40k: Forest Guard Sentinel

Recently I finished up another model/unit for my Imperial Guard Astra Militarum:

Who wants some?!

Who wants some?!

These pictures aren’t perfect, they’re a little dark, but I’m super happy with how this guy turned out. What I’m most pleased with is that the posing is pretty dynamic for a walker. It was a little fiddly to hold everything at the desired angles while also gluing the joints, but the whole leg assembly is really posable and the feet and cab are on ball joints so there was a lot of room to play.

Whoa, buddy, hold 'er steady!

Whoa, buddy, hold ‘er steady!

This was super fast to paint, and it came out simple but effective. I couldn’t come up with a two-tone vehicle scheme to match my Forest Guard infantry pattern that I was happy with, so I went with straight brown. In the end I think it’ll go well with the duders while also standing out from them, is more realistic than a two-tone, isn’t green or gray like GW’s demo models tend toward, and was easy to do. The core process was basically:

  • Primer: Army Painter white spray
  • Body: Steel Legion Drab base coat x2, Vermin Brown drybrush (this color name is no longer produced by GW), Agrax Earthshade wash
  • Metal bits: Leadbelcher base, Mithril silver drybrush highlights, Nuln Oil wash
  • Rubble: Skavenblight Dinge base coat x2, Codex Grey drybrush, Bleached Bone base & Skull White drybrush for the ossuary skeletons and skull, all washed with Nuln Oil
  • Base: Vermin Brown base coat, several coats along the outer rim

The Vermin Brown drybrush all over the body was heavier than I meant it to be and made the model a little lighter in color than I was originally thinking, but introduced some nice subtle colorations, particularly after the wash. On some of the larger panels it has a really neat sun-faded effect (hard to see in the photos).

Unfortunately I must have let too much matte sealer spray coat collect in some places because the colors shifted and muted a bit in places, particularly the metals. Some of the finer details also frosted over a bit. It’s particularly noticeable around the skulls on the weapons. Didn’t affect the cab too much though, and won’t be noticeable at all on the tabletop.

The rubble served two purposes: It let me build up a little height to give the body more of a loping, firing-on-the-move cant, and let me introduce a block of dark grey to subtly further connect the model visually with the Forest Guard infantry two-tone.

To the left!

To the left!

To the right!

To the right!

The weapon side of the cab is magnetized, and I have both a plasmacannon and a lascannon ready to go.

You feelin' lucky, punk?!

You feelin’ lucky, punk?!

A lascannon on a BS3 chassis.  Yep, that'll scare 'em.

A lascannon on a BS3 chassis. Yep, that’ll scare ’em.

Painting my Guard has been really fun so far, as long as I totally ignore how few points are getting done with each session. I’ve consciously worked to keep the painting process simple and to be a bit faster and less obsessive than I had been on my Kingbreakers. That’s paid dividends as I’ve then let loose a bit on those Marines as well and they are also now getting done faster, with no true consequences on the quality. Having this other small force going also helps a lot with the monotony of doing millions of shoulder pad trims, definitely the part I hate most about Space Marines. Not doing any hard edging or highlights, and having two core colors (brown body + gray armor) rather than four (tan legs, blue torso, green arms, red trim) makes quite a refreshing change in switching to the Guard for a bit. The Forest Guard also look quite different from my Kingbreakers, though they work together pretty well visually.

More to come!

40k: 7th Shooting—The Bane of Vulkan

40k-7th-coverAs most have no doubt heard already even if they haven’t yet gotten their own rulebook or given it a play, shooting in 7th edition 40k has been updated. The changes aren’t earth shattering, especially in casual play, but they are worth taking note. For example, Focus Fire is gone, so you can no longer specifically target just models outside of cover and pile more wounds onto them. Although that was useful and a good tactic, I don’t see its removal as a terrible loss. I doubt most players, particularly outside competitive play, had ever even used it much.

What I want to discuss briefly is the change to the order in which weapons fire. It also is neither a huge change nor one I consider negative, but it does have consequences on how you shoot, and depending on how you look at it either reduces the effectiveness or changes the tactics for some weapons loadouts.

If you spot any needed corrections to my understanding or have thoughts on the handful of open questions, please share them in the comments below!

Sixth Edition

Previously, all weapons fired simultaneously. All rolls to hit and wound for pistols, flamers, boltguns, etc., were conceptually all done at the same time. This could lead to some funny effects that weren’t game breaking, particularly as they generally only came up infrequently, but definitely weird if you even noticed it.

For example, suppose I have a couple Ultramarine Tacticals with a meltagun staring down some Chaos Marines and their buddy Abaddon, as in the figure below. All of the Ultramarines are within 12″ of one Chaos Marine. Another traitor and Abaddon are not. Clearly, the two boltgunners can double tap for 2 shots on the first guy, and the meltagunner is also in range to shoot. Somewhat weirdly though not obviously so, by the 6th edition’s “Out of Range” rules (pg 16), I could apply all of those boltgun shots to all the enemy models even though I got 2 extra shots for the one guy alone being in half range (12″). Really weirdly if you stop to think about it, by those rules I could also use the boltgun shots to take out the two Chaos Marines and then apply the meltagun shot to Abaddon, much better for me, even though he is completely out of range for that weapon.

Abaddon takes an impossible melta shot to the face.

Abaddon takes an impossible melta shot to the face.

Similarly, suppose I have two Tacticals with boltguns and one with a flamer facing off against Hormagaunts coming out of some ruins as below. I’d like to apply the flamer wounds to the guys in the back to negate their cover save. By those same “Out of Range” rules in 6th edition, I could do that even though the template doesn’t reach them. Everything shoots at once, and say everything hits and wounds (quite conceivable). I allocate the bolter wounds first and the front three Hormies are dead, maybe one guy in the back makes his cover save on the remaining bolter shot. I then apply the flamer wounds and the back guys are denied cover and die.

A gout of flame magically leaps into the nearest ruin.

A gout of flame magically leaps into the nearest ruin.

Seventh Edition

Relatively minor as they were in the overall scheme of 40k weirdness, seventh edition eliminates those oddities. Now, you activate a unit to shoot with and nominate a particular weapon class, e.g., boltgun or flamer, further defined below. All of the weapons of that class in the unit may fire, and all of the hits, wounds, and casualty removal for those shots is resolved simultaneously before nominating and resolving another weapon class. Players can still elect to not shoot with particular models for any given weapon class, but cannot go back to that weapon class to shoot with them later in the order. Models still of course cannot fire more than one weapon in a shooting phase unless they’re specifically permitted to do so, e.g., vehicles, Techmarines with a Servo-Harness, some characters.

Most importantly: It’s implied by the new ordered shooting, but the revised “Out of Range” rules (page 35) then make very clear that enemy models cannot be removed if they’re not in range of the models and weapon class currently firing. In the above examples, that means I need to nominate the meltagun and flamer before the boltguns or risk wasting the special weapons. Firing the boltguns first might remove potential casualties within the special weapons’ lesser range, while the boltguns could have shot models in the rear even with those in front removed.

Apply with care!

Apply with care!

Notably, weapon class is determined by the combination of name, ammo, and mode. So, bolt pistols and boltguns are different weapons even though they both fire bolter shells with the same damage stats. Ammunition is also clear; Sternguard firing their Dragonfire bolts (24″ range, ignores cover) shoot at a different order step than Sternguard firing Vengeance rounds (18″ range, AP3, Gets Hot).

Unfortunately, I don’t believe a formal definition of weapon mode is given in the rules. Perhaps not totally obviously, it all but certainly means differentiating between rapid fire weapons double tapping at half range versus shooting single shots at full range. Salvo weapons firing stationary versus moving are a more intuitive example of different modes. Importantly, the rules explicitly state that the maximum range for a weapon is applied regardless of the mode used. In the topmost example above, if the boltguns fire first, rapid fire due to an enemy being in 12″, and produce four wounds, all four would be applied even if that single model within half range to double tap is removed. The rules justify this as the shots flying on and getting lucky. Sounds reasonable to me, and makes sense in terms of a small practical convenience and not diminishing those weapons.

Similarly to not defining weapon modes, I don’t believe the rules explicitly state whether mastercrafted and twin-linked weapons fire at different times from the regular weapon. Given the focus on ordering weapons by “different names,” they all but certainly do when purchased as entries with those adjectives in the army list. More tricky is whether or not they count as different names when purchased the same but upgraded through some other mechanism. For example, is a Salamanders Sergeant’s boltgun that has been mastercrafted via their chapter traits different from the other boltguns in his squad? I would have to assume so given that you would have to roll different dice for those weapons anyway.

Fortunately, the rules do make clear that combi-weapons fire at the same time as whichever component you are choosing to fire, e.g., boltgun or meltagun.

Flame Away!

Given those rules, there are a few new tactical considerations, the most obvious ones revolving around range, templates, and blasts.

For example, units with different classes of flamers now need to be maneuvered with more care and in different fashion than before. The figure below shows one of my favorite setups and tactics: Vulkan and some Tactical buddies leap out of a Drop Pod to double flame a blob of baddies in a column. Unfortunately for me, either Vulkan or the flamer now has to resolve shooting first. In the arrangement below, that’s going to completely remove all the enemies in template range, wasting the other flamer. Previously the Salamanders here would almost certainly eliminate the entire blob (16 Hormagaunts versus 14 definite flamer kills and 9 remaining bolt shots: 2/9 hits+wounds needed to eliminate). Now they’ll severely cripple but almost certainly not completely remove the Tyranids (16 Hormagaunts versus 7 definite flamer kills and 9 remaining bolt shots: 9/9 hits+wounds needed to eliminate).

Fire does not mix with fire!

Fire does not mix with fire!

At first I was thinking this made mixed-flamer teams inefficient, and it does in some precise configurations like this one. But really I’ll just have to think more about how I deploy and move them. For example, looking at that blob, I need to put higher priority than before on landing and moving to the right, top, or bottom of it, so that both flamers will have at least some targets even after casualty removal. This consideration applies for some other units as well. Presumably Vulkan’s Gauntlet is not a heavy flamer in terms of having different names for shooting ordering, even though his entry says “The Gauntlet … is a heavy flamer.” So I have this same issue even if he comes down with heavy flamer toting Sternguard. Somewhat more difficult to accommodate given the practicalities of Drop Pods, movement, and terrain would be a Sternguard squad wielding a mix of heavy flamers and combi-flamers. In my experience the heavies would frequently render the combi-flamers useless. Another unit with the same new challenge is a Blood Angels Dreadnought equipped with a heavy flamer and twin linked heavy flamer.

Tactics

Generalizing from that, these changes to shooting aren’t huge but do require additional care. Right now I’m working on developing my rules of thumb for ordering shots in common situations. At the top level it’s pretty clear that should generally follow increasing range with exceptions to maximize templates, blasts, and rapid fire/single shot flexibility, something like:

  1. ~9″ Templates
  2. 8″ Grenades
  3. 12″ Pistols
  4. 12″ Rapid Fire
  5. 24″
  6. 36″
  7. 48″

For my Marines the details of those rules of thumb, largely for Tacticals, so far are:

  1. Heavy flamers
  2. Flamers
  3. Combi-flamers (save for last of flamers in case they’d be useless to pop)
  4. Frag grenade (after the flamers as the former are generally more likely to wound, particularly for Salamanders) or krak grenade (not actually sure if it doesn’t make sense to put this first, before flamers, given the limited range)
  5. Meltaguns
  6. Plasma pistols (after meltaguns to avoid gets hot if not needed)
  7. Bolt pistols (after meltaguns and plasma pistols if potentially assaulting to delay decisions (see below); otherwise, before plasma pistols)
  8. Frag missiles (fired here to maximize models under the blast, moved after rapid firing if there’s a bunch of enemies outside 12″ range, and again to after single-shots if there are clusters beyond 24″ range)
  9. Plasma cannons (fired here to maximize models under the blast, moved after rapid firing if there’s a bunch of enemies outside 12″ range, and again to after single-shots if there are clusters beyond 24″ range)
  10. Rapid-firing boltguns
  11. Rapid-firing plasmaguns (after boltguns to avoid gets hot if not needed)
  12. Storm bolters (moved before bolt pistols if potentially assaulting)
  13. Multi-meltas
  14. Single-shot boltguns
  15. Single-shot plasmaguns (after boltguns to avoid gets hot if not needed)
  16. Heavy bolters
  17. Krak missiles
  18. Lascannons
weapons

I don’t care who shoots first, just shoot, shoot!

Obviously actual circumstances would dictate changes to the ordering, e.g., moving meltaguns up or down depending on where the toughest armor is in the opposing unit. Some orderings also don’t matter, like multi-meltas versus single-shot boltguns or krak missiles versus lascannons. But that’s the kind of general priorities I’m trying to get into my head.

One interesting note is that the order isn’t declared in advance. That’s helpful if you’re looking at potentially assaulting a unit. Again thinking mostly about Marines, if you have some flamers, a special pistol on your sergeant, meltaguns, and/or use a grenade, you could shoot at a unit a bit before making a decision about whether or not to use bolt pistols with the bulk of your squad so you can assault, or use rapid firing boltguns to try and finish it off in shooting instead if it’s been severely diminished. Similarly, the ordered shooting allows you to have a bit more information before you have to decide whether or not to shoot with every model or weapon in cases where that might risk putting the target out of realistic assault range.

Conclusion

Other than probably needing some tweaks to army construction and potentially but not necessarily a few of the psychic powers, I’m pretty optimistic about seventh edition. I don’t think there are many new things that will slow down the game more once people are used to them, including this new shooting algorithm as well as the psychic phase. Several of the changes, like the vehicles updates, have actually brought more balance to the game, while others like this revised shooting have fixed some oddities. My early thoughts are it should be a really good era of 40k once tournaments figure out what they need to tweak.

Bring it.

Bring it.

40k: Books & Books & Books

7th-coverWith GW seriously ramping up its book and model output for 40k over the past year, and 6th and now 7th editions having wide open army construction rules, there are some crazy combos out there. A lot of tournaments have already applied or are talking about restrictions such as “Your army must come from 2 sources.” That seems pretty reasonable to me. But, particularly now with 7th edition, I think it’d be better to define the restriction in terms of “2 factions.”

Factions

Previously I don’t think 40k had a formal definition of “faction.” This edition though actually has a fairly clear one, on page 118. Some obvious things are made formal, following the traditional notion of each codex book as a faction.  For example, Salamanders Space Marines aren’t a faction while Blood Angels are. It also specifies that all the units selected from a codex are of that faction unless noted otherwise, even in the now common case that the unit exists in multiple codexes. More usefully, in a needed formalization, the section also explicitly says that all the units in a codex supplement belong to that codex’s faction.

Sources

The primary problem with restrictions based on “sources” is specifying what counts as a source.

For example, I doubt most people would object to a Space Marine detachment allied with Imperial Guard. But suppose I want to include an Aegis Defense Line or Imperial Bunker? That also seems totally reasonable. But that’s now three distinct books: The Space Marines and Astra Militarum codexes, plus Stronghold Assault. Note that ADLs, Bastions, etc., have all been removed from the core rulebook in this edition, so lots of people will presumably be grudgingly buying and wanting to use the Stronghold Assault book. Even with diminished quadguns and other skyfire weapons, with scoring permitted from buildings, improved/clarified Void Shields, and D weapons in the core game, I expect bastions and such to return in popularity; I’ve been a fan of the Imperial Bunker since the book came out. Generally I think the fortifications in Stronghold Assault are pretty reasonable and not overpowered, so it or some subset should almost definitely be allowed in nearly all tournaments. The main question to me is whether or not to allow D weapons, from any book, not just Stronghold, the answer to which should probably be the same answer to whether or not to allow Stronghold’s mighty bulwarks and other buildings with AV15.

These guys are not a game breaking setup.

These guys are not a game breaking setup.

The problem is then what to do about defining “sources,” because that quite reasonable Space Marine + IG + ADL/Bunker army has three. You can’t just arbitrarily allow three sources and hold to the original intent of the restriction because then somebody brings some ridiculous Tau + Eldar + Necron combo or such, eliminating which is the whole point of the exercise.

You could carve out Stronghold Assault as not counting toward the source limit, but then you get stuck into an ever deepening hole of special exemptions to what counts as a “source.” Does Escalation count as a source, assuming it’s permitted? What about Codex: Imperial Knights? Assuming you’re willing to allow at least a subset of the units in any of those books into the game, you now have all the same problems. More challenging, suppose GW puts out a new, modest fortification model in the near future, and includes rules in the box as they initially did with some of the latest pieces? Or publishes a new variant or updated rules for an existing unit in White Dwarf? Do those count toward the source limit? At that point you’re looking at either limiting people’s army selections, which might be reasonable in a heavily competition oriented event like a GT but less so otherwise, or you’re building complex lists of exceptions and periodically updating them according to GW’s production whims.

Similar to all of that are the supplements. Say I want to field Codex: Space Marines plus Sentinels of Terra as my core army. Does that hit my two source limit already, prohibiting any allies, knights, fortifications, or superheavies ? As another, presumably very common possibility, what about Codex: Chaos Space Marines + Black Legion + Codex: Chaos Daemons? It would be unduly limiting to include supplements in the sources count, but to not do so then the definition of “sources” needs to spell that out. But then what if some supplement down the line includes units it explicitly puts into different factions?

Dataslates + Formations

A closely related question then is whether or not to include dataslates and formations. Caveat some other explicit restriction, under the “factions” terminology they would be included, and you could use several at once provided they stayed within the faction limit. Notably, though they would be limited in number, the “sources” phrasing would also permit you to take one, which could be all you need to cause trouble, assuming there is trouble to be had. There definitely could be or possibly already are some formations or dataslates that are not desirable but fall within the two sources limit, permitting codex + ebook.

Whether or not to include these is a whole separate topic. One important quick point though is that though often lumped together, these should be considered separately. Other than some potential absurdly powerful unit, dataslates introducing a new model/unit variant are almost always going to be much less problematic than formations, which either introduce new benefits with no additional cost or enable crazy quantities or combos of units. Restricting these should be considered separately, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all for many tournaments to say yes to dataslates but no to formations.

My main point here is that in regards to dataslates and formations, the “sources” phrasing doesn’t do a particularly better job than “factions” at getting to the heart of the problem despite all the extra baggage outlined above. Either way you cut it, additional rules are needed, and it’s cleaner to phrase them in terms of factions. For example, I suspect some of the worst formation problems could be dealt with by saying “No more than 1 detachment of any given faction is permitted.” There would be some collateral damage there, like preventing the Codex: Space Marine chapters from allying with themselves. But unless I’m mistaken it would also very cleanly prevent builds I believe to be generally considered problematic, like the Tau Empire + Farsight Enclaves + Firebase Support Cadre combo.

Formal Terms

All in all, it’s much more elegant to simply say “Armies may include at most 2 factions” rather than restricting sources. That gets at the heart of the problem, preventing crazy non-traditional army combos, while still cleanly and clearly allowing in the various codex supplements and expansions. Obviously there could be other rules, say to exclude D weapons and AV15, permit only 2 detachments, or exclude formations, but they’ll all be sitting on a much more clear and formal framework. In general, it’s almost always simpler, more effective, and causes less collateral damage to do these kinds of restrictions in terms of formal game concepts like “faction” or “buildings with AV15” rather than informal, external ephemera like which source/book a unit came from—particularly as it could come from several—or the ostensible manufacturer, i.e., restricting Forge World.

From ForgeWorld, probably not game breaking.

From ForgeWorld, probably not game breaking.

From ForgeWorld, probably game breaking.

From ForgeWorld, probably game breaking.

Summoning

As a final note, regardless of the phrasing in terms of “sources” or “factions,” some clarification should be made regarding conjurations. If I’m using the malefic powers in the core rulebook and summoning units from Codex: Chaos Daemons, as it explicitly notes, does that count against my sources/factions limit? Much as it horrifies the fluffy player in me, you could certainly have somebody now with a totally reasonable main list of just Space Marines + Astra Militarum + Stronghold Assault who is also putting Chaos Daemons on the board in-game. Again, any clarified permission or enforced restriction here should be made in formal game terms and be crafted to be proof against potential future codex and supplement updates, i.e., not specifically about Chaos Daemons or malefic powers. It wouldn’t shock me at all for some future army or unit to have powers to summon something besides daemons, like an Eldar Avatar, Ork golem of Gork (or Mork), or something akin to the Space Marine Legion of the Damned. I would guess such a rule or clarification should be phrased along the lines of something like:

  • Permissive: Units created by conjuration powers do not count against a player’s faction limit even if they are of a different faction from those used in the player’s army list.
  • Restrictive: Units created by conjuration powers count against the number of factions permitted to be fielded by a player.

Note that in terms of these kinds of restrictions the latter basically means you’re taking Chaos Daemons as an ally if you use the malefic conjuration powers, whether or not you have any daemons in your starting list.