Thursday, June 28, 2012

My thoughts on reactions to 6th

Different Perspectives

So as I anxiously await my book, I have been reading a few more blogs than normal and I am distressed by the number that are already planning reactions to the new ruleset.

I'm not talking about the tweaking of army lists, but the bold statements of outlawing parts of the book. 

Over-Reaction #1
TWO Force Org Charts at 2000 points.
This is simple, either play a bit smaller games, 1999 or 1750 or somewhere in between, or admit that at 2000 points and above the Force Org Chart gets a bit restrictive.

Over Reaction #2
To include two allied detachments if you use a second Force Org Chart.  I don't see this breaking the game, or the first sign of the apocolypse, but it seems a fun way to use some new models in a game without having a whole army built.  The guard and Space Marine combos should be quite fun to see.  Since we don't know how any of the FAQ's will affect armies with special characters and uber-leet rules, it is just too early to cry foul.  Has the game changed? Yes.  I think its going to be more fun.  I have freinds who will love these rules for the possibilities of Demons + Chaos, Sisters with Guard, Lost and the Damned.  Heck, you might even be able to build a "counts as" 13th Co with some Space Wolves and White Scars or maybe Blood Angels.

Over Reaction #3
I think that we will find that we will start to love this slot.  It's one piece of terrain, that if included, takes points away from the army list.  You want the big tower, that's 220 less points of guys on the table.  I can't wait to see some of the awesome terrain included on display boards actually be able to be used in game.  My biggest worry is that this will mean even less terrain placed on boards.

Over Reaction #3
Mysterious Terrain / Random Objective effects.
I actually like the idea that we don't know what is in some of the terrain.  I think the reactions of those who will disallow this without first playing a single game with it is crazy.  Honestly, if you are so worried about the changes, find some people who feel the same way and keep playing 5th edition.  I think you should be able to find the rulebooks on ebay really cheap once yours wears out.

Anyways, here's hoping your book arrives soon and you enjoy yourself.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Blast Weapons in 6th. An actual rule.

"Blast Weapons
When firing a Blast or Large Blast Weapon at a vehicle, place the marker with the hole over any part of the vehicle's hull and then roll for scatter as normal.  In the case of multiple blasts, the vehicle will be hit once each time any part of a blast marker ends up over the vehicle or its base.  The armour penetration roll is resolved against the Armour Value facing the firer, regardless of the position of the marker, using the full Strength of the weapon"

Image stolen from Faeit 212, enlarged and sort-of made easier to read.

Ok, so what does this mean?  I know that my Manticore just got a whole lot happier!  I think all IG artillery just got a huge boost, since no longer do you need to have the center hole on the hull to penetrate a vehicle.  For example, a Basilisk could scatter 4" left and still hit a Chimera with its full strength.  Before if it was off by 2" it would have only used half strength.  Very interesting times ahead.  I can't wait for my book to arrive.

Only AP1, 2 and 3? (edited - probably not)

I could be way off base here, but two things have pointed me into asking this question. 1. This picture below, notice no AP's higher than 3. 

2.  In the picture below, the vehicle markers list AP3, AP2 and AP1 dice only.

What does this mean?

I think that we might be able to make two guesses.

1. Armors of 4+,5+, and even 6+ just got more relevant.  Flamers might not instant kill 5+ save guys.  Wow!

2. AP3 weapons might be the only ones that can hurt vehicles?  Or AP3 and all other weapons all have the same damage results, while AP2 and AP1 have different results.  It is likely all weapons are being updated in the rulebook, but I'm not sure that it would only be AP3 weapons able to hurt vehicles.  If so, the multilaser above couldn't hurt vehicles and I think that is unlikely.

I could also be very wrong and they may have just made AP6 weapons like the multilaser AP-. (this appears to be the case)

Any thoughts?

As more details emerge it seem that it is much more likely that AP1 weapons get plus 2 on the damge chart, AP2 gets plus 1 and AP3 and worse just use the normal damage chart, while AP - suffers no negagtives.

Since the multilaser was made AP 6 specifically so it could hurt vehicles, I'm assuming, are there any other weapons that will also chamge?   Will Eldar Scatter Lasers lose their AP6?  Could frag missiles, mortars and sniper rifles also see theirs disappear?

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Starting Fresh or just touching up

As I prepare for 6th Edition of 40K to arrive, I find myself asking if I should just tweak my armies, or consider a whole new build from the ground up. 

When 5th edition arrived, I mainly made small adjustments and just tweaked the lists a bit.  If I plan to tweak the army, I'll consider what I own first and my established theme of the army and then try and make something work.  This minimizes my expenditures and likely gets me into games with a painted army much quicker.

But, consider if first I look at the new rules, examine the codex and then decide what would be fun to play.  Notice I don't say most effective, because honestly I'm just not that good a player.  But occasionally I can get a theme and a few tactics/strategies to work.

When I see fun models to use that have fairly good rules, I get inspired to do all sorts of conversions and really enjoy the hobby aspect.

I think my Raven Guard are most likely to suffer, especially since they never got finished.  But if I finalize and trim my Space Wolves down, I can of course re-purpose more wolves into ravens.

My Eldar have suffered from never having a set theme and of all my armies could most use the reboot. 

My Imperial Guard have lost their way a bit, and I need to make a choice as to how much armored support they will have.

Well, lets hope the new edition opens some new possibilities and sparks my creativity.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Preparing your IG for 6th (Flamers)

Just a quick post to get you thinking about where to put your flamers in an IG combined squad.  In 5th edition, you just had to make sure they were in the front.  The rumors about 6th edition point to wound allocation starting from the closest models.  If we assume that we still may not place the flame template over friendly models in the same unit, which seems quite reasonable, we will still want our flamers up front.  But we need a few ablative wounds forward of them to keep them alive long enough to use their flamers.
The picture above shows us a combined squad with three flamers.  (They seem a bit less than 30 so there must have already been some casualties.)

I have tried to protect the flamers by moving them back a bit in the ranks, but as you see, this restricts their field of fire.  Also, as we can spread the unit out wider to try and get more models in front of the flamers, but that makes us more vulnerable to assaults from the side.
One thing also I have done, and it may be hard to see, is that the Vox Operator and both remaining Sergeants are at the back of the unit.  Since the Sgt’s aren’t IC’s, I only need to get them within 2” for them to be in the combat, and there is no reason for them to risk their lives (and leadership) at the front of the unit.

I know I will be continuing to try and work out the best position for them.  What do you think?

Saturday, June 09, 2012

Shrike in Progress

I've been able to do a bit of work on Shrike and a few figures, but going back to school after 21 years has been a bit more demanding than I thought.  My hobby time has been cut severly, but I hope to get this army finished soon.  I still have a lot of work to do on Shrike but the base and ork casualty are pretty much done.

Friday, June 01, 2012

Raven Guard Jump Pack Librarian

So, I needed a Librarian with Jump Pack to give my Assualt Squad and Shrike a bit more durability.  This is the guy I was able to make since I couldn't find one with a Jump Pack and most had staffs which I can't see working too well while flying.
Probably the best shot of this guy.

The brass etch on the leg came out nicely.

As I looked at the photos I saw the horrendous mold line on the bolt pistol and the fact that I had not drilled it yet.  But I think he is very nice for tabletop quality.  Well, what do you think?

a Shrike Teaser

So here he is, definitely a Work in Progress.  So what do you think about using a larger base for special characters and other minis?

Note:  I've edited and replaced the original picture to imporve the loading speed of the site and reduce cross linking.