War. Game. Wargame.

Hello and good day readers. I know that the pace of my release schedule has slowed drastically, and the blade cuts both ways. Certainly I have felt a bit starved for inspiration (my gaming hours having been cut short of late), but so too have my pleas for drive or subject matter seemingly fallen on deaf ears with you, dearest reader base. I'm left a bit at a loss for words, as I felt previously we were so ready, anxious, and otherwise eager to feed off one another and am not quite sure what's come between us. Nevertheless, I come again, with an article pulling me well and truly back to my roots, the foundations of game design I hold most dear. I'm going to dismantle and offer perspective on what I think, what I like, and what I don't like in games, in general. So, hit that break, and follow me.

Chaos Cults: The Showdown

Greetings folks.  Among the turbulence of the warp, Chaos has sprung anew with more followers of the Dark Gods.  Whilst the new Codex: Crimson Slaughter has come at the disappointment of many of the die hard fans of the older legions of Chaos, it is indeed more for the Chaos Space Marines to consider.  While I myself am a bit underwhelmed by the book overall, it did come with a few new kits and a dataslate.  The Terminators and the Lord got a minor re-cut, and the Hellbrute got a full blown kit.  Not only that, but a great dataslate with three options, all of which offer something great.  I am a fan of this because I have always loved the dreadnought as a model and a unit.  Now there is a way to run it with a pretty unique set of options.  I'd dare say they even do it better than their highest competition, the Iron Hands.  If nothing else, Iron Warrior's everywhere should really like these formations.

Regardless, a midst the swirling chaos of the warp, I have decided to take a look at the more prominent members of the dark ranks.  The Cult Legions of the Chaos Space Marines.  Everyone knows the fluff behind these guys, but what I am interested in right now is how they compare with each other.  Nothing here should sway you away from using them in a themed list should you desire.  But with the fascination with Nurgle Marines being the current flavor, I wanted to take a look at all four and really see what each cult has to offer, and which I think wins the favor as greatest among equals.

WARNING: the following is based completely on my views as a player, and I recognize bias is ever an issue with opinion/observation-based articles.  As such, take all that you read with a colossal size grain of naturally occurring, flavor enhancing crystal.

Plasma vs. Grav Tech: The Showdown

General greetings, and welcome to the second installment of The Showdown.  With the Space Marine codex hot off the presses, the masses of the internet have begun to sift through its pages in search of the ever popular "optimized net-list."  While my feels on the codex vary, it looks like a solid codex with several good choices.  That said, it does feel some options can be much more useful than others with very little effort.  But that is not the point of this article.  This showdown stems from the grav-weaponry introduced to the Marine players as a genuinely new trick they have to bring to the table.  But given it's use, and it's fairly direct competition from plasma weapons based on point cost, stats, and who it is that can bring these weapons, it is this comparison with plasma that strikes most when it comes to the question, "How viable are the new Grav weapons?"  So lets take a look and find out.

WARNING: the following is based completely on my views as a player, and I recognize bias is ever an issue with opinion/observation-based articles.  As such, take all that you read with a colossal size grain of that naturally occurring, flavor enhancing crystal.

Why Your Unbeatable Netlist is Losing

Greetings Gentlereaders,

While I haven't had the opportunity to get in any 40k in quiet a while I've been able to get plenty of Magic in over the past month and a half.  I've been getting my feet wet in Modern and learning about archetypes, the extent of netdecking and how to play better through being punished for misplays.  Chatting with Godfrey, Son of Horus and Corvus about getting armies built for when or if I find people to play against has gotten me thinking.  There seems to be an opposite mindset between the two gaming communities regarding netdecking or listing as the case may be.

Changes in my Eldar Army: Path of the Warrior

Greetings Gentlereaders,

Today we're talking about the parts of my army that were and still are part of the most competitive builds in Eldar armies, the aspects in transports.  Looking at points only, these units have all increased in price, but I don't think anyone should be arguing that either they didn't improve or that they the points increase wasn't warranted.

My troops in fifth were dire avengers (DA) flying around in serpents.  While that was the troop eldar players ran, most of them only ran five man squads so they could buy the serpent, a tactic called DAVU, I wanted to run full squads so I could use them to hammer a target then mount up and fly away.  DAs have shifted to more of a midfield 'grinder' unit than the shoot and scoot unit they used to be in part because their exarchs aren't as necessary as they used to be, but are fantastic duelists.   Details after the break

Changes in my Eldar Army: Path of the Witch

Greetings Gentlereaders,

Today I was just hoping to talk to you for a bit about what I think will be changing in my Eldar army now that I actually have a copy of the codex.  Also, first post from lovely Arlington, VA.

The heart and soul of my army has been the seer council, which I tried to make work in 5th edition, but it never worked out well when I was playing against Daemonhunting Templar and BA with FNP.  While their witchblades got hit when dealing with vehicles, but the new codex made the unit much more prominent in terms of time and a more variable threat both as a hammer unit and as a support unit.  I can't think of any other unit that both exemplifies an aspect of their army and forces you and the opponent to deal with a unit that changes what type of threat it is after the list building phase.

Chaplain vs. Librarian: The Showdown

Welcome all to the first installment of a new series I shall be attending for Rites: The Showdown.  This series will take two units, usually sharing some similarity and breakdown in-depth what it is about them that shines.  And having had been made to suffer the presence of the witch we all know as Corvus, the Templar in me has decided to breakdown the uses of the Chaplain vs. the Librarian for the first showdown.

WARNING: the following is based completely on my views as a player, and I recognize bias is ever an issue with opinion/observation-based articles.  As such, take all that you read with a colossal size grain of naturally occurring, flavor enhancing crystal.

So as it is probably easy to recognize, these units are both HQ choices presented in just about every Space Marine codex.  A few exceptions are that some codexes refer to these units with different names, such as the Blood Angel "Reclusiarch" as well as their chaplains found in the elite slot. The Space Wolf "Rune Priest" and "Wolf Priest."  The Black Templars have no Librarians at all, so they will only be contributing for the men in black.  Regardless of name, I will be looking into the HQ version of each codex for this comparison.  So lets get down to business.

AP 2: Where does it belong?

 Greetings and hello!

It has been quite some time, and then some since I last had a spare moment in which to add to the collective knowledge of Rites of Battle and the 40k community.  But in that time away, I have had a relatively new way to experience the game.  As I said before I haven't had much spare time recently, and so not only have I not been able to write about 40k, but I also haven't had much time to spend playing the game either.

Now while this might seem like a poor way to consider one as getting to add to the knowledge pool, hear me out.  Usually I am able to spend a much large amount of time within the culture, and so my views tend to follow a certain line of thinking.  Having had a fair amount of time now to think about the game from an "outside-looking in" approach, it's given me a chance to stop and think.  One of the revelations I came to was on AP 2, and just where it belongs.

If we stop and really think about AP 2, and why everyone has made a massive push for it, we might be able to recognize some fallacies, which plague our community since the coming of 6th edition.  Obviously there have been some pretty heavy changes which have come about in terms of just how useful certain wargear items can be.  Power weapons no longer pierce 2+ saves, and generally speaking 2+ just got really good across the board.  Because there is less of an answer to stopping the 2+ armor units once they get to you, it has become common place to see people grasping for a way around that.

One More Trick up my Sleeve

Good afternoon everyone, hope you've had fun since I last saw you all. Last time I said I'd be posting some pictures of my Tau, but I haven't made any considerable progress on painting them, so hopefully I'll have something worth reporting next time.

As for today, I'm reminded of a nice long conversation Loki and I had about the 'blue' space marine codex in comparison to their blood angel and space wolf brethren. I've been thinking about how to make a list that can be approximated by the other codices, but that the 'blue' codex can do better if only slightly. While the wolves and angels can each build their own unique builds, Loganwing and Jumpers respectively, the list I've chosen for comparison for all three armies is the 'razor spam' army, supported by other elements. The Ultramarines will represent the 'blue' codex in this round. Forgive me if this reminds you of Ishmael's army:
Chaplain Cassius 125
Three dreadnoughts with two twin-linked autocannons 125
Three tactical squads with combi-melta, meltagun and missile launcher in an assault cannon razorback with hunter killer missile 260
Two landspeeder duos with multimeltas 120
Three devastator teams with four missile launchers 150

I will admit there are some problems with the comparing the blood angels' and space wolves' versions of this list. Coming from the space wolves side, the problem is that there are no tactical or devastator squads for direct comparison, so I substituted the space wolves closest equivalents the grey hunters and long fangs. Using a basic rune priest or wolf priest instead of Cassius and five man grey hunter squads with meltagun and combi-melta wolf guard instead of tactical squads and five missile long fangs instead of devastators brings the wolf variant to 1714 points for the same firepower as the 2000 points 'blue' marine list. That is a striking difference, though keep in mind that there are fifteen fewer bodies in the troops section than in the 'blue' version. For the sake of effieiceincy I'll give the wolves the win hands down. As a side note, the discrepancy in points between the lists drops from 286 points to 61 if you include the fifteen extra bodies. A wolves 'razor spam' list may prefer to run lascannons and twin-linked plasmaguns rather than assault cannons but their cost is the same so that shouldn't factor into the comparison, just in case you were wondering.

Comparing blood angels' version of 'razor spam' is a bit more difficult because of their divergent (read heretical) force organization, it is impossible to have both three devastator teams and three autocannon dreadnoughts in the same detachment as both occupy a heavy support slot and blood angels do not have a master of the forge to move the dreadnoughts into another slot. On the bright side, I can decide not to care about that and compare the costs of each unit. Blood angels' obsession with speed means their razorbacks are fast, but they also cost fifteen points more expensive each. Luckily for them, their devastator missile launchers are five points cheaper each, netting them twenty points per squad. With three squads of each, the blood angels come out fifteen points ahead of the 'blue' marines. If they could have both the dreadnoughts and the devastators they would be slightly ahead of their 'blue' brethren, but they cannot.

In the 'razor spam' department, the 'blue' codex falls behind the space wolves because they need to purchase more bolter brothers to access their meltaguns and missile launchers and have the melta and missile capacity of space wolves at a lower points level. On the other hand, having access to shooting dreadnoughts in their elites choices allows the 'blue' marines to field more long range anti-tank shooting than the blood angels. Out of the fifth edition marine codices, barring grey knights, the 'blue' codex falls between the shooting capacity of the wolves and that of the blood angels, netting the 'blue' book a solid okay rating.

I'll try to cook up an assault comparison using the best close combat units from each of the codices to see if the 'blue' codex can hold on to its okay rating. On that note, what units would you like to see in that comparison, as I'm not the most familiar with any close combat units.

Till then,
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

A Box is a Box is a Box

So lately there has been a lot of talk about how to "properly" run a mech list for the good old Space Marines. Now let me preface this article by saying that though I may have Power Armor clad soldiers, I follow the way of the Black Templar, and thus I mostly move forward... Now of course that doesn't mean I can't run one or the other, but I prefer to have numbers on my side going into a close combat, and the capacity of a Rhino is more fitting for my tastes.

So, the interwebz has given marines a new look at how to put marines in boxes. This weeks episode seems to dictate the razorback. Now while they aren't inherently bad, not even close... it seems like an interesting choice. The primary target of this build looks to the standard Codex: Space Marines. This may be because they can use the Combat Tactics to place a 5 man squad (Usually consisting of the Sergent, special weapon, and maybe even an Independent Character) in the box, while the heavy weapon and 4 brothers sit back in cover and provide rear point control and support fire. But how does the vehicle itself change the way a squad performs.

Let's look at the vehicles themselves, and I'll break it into categories
.

It's not the size of your capacity... It's how you use it...
The Rhino has the clear superiority in carrying capacity. 10 vs. 6 can be a major difference, seeing as how the squad can't fully move forward if it has a razorback. Though it is possible to move marines up in both, only the rhino can bring a full squad to bear in this duel... However, One has to remember that the Razorback (if combat squaded) allows a spot for an IC. This is a pretty substantial perk if you'd like to keep a box on that Captain. So they both have a decent trick to build for.

Loki's Score (out of 10)
Rhino: 8
Razorback: 7


The Pew Pew
There is little to contest here. The Razorback has a clear advantage in this area; but never count out the ability of the storm bolter. However, while this does serve as the prime, or major use for the razorback, it causes a problem for the next category.

Loki's Score (out of 10)
Rhino: 2
Razorback: 9


The Price Tag
This is what makes the big difference. Assuming the Rhino is a unit that wants to move it's contents forward, it will usually take the Extra Armor to keep it mobile. The Razorback tends to sit back, and this may make that mobility a little more of a back burner issue for it. So in general... the starting prices are a bit different. Taking the Armor on the Rhino puts it at a base 10 points over the Razor. However, it is more likely to see Razorbacks with weapons other than the Heavy Bolter Standard. The Interwebz dictate the Las-plas pattern. Now, this does provide some nice buffs, nice shots, and scary power. However, it is one of the most expensive upgrades, putting him at 25 points over the Rhino.

Remember it still takes 2's as normal, and may only carry half the squad who purchased it... so there are some draw backs... but it of course has the power to hit hard. So with that said, I give the rhino a little higher score on price, as those points alone is a power fist on a sergeant somewhere.

Loki's Score (out of 10)
Rhino: 7
Razorback: 4


Tricks of the Trade
This one is something I give major props to the Rhino for. Though it matters very little, it is something I have seen come back to help win games in the end. Rhino Repair is a nice trick that makes those Rhinos resilient little pups.

Along the same note, the Rhino gives the squad inside the ability to fire 2 weapons (generally the Special and the Heavy, or even just the Special and a Bolter). Either way, it allows the Rhino squad to get some of those powerful shots off, while still having the defenses of a vehicle.

Loki's Score (out of 10)
Rhino: 10
Razorback: 0


Overall, they both fit a play style, and as such I give the Rhino a better score based on what I have seen in play. The biggest point I found was they both share the weakness of 11 11 10 armor, but the points spent on a Rhino, and it's abilities (repair and the 2 fire points) are more forgiving than that of the Razorback.

Loki's Final Score (out of 10)
Rhino: 8
Razorback: 6


But with that said, I will say that even though I do not field the Razorback, I can see it's merits. However, After looking at the points, I have seen a fun list that uses a mixture of both. It gives me powerful 10 man units to charge forth into the mid field and still have the man power to take hits without worry, while the Razobacks, and their 2 sub contents hold back and provide cover, as well as multiple scoring units for the purpose of scoring games. I don't feel that either is truly superior, but using a list that incorporates both seems like both a tactical, and logical idea.

So calling all players. What do you think? And on that note, how do you feel about the internet based list constructing? We all know that some players look to the interwebz to help in the idea of what's "good," but perhaps we should all look more to our own likes, and our own tactics. But Until next time,

Cheers!

The Showdown

After looking through many of the army codex's out there of all shapes and sizes... the Imperium of man in all their many codexes has brought me to a interesting rivalry style question.

Plasma or Melta?

Most people say it is based on one's play style, and to a point I'd agree. Plasma obviously has the range to be a much earlier hitting weapon baring the use of first or early hitting devices (such as a drop pod). This difference alone is a drastic definition of the two weapon's purposes, however along with this they style (rapid fire vs assault) also says a lot of what they are meant for.

But on this bothers me over all other things. The plasma weapons were one of the best things since sliced bread in the old 4th edition rules. Many an army would spam them and it would be hard to cross a field of plasma fire since shooting had a distinct edge in 4th. So naturally the weapon was somewhat balanced by the annoyance of "Gets Hot." This was a nice way of balancing the boon of such an awesome weapon on the tabletop. But now that 5th has come around, and shooting isn't the simply job it was, assault has taken over, and with it the melta gun rules supreme as special weapon's choice.

But wait... what's this? Where's the balancing rule? There isn't one. Where, for some reason, when firing a plasma weapon it can get hot and explode in your face... the meltagun that fires a fusion blast capable of destabilizing and destroying anything it touches at the molecular level has no problems what so ever. Let's also add AP1 for tank destruction as that is kind of melta's thing (always has been), but with 5th this became increasingly powerful. And to finish things off lets add the boon of The Melta Rule. We all know this one, and while it may sometimes be hard to close the gap, it is not impossible by any means, as well as the added help of some 5th rules like run, the new wound allocation, and mech being very helpful for closing gaps fast.

Now looking at the two weapons we know they are meant to do different things. A Plasma gun is a ranged infantry killer, while the meltagun counterpart is a close range tank hunter. Both do their job decently. Their larger cousins do the same tings as their respective smalls, are similar in nature. However, where the cannon gains range as well as turning into a small blast, the multi-melta simply turns into a longer range meltagun. But this is what kills me. While plasma can do a great many things, it's only S7 (so not much Instant Death caused by these guys outside of non-marine) as well as AP2 (no bonus on the chart). It has a longer range, but the Gets Hot rule is a very dangerous problem, causing the weapon not to fire, as well as the possibility of losing it. And the funniest thing to me, is that the plasma weapons are always 5 points more than their melta counterparts (save the old 4th ed. codexes like my Templars Codex).

To me this is interesting. In 4th they knew plasma was the more useful and slected weapon, so they costed it high, and made it dangerous. Now in 5th, Melta rises to the grand poo bah of guns, and they leave it as a cheap and easy buy. I'm not sure why, but it strikes me as interesting. I guess I don't see the short range being all that much of a balance when it comes to what seems to be the single best weapon in the game, as well as it's over abundance out if necessity feel it has in many armies.

Have any thoughts on the matter?

Cheers!

Plastic vs. Pewter!

So during an adventure to the keep this afternoon I had an interesting conversation over the differences of Pewter and Plastic (besides the obvious fact that they are indeed different material). While I am a staunch believer that Pewter has a place (i.e. Independent Characters... and nothing more) some believe that the material is better as a whole for the hobby community. So trying to be as objective as I can lets delve into the world of materials!


First off we'll take a look at detail. Pewter being a denser and harder metal it is a great way to get every little detail that makes those beautiful character models shine. Of course it is necessary for the characters amongst the sometimes endless hordes of models to be highly detailed as it adds a nice breath of detail. But even though the pewter models tend to have more detail involved within the model, is it not possible to reach a high level of quality with the use of plastic? I would argue a resounding yes to this question. I have two specific examples of situations in which plastic models have a beautiful level of detail. First being the new Blood Angels models including both the Death Company and Sanguinary Guard boxes. Both have an exquisite level of detail involved. The second being the Space Hulk Terminators. Now I know they are made from a different, softer plastic, however they are still plastic (and the reason for my first more "relevant" example), but I don't think there is a 40k enthusiast out there that can say those models aren't of some of the highest quality models (in the realm of detail mind you) around. Now again Pewter has an incredibly high level of detail to bring to the table, but with the new quality level of models coming from GW being on the level of the new Blood Angels and Space Wolf models, I have high hopes for the future of models to come.

Score out of 10
Pewter: 8
Plastic: 7

Next I'll take a look at cost. This is a hands down win for plastic. The relative cost gap per model between the two is shrinking, but plastic still maintains a better average. Most plastic boxes players need to look into for army building contain about 10 models for around $35. Metal models that are used to make units (such as the Sternguard Veterans or Tank Busta Orks) average at about $35 for 5. Easy math here as that shows pewter going in about double the cost. And as many of us are aware, these metal models offer little options, if any... This is a major down side for those boxes, where the plastic kits are not only jam packed with options, they also allow the modeler an easier time in the conversion side of things. Though metal units hold a high level of detail in most cases, as well as the fact armies generally require less of these units, it is not enough. In my opinion plastic is a hands down winner when it comes to cost.

Score out of 10
Pewter: 4
Plastic: 8

Next lets ponder about the idea of customization. Once again, I find plastic to be a much more user friendly material in this case. The softer and more mailable nature allows us to customize with little effort, where metal models require a bit of concentration and work to make even the slightest of changes. Though people have made some beautiful models from both metal and plastic frames, from my experience the plastic generally works much better as a starting point for making a custom model.

It is possible however, to make a good custom model from a metal frame. Here is one shining and badass example.

In a game that is about 50/50 between hobby and game, I look at plastic as a generally helpful and easy to use material when it comes to making models look like they belong to my army, and with that in mind I find the use of the old metal as something that is really hindering the process of expanding to newer and more beautiful details.

Score out of 10
Pewter: 3
Plastic: 9

Another aspect I want to delve into is the concept of durability. Now before I go on you should put on a helmet and faceplate to help keep a clean room when your mind is blown... or not. Metal models are the extreme definition of fail in this category! Even though the material itself doesn't break nearly as easily, it's ability to be a hardy model is lacking severely. Metal models tend to chip very easily as the hard metal doesn't fuse with the base coat nearly as well as its more porous plastic counterpart. This is rather odd as the game itself demands a large amount of durability when it comes to paint jobs. As a model is used more and more, it may be needed to occasionally refurbish a little detail here and there.

Dropping a model is also very common with some players, and where plastic (much like the base coat) tends to fuse with the glue... metal simply holds on till the pressure becomes to great, and in a horrifying "for f*ck sake!" moment... when you drop a model, the plastic ones tend to bounce a little, have a scratch in the paint, but keep on going. Metal ones hit the ground... and an explosion of bits sprays in every direction.

As shocked as I am saying this... metal has a hard time keeping pace with plastic in this field as well.

Score out of 10
Pewter: 2
Plastic: 7


So I know this seems like a one sided argument coming from me, but from my years of gaming, and research into the topic... I do find a consistent difference between the two with plastic holding up the 1st place ribbon in the end. As a hobby material, and one that is subject to the wear and tear of game play, it holds up as a more valuable asset to have. I enjoy Plastic models both in hobby, and game play form. What are your thoughts and opinions on the matter? And do either hold much of a chance with the rise of resin? Just food for thought.

Cheers!

Comparing Apples and Oranges Part 1

by Ishamael

So, this is going to be a quick overview of what I've experienced so far playing a little trial of Star Craft 2. Once I purchase the game and get some time under by belt, I'll be expanding on this.

So, I've decided to bring myself to do a difficult thing, as has been shown in the title. How do I compare two fruits of different variety? Since this is a preliminary consideration, this is going to be very rough. For the purposes of consideration, I'll be breaking this review into two sections: Campaign and Multi-player. For Dawn of War 2 it will be the Chaos Rising campaign.

Campaign

When it comes to a recap of what happened before one begins either campaign, the presentation of Dawn of War 2 feels as if anyone can pick up the game and know what is happening. For Starcraft 2, however, the backstory is told during the installation process with a voice-over, and the subsequent cinematics don't do much to get someone that did not play the original game (me) fired up about playing. Some spesh mehreen doing something...space rednecks. Yet, when the campaign finally begins, Blizzard's powers of presentation and characterization come forth in a huge way. You're an outlaw in a bar, who is sitting drinking, and there is a T.V., video box, and a few other random things to click to get information. Also, Blizzard's ability to make jokes shines through with a Tyrazerg's skull hanging on the wall...with festive lights dangling from it. When it comes to the way DoW2 handles this...you've a planetary overview, with your various options of deployment and wargear shown, and there's a newer feature with the option of hearing what your brothers think on the situation you're being thrown into. It's far better than the way it was done in DoW2's first campaign, but the inside of a Battle Cruiser would be better...or the inside of a Drop Pod...or a Thunderhawk...or anything. Straight up, the mission selection window in Starcraft 2 far surpasses what was done for Chaos Rising. Did I mention you get to go to different levels of the ship in SC2? Y'know, to the bar to buy mercenaries? Unfortunately, until I purchase the full game I can't go much beyond this, but so far the presentation of Starcraft 2 is by far more immersive than in Chaos Rising.

Multi-Player

I can speak a little more on this than the campaign. And by that I mean compare. For the reader, ask yourself this: when it comes to the Real-Time Strategy genre, do you like resource gathering and base building, or do you prefer getting into the action immediately, where battlefield control is how you gain resources? This is the first hurdle for the gamer trying to compare these two very different games. Let me start with declaring that what little I played of the Starcraft 2 campaign does, in NO way useful, help me play the multi-player. At least I play with the same units in the Dawn of War 2 multi-player. Anyway, let's start with how each game begins. As soon as you're in DoW, you send your units to capture two forward points, and make another unit to help capture/fight another point. In SC2, you send your builder units to start harvesting, and make another builder to help your resource rate. Then you build your barracks, then build your basic infantry, and let me tell you, it takes a long time to build any unit in this game. This holds true to everything, especially when one researches unit upgrades. Once those units get produced, when combat finally happens the player notices one major thing: units die really quickly in SC2, and certain units are Super Effective! against others. Also, only certain units can fire at flying units. It's like playing Pokemon with paper cutouts. In DoW2, there are weapons that give advantages against certain other units, but at least you have the option to purchase a flamer or missile launcher. Along with this, regardless of whether you've Space Marines or Guardians, there's at least a feeling that the unit can survive a bit of combat, which is a farcry from the squishies of SC2. Also, DoW2's cover system greatly affects this, extending a squad's potential lifespan greatly whether or not they're in heavy/light cover, or within the confines of a building. At any rate, I think this basic overview of the Campaign and Multi-Player will suffice for now.

Next time I'll talk more on analyzing the multi-player, with emphasis on the character/suppression system for DoW2, and the importance of build-order in SC2.

Non-sequitur: Brandon Sanderson has completed Towers of Midnight! On November 2nd, the real lead up to Tarmon Gai'don begins!

Messias non est,
Ishamael

Lascannons and Meltas, oh my!

by Ishamael

How far along are we in to fifth edition? Lackeys of the false emperor date it to over one year and a half ago, yet people are still taking Lascannons on certain units when they should be taking any Melta weaponry their codex has. I shall allow what little command of Mathhammer I have to show what I mean by this. Your Lascannon is str 9, your Multi-Melta str 8, so it looks like the Lascannon is better in range and power. However, that little rule on half distance with Melta weapons makes all the difference, with that weapon penetrating a Land Raider on average. So the Melta needs to be at half range, so what? Mount that thing on a Walker or a Fast unit, and all of a sudden you have a terrifying bubble of rolling on the penetration table, with the final kicker being the +1 on the damage chart the Melta weapon has now for being ap1!

But what about the superior range of the Lascannon, as well as its higher strength? Alright, let's break the Lascannon down. For these purposes I assume Marines shooting. To get a single penetration on a Land Raider, you need six Lascannons to hit it. We will ignore the glance. With Marines firing, that just cost 8 Lascannon shots (33% miss on marines, so eight shots gives you six hits). So to help the odds, let's double that to 16, and call it a day. What statistically takes three Melta-range shots, factored in for accuracy, takes a ridiculous amount of shots from its opponent, and this is with Marines shooting, Dark Gods help you if you're firing with Guardsmen.

In short, stop taking so many Lascannons in your Marine army, take Melta guns! Cheaper, more effective, scary as hell! Heck, I'm updating my Chaos Marines to actually get rid of my two Land Raider transports (because that's all they are for Chaos) because of this, which has only been compounded by the new Tyranid 'dex's Zoanthropes.

Lascannons lose! Good day sir!