than without, and the principles remain the same under TLoS given that the piece(s) of terrain in question do block LoS to your SD.

All your examples are ETC based. You don't provide hardly any examples that address other alternatives that could exist outside the ETC. What if I play 2x Frosthearts, Dragonprinces, Book Archmage and Prince, and no Helms, something comped out of ETC? What if I play 4x Monsters and no Helms? Do either/both of these count as Powerplay, if I'm playing with the right mindset involved? Address this.

4) I feel you`re over-focusing on my position with regards to the Silver Helms. I could elaborate on this even further I suppose, might flesh out another paragraph to further help people understand this.

A good plan I would think. This article is two parts: thought processes and list building. It might be prudent to separate them and flesh them both out. The main point of this is not to specifically talk about issues that might throw a spanner in the works, but it's to establish rapport and common logical thought. I'm beating you with the Helm scenario because it's a perfect example that makes logical sense, but hasn't been explained thoroughly, or the alternatives given mention (even if they're inferior). It's also not something a medium-skilled Warhammer player will automatically conclude, especially not in a global sense. You need to address this, completely, before you can convince your Reader to trust what you're saying to be accurate.

5) See above.

Addressed.

6) I don`t think I need to do this. I`m not looking to help people create a specific list, I`m looking to teach them how a certain principle works. I want them to experience for themselves what works and what doesn`t. If they specific lists, there are several report references here. If they want to use some of the elements here but experiment beyond that that`s perfectly fine as well.

You need to do this insofar as to explain what the consequences are of people taking one thing opposed to another. Talk about it broadly if you want, but remember, as per above, your three goals are to why, what, and whatfor in regards to the article as a whole. If you don't address what it means to play Powerplay, in contrast to what people might be playing, the difference between where people are and where they could be won't be highlighted and readers will be less likely to absorb what you're saying.

7) Anecdotes are spread throughout the article to provide examples. This was primarily something I did on the request of Ether_Dude and Swordmaster, but I think they are right that it adds to the article despite being very list specific as they overall show general concepts. Again though, I don`t want to dive into specific lists here which I`ve deliberately tried to avoid. Some lists are of course in the case study reports,

Addressed above. It does add to the article, but only if you're presenting them after you've already established some common logic.

Again, kind of a repetition of 4. My aim with this article is not to convince everyone that this is how they should play High Elves. I have a short part about this to show people why I believe this style of play holds so much potential, but my primary aim for this article is to elaborate on how to play this style, not why people should play it. At the end of the day, some of us prefer Dragons, others prefer defensive lists with Teclis while yet others again prefer combined arms.

You have to first convince people why your article is relevant. Then people might choose whether or not to accept some, all, or none of your ideas. Readers won't be able to understand your conclusions as fully if you haven't convinced them in the first place. Even if you don't talk about whether or not they "should or shouldn't" play this way, you need to talk about what it means to play this way. This is where you reference your Argument again, calling back to your original ideas, and how everything you've been saying supports them.

-----

Let's think about it more from the reader's perspective and less from yours, Curu. Here's a version of why I think the 8 steps are important for the article, and what questions and ideas the reader is going to challenge, that you need to anticipate and prepare counter-argument for:

Reader: "Why should I play Powerplay? Why should I take in the information you're selling?"

1) Core Conviction: a) Position - "Powerplay is a strong, viable, way to play HE in tournament play. Perhaps one of the best ways in tournaments, and certainly is popular."
b) Argument - "Powerplay requires a specific type of list and style to pull off, mainly one that focuses on consolidating elements into mobile, hard-hitting packages that push up aggressively."

Reader: "Okay, I'm interested. What fits your definition of Powerplay? Is my list a Powerplayer? Is my style Powerplay? Do I need both?"

2) Definition: "Powerplay encompasses two things: a) most importantly an aggressive play style and, b) a list that that can reward such play. This usually takes the form of a Knight-heavy (Silver Helms or Dragon Prince) list, with many mounted characters and monsters for support."

Reader: "When does Powerplay apply?"

3) Relevant Audience: "Powerplay is a type of strategic thinking which can be applied in a variety of environments. It is stronger in x y z and weaker in x z y because of x y z."

Reader: "What choices should I include when emulating Powerplay? I like my choices better. Can I still play Powerplay?"

4) Establish Common Logic: "Generally, it makes sense to take Helms in Core because otherwise we're spending points on Archers and Reavers, which get out shot by the cheaper Eagle Claw Bolt Throwers in Rare. The alternative is taking Dragon Princes in Special, however then Core has to be filled with mainly Archers and Reavers, both of which we would rather have as Bolt Throwers and Eagles respectively," (Example; insert whatever your reasoning is).

Reader: "Are my choices of Archers in Core and Eagles in Rare worse than Helms in Core and Bolt Throwers in Rare? How much worse? Why? I don't believe you. This one time, my 10 Archers killed a Demon Prince..."

5) Backup that Logic with Data / Theory. "Why do we take Helms in Core over Reavers and Archers? It comes down to the shooting, where against T4+ or armor save 3+, we'd much rather have points spent Bolt Throwers than Archers, especially against such match ups like WoC and DoC where chaff, chariots, and characters tend to be harder to deal with with Archers alone. Here's some quick math showing how 10 Archers do less damage than a cheaper single Bolt Thrower against chaff types x y z," (Example; insert whatever your reasoning is).

Reader: "Okay, I understand why now your suggestions have merit. How do I implement these suggestions in the best way?"

6) Stylistic Measures / Relevance / Changes: "If you're moving from Archers to Bolt Throwers, you're freeing up your deployment to be much more separate. Bolt Throwers don't need babysitting from large combat units, the same way as large blocks of Archers might, which means you can separate out your army, pulling your opponent out of position. It also means you can inherently play more aggressively because you're not worrying about keeping the BSB or General near the Bolt Throwers the same way you would if you had Archer blocks," (Example; insert whatever your reasoning is).

Reader: "Okay, that makes sense. And that builds into the aggressive style you were talking about earlier. Can I see some examples of what we've been discussing?"

7) Anecdotes and Evidence: "In Norway, the top HE players have been seen winning with lists that fit this bill. I myself use these kinds of lists to great affect. Here are some examples." Link reports, highlighting specifically how the list and play style you used achieved a result that couldn't have been achieved using the mindset the Reader came in with.

Reader: "That makes a lot of sense, and I've followed you throughout. I may not agree with everything you've said, but your ideas have merit and I could see myself using some/all/none of them. What do I get to go home with?"

8 ) Conclusions: "Restate Position: Even if you're not including all the ideas I've presented here, you will still find x y z applicable in games as they are now. Hopefully you, dear Reader, understand better the relationship between element choices and how they inherently disqualify or make less appealing other choices. Powerplay is inherently the combination of list building and mindset which enables a completely different type of play than "normal" foot lists," (Example; you could also talk here about whether or not you think it's better or worse than alternatives, for example).

-----

Working my way back up the responses:

In a nutshell this is the same as Ether_Dude and Swordmaster of Hoeth asked for. Basically you`d want me to take one particular instance of this playstyle, for example Deathtrain, in one specific comp system, for example ETC, in one particular meta, for example the current one in Northern Europe. The problem with this is that it`s not what I`m looking to do, for several reasons. I`m trying to elaborate on the concept of pushing with High Elves from a general point of view, examplified as much as possible to give the readers an understanding of what this means, why I think it`s the best approach, which units in our book can do this and lastly how you play this style.

The first bit is right, the second is an incorrect assumption on your part. I'm not asking you to take a particular instance of play style in a single comp system, however if you are going to talk broadly about a wide variety of lists, spanning multiple environments, in a mindset-alterning way, you need to explain yourself just as thoroughly as if you were explaining all the intricacies of a Hammer-Anvil or MSU style, which includes it's strengths, weaknesses, and alternatives. The final sentence I addressed above.

And I welcome your differing opinion as this is not the only way to play High Elves. As discussed previously, multiple tournament winners feature lists that aren`t designed to push - even High Elf lists! Every player has a playstyle he`s more comfortable with than others, metas matter greatly etc. I am however convinced that pushing is the best way for a High Elf list to score big points in a singles setting, so I guess we`ll just agree to disagree on this point. I`m curious, what do you consider the best playstyle for High Elves in this context?

Again, I don't care yet. I haven't presented my opinion on your findings because I cannot. I'm just talking about how to include relevant information in a way that doesn't make it feel like you're forcing Readers to accept your findings, simply because you're telling them to.

I don`t offer any solutions. I`m describing a way to play High Elves conceptually. Whether it fits a certain comp system is not what this article is about: there are so many different kinds of comp systems around, the vast majority of which are hugely biased, so this is impossible. You could specify what comp systems you would design for, but this will quickly turn into a very shallow/narrow article. I don`t see the value in doing such here. The essence is pushing with High Elves, the only requirement being Silver Helms (which I`ve explained why need to be around). You can do this under any sensible environment/comp system.

Addressed above. Reiterated, if you're wanting to describe strategic plans that apply regardless of comp and environment, you need to be thorough and specific. Otherwise, you're speaking vaguely about a broad topic, which makes the article very hard to follow or allow me to accept your findings easily.

Next point: Silver Helms. This article is inherently talking about well designed Powerplay lists. Thus, any wacky configurations don`t necessarily count, nor do ETC lists that are meant for team events. Asbjørn did not bring them last year, but I know he would have done so now, given the current meta. Again though, his list was for ETC only (as far as I know he never took it to a singles tournament) and variations of it for singles play inevitably have Helms.

The answer to this then is in the text above: These are ETC lists and if they had been taken to a singles tournament, I don`t expect that they`d do well. While they might be Powerplay lists in principle, they are not well designed as such: hence my claim that a well designed Powerplay list has to include Silver Helms. Perhaps I should clarify this even further as it is of course possible to construct a list that follows these principles without Helms, but it will be lacking a crucial element and thus it`s not well designed.

This is a very dangerous line to walk and, frankly, is an arrogant opinion to hold. I could easily take exactly Norway's 2013 ETC list and run over people here in my environment using the methods described by your article; in fact, I've taken something quite similar and done well with it. Just because the list might not do well in your particular region, meta, environment doesn't mean it won't have merit in other regions, metas, environments, and such righteous-opinionatedness will lead you to misinforming and alienating your Reader; that is, if you're still planning on the article being meant for a wide range of audiences, in a world of both global and regional metas. Ultimately, if you're wanting to speak generally about all environments, you can't also be final arbiter in every specific environment worldwide. Let the Reader decide if your ideas will work for them; it's their choice, not yours.

This, I never stated, nor did I try to imply it. I specifically said that personal preferences affect this, but a Powerplay list inherently has a higher potential.

It was implied, heavily, by the tone, even if it wasn't intended. The changes I've suggested should address this, but know when I read the article originally, and while I understood that you weren't trying sound overbearing, it did come off a bit like someone trying to sell me something, with them certain it would fundamentally change my life (improve my game, in context).

I`m not claiming to do anything but coin a term to frame a discussion with regards to how a High Elf list can push. Thus, I don`t see the above as a problem. Why is it a problem? The article`s too broad to even be able to claim such a thing in the first place.

Addressed above at the beginning. See second paragraph. It needs attention. See below as well.

It is broad, but it is broad to highlight the importance of getting across the table and getting points and why cavalry is essential to us doing so. The fact that a vast amount of tournament winner lists conform to these principles is no concern, the way I see it. I`m merely trying to coin a term to frame a concept I think people ought to be consciously aware about. That is not to say that I invented it, by far, simply that I`m categorizing what typical pushing list looks like. You mention Furion`s ETC list and the Crossroads dual-block cavbus list as a problem here, which I just fail to see: yes they are vastly different but the means they use to win are largely the same. They are both striving to get across the board to score points, the tactics they have to employ share a lot (as explained in my article which uses fairly similar example, e.g. PG + bus vs SD build) which is what I`m trying to cover here. Yes, indeed a specific article for pushing style of play with a given build (e.g. SD + bus) would be more specific and deal with less permutations. Perhaps I will write such an article as well, but this is not what I`m trying to do here.

Emphasis added. It is a concern, if you're casting such a wide net to include so many different types of lists, which inherently play incredibly differently. Yes, fundamentally they all might want to be aggressive, but the similarities stop there: the difference between a Stardragon ETC list and the Crossroads or U.S. Master's lists is so vast as to not have any shared, and relevant, similarities at all. This is part of Swordmaster's point above, and I agree with him. You're at risk of trying to coin the word "Winning Tournaments" as "Powerplay," and marking those lists which win anyway as "exceptions." It needs addressing.

Besides tightening your definition, perhaps a good way to overcome this would be talking about when Powerplay isn't applicable, and certainly there are many examples. This could particularly help reduce the tone of superiority and overconfidence which is currently present.

-----

Once again, I'll close by saying this is meant to be helpful, not vengeful in anyway. I'm hopeful this kind of critical feedback will improve the article and make it both more applicable and more easily understood.

Axiem

Edited for clarity.

[Curu Olannon]

I think that considering this to be a thesis to prove something is the wrong way to look at it. I`m not trying to make my argument of why defendable. It is meant as a brief introduction where the reader basically either has to make up his own mind whether he agrees or not. If he doesn`t and thus don`t want to read the rest, that`s fine by me. From my point of view, there is no main point to agree or disagree with. I am trying to explain a certain playstyle with elements and tactics that span across lists, metas and point levels. These parts of the article, more specifically what I am discussing under the "how" section, is where I want people to put their efforts. Whether they agree with whatever`s been said before this is of no real concern to me. I am not trying to sell the idea of Powerplaying, I am trying to quickly cover what it is and why I believe in it, but I`m not looking to debate endlessly nor flesh out these parts to suddenly become bigger than the "how" section. It defeats the purpose. The following quote seems to me to show that you`re more interested in the what and why, than the how, when I frankly don`t consider the what or why to be anything but a short introduction to the main point: How does this concept play?

Also, before we start, we need to address what Swordmaster's comment is innately about, which I feel has ben swept under the rug a bit. Because you want to tackle everything from Crossroads GT to Furion's Flamespyre ETC list, you're inherently going to be covering a lot of ground, which means you either need to focus your thesis or otherwise expand your arguments (or both). This is, again, where I feel Swordmaster is calling foul, and I agree with him here: if all you're doing is renaming "winning tournaments" to "Powerplay," why do we have this article? You're basically including all winning lists, except a few which you call "exceptions." If it's merely a mindset change, the article should also be very short: basically saying "play more aggressive and you'll win more" but it isn't, and it isn't, which means you need to address things very particularly and in a complete way. Are you perhaps coining Powerplay to mean "tournament standard," in which case perhaps call it that instead?

Why do we have this article? To teach people central concepts about how a High Elf list can push across the board. You mention Crossroads GT, which (IIRC) is the cavbus + dualblock one with SM and PG. I do believe this is the list that scored massively on soft points and was in fact 18 bp behind the winner, but that`s besides the point: It has Silver Helms, it has RBTs, it has Reavers. Thus, I am confident its owner/player pushed with it, probably through tactics that I have covered in this article. Like a Star Dragon, those Silver Helms want to get into combat and you want them supported while doing so, while the RBTs suppress enemy chaff and your own chaff ensures those combats are favourable. Broad topic? In principle, yes, but as the how section shows, it`s not that broad in practice. I find switching between infantry block + cavbus to sd + cavbus to not be that big of a change. In a nutshell, the rest of the list is frequently very similar: you give up some rare points and/or character points to find space for the infantry but you still have the same elements to work with.

Powerplay is far from a tournament standard. In any tournament, people will invariably bring different types of armies. Some good, some bad, some wacky, some unexpecting. Furthermore, any type of list can win. I don`t see a tournament standard per se, but I do believe that aggressive lists have some inherent advantages, as explained in the article. Let me ask you something, if you took all the tournaments in the world over the last 12 months or so (single player ones), do you think the majority of the winning lists would count as aggressive? I`m not asking for scientific evidence or anything, just your gut feeling.

Some further questions:

The 8 final points were a specific step-by-step guide to how I think you should present your article, given what you've already put forth and in order to address the issues raised in my first post.

Do you feel that doing so would, in any way, strengthen the how part of the article, seen in isolation? If yes, why and how would it do so?

Let me present this to you, perhaps more blatantly than I did before. If I'm an average, medium skilled Warhammer player, reading your strategic article, I'm looking for three things. They are: 1) Why should I incorporate what you're suggesting? 2) How do I incorporate what you're suggesting? 3) What is the result of incorporating what you're suggesting?

1) You should not. If you don`t already like to play this style of list, I will not try and convince you otherwise. It is not the purpose of this article.
2) This, the How part should take care of. If you find it lacking, where can it be improved?
3) Uknown. Your pushing play will hopefully improve, but there`s no guarantee that I can provide something you didn`t already know

First, you're establishing your Core Conviction (Position and Argument), before supporting it with logical assumptions. Then you're backing up those assumptions with data (perhaps maths, matchup analysis, etc.) before talking about what changes are involved. Only then do you give evidence, including anecdotal experience, as to how your position has been successfully embodied and fulfilled by the examples your giving and how that supports your Argument. Then you draw conclusions.

Does any of this touch on the how part? The way I read it, it`s all about what and why.

You have to first convince people why your article is relevant.

This I feel is the essence of our disagreement. I don`t feel that I should have to do this. When people have read the title and the what part, they should make up their own mind whether this is interesting to them or not. I can make this even clearer as I`m not looking to convert anyone.

"Why should I play Powerplay? Why should I take in the information you're selling?"

You should play Powerplay if you like aggressive lists. I will not try and convince you otherwise if you don`t prefer to play this way. You should take in the information I`m selling based on its own strength, more specifically you should look at the concepts explained, backed up by case studies and agree that these are sound tactics.

"Okay, I'm interested. What fits your definition of Powerplay? Is my list a Powerplayer? Is my style Powerplay? Do I need both?"

See the what section. Does it matter if your list fits the description? If the tactics here apply, then use them. If they don`t, they don`t. I have to have a definition to form a core around which I can use examples without having to cover too much ground. Helms, chaff and RBT are a logical starting point, If I ditch these, I have no basis to provide examples to. Is your style Powerplay? I don`t know. Does it matter? Do you need both? No, certainly not.

Again, I`m not looking to categorize and claim inception of the idea. I`m making a box for reference to discuss the concepts.

"When does Powerplay apply?"
"What choices should I include when emulating Powerplay? I like my choices better. Can I still play Powerplay?"

I don`t understand the first question. If you like your choices better and you can push with them then I suggest you do that. Please also refer back to this thread with your findings so I can expand on the concept of pushing with High Elves, perhaps altering the definition in light of new findings or at least make a note of how we have seen lists pushing with unconventional choices.

"Are my choices of Archers in Core and Eagles in Rare worse than Helms in Core and Bolt Throwers in Rare? How much worse? Why? I don't believe you. This one time, my 10 Archers killed a Demon Prince..."

This part will be fleshed out, as I conceded in my last reply.

"Okay, I understand why now your suggestions have merit. How do I implement these suggestions in the best way?"

You post a thread under "army lists" and reply to this article with a link to your thread. Better yet, start an army blog and link it here, asking people for advice. The purpose of this article is not to teach people how to build lists from a -> z, but rather to show how certain elements are central in a High Elf list wanting to push.

This is a very dangerous line to walk and, frankly, is an arrogant opinion to hold.

The burden of evidence is always on the one making a claim. Said lists above have, as far as I know, no merits outside of the ETC. If you know this to not be the case, please show me where and how it performed well.

Yes, fundamentally they all might want to be aggressive, but the similarities stop there: the difference between a Stardragon ETC list and the Crossroads or U.S. Master's lists is so vast as to not have any shared, and relevant, similarities at all.

As I said before, I don`t think the Star Dragon list and the Crossroads list are that different. I have played something very similar to the latter myself so I know how such a list plays. The U.S. Master`s list is a different thing altogether, but then again I`m not including it here.

What I got from this is that I need to make it clear that I`m not trying to convince or convert anyone. If I were to structure this like a scientific paper where the purpose would be to prove the effects of Powerplay I would agree with most of your feedback. I am merely trying to show some of the central concepts of pushing with High Elves though, which is why I don`t think such a format is a good approach. A typical academic article would indeed follow hypothesis => theory => experiment => evaluation => conclusion, but it`s all based on the fact that you are trying to show something new. Consider this more like an ABC to Powerplay: When you learned basic English grammer in school you were not presented with an academic template, but rather an ABC on how the language works. To this end, I consider the non-why parts of the article to simply be a necessary definition to make readers understand what I`m talking about and why I choose to talk about it.