Ode to my solitaire

Blogger killed my first version of this:

In a recent commentary, Avram mentioned the harlequins and more specifically the harlequin solitaire. This is a warning to Avram concerning the strength of the army he is likely to fight this winter.

First of all, harlequins are powerful. Hell, they are as close to cheating as it comes, and not for reasons that are completely obvious. They stem from the harlequins ability to take two pieces of equipment: the dread mask and tanglefoot grenades. The dread mask causes the opponent to roll one more die during leadership tests, and the tanglefoot grenades cause the opponent to rout one die, rather than two, if they fail a leadership test. Combine this with the harlequin's flip belts, which allow the harlequin to follow up 3 dice in inches, and the rule that if a unit routs, and the enemy pursues, they essentially have a dice off--if the victor rolls higher than the fleeing unit, the unit is killed outright. Well, how often is the fleeing unit going to roll 1 die and score higher than the harlequin's three dice added together. Therefore, if a unit routes, it will most likely be destroyed.

And, unlike with other armies, the chance of route is very real. If a unit facing a harlequin forces loses in hand to hand (scores fewer wounds than the harlequins) they will have to make a leadership test in which they will have to roll under their leadership on three dice! Unlikely, to say the least. What's worse is that in the case of the miniatures that can effect this rule (the Shadowseer, the Great Harlequin, and the Solitaire), winning combat means literally destroying the miniature since these miniatures typically fight alone. Solitaires and Great Harlequins each have three wounds, which means that if they kill even two opponents, they must be destroyed in order for the combat to be considered a victory against them.

The Solitaire is nasty. With the powerblades, he will hit 2/3 of the time and wound 1/3 of the time (against marines). There is no armor save. That means that two out of every nine attacks will kill. If he gets his full blitz, he has 13 attacks. This is not to mention the 2 or 3 miniatures that he will kill with his neuro disruptor before entering hth. The Great Harlequin and Shadowseer are just as deadly, although they have less attacks. Still, they are likely to stand up in a fight.

On the other hand, the marines fighting back will need 6's to hit any miniature with a d-field. Only one out of every 6 attacks will hit, and of those, more than likely, 2/3 will be effective. So, for every nine dice the marine player can throw at the harlequin, only one will cause a wound. In order to kill a solitaire, therefore, you must have 27 space marines survive the onslaught of the solitaire's charge (13 assault marines). If you fail to kill the solitaire, your unit will most likely route, and will be slaughtered. Harlequins are deadly.

Now for the good news, while it is true that harlequins all have a 4+ invulnerable save, it is also true that their toughness sucks. Enough weapons, even small weapons, brought to bear on one of these killing machines will bring them down without too much difficulty. The trick is firing these weapons before the harlequin is on top of you. Also, if given the opportunity, and hand to hand is immenent, always instigate. This raises the number of attacks per miniature by one. Instead of needing 27 space marines to roll 27 dice against the harlequin, you will only need 14. Yes, that still is a lot. And no, you probably will never be in any position to iniatate hand to hand on a harlequin. A phase belt increases a harlequins charge range to a possible 30", and terrain really just doesn't count for much against the harlequin flip belt.

Also, as per all armies, these are the creme de la creme of the harlequins. Your average trooper doesn't get d-fields, tanglefoots, dread masks, or any of that stuff. They shouldn't be underestimated, but they aren't astronomically powerful, just incredibly powerful.

Having said all this, you can see why I think it unfair to add harlequins to another army, even if the optional rules allow for it. Can you imagine waiting out the opponents first fire phase in a Falcon or a Land Raider. It's simply unfair. If you are fielding a Chaos army, and your opponent is attempting to use this optional rule to bring a solitaire into his force, I suggest you nip this in the bud. Simply do not consent to this optional rule, though it may cost you some character models. Chaos has its options as well, but you do not want to see the havoc a solitaire can cause when combined with a Grey Knight Land Raider.

As for an all harlequin army. It's really up to you whether you will allow your opponent to play one. I think they are powerful, but on their own, they are not unfair. I'm sure there are those out there who would argue with me on this point, but if you know how to handle harlequins, it's a fair battle. The problem is that if you don't know what you're up against, and you watch a solitaire slaughter a 10 man space marine squad in one round, you may feel that someone is cheating. They aren't. They're just taking advantage of your ignorance. Hopefully reading this will act as some kind of preparation.

Note: tanks and dreadnoughts are not the answer to your harlequin problems. The fusion pistol in hand to hand makes them about as effective as Warlocks with witch blades against vehicles. And chances are that one of the nine chances the solitaire will have to roll an 11 or 12 on two dice will prove successful, thus taking out a Land Raider. Seriously, use mass fire and don't stop pulling the trigger until the clown is dead.

Hope this helps all of you 40k players out there, but especially Avram, who has always been a good sport.

What do texts do?

For those of you who have been following along, this is in response to Amy and her concerns about totalitarianism and subjective language.

Well, it seems that we have gotten away from our argument. I'm not sure why, but let's see where this goes. Amy, you said in your last post that you don't believe that texts do anything. I'm sure that you didn't mean that literally, for certainly texts do something. They sit on the shelf. They force me to buy them. At the very least, they decay. Sometimes, they are forgotten. Texts do many many things.

The point I believe you were making is that texts do not do something which literature people often assume that other literature people assume they will do--that is, add up to a coherent description of human thought. I say that literature people assume that other literature people assume this because I got to tell you, as one of those people who actually does assume this, I am in a rare minority, constantly criticized as being part of a majority that needs to be fought against, but finding very few allies in actuality on my side of this debate. Let me try this another way: nobody assumes that literature will actually add up to a coherent system of thought. Moreover, they are so galled by this possibility that anyone would assume such presupposition that they attack such people with viciousness. Honestly, I don't know how I survive.

Here it is in a nut shell. All this stuff about a text doing nothing but inspiring the thought of the reader carries with it certain logical conundrums that are not so easy to get around. First of all, the assumption that a text "lives" inside the mind of its interpreter, the reader, is pointless. What doesn't live inside the mind of the interpreter? That's the point of The Matrix, I do believe. So to say that a text does NOT contain a system of thought, and that a system of thought only emerges inside the mind of the reader is only to say that texts are like everything else in reality, including other people, which isn't saying much at all. Come now, we need to define the purpose of a text a little less broadly.

What's more, such definitions of text are counter-intuitive. If the point of literature is simply to create a system of thought in the reader's mind, then why don't we think that people who achieve such system of thoughts by reading Tom Clancey are the crowning achievement of literature. For that matter, why isn't illiteracy prized? It's far less strenuous than reading books to inspire you to create your own system of thought. But we don't believe such things. We believe, in our heart of hearts, that texts do, in fact, mean something. We just don't know how to reconcile this with our experience of a text meaning something different than someone else's. But is the answer really to say that there is no meaning in what we read, only in the act of reading?

I wonder if we'd say such things about the critics we read. Freud obviously means something. Why then doesn't Pynchon? Why doesn't Pynchon+DeLillo=system of thought?

But all this seems a bit far afield from the conversation that spawned it. If we say that academics' use of subjective language is empowering to totalitarian thought and then we say, "what is the utility of literature?" then we are aiming right at the sort of language which we consider dangerous. So, I will say it again, what is the point of an argument about the use of literature? We continue to read the same material. We find ourselves deep in the process of analysis. Neither of these acts is modified by our view of what we are doing. However, arguing about what we are doing does affect the world, because such arguments immediately call into question the act of placing absolute judgments, and left without absolutes, there can be no right, wrong, good, or evil. Thus totalitarianism gets a leg up.

I await your retort.

For Amy- help

Don't worry. I don't think you're a horrible person and Jason concurs, so... My last few weeks have been high impact--Moby Dick, Mumbo Jumbo, Flight to Canada, and an actual flight to California. So...I've been busy. You are not the first to complain. You hear me Stevenson?!? Busy!!! We can't all go off to some cabin in the woods!

Nonetheless, on the plane I read Billy Budd and Bonito Cerino, so that class is very nearly done, and I am now significantly less busy. Which of course means that I can now write you back. In my attempt to do so, however, I realized something. I don't know where the last word is. What exactly am I responding to, and where is it? Help me out Amy. Help me help you.