2018 - 2019

It's that time of year when the Roman God Janus encourages us to look back at the year we've just had and to look forward to the year ahead. Following this tradition, I shall be discussing what I have achieved over the past 12 months, and what I intend on doing over the next 12. As I did this last year, I can also compare what my hopes were versus what I managed to do.

2018  

It's been an interesting 12 months.

I've been juggling trying to find the correct format for some events against working more events away and also some personal life stuff. This lead to me being a little hit and miss on things in 2018.

I only managed 50 posts this last year, falling 2 posts short of the 52 posts a year target. Failing by two posts isn't a huge deal, but I want to make sure it doesn't become a habit. Everything I said about the purpose of the Blog last year still holds true.

The Quick Hit series helped, not only to give me a regular source of content but to allow me to analyse all the Codexes as they released at a break-neck pace. Thanks to all the people that let me borrow books from them to facilitate this effort. I've had positive feedback on the series, so will be looking at something similar to replace it.

Local events have been a little bit wayward compared to my intended amount as well. Star Wars X-Wing has managed to be regular, but others have fallen to the wayside. This is far from ideal and something I seriously need to rectify. The Christmas Star Wars Day events was a success though, and so were the Store Championships.

I worked quite a bit with Asmodee and had a great time doing so. From judging at Nationals and Euros to demoing at Tabletop Gaming Live and Insomnia, it's been fun. The best bit is the colleagues, there are some wonderful people at Asmodee and on the Judge and Demo teams. I look forward to seeing more of them all.

I played more at my own events. This lead to those events being more enjoyable for me and let me get back into playing those games properly. I still have the option of building more fun decks/lists, but now when I don't I end up playing games against people on a similar level. The easy solution to get around claims of dodgy rulings on my own games is to not claim prizes. This leaves me only playing for pride while not actually denying people a prize. if it's a semi-important event and I do well, then the prize I would earn gets passed down. If it's a regular event, then any promos I would win simply stay in the prize pool.

I've attended a few X-Wing and Final Fantasy TCG events run by other people in 2018, but other than that mostly failed to play outside my own events. I have gotten in a tonne of casual 40K games as well as some Keyforge and a lot more MTG Commander than previous years though.

On the personal side, I have had 3 close relatives pass away at various points during 2018, an Aunt, a Grandmother and a Grandfather. Between funerals and my mental state around those events, it's been difficult to focus on doing the gaming side of things.

The lowest point was the Cornish Nationals. My Grandfather had recently been diagnosed with Terminal Cancer, and that weekend had been readmitted to the hospital. I debated not going to the event, as I wasn't in the best of moods, but it was for Charity so I did travel down with the rest of the Marauders hoping that the team's presence would help.

Round one, I got smashed largely down to zero evades present on my green dice. My red dice were hot, but I was only managing to do 1-2 damage a round versus losing a ship in return. A bit jarring, but whatever. I spent the rest of the round forcing myself back into a positive attitude, watching the games around me. Pairings for the next round were called and, due to a player having to drop out, I received the bye. 20 mins later, all my enthusiasm dropped away. With a lunch break due after the round, it was going to be 2 hours before I'd get another game of X-Wing in. I went outside for a break and an attempt at clearing my head, but it was too late.

I played the next round with the intention of dropping and did so. It wasn't worth forcing myself to continue to play a tournament when my heart just wasn't in it. I relaxed for the rest of the day and played in the Hanger Bay side event in the evening.

It's a sobering lesson; if you aren't in the correct headspace to play in a tournament, don't force yourself. Nothing is wrong with just hanging out and spending time with fellow players, and that in itself can prove to be a helpful escape. But the point to playing a game is to enjoy yourself, and sometimes outside issues will make that impossible. Don't play for the sake of playing, make sure you take care of yourself first.

2019  

So moving forward, it's time to put the bad stuff in the past and get back on the improvement train.

The blog will continue. I still feel like I have plenty to say and the written form is my preferred way of expressing myself. What I need to do is both promote the blog more and make an attempt to get more engagement from you, the readers. Currently, I'm basically putting my thoughts out on the internet, and I'm not getting much in the way of online response. It would be nice to see more comments from readers on the Blog, especially if they disagree with me. I want to see more alternate viewpoints on things, rather than come across as some sort of all-knowing oracle, even though I do give that impression some(most) times.

Local events need more work. I need to get better on the promotion side of events, as well as improving the visibility of my "brand" Baron Administrator Tournaments. Going into 2019, I will be focusing on running weekend events for the following games;

• Star Wars X-Wing
• Star Wars the Living Card Game
• Warhammer 40,000
• Keyforge

With these core four games, I can focus my efforts on getting them running monthly and promoting them across social media. I also want to use the Blog to help with this, putting up reports on the events. It's going to require a lot of discipline on my part, as well as a lot of time, but it should be worth doing.

More work with Asmodee is on the cards. I had to turn down a lot of Christmas Demo work due to the aforementioned family issues, but I will get back into doing it soon. I'm also on the Judge team for the UK X-Wing System Open in Milton Keynes. It's going to be a great opportunity to hang out with Judge friends and see some of the best players from across Europe play X-Wing. I can't wait.

UK X-Wing System Series Open - Milton Keynes 2019 

I'm going to continue to play in my own events, and try to get more gaming done in general. I enjoy gaming and have stuff for plenty of games that I found zero time to play last year, so I'm going to make a concerted effort to play more of them this year. Especially games like the Game of Thrones Card Game or VS2PCG where I keep buying new cards, but failing to find time/opponents.
I'll also try and reflect this in the blog, posting about a wider variety of games as I play them.

Finally, I want to try and get to more events run by other people. There is always something to learn from seeing what they are doing, as well as how the players are enjoying the event. It also lets me play against people I wouldn't normally see, in the case of events that require travel, or play games I don't normally have the time to play, in the case of Yugioh.

All in all, I'm taking a positive outlook on 2019. As an aside, it's kinda weird that I'm writing and publishing this on the 7th of January, exactly one year after the last one. Here's hoping I can manage the same thing next year.


Did you enjoy what you read?
Do you have something to say?
Do you have an opposing opinion?
Feel free to comment below, and please share this post with your friends.

Codex Adeptus Sororitas feedback

As the Sisters of Battle book is currently a Beta Codex, Games Workshop have asked for feedback on the unit entries. I will copy/paste my email here so you can see both my thoughts, and how I structure them into feedback.  If you have thoughts on the Sisters book, or want to give feedback on any of the 8th Edition 40K rules, then they have an e-mail address

40kfaq@gwplc.com

Here is my e-mail;

Hi GW Rules team

As a long time fan/player of Sisters of Battle, I want to help contribute to making their eventual Codex as good as possible. While doing a short review of the Beta for my Blog I raised the following points:-

Page 79 - Acts of Faith; The Passion

I would look at changing The Passion's trigger to the end of the Fight phase. It's your hardest to achieve Act of Faith and you risk your opponent being able to kill the unit it's been activated on before they can strike a second time. By making it end of the phase, it works more like the similar Stratagems many armies have access too.  

I also think an end of phase trigger would be easier for players to understand when the extra attack happens, as I still see players get confused with Khorne Bezerkers.

Page 82 - Missionary

I'd like to see Word of the Emperor affect Astra Miitarum units as well. I think you would see people taking one of these if they did.   

It's a minor thing, but would make it support those that like to take some Priestly support for their Imperial Guard regiments.

Page 84 - Repentia Squad

These may be a little too expensive at 15 points each. It's also a shame that the maximum squad size is smaller than it used to be. However, you can fit them into a transport.

These used to have a larger maximum squad size and be available to buy separate from the Mistress, leading to some of us older players having more than nine per Mistress we own. Obviously, this will be less of a thing when the unit gets new models, but something to bear in mind at the moment.

Comparing these to units from other armies I play (Assault Marines and Striking Scorpions), I'd like to see them become 12 points each. This is very much a first impression though, I will have to get some games in to see if 15 feels right for them.

Page 84 - Mistress of Repentance

This character lacks the <Order> Repentia Squad keyword, so she doesn't buff her own ability to hit. More importantly, she doesn't buff her own Advance and Charge rolls so struggles to keep up with the unit she is supposed to buff. They can easily get out of range of her when they move into combat and she will struggle to make the charge to keep up. A simple fix is to give her the keyword to match them.

I understand the flavour of why she doesn't have the keyword, but with a 6" range on Driven Onwards, the unit will often end up out of range, especially as they are likely to succeed in Charges she will fail. I'd like to see her gain the keyword so she also helps herself.

Page 85 - Celestian Squad

I'm not sure the army wants or needs this unit to exist, but I feel that way about Space Marine veterans, so maybe it's just me.

Included for sake of completeness, but largely my own personal bias.

Page 86 - Arco-Flagellants

Not sure what I want from these, they may just be too expensive for what they do.

I may be wrong as they have a minimum squad size of three. It may be their role has changed slightly to be a counter-charge unit rather than a surge forward and seek the enemy unit. Some playtesting will give me a better handle on this.

Page 89 - Exorcist

As an aside, while looking at improvements for things, I wish Smoke Launchers weren't instead of shooting. It's great for transports that surge forward and advance, looking to get to the opponent, but terrible for gun tanks like this one. They also fail to help the tank if your opponent goes first. And this applies across all armies with access to them, not just Adeptus Sororitas. 

As I say, this isn't just a "problem" with this Codex, and probably beyond the scope of fixing just by changing it here, but may be worth looking at for a Big FAQ change. There are many tanks that feel like they almost never want to use their Smoke Launchers. It may be that this wants to operate like the Prepared Positions Stratagem from the Big FAQ and activate at the start of the first battle round.

Page 95 - Order Convictions

It feels like two of these do the same thing, regardless of how you have built the army; regain Faith points. The third makes Tests of Faith easier and will probably go on to be the default choice for players. I would change Argent Shroud's ability to something else,  possibly something like the Space Marines Salamander's re-roll ability.

There is a lot of stuff in the army that interacts with either Test of Faith or Faith Points. I don't think half of the Order Convictions also need to do so as well. I'm not against there being a "go to" sub-faction, as most armies have one that will attract the competitive player, meanwhile, those that play armies for flavour will use the others.

Of the three, Ebon Chalice; Daughters of the Emperor will probably attract the Tournament players, and is a fine trait. Our Martyred Lady; The Blood of the Martyrs is amazingly dripping with flavour. This leaves Argent Shroud; Deed, not Words as the easiest one to change. It needs to hit the flavour of decisive action. Either a limited form of re-roll to hit, much like the T'au Sa'cea Sept, or a re-roll to hit with Bolt weapons like Craftworld Biel-Tan do with Shuriken weapons. It's also probably no coincidence that these both come with +1 Leadership.

For the full review

https://hiveoffunandsilliny.blogspot.com/2018/12/quick-hits-december-2018-sisters-of.html

These are the main things that have stood out during my first look at the book. I will report back with more feedback in the new year as I get games in. This whole exercise is a fantastic opportunity to look at the way armies and codexes are designed, and I'd like to thank you for it. And even more thanks for all the hard work you guys put in. I've played since 2nd edition 40k and 8th has rapidly become my favourite. The return of move values and save modifers are what clinched it for me ;)

Sean Samuels

 Hopefully, as I get more games in, I can see if my initial opinions hold up. Maybe I'm wildly wrong and playing the army will show me this. I will update the blog both with my findings and if Games Workshop reply.

Warhammer 40K - The Big FAQ

Between Real Life issues and waiting to chat with some players, it's finally time to post my thoughts on the second Big FAQ for 40K.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/28/28th-sept-warhammer-40000-big-faq-2-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1/

So, let's dive straight in.

Finalised Match Play Rules

They moved three rules from the first FAQ from Beta status to full rule.

Battle Brothers

This solves the problem Games Workshop want to solve. They want you to use the Detachment system to build armies, while each Detachment remains specific to a Codex. A lot of the outcry is from people who think that the problem is armies where each Detachment is from a different Codex.

 I get it, there are people who want to play single Codex and do well. Not all Codexes are made equally and adding other forces to your army lets you take units that circumvent the weakness of a single book. However, I suspect that removing the ability to ally won't suddenly make single-book armies viable, and the top lists will just come from the strongest 2-3 Codexes. This is a separate issue from the Battle Brothers rule, and worthy of a full discussion on its own.

I'm happy with this rule, although some Index units (notably Assassins and Sisters of Silence) are a bit awkward to field now. Hopefully, they will get something in the future to make them better.

Psychic Focus

The only two armies that can reliably cast more than a couple of Smites each turn are the two that only do 1 damage per Smite. This rule has proven to be a fair solution to the armies that can take a bunch of cheap Psykers and dole out large amounts of Mortal Wounds.

I like the change. It caused people to either reduce the number of Psykers they took or made them look at the other Powers available to their Psykers.

Targeting Characters

This rule has gotten a lot of criticism, from people who look for realism in their rules. The reason that units you can't see stop you from targeting a character has nothing to do with their ability to distract you from taking the shot! It is a rule to help those characters survive on the battlefield without being gunned down by massed fire from regular weapons.

This clarifies that by making the RAW (rules as written) match the RAI (rules as intended) while stopping you from using characters to screen each other, which was allowing people to abuse the Culexus Assassin's Etherium rule.

This rule serves the purpose it is intended to and stops squishy characters like Imperial Guard Officers getting gunned down unless you really position your army poorly, or your opponent is having a good Shooting Phase anyway.

Beta Matched Play Rules

Tactical Reserves

Here comes the big one. We have returned to 7th Edition, where your reserves can only arrive from turn two onwards. At least they haven't gone back to being random.

When this rule was originally changed, it cared about Power Level, when the majority of Matched Play players didn't. It also opened up a problem where you could double a unit's Power Level simply by adding one member, allowing you to manipulate the Reserve allowance. Simple fix, well done.

Also, the ability to arrive in turn one but only in your own deployment zone wasn't fit for purpose. It stopped the armies that wanted their Reserves to assault in the first turn. Which is great. While there are still units that can get to you in the first turn, when they go first,  it's no longer half the opposing force. You can also attempt to mitigate that, dependant on Deployment.

Where it failed was it allowed shooting armies to put units in Reserve with no intention of bringing them in near the enemy, and setting up a devastating Beta Strike, while dodging the opposing Alpha Strike. I've done this, and it's not fun for the opponent. It's hard to have decent target priority when the priority targets are hiding off-table.

This change has lead to a handful of abilities getting changed. Some of these have become a pre-game movement, while Rangers have moved into Reserves. These errata attempt to let those units behave the way they are intended, while not breaking the Tactical Reserve rule. That's why this rule is Beta, as it needs more people testing it.

I'm currently in favour of this change but want to get some games in to test it before I make a concrete decision.


Prepared Positions

This is a nice Stratagem, and an attempt to take a little of the sting away from going second. It also has the slight consequence of being useless for a couple of mini-factions (there is a Hive Fleet that has this ability built in for instance), and Harlequins, while actually buffing your opponent (if they are Imperial Fists, or manage a first turn Charge with Striking Scorpions).

I'm looking forward to playing with this available. How often I use it will depend on what I'm facing and how many Command Points I have available.

Tactical Restraint

There had been some other solutions to this problem that I've seen suggested. This is the simplest one and I believe it does the job well. Finally, we will start to see more variety in Warlord Traits. My one issue is the Autarch, who spends centuries studying and practising command at war, can only get Command Points back on a 6, while many other Codexes since the Craftworlds one trigger similar abilities on a 5-6.

It's a good change and stops some armies feeling like they have infinite Command Points. It doesn't address the armies that start with far more Command Points than others, but I guess a small change is better than none.

Interim Balance Review 

We have a couple of Stratagems getting errata, and a handful going up in Command Point costs. These, again, will take some time to see the full effects of. It does show that if a Stratagem is proving either ubiquitous or key to an oppressive army list, that Games Workshop is willing to adjust its cost. I wonder if they will look at doing the same for Stratagems that support units that aren't seeing much play at the moment.

Bonus Round

Not mentioned in the article, or the FAQ itself, but tucked away in the Rulebook FAQ is a change to units with the Fly keyword. They no longer ignore terrain and models during the Charge Phase.

This makes screening units stronger, as it's harder to bypass them now. It also removes the ability to use elevated terrain to get around short Overwatch ranges. It has meant that a handful of other units have been given errata to match, like Necron Wraiths and Harlequin Flip Belts.

Summary

Overall, I can see why some people were disappointed with this FAQ. They wanted point changes, up for Knights and down for Power/Terminator Armour. That's very much the domain of Chapter Approved.

What it did do though, was cement some good changes that were Beta in the last one and offer some more changes to trial. I like the changes, and as per the last FAQ want to try them out. It's only really by getting some games in that we can really see the impact.

X-Wing 2.0 versus The Man of Many Hats

During the World Championships this year, Fantasy Flight Games announced that X-Wing was ending, and being replaced by a Second Edition. Some components and rules would make the transition, but everything else would be new. They are releasing a Starter Set and Upgrade Kits so that existing players can rejoin the game as fast as possible, while slowly re-releasing the old ships for newer players.

It's taken some time to process my thoughts and feelings on the Edition change, as it affects my gaming on so many different levels. I wear many hats/perform many roles with X-Wing, so the impact was bound to be complicated. This post is to put a lot of that into one place and see whom else is in similar positions.

Player 

I first approached X-Wing as a player. Initially, it was just myself flying Imperial against Jamie and his Rebellion, as had been the case when we had played Decipher's TCG as well. We attended the Assault on Imdaar Alpha pre-release, and I haven't looked back. As FFG shifted the Bounty Hunters out into their own faction, alongside other Scum elements, my collection shifted to match. Eventually, I started buying Rebel ships, to maximise my choice of ships to fly, both competitively and for fun.

The Edition change leaves me with a choice. I can keep playing First Edition, hoping that enough people wanting casual games will continue to play, or I can switch to Second Edition, figuring that the majority of the player base will also do so. Not switching will limit my potential opponents, while switching won't. I can even keep my existing stuff to play against those that don't switch.

Switching is going to be expensive. Looking at retail prices, the Starter is £37 and each Conversion Kit is £47. Each kit is for one faction and contains Pilot cards, Upgrade cards and a number of Dial per ship type. If you want to fly more of a specific ship than the kit contains dials for, then you will have to buy extra kits. Shops offering discounts and the Secondary Market will offset this a little. Similarly, if you want to continue flying multiple factions, you will need a kit for each one. This increases the cost again.

A big change that compounds this is the First Order and the Resistance are being split away from the Empire and Rebellion to become their own factions. If you enjoyed flying lists like Dash Rendar and Poe Dameron, or Quickdraw and Rear Admiral Chiraneau, you will no longer be able to. This means even if you thought you were mono-faction, you existing collection might no longer be. Also, those factions aren't releasing with the main game in September, leaving you waiting until the Wave Two release before you can play those ships.

The Wave Two Conversion Kits will be cheaper, as both of those factions have fewer ships. However, if your collection is like mine, if you want to keep playing all the factions you will have to buy the Starter and 5 Conversion Kits. That's £178 rrp in September, plus whatever price point the Wave Two kits come out at. That's an expensive readmission price. You can buy it in bits, but that's still £84 for one faction. Again, you can always shop around for a lower price and check out the secondary market for individual bits. And that's to keep playing a game that currently is already playable.

I'm seeing a lot of people comparing this to when Games Workshop change an Edition. However, when an Edition changes for 40K, you only have to buy the Rulebook and your armies Codex. With 8th Edition, the core rules are a free download. So the price of switching from 7th to 8th is £25 (£30 if you play Space Marines, but their Codex is larger). Having to buy new units don't apply to an Edition change, as the players that care often buy new units when the meta changes too. Essentially, the Edition change is a Meta change as far as their spending habits are concerned.

With the financial issues addressed, it's on to the rest of the issues I face as a player. Having watched the Team Covenant Zach versus Alex Davey video, and read the FFG article on movement (https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/5/9/a-few-maneuvers/ ), it's clear the core mechanics of the game aren't changing. This is good, as those mechanics are what make the game both amazing to play and simple to teach. Other mechanics have changed, and there will be new ones I've not seen discussed. This will mean readjusting to a new ruleset.

As someone who has played other games that have switched Editions multiple times, (Warhammer 40K and Heroclix, I'm looking at you both) and also as someone who plays a lot of games, absorbing new rules shouldn't be too difficult. There will be a short period where some old rules will attempt to filter through, but that will end. The annoying part will be that we've already seen that some existing Pilots and Upgrades are getting radically changed abilities, while some existing abilities are getting new names. One, in particular, I've noticed is there is a new TIE Advanced Pilot with the ability of Juno Eclipse. Does that mean she is getting a different ability? Or has the character been removed from the game entirely?

The biggest change is how squads are built. Firstly; squad size is 200 points but ships are roughly doubling in price. That gives them more room to make cost changes for Pilots and Upgrades. Squads will be roughly the same size they are now. However, the points won't be printed on the cards. Instead, they will be handled via an App.

The shift of games towards needing an App annoys me. Firstly, not everyone has a smartphone or tablet to put an app on. From a personal standpoint, my current phone doesn't have room for another App. I've already recently deleted what Apps I can, just to contain the current ever-expanding ones. That creates a barrier to entry for some people. I've heard that the software will also be useable via a website, but that's not useful to those who want to take a bunch of ships somewhere and just build some squads throughout the day as they play.

I get that it allows them to adjust problems in the game via changing point values. But they have long had this ability. I've been suggesting it as a fix to problems for a couple of years now. Instead, they have changed card text to fix them. All making this an app does is shrink the visible size of the FAQ. A lot of the pages in the current one are dedicated to changing card text, which highlights how often design mistakes have been made. Hiding this via an App, to me, doesn't outweigh the barriers to entry it causes.

Problem fixing is an interesting one. The online community is currently of the opinion that previously poor performing ships will now be balanced and playable, while the "over-powered" ones will be brought down in power level. In my experience, this won't be true. There will always be an imbalance in games like this. Some Pilots and Upgrades will be unplayable simply because their faction has better options for competitive play. Any attempt to try and correct this will either end with all ships being identical, or points having to change very frequently. I also hope that the player base has time to actually fly against and adapt to metas and that points aren't changed as a knee-jerk reaction every time the vocal online community causes a fuss.

Conclusion
I'm going to keep playing, switching to the Second Edition. The price and App are certainly barriers to my continued playing though. There are only 4 months to save up for the Edition change.

Collector

Some would call me a Hoarder, but part of what appeals to me about tabletop gaming is collecting. This approach to gaming then informs my play habits. For X-Wing, that means I currently buy 1 of each Rebel and Scum ship and 3 of each Imperial small ship. With the Empire, I want the ability to field squads of a Pilot and their two Wingmen. This has lead to me having a lot of physical Pilot and Upgrade cards.

While the ships are still useable, the dials wont be as many ships are getting new and improved dials with extra maneuvers. I can keep some of the cards for a collection, and give me the ability to continue to play First Edition, but the rest will be uneeded. Do I attempt to sell them on, hoping there is still a demand? Or do I recycle the cardboard?

They haven't announced what they are doing with the Epic format, other than it is coming at some point. Do I buy the 3 ships (Corvette, Transport and C-Roc) that I haven't bought yet? FFG hasn't historically been great at supporting the side formats. Any cards I get with those ships will be useless in Second Edition. It has put me off the expense of picking them up.

The TIE Reaper and Saw's Renegades haven't released yet. They have announced that they will also contain all the cards needed to make them Second Edition playable. At least that's one less worry.

Upgrade cards in Second Edition are going to be regular card sized. That means that when I dispose of the old upgrade cards, there are going to be a lot of unused small sleeves. I'm sure I'll find a use for them eventually. It does mean that the new cards will take up more space for storage though.

On the positive side of things, this could see a decrease in the cost of existing alternate art cards. There are a couple of official ones I still want to pick up for collection purposes. The Movie Still Lando Calrissian has long been expensive when it appears for sale. I'm hoping that it becomes affordable once Second Edition releases.

Conclusion
This will allow me to reduce the size of my collection and saves me buying the last three Epic ships. It may even let me obtain the Lando I've been after. I do fear that this means I'll have to dispose of large amounts of cardboard though, which is a shame.

Retailer

I work at G.I. Games. We sell tabletop games, card games and roleplay games. As such, I see the effect changes like this have on businesses. Stocking Second Edition isn't a question. It's a new product and I foresee the majority of the existing player base switching. However, existing First Edition stock is an issue.

While there will still be people picking up First Edition versions of ships in the lead up to Second Edition, that will become less true as time goes on. This potentially leaves shops with unsellable ships or having to discount them drastically to sell them.

This issue is common with FFGs LCGs as well. That's why I anticipate no assistance from them. Games Workshop refunds stores when they make Codexes defunct, but that's a rare practice in the gaming industry.

Also, individual ships will cost more in Second Edition than in First, going up by £6. This price increase could lead to the game being less attractive to new players, making it harder to shift new stock.

Conclusion
Our shop isn't massively affected, but I know other shops have lots of First Edition stock. This sort of thing is always a pain for Retailers and is what makes stocking games risky.

Tournament Organizer

I run Tournaments for several game systems. Alongside this Edition change, there was an announcement about changes coming to the official FFG Tournament structures. This will affect the way Seasonal Kits and upwards are run. We've already seen an increase in the price of these kits, but have no other information.

The next World Championships is going to be late 2019,  well over a year after the recent one. We have yet to be informed how that affects the placement of feeder events next year, such as Nationals and Euros, or how it will affect the players that win those events this year.

How will the App affect things? Will it also contain software for running events, or will we stick to using TOME/Cryodex? Will the game still have the same time limit on Rounds? The squad structure looks the same, so I don't expect that to change. Yet currently there are more questions than answers.

Finally, for this Summer's events, there is the issue of prize support. The future kits coming between now and September contain double-sided promos that are compatible with both Editions. Older promos are essentially obsolete now though, especially the custom ones people have commissioned. 

This leaves me with a stack of spare promos to give out to players who may not want them. It then ties into the collector's issue of the promos not having a resale value, which may lead to me having to dispose of them. Luckily, I believe the majority of players (at least locally) play for the love of the game rather than the prize support.

Conclusion
There is a fair amount of uncertainty at the moment when it comes to the future of tournaments. Best thing to do at the moment is stick with the current plan and wait for more news.

Judge

I Judge tournaments, both for my self and for FFG via Asmodee UK. This hat is the one least affected by the Edition change. Sure, I'll have to learn the new ruleset. But the same is true whenever a new Wave releases anyway. FFG will continue to release documents to help with this, and may even integrate that into the App.

That could lead to problems though. Power issues with the device you are running the App on or other mechanical failures. Having to get a device for the App in the first place. Hopefully, there will also be a printable version of any FAQ document.

As an aside, I'd also like to see Floor Rules. A proper guide to not only how to fix mistakes that players make, as well as how to official deal with them. There have long been no guidelines on when it is appropriate to award a player a Game Loss, as well as a Disqualification. An official document would ensure that all Judges and Marshalls are on the same page when these things happen. It could also address issues we have seen with live streams.

Conclusion
Business as usual here. The Floor Rules have been something I've been wanting for a while anyway.

Final Conclusion

I'm going to go forward with Second Edition, as I suspect the majority of players will. Staying with an older Edition of a game means that when new stuff releases, you won't be able to use it. Changing isn't without its problems though.

Quick Hits - A New Post Type

Last year I did my huge review of the Craftworlds Codex. They have long been my favourite army and I felt they deserved the work. However, between the rapid pace of Codex releases, the cost of buying Codexes for armies I don't own and the changes the FAQs/Chapter Approved can bring,  I can't cover the other armies in the same detail.  I do get asked my opinion of Codexes and units though, so I need some way of meeting in the middle.

Enter "Quick Hits".

A series of posts that should allow me to give you my thoughts on a wider range of armies. It should also prove quicker to right than a full review, allowing me to borrow books for the armies I don't play. It should also allow me more scope to keep up with the pace of releases from Games Workshop while making time to write about other games too.

The Big 2018 Warhammer 40K FAQ - My Thoughts

Games Workshop just dropped their first BIG FAQ for Warhammer 40,000. Meant as an interim measure between editions of Chapter Approved, it's meant to bring "balance" to the game. It was so heavily anticipated, that traffic crashed the site. It's also caused quite a stir on Social Media, so here are my thoughts on the changes, the effects they will have and the reactions I've seen thus far.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

The FAQs are due for release in March and September. They delayed this one so that they could use AdeptiCon as a data point before making some final decisions. On the one hand, this is a wise idea. Big events like that make great sources of data on the competitive scene. On the other hand, they probably should have taken that into account when they announced the FAQ dates. Hopefully, they will evaluate this process and make changes for next year.

Beta Status Removed

Two rules had been introduced as Beta rules, to be tested and then implemented fully in the future.

Armies were taking multiples of their cheapest Psykers, and casting Smite as much as possible to cause Mortal Wounds, bypassing high Toughness and decent Saves. This made expensive models that rely on those things for survivability easy to kill.

The Beta rule attempted to mitigate this by increasing the difficulty of each successive Smite. This hampered Thousand Sons and Grey Knights, who already had rules modifying their damage potential with Smite. The finalised rule removes the problem for them.

Everyone had pretty much adopted this rule when it was in Beta, and they were happy with it. This change allays some of the problems, but still leaves Horrors in an awkward spot, especially as they only cast on one die. That may cause this rule to be modified again in the future, but equally, Horrors are pretty good anyway, with their Splitting ability.

I'd been enforcing this rule since it was in Beta, and liked it. Too much access to Mortal Wounds stops the tough, survivable units from actually being tough and survivable. While Mortal Wounds appear to be a counter to them, too much in the meta removes them entirely. And it's not like massed Mortal Wounds are terrible against Infantry either.

A lot of people I've spoken to since 8th Edition came out have been confused by the Targeting Character rule. Especially when the Beta version of this rule clarified the intent. They question why a shooting unit would be distracted from a Character by a unit they cannot see or otherwise interact with.

This is one of those Game Balance versus Reality Simulation things. While it may not seem realistic,  it's a rule that exists to protect those characters. Especially since many of the ones it protects would otherwise easily fall to basic infantry guns. Warlocks, for instance (and foreshadowing) have so few wounds, low toughness and okayish save that statistically, 8 Guardsmen in Rapid Fire range can easily kill one. So this rule exists to make those characters playable.

This rule is more of a clarification than a change. I like it because it gives Characters the protection they used to get from joining units, without having to tie them to the unit. Which is key in an edition full of characters with area effect buffs.

Welcome to the new Beta

The above has been replaced by two new Beta rules. Expect everywhere to use them because Beta status doesn't matter, and then they will become full rules in the next big FAQ.

This change is to address the deep striking alpha strike armies. It's actually doing a lot for "one" rule.

Firstly, they change what they meant by half your army setting up on the board. It takes the restriction of half your units and adds half your Power Level as well. It also clarifies that units inside Transports count, which had been questioned by some people. This ensures that Reserves follow the intent of the rule, rather than the previous practice of putting the bare minimum units on the field. This change is good.

Secondly, if you bring your Reserves in during your first turn, they can only arrive in your Deployment zone. After that turn, they can arrive as normal and if they haven't turned up by the end of they 3rd Round they are destroyed as before.

This is an attempt to reign in alpha striking. It's to stop armies leaping straight into your front line on the first turn. It allows you time to prepare for their Reserves if you are going second.

Does it achieve this though? Between armies that are exempt from the first turn restriction (like Genestealer Cult), armies that can deploy closer via scouting (like Raven Guard) and armies that can double move (Tyranids, Harlequins, Chaos, Blood Angels), the armies that really want to get a unit into your lines on their first turn still exist. I guess that this limits them to only making it in with one unit but it still lets them get the jump on you. And that's before we take into account deployment distance, and redeploy abilities (like the Deceiver)

I'm seeing a lot of arguement online that this change hampers assault reserves and doesn't effect shooting reserves. I've long been an advocate for wanting to hold reserves back, as while the alpha strike is the obvious tactic deploying your reserve units when they can have maximum impact seems best to me. It's a tactic that is better for the shooting units, certainly, as assault units may not be able to deploy close enough to their targets. Shooting units tend to not need to be as close as possible for maximum effect.

However, while it allows opponents time to fully organise a screen, it also gives you time to clear out that screen. I believe this does fulfil it's intent of making more interplay between armies. It doesn't impact the exceptions I listed above though, so your mileage may vary.

The other complaint I see is that gunline armies have more time to deal with your army. I guess this will mean you have to rebuild some armies to allow for this. The counterpoint I'm seeing most often is that you have to have enough line of sight blocking terrain to compensate. My counterpoint is that if half your army isn't on the table, the gunlines can't shoot it all. Again, this is going to take some time to adjust to.

It will be interesting to get some play in with this rule from both sides. Can you make a Reserve-based assault army that survives? Can you make a gunline army that completely stops them being viable?

I think that this rule will require the most playtime before a proper judgment can be rendered. I'm optimistic, but I hear the complaints of others. It probably doesn't help my side that my armies aren't Deep Strike Assault armies.

"Soup" is something often complained about online, and it's an issue that puts me in two minds. On the one hand, from a flavour point of view, armies like the Imperium rarely actually field pure forces. While Marine Chapters may prefer to work solo (especially Blood and Dark Angels), the Astra Militarum rarely does. It's often supported by a handful of Marines, Knights, possibly supported by Skitari. Inquisitors grab whatever forces they need from what's available to do the job. Deathwatch and Custodes are elites that join larger armies when their expertise is needed

On the other hand, armies (should be) designed with weaknesses on a Codex level. Astra Militarum have easily killed infantry and next to no close combat ability, much like T'au. Marines lack numbers, Harlequins lack firepower and Sisters of Battle lack plastic models. "Soup" allows you to get around these weaknesses, for the armies that have convienient keywords. Guard give Marines numbers, Marines give Guard close combat capability. Craftworlds give Harlequins range, Daemons give Chaos Marines numbers.

Orks, T'au and Necrons get? Their built-in weaknesses and no support from the other factions. Orks will never have better shooting than Gretchin, T'au will never have better close combat than Kroot and Necrons will never have numbers. So why should some armies get rewarded while these ones suffer?

The part of me that loves the flavour of the 41st Millenium loves that the keyword system allows the "Soup" armies to work. My Imperial and Eldar collections are based on this. I want to be able to play games that put me in mind of Valedor or other conflicts I've read about. The competitive side of me doesn't like that some armies have a mechanical way of eschewing their weaknesses.

However, this rule doesn't solve that. It stops you making a "Soup" Detachment. Saint Celestine can no longer lead a mix of Guard and Marines, supported by Assassins and Greyfax, all in one Detachment. It just means you have to spread those forces out across multiple Detachments instead. Take an Astra Militarum Brigade for bodies and Command Points, take a Blood Angels Vanguard for assault squads and an Imperial Knight for a firebase.

The forces that were abusing this beforehand are the ones without Codexes. Once a force gets it's Codex, Chapter Tactics (or their equvilent) are enough incentive to keep your Detachments pure. It feels like this rule has been brought in too late to punish the armies that don't have a book yet, without actually stopping the "Soup" everyone has been complaining about.

Do Games Workshop need to stop "Soup"? From their probable point of view, no. It allows players to build to fit the flavour and also encourages them to buy models they wouldn't otherwise buy. As for the tournament complaints (this will become a post on it's own at some point), the short answer is also no. Tournament players will also look to the most efficient thing, regardless of flavour. Forcing them to go mono-faction will just show you what they believe the strongest faction is, rather than the strongest "Soup".

So, yeah, this rule is fixing a problem that goes away as we move away from Indexes. Not sure it was needed. They have even needed to put in exceptions for Sisters of Silence and Legion of the Damned, while also making yet another change to how Ynnari armies are built.

Tipping the Balance

Some tweaks have been made to rebalance a few things that have been deemed problematic.

 
Battalions and Brigades now give you more Command Points. They have said this will help 'Elite' armies, rewarding them for filling the Detachment minimums. They reportedly struggle to get enough Command Points to use their Stratagems. So this boost helps them out.

While this does help those armies when they take a Battalion, it also really helps Astra Militarum who have no problem taking multiple Brigades in an army. I myself have fielded a 1500 point army across 3 detachments that had 18 Command Points (Brigade, Battalion, Supreme Command and Lord Castellan Creed). With this rule, it now has 23 Command Points (although the Supreme Command of Inquisitors is now nullified because it contained an Assassin).

While this is a positive change for all armies, as they should all be able to easily field a Battalion, it does feel a little bit like the rich get richer. Especially Imperial forces who can squeeze in a cheap Astra Militarum Brigade (609 points) and gain 12 Command Points. Tyranids can also achieve this. Take the Astra Militarum Brigade and a Genestealer Cult Battalion for +17 Command Points and you still have 1135 points for your Tyranid Detachment giving you at least 21 Command Points for all your Stratagems.

Tide of Traitors

This Stratagem has been errated to be once per game. I'm guessing this is too strong with a large unit of Cultists, because Drukhari have a similar Stratagem which does it to Wracks. A squad size of 40 makes this more effective than a squad size of 10.

Word of the Phoenix

This has had it's Warp Charge value raised from 6 to 8. No complaints here, it's a ridiculous Psychic Power.

Ignoring Wounds

From now on, abilities that let you ignore wounds don't stack. This only really effects the first couple of Codexes, as all of the newer ones have had this written into their abilities. If you didn't see this change coming, then you weren't paying attention.

Organized Play

The biggest concern that tournament players have had for a while is "Spam"(why the food obssession?). Players taking the strongest unit they can in an army and fielding as many of that unit as possible.

Now, 'as possible' is 3. This doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports. This mitigates the "Spam" that tournament players are complaing about. It also only applies to Organised events, same as the Detachement limit, so it doesn't hurt your collection or your casual games at home.

It's a shame that this had to be put in as a rule, but I see it as a positive overall.

Points Review

A handful of units have had their points changed. I will talk about the ones that effect me.

Astra Militarum

Lord Commissars and Commissars have both dropped in points. This is because the changes to their abilities, in previous FAQs, make them less useful than they were. It also makes the Commissar the cheapest Elite choice for filling out a Brigade.

Space Marines

Roboute Guilliman has gone up to 400 points. This is his second points increase. He combines excellent buffs with Primarch level stats. I'm hoping this will be his last increase.

Craftworlds

Farseers, Warlocks and Spiritseers all increased in points. The Asuryani Psychic Powers are fantastic and key to how the army works, so I guess these units need to go up in cost slightly. It sucks for the Warlock, as they are very fragile and now cost more. I can see this starting to push them out of armies.

Dark Reapers have also gone up in points. Their ability to always hit on a 3+, regardless of modifiers, and their weapon options make them a really potent unit. They had also become one of the poster children of "Spam".

I only run one of each of this things, but looks like my army needs to make some changes.

The rest of the points changes affect armies or units I don't have, so I couldn't tell you if there were increases or decreases.

Final Thoughts

I see most of these changes as being positive for the game. The change to "Soup" feels too late and the change to Reserves will require actual play to see the effects. The FAQ does show Games Workshop's committment to improving player's experience, especially at tournaments. We shall see what still sticks around for the second Big FAQ of 2018 and Chapter Approved.

Accidental Month Away From Posting

Well, there goes the "Post a Week" Goal. Even taking it as an average (which is how I do look at it),  I've still only managed 8 posts so far this year, out of the 16 weeks. Looks like I've got some catching up to do.

My last post was March 19th. So, what has kept me so busy since then?

The Weekend after that was the UK X-Wing System Open. It ended up being a 500 player event, with the accompanying Hyperspace Qualifier reaching nearly that. Almost all the Marauders were in attendance at the Hilton in Birmingham. I guess the pressing question is;  

What did I play and how did I do?

I Judged!

It was a great weekend. I worked with a great team, some of whom I'd worked with before. Don't get me wrong, it was a looooong weekend, but I can't wait to do it all again at Euros and Nationals.

After that, we hit the Bank Holiday weekend. I spent that at Insomnia62. It's a convention for Video Gaming, but I was there demoing games with Asmodee UK. I got to play some games I've played before, plus a couple of new ones. However, I spent the majority of the time putting people through demos of Star Wars Legion.

The game is really good at the moment. The Command system is pretty sweet, adding an element of random to the otherwise back and forth unit activation. There are similarities to X-Wing and the base rules are easy to learn and teach. I can see the game doing well.

I still haven't decided if I'm going to adopt the game though. Although it is reasonably priced, it isn't a cheap game. I've invested in several ongoing games already, so I don't think there is room in my budget for another one. I also have a massive backlog of unpainted 40k miniatures, so I don't really want to add any more to that workload.

Time will tell I guess.

Finally, I turned 36. Being away working back to back weekends meant I needed a break and the Blog missed one more week because of it.

So, what does the future hold?

Hopefully, I can get back to regular posts. Looking at doing more opinion pieces, so will hopefully get some feedback/debate on those. And I@m going to be playing more games and running more events over the summer. Store Championships Season approaches.

Net-Decking

A contentious point for many players of competitive games, today I'm going to talk about net-decking.

What is Net-Decking?

The most amusing definition I found was on Urban Dictionary

Netdecking

The process of stealing a tournament winning TCG/OCG/CCG decklist from a discussion forum and replicating it. Implies a lack of creativity and desire to do nothing other than win in the player.

Clans are notorious for this, particularly like the lamers who make up the Yu-Gi-Oh clan "g3n3s1s".

Go to any tournament for this type of game and you'll see a lot of it. The winning decks will always have a great deal of cards in common.

by Hino-Kagu-Tsuchi December 20, 2004

 Also referred to as Net-listing for games that don't use cards, it is building your deck/team/army by copying someone else's list from sources found on the internet. This can be from articles or videos talking about the game, or from scouring tournament results. Often, it involves using the complete list but sometimes it's using the majority of the list while adding your own spin either to personalize it, because you think of a better idea or to hide that it's been copied from the internet.

It's a simple process. You watch/read coverage of an event, see something you like the look of and then copy it to try yourself. It was successful and by playing it maybe you can find some success too. you play it against your friend or take it to a local event and are met with disdain. What went wrong?

The Downsides of Net-Decking

Firstly, many people don't like it. There has long been a stigma to Net-decking. It's seen as a crutch, a thing that people do when they care more about winning than they do about fun. It has gained a reputation that it passes on to anyone who does it, in any game.

I've long heard it dates back to the early days of Magic the Gathering. When websites like The Dojo started talking about deck construction and reporting on the decks that did well, the internet was still in its early days. To have access to those lists was seen as giving you an advantage that was considered unfair. Everyone else was trying out different combinations of cards to find out what worked, and you were taking a shortcut.

Deck builders were putting in hard work to find winning decks, and then you were simply copying their product in an effort to copy their results. You wanted their victory without having to put the same amount of time in to earn it. This is the underlying assumption behind the tournament stigma. This creates bad feeling.

Secondly, if it has done well at a tournament, it may be of a power level that doesn't feel welcome at a casual game. Some people are trying out "fun" ideas or less powerful things that they like the flavour of and don't want to face the latest tournament tech.

Tournament winning lists are usually keyed at winning the event by minimising variance, being efficient and limiting the opponent's ability to interact with its game plan. For an opponent just looking to play some cards/push some models around, that doesn't give them what they are looking for. This is an extension of the stigma above but applies to non-tournament games.

While almost everyone plays these style of games to win, a lot of players put their own qualifiers on how they want to win. When these ways are luck-based or inefficient, their matchup with the tournament list becomes a slog that often feels unwinnable, regardless of their actual ability to win the game. This creates bad feeling.

Finally, just because a list won an event, doesn't mean it is going to play itself. There may be tricks and synergies that are important to its performance, but not immediately obvious. Many of these games require in-game decisions that are often complex, and familiarity with your list is a boon.

If you are after tournament success, you will still need to practice with the list. It is clearly doing something to be successful, and you want to work out what that is before you take it to an actual tournament yourself. Likewise, if you want to make changes to the list and put your own spin on it, you need to understand how it works so that your changes don't destroy it from the inside out.

Without this knowledge, the list won't perform as well as expected. It won't produce the results that you want. This creates frustration.

So is Net-Decking bad?

Is it the worst thing a player can do? There are many people that will tell you it is. It has such a stigma across many games that people will deny doing it, even though their list matches the recent big-money winning list 100%. People will berate net-deckers, complain if they enter an event with them and grouse about their existence.

They are entitled to their opinions, but I would say they are wrong.

For the first downside; why is research frowned upon?

I liken Net-Decking to building a desk or cooking a meal. Sure, you could look at every card available to the event, try them out in every possible combination and settle on the deck you want to play that way.  You could also grab some wood and start building a desk with a variety of tools until you find the best techniques to build the desk you want. You could throw various ingredients in a pot and taste-test different mixtures until you find the one that tastes best.

Conversely, you can buy a cookery book and follow a recipe from that. You can research design techniques to make a sturdy desk. You can see what people are playing in events and do well with and follow their tips. We live in a world where rather than doing everything from scratch ourselves we can turn to others for advice, teaching or doing the task for us. Why should list design be any different? Plenty of people like to talk about what they have had success with, and how they got there. People also like absorbing this content and using it as a stepping stone to generate their own success.

There are likewise many people who enjoy making their own lists and forging their own path to victory, with little to no input from others. There are people who enjoy finding success with under-utilized cards/units/models. These are all valid approaches to gaming, and no approach is better than the others. If you are doing it the way you enjoy, then more power to you. The stigma needs to go away, there are so many facets to learn when competing at a game that short-cutting list building doesn't replace all the other things you need to learn to find the success. For most people, these games are hobbies and time is short.

For the second point, the casual game, here is where things get murky. What defines a game as casual rather than competitive. Within these gaming systems, the point is to beat your opponent. Should you not try as hard as possible to do so?

That depends on what your opponent and yourself are expecting from the game. As I said;

"Tournament winning lists are usually keyed at winning the event by minimising variance, being efficient and limiting the opponent's ability to interact with its game plan"

These lists are fine for running in a tournament. You and your opponents are attempting to beat each other, often with prizes on the line, and probably should be running efficient lists and minimising variance. This will often give you the best chance of winning and is the appropriate place for such lists.

These lists are fine for practising for a tournament. Again, you should expect to face such lists and they are what you want the most practice against.

A game to spend an afternoon playing with a friend on the other hand? You need to talk to your friend and discuss what you both want from the game. Maybe they want tournament practice. Maybe they have a list they want to experiment with that either explores a mechanic or a theme of the game.
This probably isn't the best time to use a list that limits their ability to interact or circumvents portions of the game rules. Again, maybe they want to test against that sort of list, but it's always best to talk.

You want to enjoy the game, win or lose, and so do they. If you both have differing expectations for the play experience, then one or more of you are going to come away dissatisfied. Smashing someone in a way that doesn't let them actually play the game won't feel good to them, and if it's a game you are after it won't feel good to you. Your mileage may vary if you are after smashing your opponents like that all the time, but don't be surprised if finding non-tournament opponents becomes difficult.

Sometimes it's good to take your foot off the gas, play a list that's less honed for tournaments and have a game. You may find a new facet to the game that you enjoy. You may even find something underplayed that has become good in the new meta without the majority realizing. And just because you are playing a less powerful list doesn't mean you have to play to lose.

Finally, Net-Decking won't compensate for a lack of fundamentals. As an extreme example; you could take the most powerful list in any game and hand it to someone who doesn't know the rules of the game. Having the tools won't help without the experience of how they work. You need to analyse the list, work out what the synergies are, learn the plays, etc.

Look at the source of the list. Did you pull it from event coverage? Maybe there is an interview with the player who ran it. Did you get it from a website? Maybe it came with a guide to how the list played, and how it was built. Don't just grab the tool, grab the instructions as well.

This is especially important if you are planning on making changes to the list. There are various, valid reasons to make changes. Maybe the meta has changed since the event it won, and you believe it needs to adapt. Maybe you perceive a weakness in the list that you can remove. Maybe you have a favourite card/unit/model that you want to include and you need to find room for it.

Play the original list first. Do the full research. Only by knowing how the list works can you decide what to change. You don't want to remove an innocuous-looking piece only to find it's integral to one of the combos and the other pieces don't work without it.

As a related side note; if you want to do well at a competitive game, you need to know the fundamentals and be good at them. If you aren't getting the success you want, go back and look at them. Maybe it's card sequencing, maybe it's positioning, maybe it's relying on too many low probability events. If you can work out what the problem is, your game will improve.

End the Stigma

Net-Decking shouldn't be ridiculed. It's part of the hobby, especially in competitive games. If you are after a casual game, discuss this with your opponent to avoid dissatisfaction. We all play these games to play these games and enjoy ourselves, we shouldn't be making each other feel bad about the way we choose to play.

2017 - 2018

It's that time of year when the Roman God Janus encourages us to look back at the year we've just had and to look forward to the year ahead. Following this tradition, I shall be discussing what I have achieved over the past 12 months, and what I intend on doing over the next 12.

2017

I've had a quite a productive 12 months.

I committed to making one post a week on the blog, and while I didn't always manage that target date-wise I did reach the average of 52 posts. This was important to me, as there is little point in having a blog that you don't add content to. Personally, I prefer written content when I'm researching gaming views and advice, while the vogue at the moment is the production of YouTube videos. This blog is an attempt to produce the sort of content I enjoy. I've had a successful year with it, with people saying to me that they've enjoyed what they have read.

I started running more events, across more games systems. I also set up my own business page to centralise the events and make organising them easier. I wanted to get multiple regular events going, and so spent the summer experimenting with tournaments for several games, to see which had a player base available. Some were successes and some weren't but it's given me a good idea what to do heading forward. It's a shame to see some games lack a player-base, especially ones I enjoy. But it's good to get a friendly spirit of competition at an event.

I started a secondary job of working for Esdevium (now Asmodee UK). This has had me travelling to demo games and even had me Marshalling (Head Judging) the Star Wars LCG UK Nationals. It's giving me experience in both running larger tournaments, with higher rules enforcement, and also n demoing games. Learning to re-evaluate games through the eyes of someone who has never played before is an important skill set in gaming. It also allowed me to see what larger scale events are like behind the scenes.

I went to a Magic the Gathering Grand Prix. While I didn't play much there, it was nice to go to a big MTG event again. In smaller news, I did manage to win back-to-back Game Days for Amonkhet and Hour of Devastation. While I don't play Magic as much as I used to, it's good to see that I can still play to a reasonable standard. My current crop of decks aren't particularly up to scratch and could see some improvement.

While I've entered few actual tournaments myself, I feel like I haven't been taking the time to play games enough myself. This has improved a little towards the end of the year, but there are games I'd love to play that I still haven't had the chance to. Also, I have been playing the competitive games less so I could concentrate on the running of their events. This has lead to a feeling of not being on as the top of things as I could be. 40K has proved an exception to this, as 8th Edition caused a lot of buzz for the game.

2018

My plan for 2018 is more of the same; continuing to do the things I achieved, but improving upon them.


I want to continue posting here. I want to keep up the pace of posts so that my total at the end of the year is at least 52 posts again. More than that though, I want to improve the quality of what I'm posting. So I intend of experiment with different formats and ideas for content, while also trying to get better with the editing side of things. I have plenty of room to improve on here and hopefully will get plenty of feedback to help.

I'm going to get better with the local events I run. I've cut out the ones that weren't attracting players so I can focus my time and energy on the others. As the year goes on, I'll be attempting to grow the attendance while hopefully not losing the focus. The events need to cater to a range of players, and my worry is always inexperienced ones being put off. Finding the balance will be key to this goal.

I'm hoping to work more with Asmodee. It's a great opportunity to meet new people, try new games, travel and learn how to teach games. This year's Nationals is confirmed, and there are plenty of other dates coming up. The first ones are in February.

I'm going to play in my own events more. Previously, I would avoid playing or be the Bye. This has lead to me losing my edge. I got into a habit of playing less competitively because my results didn't matter. I can and should be playing better. Obviously, there are some events I can't play in as they require more attention on a judging.organising level like Store Championships. The only way I'll get better at those games though is to play them.

I'm also going to try and play in more events run by other people. This will give me experience in how others do things while playing more games myself. There are some games, like Yu-Gi-Oh that I haven't played in a long time that I want to play more. This will help with both playing more and improving my own events.



That's my look back/look forward. 2017 was a good year for me gaming-wise and 2018 has the potential to be even better.

The Great Asuryani Review

Twelve blog entries and 15,220 words later and my Codex Craftworlds review is done. Here are links to the individual parts:-


 Part One; Esoterica

Part Two; Warlord Traits and Relics

Part Three; Psychic Powers, Tactical Objectives and Stratagems

Part Four: HQs

Part Five; Troops

Part Six; Elites

Part Seven; Fast Attack

Part Eight; Heavy Support

Part Nine; Dedicated Transports

Part Ten; Fliers

Part Eleven; Lords of War

Part Twelve;  Summary and Thoughts Going Forward

Like what you read? Disagree with something I've said? Feel free to comment, I'd love to get feedback and dialogue going on the Blog.

Asuryani Review - Part Twelve; Summary and Thoughts Going Forward

It's been a long journey, but I've finally reviewed every unit in the Codex. Now it's time to wrap things up with the Summary and Final Thoughts.

My previous entries may make it obvious, but I really like the codex. The Index was fine but felt somehow a little lacklustre. This tome returns the Asuryani to the glory that attracted me to them in the first place. I can see a use for most of the units in the book, which is fitting. The Path of the Eldar means that most units are tuned towards a specific purpose. If you can't work out the purpose, the unit can't find a place in your list, let alone on the battlefield.

Other sites have done the math, and apparently, units have dropped by an average of 20% in points from the Index. It seems to be a trend that the Indexes were over-pointed, possibly as an attempt to play it safe upon 8th Editions release. So the armies that already have Codexes have seen reductions and I assume the rest of the Codexes will do the same thing. The Aeldari need it, as classically they are an Elite heavy army and lack the cheaper fodder units of Imperial Guard or Tyranids.

Also gone are the days of 7th Edition, where Windrider spam supported by Wraithknights was the order of the day. Both units are reduced in effectiveness. The Windriders get some of theirs back in the Codex, especially if you play Saim-Hann. The Wraithknight on the other hand still seems points inefficient compared to similar options in other forces like the Imperial Knight. I'll have to get some games in with one to know for sure.

Highlights

Path of Command incentivises Autarchs in a way the Index didn't. Command Points are hard to come by for the Asuryani, compared to many other armies. The cheapest Brigade comes in at 996 points (For reference, Guard and Marines come in at 624 and 1008 points respectively). So any source of extra Command Points is good. Combined with the re-rolls to hits, and the Autarch as Warlord feels like a must-have.

The Avatar of Khaine feels worth the 250 points now. He makes a fantastic centrepiece for an Aspect Warrior assault and will tear Monsters, Vehicles and similar Characters apart on his own. He can't measure up to a Primarch, but they are at least double his points. I'm currently painting up my Forge World Avatar to put my words to the test.

Swooping Hawks have gone from Rapid Fire 2 to Assault 4. This gives them much more room to deploy from Reserve as a shooting unit, and not get close enough to be assaulted in return. I see people make this mistake with units like Inceptors. Just because you can deploy 10" away, doesn't mean that every unit should.

Shining Spears feel capable of their Monster hunting rule now. They may be just the ticket for dealing with the renewed Tyranid menace.

Wraith-units getting a Toughness increase. Toughness 5 Wraithguard wasn't too bad, but the Wraithlord being a 7 was terrible. Now they are back to the stats they should have.

The Craftworld Attributes give flavour to the Craftworlds and hint at guidelines for building the armies in ways that make sense. I was surprised to see that they were all good.

Finally, the Runes of Battle and Fate are fantastic. They make Warlocks and Farseers seem like auto-includes, much like the Autarch. The Supreme Command Detachment is your friend.

Lowlights

So many great HQ options. Your slots may be taxed making sure you get what you want in the army, let alone your points. It would have been nice to see Warlocks and maybe Spiritseers moved to Elites.

Warlock Conclaves are good for Ulthwe Seer Councils, but not much else. You have to take a lot of Warlocks in the unit to gain any benefits over a lone Warlock while losing the hard to targetability of a Character.

Autarchs lost options, but fear not. The FAQ allows you to take options from the Index. While I'm sure this will also be printed in Chapter Approved, it's a shame it took 2 weeks for this to be communicated to players. There will also be people with older models who may not be aware of this rule.

The Falcon is still outshined by the Wave Serpent. I'm not sure what can be done to fix this without either making the Dedicated Transport too expensive or the Falcon far too cheap. One measure I would have considered would be making the Cloudstrike Stratagem only apply to the Falcon, much like it's squadron benefit in 7th. This would allow players to use it like a better Drop Pod.

The Wraithknight may be too expensive to use now. This may be an error on my part, analysing it in a vacuum. It could be that with the in-Codex synergies that it just requires the correct support army. Time will tell.

Stratagems. This isn't an issue with the Codex, but the Edition itself. People used to complain in 7th that units in Formations that were then in Detachments had to learn many special rules for each unit, and know when it applied. Stratagems replace this. With 27 new ones to learn, and remember, especially for ones that trigger due to certain events or can only be used at certain times. Obviously, players who can learn them well will gain an advantage. Knowing what tricks an opponent could pull with them could prove to be impossible, especially if you are at a Tournament and face a wide variety of armies.

Strategy Tips

So, you wanna play the Asuryani? 

Firstly, choose a Craftworld. This can be based on anything you like. Maybe you like the Attribute or one of the named Characters? Maybe you like the background or the colour scheme? Whatever attracts you to the Craftworld is what makes it right for you. It may even be that you wish to come up with your own Craftworld so you can use your own colours and fluff.

Then look at the Attribute for the Craftworld, or if it's your own choose one you like. Between this and the fluff, that should give you an idea of which units to prioritize putting into your army. Add the "essential" command elements of Autarch, Farseer and Warlock. Then with the remaining points for your build, take the units you like. It's pointing then at the correct targets on the battlefield that comes through play experience.

Alaitoc

The Attribute is good for any unit, whether it's protecting melee units as they close the gap or shooting units that keep the opponent at a distance. Rangers get an additional -1 to hit and are a key part of the Alaitoc background, so take them in the Troop slots. This gives you deployment options and a built-in way of dealing with opposing Characters. You want to look at units that can, therefore, deal with Vehicles and units of troops. Mobility to stay at 12"+ Range may be key.

Biel-Tan

The Attribute gives Aspect Warriors a Leadership buff, while also giving a re-roll to Shuriken weapons. This makes Dire Avengers better at shooting than Swooping Hawks. Don't forget that Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions have Shuriken Pistols! Add the Avatar to the "command essentials", and take your favourite Aspects. Consider adding the Phoenix Lord of your choice.

Saim-Hann

The Attribute wants you to be charging into melee while shooting from Bikers. So look at the close combat units for the core of your force, and use Windriders and Vypers for you fire support. Obviously, make the "command essentials" Windriders too so they can keep pace.

Ulthwe

A one in six chance to ignore lost wounds is universally strong. Much like Alaitoc, this Craftworld asks you to look to the background for unit choices. Add more Farseers and Warlocks, potentially making a Warlock Conclave. Take large units of Guardians because of the Black Guardians Stratagem. Take Eldrad, because it's Eldrad.

Iyanden

The Attribute stops Morale killing off units too often, so don't worry about it. Their fluff says "the dead outnumber the living". While this may seem like an invitation to take an all-Wraith army, those units are expensive. At the least though, I would take a unit of Wraithguard/Wraithblades and a Wraithlord, equipped to suit whatever role you want. My current army mixes Wraithcannon-wielding Wraithguard for killing the harder targets, while the Wraithlord runs around with two Shuriken Cannons.

That's the starting points I would look at for the 5 major Craftworlds.

Example Synergy

Here are some Synergy ideas that will help you in your games. Some will be more competitive than others.

Swooping Hawks using Children of Baharroth can come into play, use their Grenade Packs and deal Mortal Wounds to an opposing unit. Have a Warlock cast Quicken on them to move again and cause more. Finally, after they shoot, use Fire and Fade to move them 7" and drop the grenades a third time that turn.

Mind War deals Mortal Wounds to a Character via a Leadership roll-off. Move a Wraithfighter near to the target first to have it's Mindshock Pod reduce the Leadership by 2. Then have a Warlock cast Horrify for an additional -1 to increase the damage.

Vaul's Might is great when targeting D-Cannon Support Weapons, as they will be wounding many targets on 1s anyway, so the re-roll is great.

Has your opponent charged your Dark Reapers to stop them shooting for a turn? Use Feigned Retreat to have your survivors leave combat and still be able to shoot normally.

Against armies with artillery or a gunline, take 2 units of Howling Banshees and use Webway Strike to charge them from Reserve. The Banshee Masks mean the opposing units won't be able to Overwatch, and even if you don't do any/enough damage your opponent won't be able to fire as they Fall Back. If you are feeling really spicy, replace one of the units of Banshees with Jain Zar.

Final Thoughts

In case the massive review wasn't enough of a clue, I'm excited to play the Asuryani. I've already had one game versus Death Guard, with a rematch due this Friday. Plus promise of the third Qa'tan campaign early next year, so I'm looking at getting more painting done. They have even announced an errata to the Ynnari, making them less obviously more powerful. It's a great time for Iyanden of either flavour.