Topic 2 Posts


Glorious Near-Victory

Glorious Near-Victory
An Imperial Fist army on a gaming table, mid-game of Warhammer 40k

I haven't had access to my Thursday nights for a while. There's a pretty good reason for that (antenatal classes) but it does mean I've been unable to get to Crossfire Gaming for a while. Today, that changed. I have a precious window of opportunity between the end of the antenatal classes and the start of, well, having a child.

As such I was able to get over to the village hall and do tiny battle, fighting my way to another glorious near-victory. I hear what you're saying, you're saying "near-victory sure sounds like a euphamism for defeat" and to that I say yeah, obviously.

I also say "bloody Tau". I haven't beaten the Tau once. Not once, I tell you. Of course part of that is because I play fluffy lists and I don't give a damn about mathshammering or scouring tournament lists for strategic tips. I just like putting tiny men on a table and rolling dice for an evening.

That said, I think if we counted up the victory points I'd have done better than either I or my opponent think I did from objective play. Thing is, when you get utterly tabled it doesn't matter much how you played the objectives. Still, it feels thematically 'space marine' to play the objective and take catastrophic losses. I'll console myself with that.

Rule of cool, friend, rule of cool.

10th Edition

10th Edition
My fearless Imperial Fists on their way to a narrow defeat

I've actually managed to play a couple of games of 10th edition. It's been out less than a month and I've nearly played as many games of 10th edition as I did of 9th. There's a few reasons for that but honestly one of the main ones is that 10th edition is simpler to play.

Cutting down from the rule book, the codex and extraneous paraphenalia like strategems really helps. I played a game with my Imperial Fists using five sheets of A4. A game with Imperial Guard using four sheets. Not only does that make it easier to pack it has a much more important role.

Before the fight I give my sheets of A4 to my opponent, they give me theirs and in moments we have a full understanding of each others' armies and their abilities. That is game changing. No more slogging through an opponent's codex (if you have access to it) to get a sense of what they might be able to do to you.

There are some downsides. A lot of people have issue with the lack of granularity in the points. There's some truth to this. My Basilisks got revalued just before my match last night and having to tweak things around to find 40 or so points in my list when I couldn't just drop a couple of dozer blades and plasma pistols but had to swap whole units around was a problem.

Counterpoint: Everything in both matches I've had has been its' most elite, lethal version of itself. Sergeants with plasma pistols and power weapons because the chainswords aren't a cheaper option any more. Plasma cannons and lascanons on tanks, kitted out special weapons. It makes the game feel grand and powerful. I like that.

The cover and line of sight rules on the other hand are... strange. Two squads, each on the upper deck of a ruin, firing across what's technically a 'ruin' but much lower in the middle of the board can no longer see each other as that short ruin represents an obscuring pillar reaching into the sky. The opposite is true of a squad hiding behind a tank or their transport. Models don't block line of sight any more so they're out in the open, counter intuitively. It's weird, yes, but it goes both ways so it's not unfair.

Oh and also, my dice are cursed. Let me tell you, people are complaining about indirect fire in 10th edition but that doesn't matter when every attack from your Basilisk is a 1 or a 2.

But here's the most important conclusion I have reached after two games.

10th edition is faster to play. It's better balanced (both matches I've played were incredibly close to being draws even though they were wildly mismatched in many ways). That makes it fun.