Do Formations Have A Place in 40K?

So, Nick over at The Burning Eye blog recently posted his thoughts on formation in 40K. I haven't really read many other peoples' thoughts on them but Nick is very much in favour of them. This post is intended as a counterpoint to his post. I'm almost completely against them but bear with me whilst I explain why.

A Little History
I may have this all wrong but to my mind at least, formations first appeared in general 40K (as opposed to Apocalypse) in the form of Spearhead which was released in White Dwarf in June 2010 and later published online. It's a bit shocking to me to find that this idea has been around so long. These formations were only available at an additional cost. For example, a Tank Hunter spearhead cost 60pts and gave 1-3 vehicles in the formation the Tank Hunters special rule (duh!).  The formations in spearhead were quite literally formations, in that the vehicles had to stay together to benefit from the special rule(s) and counted as a single unit. They also got the "Spearhead" special rule which was essential PotMS. In my experience, they were rarely ever used. The extra cost was probably the deterrent in most standard games.

Right, at this point I realised that Michael Corr has already written an excellent history of Formations and his thoughts on them so I don't see the point in rehashing what he's already done. You can read it here.

Read that? Great. Now onto what I think. Like Nick, I want to look at some of the popular attitudes to Formations and explore why I disagree.

What's wrong with the CAD anyway?
The CAD has been around for a very long time (back to 3rd edition). We never really knew it as that until recently though. Before then it was simply the Force Organisation Chart or FOC. The main issue that most people had with this was the so-called "Troop Tax" where you had to take two units of troops before you could add anything else. You also needed a HQ but most of the time you wanted one of these anyway.

The main problem I had with the Troop Tax was that you were basically fine if you codex had decent troops. For example, I had no issue taking Grey Hunters for my Space Wolves. For a long time they were considered the best troops in the game by a lot of people. Other armies weren't so lucky though so you'd often sunk a decent chunk of points into some near useless units before you could spend money on toys. To me though, it did at least mean the armies were reasonably fluffy. Rather than a Space Marine army composed entirely of dreadnoughts, you'd need a couple of tactical squads in there. We can argue about whether that's much different but it always felt like at least the armies weren't too outrageous.

The other issue with the CAD is that you were limited to just 3 of each of the special units. That meant you couldn't totally spam the insane units. I'm aware there's a little nostalgia going on here though. I still remember those Grey Knight armies in 5th edition with 12 psyfleman dreadnoughts and about 25 razorbacks (maybe an exaggeration). Still though, there was structure and you knew roughly what you were getting when you faced a particular army.

Looking back now, I don't think the Troop Tax is a problem. I mean, these days they get Objective Secured which can be very powerful in what are often Maelstrom missions. The other thing is that at least there's a drawback. Granted for some armies the points cost is low but you'd need to spend some on troops before you got what you really wanted.

Where are the "taxes" now?
Looking at the formations today there are still some which require you to take units that you wouldn't normally take. The Tau Optimised Stealth Cadre gives you a reason to take both Ghostkeels and Stealth Suits which outside of the formation are only of limited use. Where's the tax though? Yes you're taking units you wouldn't necessarily want to take but the pay off is so great that you don't care. In fact, I doubt anyone would run either unit outside of the formation. It's just that good. My issue is there's very little downside to it.

It's a criticism I have of 40K in general. Some armies seem to have been given powerful units but at a cost. For example, Thunderwolves are great but each model is a minimum of 40pts and with TH/SS is 85pts. That's a pretty hefty chunk for something with two T5 3++ wounds but those S10 AP2 attacks on a fast platform make it worthwhile. In other armies the downsides are different. A Dark Eldar Venom is pretty powerful, 65pts for 12 poisoned 4+ shots at BS4 on a fast skimmer is fairly awesome especially with a 5++ save. However, AV10 and two HPs mean that they're pretty straightforward to take down for most armies. So you're getting something powerful but flimsy. I think in general the Dark Eldar codex is pretty well balanced. If everything goes right and you play the army well it could be devastating. Well, that used to be the case, I think in the current game they're just too weak and unreliable. There are also certain units in there that are pretty much totally useless such as Wyches and Hellions.

Compare that to something like Tau where pretty much every unit in the book is useful. It's difficult to see how any formation based on the Tau codex could have something considered a tax.

Formations aren't bad at higher points levels
I hear this argument quite a bit. I think for the most part it's probably true. The same can be said for certain units too. An Imperial Knight in a 1,000pt game could be devastating but a single Knight at 2,500pts probably isn't much of a problem. If that's the case, why not limit Formations (and superheavies for that matter) to Apocalypse games like they used to be. Obviously no one is forcing you to use formations in your games (and we rarely do) but there's a temptation there that means in tournaments it's hard to resist. You want the best army you can possibly put out there and that means formations most of the time.

The problem is that events have to restrict army selection to prevent people taking a shopping list of the best formations in their codex. Being told in great detail what you can and can't bring puts people off a tournament.

Are formations just part of a bigger problem?
To me, formations are just a symptom of what is already a bloated game. I used to be able to show up at a tournament, look across the table and have a pretty good idea what my opponent's army is capable of. I'd probably know most of the units, their rough statlines and their special rules. There was a time around 5th/6th where I genuinely felt I knew the rulebook and the vast majority of the codices inside out. This was partly because Matt and I owned most of the armies between us but also because I was running Blog Wars and had read through most of the rules for most of the armies and even the FAQs.

It was about the time that GW switched to a weekly release schedule that I started to struggle. I'd been doing codex reviews on this blog up until Skitarii hit. That was the first book I didn't really dig deep into and I still don't really know enough about the army today. There's the odd unit I've come across in tournaments that I'm more familiar with but generally speaking I know nothing about the army. The same is true for Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch.

The trouble is, I think it'd be nearly impossible for me to find the time to read and digest all the material that's out there now. In fact, when I'm playing my armies now it's already difficult to remember where the rules for a particular unit can be found.

Formations are probably the worst thing in this respect. Obviously there's a lot of them in their respective codices but there's also some from Start Collecting boxes, campaign books, White Dwarf, supplements, etc. There's even some that are only available direct from GW when you buy a particular bundle (although admittedly they seem to have stopped doing this).

Where on earth would a new player even start? Some of the books that these formations were published in aren't even in print any more. I used Wulfen for the first time at the weekend (battle report soon hopefully) and their rules are in Curse of the Wulfen which you can't get a copy of outside of an eBook. Fortunately Matt has a copy of the book itself but it's still frustrating.

Conclusion
I could say a lot more about this but I think I'm starting to ramble. My main issues with formations can be summarised as follows though:

1. They're basically shopping lists to encourage sales of new units - I'm not naive, I know GW is in the business of selling models but some aren't even subtle.
2. There's no real downside most of the time - units you would probably take anyway just get better for no really good reasons. Why not make the units themselves better instead?
3. They over-complicate an already complex game - it's hard enough to remember the standard rules for yours and your opponent's units without remembering formation rules. How often do you forget your warlord trait for example?
4. They don't actually add variety - they might mean you see some units you wouldn't normally see on the table but they fast become the norm. They're too auto-include for some armies. Would you consider writing a competitive list for your army without certain formations?

Ultimately I'm not a fan of the direction 40K is heading. It's all well and good saying that they're just giving you lots of options and you can play the way you like but it's getting out of hand now. When I'm considering running tournaments I'm put off by thinking about all the possible lists and whether some of them are too strong to permit. I hate telling people what they can't run but equally I hate the idea of someone having a miserable day at my event because they came up against something filthy. 

Again, I know this is GW trying to sell models but if people wanted to use Formations and Super-Heavies they could do some in Apocalypse. That means games over a certain points limit could include whatever they wanted. Apocalypse should be no holds barred 40K. 

Is it a case of don't hate the game, hate the players though? There's nothing new going on here. 40K players have always tried to find the most powerful stuff and spammed it. Taken the most filthy combinations and shoe-horned them into a legal army list. One the one hand it's impressive that people can find these combinations in this sea of rules but I can't help but wish for a simpler time. 

I'm planning on playing in the Doubles at Warhammer World in April where people can take pretty much whatever they want (including Unbound). It'll be five games against random opponents and will hopefully give me a chance to gauge just how bad the problem actually is. These events aren't normally overrun with power gamers so if the average players are using dirty combinations then I think it's safe to say it's a problem.

Games Workshop's 40th Anniversary Celebration

Matt, Scott and I headed down to Nottingham on Sunday for Games Workshop's 40th birthday celebrations. I didn't bother with the open days this year but since this was a free (but ticketed) event I figured why the hell not? The deal was sweetened by the fact that the ticket included free entry to the exhibition hall. We'd only been recently but I knew there were new HH dioramas and more excitingly for me a Tau vs Admech one which you can see below and right.

We didn't anticipate there actually being much to see and do so we also took some miniatures for a relaxed 1,750 pt game of my Orks vs. Matt & Scotts' combined AM and BA force. What better way to celebrate GW's birthday with a classic clash between Orks and the Imperium. I'll report the battle in full in the next post so it doesn't get lost in this one.

Well, upon seeing what GW had to offer us we were fully expecting to be home by lunch time! In the main hall, along with the usual permanent shops, they'd got the events team's Nick Bayton playing Warhammer Quest with people, some kitbashing tables, a FW stall selling some new stuff and their existing range plus a sale (!) table selling off some old kits for 50% off. The latter sounds a lot more exciting than it actually was. What it basically came down to was dead stock that they were trying to flog. The old finecast assassins, the small format codices (clearly a bad idea), the fluff and art books that came with the 7th edition rulebook, the Imperial Knight Companion book and a pile of fantasy stuff (which may or may not have been any good - I have no idea). There were some t-shirts on sale too but I wish GW would make some more subtle ones. I'm not ashamed of my hobby but I don't need an enormous SW symbol across my chest. Tacky.


Through Bugman's and into the dining hall and we found the Studio section. Here there were some of the classic old models which made me wish I still had my Predator Annihilator and Terminator Captain. There was also Jes Goodwin with some of his oldest sketchbooks. I got a chance to chat to him about some of the new stuff that's remakes of his and he said he has mixed feelings. Some of them are an improvement because of the technology coming on but not all of them! There was also some tables with the guys who have created the exhibition dioramas. One of the painters said he can knock out a finished Stormcast Eternal in about 25 mins. Granted he's airbrushing a basecoat of gold and then washing first but still, I'd barely have the blue on in 25 mins! I'm gonna have to time myself next time I paint! It was interesting to see pictures of the displays evolving from piles of cardboard into the finished project. I got a chance to chat to them and ask for more stuff dying or more bodies at least! They said the new Tau board has more (which it certainly did - as you can see in the pictures).

Finally, we were treated to the new Raven Guard FW HH kits including Corax. Have to say I love those models. Far more exciting for me though was the new human and orc Bloodbowl players that I'm sure you've seen on other sites by now. I wish they'd be more specific on when they're hitting though with "coming next season" being irritatingly vague. The models certainly seem like early mock ups but you just never know with GW. Anyway, that little lot only took us about 45 mins to get around so we were convinced we'd struggle to fill the day.

That was until we walked across the car park to the licensed video game displays. Firstly, it felt better because it was in a building I've never ventured into before (sad I know) but also because they've got a great range now. I was disappointed not to see Freeblade but I suppose it's already released (if not on Android). Anyway, Eisenhorn was the first game we came across. It's not a finished game yet but I think part of the problem for me is that I haven't read the books (they're on my list) so it wouldn't mean a lot to me. Matt had a go though but wasn't particularly blown away. There was also a version of Talisman set in the Horus Heresy. I had a go but it basically felt like I was just clicking and rolling virtual dice but not really interacting. I did get a free copy of the original Talisman though so I'll give that a go and perhaps that will help me understand it better. It's difficult to get a feel for the game from 5 mins of play.

Matt had a go at the Vermintide game and said it was easily the best of the bunch. It's a co-operative first person game which Matt described as Left 4 Dead with Skaven instead of zombies and bows and arrows instead of guns. Sounds good already. We also chatted to the guys from Derp Studios about their Tactical Objectives app. It's a nice little app for keeping track in Maelstrom games but if you've already bought the cards £4.99 for the basic app (with original deck and Cities of Death deck included) is steep, especially when each faction is £2.99 on top. Cheaper than the physical cards and a nice idea but I think I'll stick with the cards I already own.

The big deal for me though was the presence of Creative Assembly with their Total War: Warhammer game. It's been on the edge of my radar since I'm torn in my emotions towards it. On the one hand it's Total War and I lost weeks of my life to the first Rome game but it's Fantasy and I just don't know enough about it to be instantly excited. They did a 30 minute presentation on it though and within about 5 minutes I was blown away.

The first thing that strikes you is that clearly the people making it have a lot of love for the source material. They've either done their research or else, like the guy doing the presentation, are players themselves. They've taken time to make the factions feel unique and get their individual personalities across. The flythrough was from the Greenskinz perspective. I was particularly impressed with the effects of conquering a dwarven settlement and seeing it "orcified" with glyphs and gubbinz. I could go on about how good this game looks and how much of my life will probably be lost to it but I think the main point is that it looks like all the good things from Rome I without the crap from Rome II. They've clearly come a long way in terms of their understanding of what players want and the interface is much more intuitive. We didn't see battles in action (although people could play them) but what we saw of the world map is really impressive stuff. I'll probably wait for a Steam sale to pick it up but it's going on my wishlist right now (literally). Here's a Youtube video of what we saw in the run through so you can judge for yourselves.

Once we'd left the video game section it was lunch time so a quick burger later and we started on our game. Since we weren't exactly rushing we only just got enough time to look around the exhibition but still enough for me to take tons of pictures of the Tau.

Conclusion
Well, considering it was free entry the bar was set pretty low but I have to say I had a great day. This was in no small part down to the 40K game we played (more in the next post) but I was blown away with the video game demonstration. GW definitely got something right when they realised they need to do more licensing. It did make me wish I'd thought of a tactical objectives app though!

The main thing for me though was the startling divide being GW policy and the policy of the video game companies. These guys, particularly Creative Assembly, really know how to make you want to buy a product or even preorder it. The major difference is they're showing us work in progress stuff. We aren't talking a measly two Bloodbowl models, we're talking playable versions of new games. That's such a huge breath of fresh air at Warhammer World. We're so used to being teased with stuff or having information drip fed to us that you begin to forget how other companies do it. I left feeling far more excited about the third party products than anything GW themselves were doing.

That's a really sad state of affairs and one I can't forgive GW for at all. Why the hell didn't they have an early playtest version of Bloodbowl for us to play? It's free playtesting feedback for them from people who aren't being paid to have an opinion. I just can't for a second understand their secrecy policy. No-one is going to copy what they're doing who hasn't already. Dreadball already exists so who cares if people know what to expect from the new Bloodbowl! Why weren't they even teasing more stuff from the specialist games. Why do we have to wait for "rumours" all the time, most of which GW blatantly "leak" themselves.

It was an interesting juxtaposition of one of the best games of 40K I've played in a while set in a backdrop of minimal effort from GW. With the exception of the free cake, it really didn't feel like a celebration of their past. It's a total opportunity missed. Bloodbowl was one of their earliest creations and they weren't showing off it's remake at an anniversary event!! Seriously, who runs their marketing department?? The day just felt like a bit of an afterthought, someone realised it was the 40th anniversary so they figured they ought to do something to commemorate it.

We had a great day but we had to "forge our own narrative" to do it, I guess that's why GW wants us to do!

Anyway, come back later in the week for our battle report and then I promise I'll get onto some Double Trouble discussion.

Being Put Through the (Rumour) Mill

I may have been pretty quiet on my own blog recently but that doesn't mean I'm not keeping up with the raft of blogs on my reading list. This is mostly because I can browse through them on Feedly on my phone whereas I find using the phone too fiddly to do blogging of my own. Anyway, one of the blogs on my list is Faeit212. To be honest it's the one I read the most, which is in no small part down to the fact that Natfka posts more regularly than the rest of us.

If you aren't familiar with Faeit212 it's predominantly a rumour blog which helps to tie together the various rumours, leaks and whatnot from the forums and other blogs. Natfka does a fantastic job of compiling everything and it's been an excellent source of everything coming up in the 40K world (and a few other systems). He's helped break several big rumours and pointed us all in the direction of those leaked pictures of new units that we're all desperate to see.

Trouble is, I find I'm actually less desperate to see these things now. Don't get me wrong I'm still excited about the hobby but most of the time we're seeing these images a couple of days or a week at most before they're actually on the GW site. There was a time when I lapped it all up and wanted to read everything I could. The new Tau book was a great example of this. There were leaked pages in Spanish that I bothered to translate to find out details about the Riptide etc. Perhaps I've just learnt patience but right now I'm quite happy just to wait until concrete information is available. This is for a few reasons which I'd like to explain.

We're fed that many rumours now that it's very difficult to know who to believe. The whole 7th/6.5th edition thing is a prime case of this. Once it looked a bit more concrete that we're getting a rules update we suddenly had tons of information coming out e.g. the FOC percentages and sidebars etc. Perhaps all this is true but the cynic in me thinks that there's just some rumourmongers jumping on the bandwagon and simply making stuff up or else wishlisting. This means that when the actual releases hit I've already got preconceived notions about what they'll include. When only some of the promised things happen I'm sometimes relieved but more often disappointed. That disappointment is created by the rumours plain and simple. Obviously I have my own wishlists for new releases but the rumours just build expectation.

The other problem is the, often bilious, commenting that appears on the site despite Natfka's best efforts. This kind of thing is the reason I got into blogging in the first place. When I played EVE Online I used to spend a lot of time on various forums and quickly grew tired of the whinging and complaining about various trivial things. The blogosphere didn't seem as vulnerable to this but there are a few of the more popular sites that have an infestation. I'm sure I'm guilty of the same negativity but reading some of the petty insults and arguments really puts me off the hobby sometimes.

I actually still love 40K though. A few games recently have made me realise why I love the game so much. Reading about every little glimpse of new stuff that we may or may not ever get is actually getting in the way of enjoying the hobby. There's a sense of urgency in the hobby that GW has intentionally created. You get the feeling that everything is a limited edition. For a couple of releases I've been down at my FLGS on release day to pick up the new book and sometimes a few of the new models. They've then often taken me ages to actually get round to assembling. I've got an Astartes Stormwing that is still shrinkwrapped for example. That's absolute madness when you take a step back and look at it. The models are always still there a couple of weeks later when I pop into my FLGS to buy some paints. I've got codices for armies I don't own because I thought I might collect them e.g. Eldar and Tyranids. I could've easily waited and not bothered getting the books but I felt like I needed them straight away on release day. Obviously some stuff is limited edition but you get my point.

I think the tournament scene is partly to blame for this need it now attitude. You feel like you've got to stay on top of the latest thing to be competitive and that's getting more and more difficult. Perhaps that's because having a child has limited my free time to spend reading through codices but also the relentless pace of releases isn't helping. I'm determined to draw a line in the sand though. I've got 5 armies at the moment (SW, DE, DA, Tau and Orks) and strictly speaking not a single fully painted model. Of course a huge swathe of them are table top standard but I can still see work I want to do on them. Why the hell would I want to keep buying new stuff then? You may not like GW's policy on rumours and their blatant money grabs but for suckers like me it clearly works! I can't promise I won't be tempted by Orks, Wolves and DE when they get updates but I'm just not get caught up in the furore and buy stuff I don't need.

Coming back to Faeit212 though. I've got a lot of respect for Natfka and what he does and the site is excellent. I've been enjoying features about other game systems and looking at some of the projects from readers of the site. That Ork Sunshark was particularly nice. Anyway, that aside I'm going to stop reading the blog and see if it improves my attitude to the hobby. I'm quite happy not to read any of the rumours. It'll cause less confusion when I read the actual book as I won't be looking for rules that were supposed to be in there but aren't and I think I can wait a couple of days longer to see new models without needing to look at leaks.

Finally, I think it's interesting that the 40K community seems to think it's the only group who obsessively speculates about what may or may not materialise from a company that doesn't reveal much. It's a similar story for video games, football player transfers and even car manufacturers. As a species we seem to be obsessed with hearing snippets about what might be coming in the future. I guess none of us are that patient!

In the mean time, Matt is heading over tomorrow for a few games so expect some battle reports from those games, some more reviews of the AM book and, of course, plenty of Blog Wars build up. Let's find the love for this excellent game again.

The Challenges of Introducing New Players to 40K

Warhammer 40,000 is at a very difficult stage at the moment. Games Workshop are moving the goal posts on an almost weekly basis. This has been brought to the fore recently for me as I'm trying to introduce a colleague to 40K. We've had a couple of games and he's already picking a lot up but the problem is that there's just so much to learn. I keep on telling him that the mechanic is pretty simple. Basically you need to roll a certain score and there are modifiers which either make it easier or more difficult. Sounds easy enough.

He's never done any wargaming in the past so all of the concepts are new. Obviously it's easier to introduce 40K to someone who's ever role played or even played Risk. My original idea was to start with Kill Team as a means of learning the basic mechanics without drowning in depth. Still though you find all the exceptions creeping in. Think about the different rules required to play a legal game of 40K. There's the core rulebook, codices, supplements, dataslates, Forge World, White Dwarf, Escalation and Stronghold Assault. You could potentially add Planetstrike, Cities of Death, etc to the list but they don't usually feature in games. Still that's quite a list. I'm sure if you listed out all of the individual publications there'd be a huge number. Of course some of these are optional and in casual games you can pick and choose. Go to an official GW tournament though and all of those things are legal.

You might say that you only need to know the rules for your army. That's true to an extent. When you play a new army for the first time your opponent will explain what his units do. Think about it though, if you play an army you've never played before, how much of that explanation do you actually take in? If I'm running my Wolves and I play Dark Eldar or Tau there's very little an opponent can do to surprise me (rules-wise at least). That isn't to say I won't lose but I'll know exactly what his army is capable of and I'll tailor my tactics accordingly. Every time I play a tournament game I learn something new though. There's always some rule I thought I understood but I realise I've been interpreting incorrectly.

To really be any good at the game you need to understand the capabilities of your opponent's list. That doesn't mean you need to have a thorough read of his codex but you at least need to know what his army is capable of and what units need to be avoided or else killed first. There's already a huge number of factions in the game and each has it's own little nuances. Having played the game for a few years (since I restarted that is) I've got a fair grasp of all of the books. Writing this blog helps as I review each new codex and learn a lot about the army in the process.

Trouble is, even if you think you've got a handle on everything involved in 40K as it is today, there's the potential that a new codex will be released next week (and indeed the AM book is out Saturday) that could change things dramatically. Before 6th edition you realistically had 3-4 months (if not more) to learn about a new codex before another army got an update. Some armies rules stayed the same for years at a time. Of course it's in GW's interest to keep updating army books so we buy them and the new units they introduce but this is a difficult concept for a new player.

I don't think this problem is limited to 40K. I don't have much knowledge of other games like Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc but I'm sure they have similar new player issues. Still though, the way 40K is going recently I'm amazed anyone manages to pick it up. Veteran players are being put off by the constantly changing rules and poor FAQ support. They're the ones with hundreds/thousands of pounds/dollars/euros invested in the game. New players may have only bought a few units so they're much more likely to be put off.

Has anyone else had difficulty introducing a new player to 40K? How did you go about it? What could I be doing differently?

The State of 40K - Imperial Knights and Pick 'n' Mix

It can't have escaped your notice that we'll be getting a new big model towards the end of the month in the form of the Imperial Knight. Now I'm sure all of those ad mech fans out there will be excited. For me the leak brings mixed emotions.

On the one hand I'm always excited about new models and new rules and I'd love to get an Imperial Knight to use with my Space Wolves and Dark Angels. The rules look interesting and frankly I think they're a bargain (points-wise at least) for a 6 HP SHW. It seems a lot of people don't share my view and seem to think they're overpriced but I really don't understand this. Perhaps their ranged weaponry isn't stellar but stripping 6 HP from a super heav model with a 4++ save (most of the time) is going to be tricky. Compare this to a Stompa, which also has a destroyer close combat weapon, and you can see how reasonable the price is. The Ork behemoth has 12 HP but (assuming there aren't meks inside) it has no real defence. The Knight on the other hand has that 4++ save which gives it effectively 12 HP most of the time. The Stompa undoubtedly has more firepower but with BS2 and Whirr-Click-Click there's the potential for failure. The big difference, and the sticking point for me, is that it appears you can take them as part of pretty much any Imperial army without them being Lords of War.

The fluff player in me has no issue with this. Why wouldn't a SM chapter master seek assistance from the mechanicum in the form of some Knights? There's no reason any Imperial army wouldn't field them (that I can think of anyway). This is always the way GW sell new units to us. They fluff comes first or so they'd have us believe. I can understand this too. To me there are two reasons why 40K is so successful, the stunning miniatures and the deep, rich backstory. That's what sets it apart from the other systems. It certainly isn't the competitive ruleset that has people coming back for more. Of course they want to sell us some models so that fluff comes in handy for them to persuade Imperial players to buy these new models. Sometimes the fluff is a bit of an own goal for them too. Tyranids not being able to take allies is the most obvious example. Makes sense from the fluff but not from a business sense. Still as I say, I'm excited about the Knight and getting to use one in my army.

On the other hand, I'm waiting for them to be abused. There's a part of me that's a competitive player so I'm not going to sit and whinge about the deathstars and other things considered dirty by the community at large. In fact, Knights, like other super heavies are a potential counter to a lot of the power lists out there. I have little problem with people taking the rules of the game and using them to full advantage. Of course, I find it dull to see so many people using the same thing and reducing a codex to a list of "must haves". It's the nature of the game though I'm afraid. Do I enjoy playing with or against deathstars? Nope. Would it stop me using them in a competitive environment. Possibly but the main thing for me is fun. If a list is boring to play with or against I don't care how good it is. Anyway, I'm getting off topic.

The issue I have with all of these releases is that they put me in a difficult position as a TO. The Imperial armies are increasingly allowed to play pick 'n' mix with whatever the hell they want to choose from half a dozen codices plus a pile of supplements, dataslates and Imperial Armour. The fluff player in me sighs when I think of Eldrad, Coteaz and Tigurius all fighting alongside each other with a Revenant in tow. It's great to have such a wealth of variety available but it's hardly a level playing field. I want to love the allies system but I can't persuade myself to run a list with allies very often. To me it makes players lazy. Is your army struggling to beat another race? Don't worry about trying to find a solution in your own codex, just throw in some crap from elsewhere to plug the holes. So as a TO do I ban a lot of these extra units and only allow units from a specified list of codices? I had no issue banning Escalation and Stronghold Assault but I don't want to start needing a list of "books" that are allowed or not.

Between now and Blog Wars 7 I'll be looking at all of the new releases closely and trying to keep on top of things. Let me know what you guys think though.

Battle Report - Escalation! Orks vs. Eldar and Eldar vs. Tau

Let's get something clear before I start. The reason Matt and I played these games was to determine whether we'd consider going to tournaments at our local venue (The Outpost) if they decided to allow Lords of War. Most of their events are 1,750pts so that's the level we played at. I'm sure that a single Lord of War in a 2,000+ game isn't too much of a big deal (most of the time) but it's rare that a UK event plays much above 1,850.

So, anyway, our first game would see an Ork army including a Stompa play againsts Matt's latest Eldar tournament list (with minimal Tau), granted not the standard Taudar list but still strong. The second game would be an Eldar revenant list against my tailored Tau list which I was pretty confident could deal with the titan.

Orks (with Stompa) vs. Eldar (+Tau)
The stompa was joined by three squads of 18 boyz with a nob each, a big mek with KFF, Zogwort and a couple of battlewagons. Essentially the hope was that the wagons and the stompas could deliver the boyz safely into combat where they could probably deal with most opponents. In the meantime the stompa would hopefully be ripping open transports and generally being a nuisance.

Matt won first turn but I jammily managed to Seize. The stompa was hugely underwhelming in the first round. The S10 AP1 blast scattered away (despite being a huge template) and the supa-gatler could only strip a single hullpoint from one of the serpents thanks to their shields. In response the Eldar killed one of the battlewagons and stripped a couple of hull points from the stompa. The hordes of orks slowly chewed through some serpents and their contents but the star of the show was Zogwort who turned the Tau commander into a squig, Zzaped a wave serpent and generally causing a nuisance.

The Stompa itself smashed a wave serpent easily in combat before the Wraightknight charged in. The Eldar construct stripped some hull points but in response the stompa cut it in two with it's massive chainsword. One mob of orks charged into the avatar but with Matt challenging the nob every time I relied on scoring 6s to wound and hoping for failed armour saves which never came.

Eventually the stompa was faced with the avatar. Despite surviving the first volley of melta shots the avatar had no problems second time around. We were playing the Scouring so with the nobs being close to relatively low score objectives, Matt managed to sneak the win with a combination of dire avengers holding onto an objective along with Slay the Warlord, First Blood and bonus VPs from the Stompa.

Tau vs Eldar (with Revenant)

With both armies having poured points into a major unit (his titan and my titan-killer bomb), there were very little else on the table. This game would be over very quickly. I'd won the roll off and obviously elected to go first to give me the best chance of having stuff on the board. Despite a discussion about whether he should just reserve the titan and make the farsight bomb impotent, Matt decided to deploy it alongside his four wave serpents.

I was running a pair of riptides, farsight bomb loaded up with fusion, some pathfinders, an ethereal, a trio of devilfish with fire warriors and some kroot. The idea being that this list should still work at a tournament whilst being able to down the titan. Anyway, my first turn was poor. One riptide failed his nova and then could only score a glance on a wave serpent. The other overheated and therefore did nothing. Perhaps I should've fired them at the titan but the wave serpents were also a threat and potentially could give me First Blood.

The Eldar turn was as expected. The Revenant fired one pulsar at the devilfish and managed to also hit a riptide. The devilfish was destroyed but suprisingly the D-weapon only scored 4 wounds on the riptide. It was the same story with the other pulsar which only managed 3 wounds. The wave serpents were on hand to complete the job though and were able to finish both riptides off along with most of the pathfinders. The titan had fired it's missiles at the pathfinders allowing it to charge and hopefully be locked. However, it's stomp attack caused enough wounds and the pathfinders broke.

Thankfully the Farsight bomb arrived on turn 2 and positioned itself for its assault on the titan. With both riptides dead I'd still lose the game as I wouldn't be able to deal with the wave serpents but maybe I could take the titan down as a hefty consolation. The squad was armed with 12 fusion blasters with re-roll to hit and Ignores Cover. With no marker support I scored 9 hits, 5 of which hit the holo-fields instead. The remaining 4 hits all managed to penetrate thanks to Tank Hunter (for 4 HP). I'd now need to roll more than 5 on four D3 to give me the win. Sadly I fluffed the roll and the titan survived on a single HP. Knowing the retribution would be swift I used the Thrust move to spread the suits out as much as possible.

The following turn allowed the titan to fire up its jump jets and blast away. It lined up the suits for some revenge and, despite the spacing, the four pulsar blasts were still enough to kill all but one suit. At that point with no riptides, a single crisis suit and some fire warriors left, I conceded.


Conclusion
Before starting these games there was no doubt in my mind that the Ork game would be fun and the Tau vs. Eldar game would be miserable. There's no question that you could play a game with Lords of War involved, even at 1,750pts, that both players enjoyed. That being said, both Matt and I enjoy playing with and against Orks so perhaps we're biased. The stompa underperformed a little too as the S10 massive blast scattered off target most of the time. Of course I was pretty lucky to avoid Whirr-Click-Click until the last moment but still it wasn't a game that flattered the Ork gargant.

The Revenant game was a totally different cup of tea. In some ways it was still exciting as I knew I had a good chance of killing it. The Farsight bomb I took was, off the top of my head, the best unit I can think off in the game for taking down the titan. There's been suggestions of various combat units that can deal with it but I'm yet to see how you'd even get in combat with it thanks to it's huge movement range. Sure, you can probably take it down by attrition in bigger games (I'm thinking at least 2,500pts) but in smaller games you've got to be pretty lucky to deal with it. My Tau list was specifically designed to deal with the revenant whilst still having a component that can deal with enemy troops and claim objectives. That's important. A lot of the suggested armies for taking it down don't factor in actually winning the game should you succeed against the titan. This isn't an issue for the Eldar. Even at 1,750 you can have 3 wave serpents and three 3-man windrider squads alongside the Revenant. That's more than enough to win the game against most opponents.

Let's have a look at Farsight's unit in more detail, it has 12 twin-linked fusion blasters. Assuming the Revenant (or accompanying wave serpents) have managed to get rid of any markerlight support, the suits will be BS3 which means 9 hits. Thanks to the holofield thing you'll lose half of them, let's say that leaves 5 to be generous. Thanks to being in melta range you'll nearly guaranteed to penetrate with all 5 shots (needing 4+ on two dice with a re-roll). That's 5 hullpoints straight away plus an additional D3 for each and therefore a dead titan. With careful placement of the suits you're unlikely to lose many (if any) to the blast as it explodes catastrophically. Happy days. Obviously, with markerlight support you can get to a point where you're getting 11 hits and you're near guaranteed to kill it with one volley.

So I was just unlucky in our game then? Well yes and no. If you're playing someone with a Revenant then they'll either reserve the titan (and perhaps include an autarch for reserve manipulation) or else position it in such a way that a deep strike nearby is a huge risk i.e. somewhere an allied riptide could annihilate you. You've then got to factor in that my list had no reserve manipulation of it's own. What happens if the bomb doesn't arrive until turn 4. Are you confident you'll have anything left at that point? If the Eldar player goes first it's not totally unfeasible that you've been wiped off the board before the suits arrive and on their own they're not going to win you the game. If you don't manage to kill the Revenant when you arrive, you're unlikely to get a second chance.

I'm not going to pretend my Tau list is totally optimised but it was certainly a reasonable list for your average Tau player to create. Let's not forget any list that can deal with a Revenant has to also hold its own in the other games in a tournament too. Obviously the farsight bomb in this form has plenty of target locks so you could deal with several vehicles provided they're close enough together but it isn't particularly great without some means of getting Gate.

The main thing for me is that Tau are just about the only army capable of running a unit that can even claim to be "reliable" at killing the Revenant. Now, of course, most armies can take some form of ranged D-weaponry but the Revenant is by far the best. Transcendant C'Tan are also a hell of a problem for the vast majority of opposing armies. Without a Lord of War of your own then I'm not sure many non-Tau armies can even hope to bring it down anywhere near quick enough.

So I hate Escalation then? Not really. The idea of bringing a Stompa, Baneblade, etc to a regular game provides the opportunity for a lot of fun. The idea of a regular army trying everything to bring down a hulking behemoth before it wipes them out is genuinely thrilling. The ork game was a whole heap of fun, in no small part due to the slow demise of the Stompa. The Revenant presents a big challenge to its opponents and to the game in general. Most 40K armies have a Rock-Paper-Scissors thing going on. Some armies you play will simply not stand a chance against you whilst others will crush you almost every time. If the Revenant is "rock" though then there are far more "scissors" out there than there's "paper".

It comes down to this. In casual games Escalation is a lot of fun. I'll never attend a tournament which uses it though as, at this point level at least, the Revenant (amongst others) is a near auto-win and requires me to bring a pretty dirty (and somewhat dull) list to counter it (or try). It's probably no worse than some of the deathstars out there in regular 40K but the difference is there's an easy way to prevent Escalation. Simply don't allow it. If you want to use it in your games then by all means do what you like at home but you can't honestly say it'd be a lot of fun to use a Revenant at a tournament. GW should've left these things in Apocalypse where they belong.

Right, tomorrow I'm off to a regular 40K tournament (they decided to ban Escalation) at the Outpost again tomorrow. Sadly, there's only 10 people playing but it should still be fun I hope. Full report on Sunday of course before I take on the Tyranid codex reviews.

The Rapidly Changing Face of 40K

The last month has been pretty mental with the number of changes that have taken place in this game of ours. To say there's been a mixed reception to these changes is somewhat of an understatement. For anyone who's somehow not heard about them, here's a quick list:

• Inquisition codex
• Formations/Dataslates
• Stronghold Assault
• Escalation

Each of these things has changed or will change the way 40K is played in a big way. Whether they're an improvement or not is another matter. I want to get something out of the way before I go any further though. Games Workshop want to sell you models. They're a business. They want to make money and keep their shareholders happy. Could they go about that in a more customer friendly way? Almost certainly. The problem is that what they're doing works. In a struggling economy they're still posting healthy profits for a company of their size. The game and its rules will always be secondary to the sale of models. They playtest the rules to a point but clearly not as thoroughly as we'd like. You can try to convince yourself that they're stupid and don't understand their player base. On the contrary, they know exactly what will make us buy models.

With that out of the way let's look at the new additions to the game and how they affect things.

Inquisition Codex

There's a lot of fuss about this because essentially it created an extra detachment that quite a large number of armies could employ. Most people will take one look at Coteaz and think "yep I could use that". He's probably the most useful thing in there and what army couldn't use a re-roll to Seize, access to more Divination and option to fire at reserves coming down near him. He was already an awesome character in the GK book and Matt has used him with decent success at singles events and also alongside my Wolves in doubles play. The Inquisition Codex allows you to just take him in your list for 100pts with no obvious penalty.

Of course there's plenty of other options in there but he's the standout entry. What's a shame is that a lot of the stuff is just a copy/paste from the GK book. There's nothing especially new to get excited about. Essentially the book boils down to "hey look I can take an inquisitor in my Eldar army without having to pay for any troops and I can still have my Tau allies too!".

The fluffy player in me loves the idea of an inquisitor joining the fight against some daemonic horde but would he really show up against Orks (depending on his Ordo)? The tournament player in me is saddened too. Supplements and allies have already offered enough loopholes for people to essentially just bring whatever they want (unless your play Tyranids). The Inquisition book just takes this a step further and potentially paves the way for similar nonsense. In summary, exciting from a fluff perspective, frustrating competitively.

Formations/Dataslates

When GW announced the big boxed sets of miniatures offering big discounts I was certainly suprised and excited. I couldn't resist buying the Stormwing (although it's still wrapped in celophane at the minute). With the Black Library advent calendar they've also introduced rules for these things as "formations". This isn't a new idea, it's straight out of Apocalypse. Essentially by taking the models specified in the formation the units get a bonus special rule or two. This isn't especially game breaking but it does allow you to take these formations as separate detachments meaning you bypass the FOC quite drastically.

I'm not hugely concerned by this, sure it messes some things up but generally I don't think it's too big of a deal.

Dataslates are a nice way of introducing new units into the older codices but they do feel a bit like video game DLC. You're left wondering why they couldn't have just put them in the book in the first place.

Stronghold Assault

You can now take several fortifications per FOC slot and there are a few extra upgrades that weren't previously available. The big one that everyone is talking about is the Void Shield. Essentially a protective bubble to minimise the affects of alpha strike. I'm not sure it's as amazing as people think but even so it's the most significant thing in the book. I'm intrigued to see what the model looks like when they eventually release it.

The main thing about this book for me is that there's some new content here. Unlike the other three "expansions" listed in this post the Stronghold Assault book isn't just a copy/paste from another existing book.





Escalation

Last but certainly not least, Escalation is what everyone on the 40K internet seems to be clammering about. There are multiple shouts of "this breaks the game", "40K just isn't playable at tournaments" or "they just want to flog you a Revenant". To an extent all three of which are true.

Essentially, Escalation lets you take a super-heavy in a normal 40K list. There's something missing amongst most of the whining on the internet though. The big question for me is why was this book even necessary? The content is mostly straight out of the Apoc book and if you wanted to use super-heavies then go right ahead and play Apocalypse with other like-minded types. Some are arguing that the inclusion of super-heavies and, more importantly, D-weapons is as a counter to the re-rollable invulnerable save lists we're seeing more and more. Of course they are indeed an excellent counter but as someone pointed out in the comments section of Faeit212 it does feel like a "swallowed a spider to catch the fly" scenario.

The one game of apocalypse I've played (but never quite managed to write up on here) taught me about how powerful a Revenant can be. It was the only super-heavy to survive our game having taken out two stompas (with a little help) in a single turn. I love the model but I'd be less than happy to see one across the table from me.

Those in favour of Escalation say that people are only complaining because their power gamer net-list doesn't work any more. They're saying that people only don't like it because they can no longer bring a dirty combination and walk through a tournament. Whilst there's probably an element of truth to this I do think that attitude is somewhat naive. Deathstars like Screamer-council, Farsight bomb, etc are mostly despised because they take little skill to use and make for a boring game. How exactly are super-heavies going to be different in that regard? Obviously the most problematic is the Revenant but when there's already a good chunk of people using Eldar at the moment it won't be long before we start seeing the wraithknight proxy for a Revenant at permissive tournaments.

I'm all for variety in games. I hated the end of 5th edition when all you seemed to play was Grey Knights, I hated played Screamers/Flamers from the WD update, Necron air, etc. The point is though that there'll always be something. Those with apparently limitless disposable income will think nothing of buying a Revenant to win events that allow them.

Conclusion
My main problem with all of these "new" additions is that they simply aren't that new. Sure there's new content here and there but for the most part it just feels like Apocalypse stuff creeping into 40K. There's the potential for hugely varied games against a wide variety of opponents. Will we see Harridans, Stompas, Baneblades, Tiger Sharks, Tesseract Vaults, etc. in equal number? Of course not. As with everything in competitive 40K the best combination will be quickly discerned, posted online and repeated ad nauseum. At the moment Stronghold Assault looks alright but it won't belong before some combination is discovered that makes people sigh.

Like anything else, there are counters to Lords of War. Massed melta fire can do enough damage to bring them down but that's assuming you survive long enough to shoot. Part of the "balance" in 40K comes from armies not being able to counter one thing without leaving themselves vulnerable to another.

Games Workshop are trying to sell you models. There's no doubt these new additions will shift units. The problem with 40K is actually the people who play it. I'm not going to sit and pretend I'm not one of them. I've taken dirty lists to tournaments in the past, rarely the current in-thing but still pretty nasty. The way 40K is written there are always going to be rock/paper/scissors matchup.

My problem is going to be trying to decide how the hell to rule on everything for Blog Wars. In the six weeks since Blog Wars 6 the game is almost unrecognisable from what it was! Any input on that discussion will be gratefully received. More on how I'm intending to tackle BW7 in a later post though.

Patronisation - on sale now at Games Workshop!

I may have the odd rant about things in this hobby but in general I accept that Games Workshop will always charge as much as they think they can get away with. In fact Jervis Johnson himself once told me this was their strategy. Fair play to them, they're a business not a charity. If people don't like it they can vote with their money and simply not shell out for it. However, we all know that we'll want whatever plastic crack they send our way and they'll still make a fortune no matter how up in arms we are about it.

That being said I remember a time when Games Workshop used to do deals. They used to offer a free miniature with White Dwarf and would issue "collector cards" so that once you bought all of the models on the card you got something free. Granted neither of these were particularly great deals but the idea was there. Oh and don't get me started on the decline of White Dwarf. In recent times Games Workshop seem content to allow third party suppliers to offer all the deals whilst they rest assured that people will still ignore the third parties and buy everything full price direct from them.

Now I accept that GW have often bundled their models together in the form of Battleforces, Megaforces and in the recent collection of 3-in-a-box sets like Warwalkers, Vypers, Windriders etc. None of this is anything new, they've done it before. These kits still represent good "value" compared to the GW prices and when combined with an FLGS discount the prices are almost reasonable. They've made some kits cheaper too by making them into plastic e.g. Tau Pathfinders and Eldar Wraithguard. On the flip side of that some have got ludicrously more expensive for no good reason, I'm thinking Eldar Dire Avengers here. Anyway, all of this I can forgive as they're well within their rights to put their own prices up, no matter how much we might dislike it.

What really grinds my gears (thanks Peter Griffin) though is the new trend of "One-Click Miniatures Collections". I'm sure some people have been suckered into thinking these offer some sort of bulk-buying discount. The latest example of this is the "Iyanden Ghost Warrior" collection. This collection offers £407 worth of models for the bargain price of..... £407. Now this is nothing new, they've been doing this a little while now. Doesn't mean to say it hasn't irritated me thinking of people falling for it (more fool them I suppose). The kicker though is Games Workshop saying "limited time only". This collection is only available for the next 24 hours!!! 

I know Games Workshop think we're all stupid (and often we give them plenty of evidence to support this) but seriously, a limited time offer that doesn't actually save you any money? Let's say nothing of the fact that you need 2 codices and a rulebook to use these models!! Don't get me started on the codex supplements either. The idea that I need two £30 to use an army is insulting. As I understand it there's only a couple of different rules in there too. Don't get me wrong it's a good idea for doing all of the Space Marine chapters or CSM legions but surely they could just do an all in one book that contained Iyanden fluff but with all of the Eldar rules?

Anyway, the point is that Games Workshop have got it into their heads that if they make everything seem Limited Edition we'll drop a fortune on them. I'd bet most of the limited edition codex sales are to people wanting to flog them to idiots on eBay. It's £20 for a dustcover people! 

Whilst I wouldn't want to see Games Workshop go out of business as some would, this sort of thing doesn't really help their case. For me their current marketing strategy is just retarded. This secretive launch of each codex is borderline comical when their website hints at a codex that everyone has already seen pictures of across the web!

I suppose the thing we have to remember is that the majority of gamers/hobbyists don't read anything on the internet. They probably shop at their local GW store rather than an FLGS and aren't aware they're being treated like morons. It's the same thing as buying a DVD from a high street store when Amazon/eBay (or another site) is £5 cheaper. Perhaps I just like to think the 40K player base is a bit more intelligent than that. Mind you reading the "new Eldar codex is crap" posts, I'm hardly won over....

Buying 40K Stuff on eBay (Rant)

Let me start by saying that this post is intentionally patronising. I'm also pretty sure that anyone reading this is unlikely to be part of the problem but frankly I just want to vent some frustration.

Since the Tau codex was announced I've been on the look out for models on eBay to bulk up my existing force on the cheap. So far I've managed to get an old battleforce for £45 and a dozen kroot for £10. Obviously I bought the kroot first but the battleforce kroot will soon be going up on eBay. Other than that I've struggled.

I've kept a search going for "Tau" for a few weeks now and I'm amazed by what I'm seeing. Several items go for far in excess of their actual value, new from GW. To me the point of eBay is to save some cash so it frustrates me when people are morons and bid more than something is worth.

A prime example of this is Shadowsun. Now I know some people would prefer the old metal model to the Finecast one but seriously. Here's an example. That's right, £54 for Shadowsun in metal. That's an extreme example but it's far from unusual. The average price seems to be between £30 and £40. Direct from GW in Finecast, Shadowsun is £23.50.

I was watching a hammerhead that went for £31 which is pretty much the price on the GW site I think. I can understand it for limited edition models like Space Hulk or the codices but otherwise eBay should be full of bargains. In other areas it is, but perhaps the Wargames and Roleplaying section isn't as saturated as DVDs or Video Games are.

Here's a few tips for people who don't seem to get it:

• Look on the GW website to see how much the item will cost new
• Compare that to prices on Wayland, Dark Sphere etc.
• Use this figure as a maximum bid - I tend not to bid more than 75% of the GW price
• Remember to include postage - people seem to completely ignore this and often it's extortionate
• Don't get carried away - know your limit and stick to it

Seriously, it isn't that hard is it? If you're paying more than full GW price for something on eBay then I pity you I really do. Maybe you're doing so out of some misguided idea that at least GW doesn't get the money but ultimately they already have.

There is of course a chance that these bids are coming from places like Australia where GW prices are even more ludicrous than they are here. For example, a £30 broadside costs something like £50 in Australia. That's the last time I complain about GW prices here!

Sorry for ranting but I just find it so frustrating that what should be a source of cut price models actually costs more than the item would brand new direct from GW. Perhaps I should just feel lucky that my FLGS does 20% off.

GW 40K Doubles Results - finally!

The doubles tournament was nearly a fortnight ago but I've only just had chance to start posting again so you'll forgive me I hope for being a little late with my report. At previous doubles events (we've been to 2) we've done reasonably but a bit of bad luck here and there has prevented us from achieving greatness. Now personally I didn't think we'd every do very well but Matt has always been keen for us to take something competitive and prove to ourselves that we can hack it on the top tables. Here's what we came up with this year (warning contains cheese):


"Titanic Fenrisians" 2x 875pts (GK/SW)

875pts of Space Wolves
Rune Priest w/ Chooser (Jaws/Lightning)
Rune Priest w/ Combi-melta (Jaws/Hurricane)

3x Wolf Guard (2x combi-melta/PF and one cyclone terminator)

2x 8 Grey Hunters (melta, standard, MotW) in Rhinos

6 Long Fangs (5 missile launchers)

875pts of Grey Knights
Inquisitor Coteaz

5 Purifiers w/ 3 halberds and 2 psycannons - Rhino
Venerable psyfleman dread

2x 3 Warrior Acolytes in Razorbacks

2x Psyfleman dreads

I think you'll agree that's a pretty cheesy list. It has the ability to put out 12 twin linked and 7 normal S8 shots at 48" and has 3 potentially nasty combat units thrown in too. Double JotWW is always pretty devastating too. Suffice to say I felt pretty dirty taking it but we'd tested it to death and were confident it could take on almost anything and come out on top.

Now the eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed that my portion of the list is actually illegal but this was a genuine mistake (despite checking and re-checking the list) and wasn't picked up upon until after our last game (the judges didn't see it at all). We could debate how much difference it made but it would've been simple to rectify without hampering our list much.

Anyway, you may or may not be wondering how we did. I'll be posting a full game-by-game report tomorrow but for now let me tell you we came 2nd!! Well sort of. If you read the official results on GW WHW's facebook page you'll see us in 4th. So why do I think we came second? To explain that I'll have to briefly explain the scoring system first.

Games Workshop's system of scoring for this tournament was that a win was 5, a draw 3 and a loss a single point. In order to help differentiate between people on the same points they also included some secret secondary missions (which I'll rant about shortly). These ranged from being in control of a pre-chosen piece of terrain at the end of the game to being able to get all of one Force (half of the army) into your opponents deployment zone. There were several to choose from of which you presented your opponent with 3 face down and he picked the one you'd be using. Each mission had an easy and hard version giving either 1 or 2 points (or 3 but I'll get to that). Finally, both players in each team could vote on their "favourite game" at the end of the tournament to recognise teams who had given their opponents a fun game i.e. 10 pts maximum from 5 games.

We won 4 of our 5 games and drew the other giving us 23 points plus an extra 14 for our secondary missions giving us a total of 37. This would've meant 2nd place but for that fact that GW very briefly mentioned, by which I mean mumbled it into a microphone, that the Favourite Game votes would be included in the points. Therefore, since we'd all but tabled all 5 of our opponents we weren't expecting many of them to have enjoyed it and unsurprisingly we scored 0 favourite game votes. This meant some guys who'd only scored 31 points but 6 favourite game votes ended up taking 2nd and another team who'd got 35 points but 2 favourite game votes came 3rd pushing us down to 4th.

As you can imagine we were pretty pissed off. I'll talk about how stressful our final game on table 2 was tomorrow but to have gone through that to find that we'd missed out on 2nd by such a ridiculous system is some way galling. Now don't get me wrong I hate playing arseholes but less than half of the people there actually voted for a favourite game and it's a totally arbitrary system so I hardly think it's fair to base the final results from it.

The problem GW has is that that scoring system simply doesn't separate people enough. If you look down the proper scores (not including favourite games) you can see that there's several teams with identical points meaning a farsical number of tied positions. I asked the GW referees why they didn't just use VPs but they said they would "never, ever, ever use VPs in a GW tournament". The reason being that apparently it makes people try to totally annihiliate their oppponents even if they'd already won the game. Is it just me or is that the point? Now I'm no power gamer but if you're clearly out classing your opponent why shouldn't you get a whopping number of VPs? Essentially the GW system means that a win is a win regardless of how close it was.

The main problem I have with the inclusion of the favourite game votes (aside from the fact that no-one loves us) is that the guys who took our 2nd place only won 2 out of 5 games! Having put our all into coming up with and testing a solid list and playing it to the best of our ability we lost to guys who took something more enjoyable for their opponents. I love a friendly game as much as the next guy but at a competitive tournament you expect to get your ass kicked once in a while.

So, favourite game votes aside. The secondary missions aren't a better way of separating teams. In my experience if you give people the opportunity to cheat, they will. Now I can promise you we never did (though we wish we had for a single extra point) but it would be very easy to cheat the secondary missions. You don't show your opponent what missions you had until the end of the game so it's not difficult to look at the board at the end and then go "oh yeah we had this one that we've managed to do" even though you actually failed the real one your opponent chose. To make the game fair the organisers should take steps to minimise cheating not practically encourage it!

Matt "waaghing" like a dick at the front left

Now let's take a look at the guys who won the tournament (and two other trophies). They scored the most secondary mission points out of everyone on the day. This is because there was one pair of missions that gave you 3 points if you completed them instead of the 2 points given by the rest of the missions. This mission involved having none of your independent characters attached to squads for the entire game and for killing an enemy HQ in a single combat. So let's think about what armies could actually do this effectively...... Necrons and err...... nope just Necrons. This mission was practically designed for overlords in command barges! They're never going to want to join a unit and with warscythe attacks it isn't difficult to imagine them killing an enemy HQ in combat. The question is, how did these guys manage to get that mission in pretty much every game they played? Now obviously statistically it's possible but even so it's unlikely. As I said, give someone the opportunity to cheat....

You might be thinking "well why don't you try and organise a better system if you're so smart" but my answer is I already do. I put a huge amount of effort into Blog Wars twice a year and that's me, on my own. This is GW with a whole team of people. Yes there's a lot more people taking part but that doesn't really affect the scenario building or score system that much. What annoys me is the amount of effort I put into working out missions that don't overly penalise/benefit a particular army and a scoring system that not only separates the players but also gives representative results. Not to mention checking through all the army lists myself with codexes I know little about. Clearly their team of expert judges missed our mistake! The point of list checking is that it gives players the confidence that they don't have to worry too much about if their opponents list is legal or not as the judges should've checked for them.

Anyway, the point is that GW really need to put more thought into their scoring system. To pay £90 per team, win 4 draw 1 and lose out to someone who only won 2 games is pretty ridiculous. Not that the crappy certificate for 2nd is worth winning! Rant over!

I might actually persuade Matt to take something that's more fun than competitive in September after that I'm not sure I'll go to another GW tournament. It's just a shame I love playing doubles 40k so much.

6th Edition - Drama rife across the Blogosphere!

When I used to play EVE Online there were often posts on the forums saying "drama llama is not amused" or words to that effect. To those not familiar with it EVE is a sci-fi MMORPG with the highest number of players on a single server of any MMO. There's a big part of me that misses playing it but I simply don't have the time to get back into it. Anyway, every time the developer released an expansion/patch/ship/module there'd be mass panic on the forums that this new thing was going to break the game forever. Once the new feature was released there were a few days of panic and then everyone realised there was an easy counter to it and things went back to normal.

To me, 40K is no different. Every time GW announces a new codex, or in this case an entire new edition, we hear a few rumours and everyone panics that the new army/rules will break the game. Now I'm not going to pretend that GK are balanced but they certainly aren't as powerful as everyone seems to think. Most players now know how to deal with them. However, when they were first released there was hysteria because of the snippets of rules we heard. A prime example is that a lot of people thought the vindicare assassin was ridiculously powerful. That was until a missile heads his way, he fails his save and is insta-killed.

I've been trying to keep up-to-date with the rumours that are surfacing about 6th edition because I'm just as excited as everyone else about it. Don't get me wrong there's this niggling worry that GW will totally shake up the game but is that such a bad thing? Most people's complaint about 5th edition is that it just involves marines in boxes. If the new rules are anything like they're rumoured to be then we'll probably see less vehicles. So that'll make everyone happy right?

Well no, apparently there's lots to complain about in these rumoured changes to the game. What with cover saves being reduced, land raiders becoming tougher, rapid fire improving, etc. it seems that Space Marines will become even more powerful than before. The important thing there is the word "seems". We've heard only a few bits and pieces and frankly as reliable as some of these sources have been in the past they're still just rumours. Not to mention they're totally out of context. We don't know if armies will get FAQ'd to change how they work in the new edition, we don't actually know much at all.

Some of the rumoured rules seem pretty good to me. There's no doubting that reduction in cover saves will make it harder for xenos armies but low AP weaponry might be more affective against marines now. There might be change to how blast weapons work too. Close combat weapons having an AP makes sense to me, shooting at a fast moving vehicle being harder makes sense, land raiders being less likely to be one-shotted even makes sense. I don't think we'll be seeing armies totally dominated by land raiders but it will at least mean the people will take them again. In 5th edition it seems some vehicles are far too easy to kill at times and others are way too difficult. How many times have you been trying to kill a rhino and achieved everything but actually blowing the thing up? How many times has your land raider exploded on the first shot fired at it?

I think what I'm trying to get at is that (and making a pretty bad job of it) is that we don't have a fecking clue what 6th edition will be like. Does a film trailer tell you everything about a film? Is scanning the blurb on a book the same as reading it? Responding angrily to how supposed new rules will break the game is ridiculous.

What we can be sure of is that when the book first hits and copies of it flood the internet we'll have people posting "invincible" lists and similarly saying that x army is now unstoppable or conversely y army is utterly useless. Then, after everyone has calmed down and actually played a few games we'll probably find that those invincible armies just don't work. We'll then settle into what the internet refers to as the "new meta" for a while until a new codex arrives (looking like Chaos) and churns up the drama again. It's a vicious cycle but it's one that keeps this game from going stale.

Finally, I think it's important to remember one thing. GW doesn't like you, they like your money. That isn't to say they don't want people to enjoy the game but selling plastic comes first. Will it stop the vast majority of us from shelling out for these things when they keep inflating the prices, not a chance. Accept it, you're addicted and until someone comes along as a decent competitor to them, GW will continue to dominate this market. To my mind they make the most beautiful miniature soldiers in the world and every new release is better than the last. When you think about the 2-dimensional armies we were using in 2nd edition compared to the infinitely different armies we field now I'm glad they're still in business. Call me a fanboy but accept first that protesting about everything GW does, means nothing if you keep buying the stuff!

Adapt to Survive!

There's been a lot of talk about Space Wolves going off the boil recently. Not as many people are taking them to tournaments anymore since there's (literally) shinier stuff out there in the form of GK and Necrons. Don't get me wrong I can see why people are attracted to these books. It's no secret that GK are incredibly powerful and Necrons can be tough to beat. However, I think part of the problem is that people aren't evolving their lists. There are three types of gamers at tournaments. Those who write a fun list with units they enjoy using, those who come up with an innovative list and play it to its best and finally those who just copy the second group but don't have the tactical acumen to pull it off.

Personally I probably have qualities of all three of those. I try and do something different with fun units but I'm not that great tactically. I have some inspired moments but the people who win tournaments are pretty solid throughout the entire battle. Here's how I see the general tournament scene at the moment. Well before I start let me say that these are sweeping generalisations for which I make no apology! Anyway here goes.

In my, somewhat limited, experience the tournament scene flows in a cycle. A new codex is released and internet forum dwellers sit down and try to figure out how to put together the most horrible list they can with it. Let's take a look at Grey Knights for an example that people will be familiar with. So the book came out and everyone was taking strike squads in razorbacks with support from psyfleman dreads. Essentially ignoring all the fun stuff and focusing on the real workhorses. The principle here is that "it works for SW and BA so why not GK too?". These lists work fine for a while until someone figures out a simple counter. Essentially if you can pile enough transport killing stuff into a list then you're onto a winner.

So the GK players eventually come up with something new. Elements like the psyfleman remain but they are now joined by massive blobs of  paladins with every upgrade under the sun and people are crying about their effectiveness in KP games. That is, of course, until someone takes Fear of Darkness/IG-thing-I-can't-remember-the-name-of and makes the big blog of paladins run from the board. Back to the drawing board and someone spots that "hey if I take Coteaz I can buy a 12pt squad to just sit in a razorback and pump out S6 shots from the turret". Let's not talk about how broken that is but the point is that they have more points to spend on shiny things like purifiers.

At every step of the journey there are people who are still trying to make the older list work. These are the people who just copy lists from the net without understanding how to use them. GK have probably been the worst for this since the razorspam thing doesn't really take much thought to be deadly. With a little bit of tactical knowledge it can be deadly with a real understanding of the game it can be devastating. So anyway, we're now presented with a range of different builds that can all be pretty fun until along comes the Necrons and ruins the party. Shooting is king right? WRONG. Here's 2+ turns of night fighting and 15pt models that can eat tanks!

The people who've just copied a netlist will repeatedly lose to these armies because basically they've just gotten used to rolling dice and stuff dying without putting much thought into it. The people who really understand the game go one of two ways either a) adapt their list to compensate e.g. throw in searchlights or more deepstriking or b) switch to using Necrons! Their ability to manipulate Night Fighting and terrain are the perfect counter to Grey Knights.

Necrons have undergone a similar evolution where a couple of builds now stand out. Lists with dual command barges, 3 annihilation barges and troops supported by royal courts. The alternative being scarab farms with Imotekh in tow. Sweeping generalisation I know but you do see a lot of both. Undoubtedly the next codex (who knows when or what that will be!) will change things up again. For me this is the joy of tournament play. The fact that a list you took to a tournament a month ago and did well with is suddenly impotent or vice versa. Now some lists stand the test of time but gimmicky things will always need to evolve.

All of this evolution requires a lot of cash. In order to keep your list up-to-date you need to have most of the decent stuff in a codex at your disposal. This may be why we see some people use the same old stuff but personally I think it's laziness.

So applying this to Space Wolves. That generic list with grey hunters in rhinos joined by rune priests with long fangs and speeders in support just can't cut it anymore. That list was fantastic against other lists of the same type since Grey Hunters are, in my opinion, still the best troops in the game and long fangs are cheaper than most heavy weapon teams. However, put that list against a Grey Knight gun-line and you'll lose unless your opponent is a total moron.

What's the solution? Evolution! Look at the codex again and see if all those units you discounted as "un-competitive" are now something that could work. If you pit your wall of advancing rhinos against a GK wall of razorbacks you know who'll win. Those speeders won't last long to S6 fire so throw in a couple of wolf scout packs and those much needed psyfleman dreads will have something to worry about. Drop a squad of grey hunters in behind their lines in a drop pod (assuming we're talking henchmen not strike squads with warp quake) and start ripping into things. Make the most of the new TWC models and distract them with a deathstar they can't ignore whilst you bring up the grey hunters.

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't stick to the same list and expect to do just as well tomorrow as you will this time next year. Don't let the internet tell you what should be in your list (yes I appreciate the irony here). The reason people have such success with the "flavour of the month" lists is because they designed it to beat last month's flavour which every other sucker is still using!!

Finally, when you're planning a tournament list you have to think about what you want to achieve. Do you have that killer instinct needed to win or are you just going to play some different people regardless of the outcome? Personally I want to use something that will be fun but might still win a couple of games if I play well. The list maketh not the man!