Double Feature

Greetings everyone. I thought I would write an article to entertain the brain with some tactical advice; but while reading through the Big Rule Book earlier today, I came across an interesting bit of information which could cause some interesting effects in the realm of the game. So my inquisitive nature has gifted those of you interested enough for a treat, as this post will be a double feature.

So prepare your brain for some food for thought.


1. Hiding in Plain Sight

"At Least I'm not the one still hiding behind a mask..."
"No... You're hiding in plain sight."

The idea behind this tactical advise is to leave you opponent asking what happened after he suffers a crushing defeat. It is a simple plan, and is often easy to pull off against even experienced players. It involves a little deception, some playing up... and a sacrificial lamb.'

Now before you start sharping your pitchforks and calling P.E.T.A. on me, let me explain. With the ideals of 5th edition being law these days... it is no doubt that many of the armies now facing your front lines may be fortified in armored transports. Often this can leave a unit you would like to get to protected, and therefore gives them the edge to do as they please against your models. So a good plan or contingency for a lack of melta or tank bustin' weapons is always helpful. Of course the plan works against units not in transports just as well... but without the protection for a vehicle, it is more probable they will be dealt with by much easier means.

The gist of this plan is simply to lure your opponent into a false sense of security by leaving a unit relatively open for attack from their better units. For example, the Assault Terminators in a Land Raider can be a tough nut to crack sometimes; so this should help to draw them out into the open, where you can turn the tides against them. Given the chance you'll have some mobility of your own, simply having the bodies to cover area, or surprise units from reserves... these all work to the same ends of catching the enemy off guard.

One you have laid the bait unit on the table, come to terms that they are in fact bait... and you shouldn't worry when they die. This unit will need to be decent in many cases to merit being a "must kill" unit. Note this may change varying on mission type, and even position. Remember to ham it up too, your enemies will wonder why your "oh so special squad" is about to get steamrolled, rickrolled,and flattened into a fine pile of goo that used to be your baby without so much as a wimpy of sadness in your voice. They will probably die a gruesome death to enemy hands, and you should be sad... at least to them you should be; but this squad serves a much more deviant roll than they know. Remember not to leave these guys to fend for themselves, keep units close by, and ready to make a surprise move in once the bait has been taken. Once they have... you spring your trap... or traps, and watch them squirm as their baby falls to bitty pieces on the board right in from of their eyes.

Pull units in from cover, across large gaps in transports, or from Deep Strike, or any place you can... it's an old fashion tactic but the ambush is hard to pull off well in this game, and often isn't seen in large scales as it requires much force to pull of sometimes, and it means dedicating large amounts of force, to gain what looks to be only a little.

This plan works to devastate a key unit, while leaving others to suffer only minor fire, but done correctly will leave the enemy reeling from shock as their "Ace in the Hole" unit falls from over eagerness to attack. This will leave them short handed for later turns, giving you the edge to make a more broad attack from a strong front, or continue to wrecking ball from one squad to the next. The choice... is ultimately yours.


2. Pesky Snakes...

Well if this wasn't an interesting, and yet gut wrenching find... I don't know what is.

CAUTION: This is an often overlooked wording, and may cause disputed feelings. I only bring this up as it is direct wording from the rulebook, and as such should be treated as such. Please be mindful of the observation.

So many of us look at assaults into cover as a risky more, as a bad move through cover roll could be devastating to the unit that couldn't make it, and then find themselves being assaulted later. I myself never thought to look at this, and was one who though to himself

"Well okay... I'll just move to within an inch, and not even snake eyes can stop me!"

The truth is my friends this is not possible. After reading the rulebook, near the beginning (page 3 of the big rule book [BRB]) on the far right hand side of the spread, it defines within under measuring distances. It's wording is

"So, for example, if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model."

This means that the stated measurement of within (insert number)" not only includes a distance under the number, but also the number itself. This may not be much of a factor except for one key difference. This would be the movement phase.

Under the rules in the movement phase under Models in the Way (page 11 of the BRB) it states

"To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting."

Now, coupled with the definition of within (which includes the number inserted [in this case 1]) a model must not be an inch or closer in the movement phase. This means even if you are a hair's width over, snakes eyes means you'll still be under, and therefore not make it.

This could prove to be a devastating blow to units attempting to get into assault... but it is written by G.W., and as such is a binding rule for the game. I know it's not fun to be on the receiving end of this, but I suppose in this game failing is almost always an option which should be considered, and is there to challenge us the player. Battles are never certain, and attempting to force fate often leads to unexpected failures at times... and it is something we must all look to as a way to challenge our skills on the table top.

Well, screw you too, GW.

So, here is the first.

And the second.

As you guys may have previously informed, Daemonhunters no longer have rules to ally with other codices.

Some armies enjoyed those old pieces of wargear, and they just got the big one from Geims Waaaghkshop. Sure, these are now available for free, but what's the damned point, unless you have a royal hardon for Grey Knights?

Question is: might this be an indicator of a new army book coming soon, or GW reminding us what Marcellus Wallace looks like?

Making 40k Your Own

Heretic here with a quick thought. Every army has their own history and great sagas, but in each of them there is a great amount that goes unsaid. For instance, the Imperial codices generally talk about only a few battles in the Horus Heresy, namely the Drop Site Massacre and the Siege of Terra, and leave out the rest. This was supposed to be the end of the Great Crusade, when the Imperium was at its zenith and collapsed in on itself. There must have been more than those two battles. What I'm getting to is filling in the gaps.

I'm currently building a chapter of marines from scratch, as far as backstory; they aren't cannon so there's nothing I can draw on to give them a glorious past. But that also means there are no restraints on how my chapter can have gotten to where they are today. It may or may not be your cup of tea, but I'd suggest you take a few minutes and consider writing a backstory for your army. It really helps me get motivated to work on painting my models and makes me want to get some games in with them.

If a whole chapter isn't your style why not write a story about your favorite model's most glorious victory? Maybe some story of how the Great Wolf rose through the ranks or why your Hive Fleet is awesome. If your army is more exciting to you it might just give you another part of this hobby to enjoy in case you don't get the opportunity to play as often as you'd like.

Liturgies of Blood: Blood Angel Codex Review Part Three

In this final installment of my now very late look at the new Blood Angel codex I will be comparing the new codex to the old pdf codex that the Blood Angels used to run out of. First up, the most obvious benefit of the new codex is that it is an actually bound book and contains a whole section based on the fluff of Blood Angels and a section highlighting professionally done painting jobs of the models described in the book. While this is something that comes standard in every other codex, it is something that the old pdf lacked entirely. However, this isn’t without drawbacks of its own. Most significantly is that by being an actual book it is something that costs money to buy, where the pdf was available for free download. While the fluff and painting display are nice they aren’t by any means necessary for playing the game, so compared to the pdf it is almost like playing the full price of the book just for the binding and nonessential sections. Whether or not this is worth it depends entirely on who you ask, but since this puts us on the same level as every other army I don’t think there is any real justification for complaining.

Next let’s look at the changes to the way that the Blood Angels now play. In terms of army wide special rules the new codex only gave us new things without taking away anything. Before the Bas had no army wide rules available to them that weren’t available to any space marine, while we now have the Red Thirst and Descent of Angels. Both of these rules are advantageous, although they may not be relevant to every possible build of the army, and obviously gaining things without losing is always a good deal. The majority of the units in the army are returning from the old codex and haven’t changed in either stats or wargear options, but they have gotten cheaper (this is mostly due the fact they no longer provide “free” death company, a change covered later in the article). The only real change to the returning infantry units is that the wargear has been changed to be the same as in the new vanilla Space Marine codex (storm shields, I’m looking at you). The biggest changes to returning units take place in the vehicles used by the Blood Angels. The drop pod was now been upgraded to follow the new drop pod assault rule, and by knowing that a unit can come in on the first turn almost where ever you want them and still fire can be a handy strategy. The land raider now has deep strike (a truly weird option that will likely be the focus of my next article). Most importantly is the fact that all rhino based vehicles (the rhino, razorback, predator, baal predator, vindicator, and the whirlwind) are now fast vehicles, a definite upgrade from the old over-charged engines and even that was only available to the rhino. The new baal predator even has the scout rule, which combined with the option to replace its twin-linked assault cannon with a flamestorm cannon, can do devastating things even on the first turn. As for the completely new units like the priests, sanguinary guard, the stromraven, and the new special characters, they are just icing on the cake. They don’t fit into everyone’s play style, but there is no arguing about the fact that they do give new options to choose from without limiting previously existing options and that can only be a good thing.

Finally rare is the change that can be changed without losing something of what it had and the new codex is no exception to this. The special characters changed rather significantly and while the new options can be very good what they do is very different from what they used to do and many people may not like the new versions. Also a big loss to some styles (and a non-issue to other styles) is the change in the death company. Before the death company were a must take as every infantry unit provided a member of the death company (at the cost of the unit costing a little bit more). This made every Blood Angels player use death company and more or less made the death company what set the Bas apart from every other space marine chapter. Now that death company are no longer “free” and must be taken as a Troops choice that can’t hold points and have no way of ignoring the Rage rule once they are out of a transport they require a much more serious investment of points in order to achieve the same results. Furthermore, they now have the ability to take power weapons and fists, but have lost the Rending Rule so the inclusion of some power weapons at additional points is required to make the death company as killy as they use to be. On the plus side the death company has gained a weapon skill, allowing them to hit almost any infantry unit on a 3+, the ability to give everyone power weapons has given them the potential to be ridiculously killy when the points are invested, chaplains now boost the death company even more by allowing rerolls to hit and to wound on the charge, and Furious Charge and Feel No Pain is just as awesome as it used to be. In the end the death company are now something you can build an army around rather than always having, which some people will like and others won’t.

All-in-all the new codex is most definitely an improvement. It allows for new options that no other army has and accentuates the “feel” of the Blood Angel army while inflicting minimal losses. I feel that this codex elevates the Blood Angels from just another space marine variant to their own army to be respected.

Positive and Normative Wargaming

Good day everyone, I thought I'd bring some food for your brains. When we discuss and debate wargaming we fall into one of two general categories in what we say: positive or normative statements. There is a very fundamental difference between these two types of statements and ways of thinking. positive statements are based upon verifiable, objective facts, such as the statement "A fire warrior has a ballistic skill of three." A normative statement is based upon personal beliefs, such as the statement "A fire warrior should have a ballistic skill of four." If a debate centers around positive statements there are facts that can be referred to to solve the dispute. If the debate centers around normative statements there is no independent, objective source of data to which to turn to solve the dispute. In an normative debate, all points of view are equally valid as they are based on beliefs, not evidence.

How does this apply to wargaming? When we are constructing army lists, what do we look for? Do we look for an army that is mathematically the most damaging for the points spent, an army that resembles one from a story, or do we try to make an army how they "should be?" The first approach is based in positive thinking: there is statistical data that can be compiled to analyze the amount of kills a unit should get for its points, if used ideally. The second approach has some grounding in each as you are looking at a force whose composition can be verified, but you are sometimes sacrificing more points efficient units for accuracy. The third approach is entirely based on normative thinking. How an army "should" be is based entirely on your own opinion. I may not agree with your perception of what an army "should" be composed of, but that does not make my opinion any more or less valid than yours.

What do you folks think? Which type of thinking do you employ more often when you think about wargaming? Which do you think is more prevalent in the community at large or in our local gaming group?

Battle Report IV: Heretic v. ZerkeX

VS






A battle between Underground Heretic and ZerkeX. Points total was 2000k, and they played a special scenario from the Battle Missions book.

Please excuse the background noise, and a few errors on my part. Also, at one point a picture is referenced from the 40k Wartruck, but I'll post it here so you can all get a good chuckle out of it.



Cheers!