Astra Militarum: A Review (Part 2)

It's A Wyvern, So What Would Be The Point?

Let's continue with the run-down on the Codex sections.

Elites
Storm Troopers Militarum Tempestus (i.e. Bad Latin Meaning Troopers of Stormy Things: i.e. Storm Troopers) are, aside of hilariously seeing GW on the receiving end of legal threats (from a bigger fish, oh look, they’re reasonable all of a sudden), is the first of the elite choices with new models. So now you can take them in platoons, they are the only types of unit that can take Taurus Primes, they have their own command squad type, and new, snazzy weapons. They can no longer scout or infiltrate, but they do still have deep strike. They can spam a lot of ap 3 lasgun shots (plus a salvo strength 4 special weapon version), and the hellguns can be boosted by the Guard Orders, making them serious trouble for stuff with good armour. Throw in a Biomancy Wielding Primaris, and you have the potential to pick off some seriously weakened Space Marines. They’ve also got some serious discounts from last time, in spite of being better. Yeah. Buy new plastic models!

Wyrdvane Psykers. The Wardian (i.e. Brainlessly Awful) style rename for the Psyker Battle Squad that everybody expected to disappear, but remarkably it remains! However it is a bit rubbish, effectively being a single Lv.1 psyker that has access to the same disciplines as the primaries, and having ablative wounds from enemy shooting and perils of the warp. For 60 points. Plus, the unit’s old abilities (super pie plate and reducing leadership) are gone. They expect you to buy multiple packs of the Sanctioned Psykers set just to get one likely under-whelming psychic power from a 5-10 man squad. The only plus is having transport options. Once again, you suck for buying metal and finecast models.

Next we have Ratlings, who, like Wyrdvanes, didn’t get new models. They’re pretty much what they were in the previous book. Their new rule, shoot sharp and scarper adds a bit of flavour, being able to shoot and then run (like the order). But that’s it. Guess what. Finecast.

Now we have the big fellas. The Ogryns and Bullgryns. New models all, and thus, lots of new juicy things. Both types are Stubborn, Very Bulky, and have Hammer of Wrath. Bullgryns come with two distinct flavours. The close range grenade shooting, moving cover type, and the melee nutters. The moving cover comes from the slab shield, large shields that boost their armour save when in base to base with each other, and cover saves to friend and foe when shooting through them. The melee type have an invulnerable save and a power maul, plus can re-roll hammer of wrath wounds. The Ogryns are seriously tough, and like combined infantry, can use similar sources to ridiculously boost their offensive abilities. If you’re taking the Melee Bullgryns, you would be mad not to stick a Priest in with them.

Fast Attack
Now we’re on to Fast Attack, and once again, the lack of new models is disturbingly telling. There are a lot of nerfs in this section. Some of them necessary, a lot of it is lack of new model syndrome. This brings me on to Rough Riders. They’re still here, contrary to what some expected, but as I sort of anticipated, it’s a larger fuck you to Guard players than if they’d removed them. How bad are they? Well, they cost the same as they did, and most of the options have increased (including an extra point for more squad members). Mogul Kamir, the only real buffer, is completely gone. The hunting lance still boosts initiative, and is still a power weapon, but they remain a one trick pony that is very easy to eliminate. They didn’t even jump up in toughness like they should have done. Once again, you suck for buying finecast and metal.

Sentinels and Armoured Sentinels are next, and again, a similar story. Nothing remarkable, and they’re more or less the same. Armoured Sentinels have dropped in points (but the eagle eyed vets will see this is largely because they’ve lost the previously inclusive extra armour upgrade, which covers 10 of the 15 point reduction). Mercifully, there are again some cost decreases, especially given the fact these guys are basically moving, armoured heavy weapon teams (and teams are cheaper and easier to buff). Nothing appalling like the Rough Riders, but you know the models aren’t new, but at least they’re plastic.

It’s a similar story with the Hellhound Squadron. If anything, it’s a bit worse. Points have been juggled around, so you may end up with your unit being more or less costly than it was in the previous book. For instance there are no Squadron upgrades, so Camo Netting is 15 points for each tank, rather than 20 for the lot. The Hellhound is 5 points cheaper, but the Devil Dog has jumped up 15. Whilst these are tougher than the average Chimera Class tank, it is still pretty scary to consider that the standard, unmodified Hellhound is nearly double the cost of the Wyvern, which can do its job much more effectively, if being a bit more fragile. Still, being Fast Tanks does mean that it can move at cruising speed and fire two weapons at BS, so at least there’s that. But again, they’re not new models.

Finally for Fast Attack, is the Valkyries and Vendettas. Similarly, we have points increases for both (although to be fair, they’re now fully fledged flyers rather than skimmers), and largely point increases for options. Plus, their Grav Chute Insertion rule has been seriously nerfed. It allows deep strike deployment for their embarked unit anywhere along the line of their movement, but the whole unit takes dangerous terrain if it scatters. A reasonable nerf, but Necrons can still do it without. Once again, the models aren’t new. [Although worth noting that you can stick an Augur Array for 25 points onto a vehicle, and any unit Deep Striking within 6” of this doesn’t scatter, so there is a sneaky way around this nerf]

Heavy Support
Okay, now we move on to Heavy Support. It is a mix of good and bad again. The bad, well a few things are gone, although not a lot that would be seriously missed, but the main news is that it’s business as usual. A few nice discounts on the obvious stuff, new things are, largely, obviously better, and everything else is as it was or a little worse. Russes are more or less as they are, but they’ve got a few discounts. Most of the fancy variants are a bit cheaper, and the Lumbering Behemoth rule gives way to the heavy vehicle rule, so Russes can only move 6” but none of their guns ever notice, which is arguably far better than previously. The main news is that these have a boost via the aforementioned Tank Commander (and Pask), but otherwise, options are a bit cheaper (but again, no Squadron discount on camo nets) and the other thing to report is that the Executioner Plasma Cannon (that okay, was a bit OP) has now got Gets Hot, meaning it can easily kill itself even more than if you stuck the Plasma Cannon sponsons on it as well (but at least they’re 10 points cheaper). In general, Russes are as solid as was expected. Expect lots of Pask Punishers.

The Hydra is more or less what was expected, and surprisingly for a new kit, a little disappointing, if anything. It’s a tiny bit cheaper, it’s lost the Jink Denial rule it had, it still doesn’t have interceptor (but the Hydra Autocannons still have Skyfire). In spite of firing at BS, it probably wouldn’t drop a flyer as effectively as Pask in an Executioner or Punisher (albeit for the price of getting that you do get 3 Hydras). If you are going to make use of Hydras, it’s bad news if your opponent doesn’t take any flyers. That will probably also explain why the Wyvern is so sodding good.

The Basilisk is exactly the same as it was, although the alternatives are gone. The Manticore is a tad more expensive, and the Deathstrike costs exactly the same. Although hilariously, the Deathstrike has had the real boosts: it shoots on a 4+ (always on a 6 even if it was –3[it’d be a dead tank, incidentally]), is harder to knock back from shooting and it uses the apocalyptic template, fixed at a 5” radius, rather than random. Mind you, the Manticore is better by nature of Barrage (hence the extra 10 points), but that’s it. These entries are no worse than before, which I suppose is good. What worries me is if they get new models next time…

Finally, we have the Wyvern, which I’ve mentioned earlier, which is why I am mentioning it last. I’m a veteran of GW. I’ve been around for 20 years, and whilst I know GW love to make new models better than old ones, I have never before been so surprised by how ludicrously good a new model is. It’s only major weakness, let’s say, compared to the Hellhound that it is hilariously cheaper than, is that it is open topped. For a mere 15 points, you can buy an enclosed compartment upgrade for it, rendering this weakness away, and it’ll still be 45 points cheaper than the Hellhound, which isn’t twin-linked (so it doesn’t re-roll wounds).  Sure, it has better strength, but it’s much less likely to inflict as many hits. The Hellhound also doesn’t roll to hit, but then, it only fires one of those templates, and the Wyvern fires 4 barrage shots that re-roll to hit, and to wound, so the bonus strength counts for less too. A single Wyvern can potentially annihilate any troop unit on a standard 4 by 4 board by the end of turn one. You have to get a Hellhound into position. The Hellhound costs 60 points more. Add 5 points to that, and that’s another Wyvern.

The only other things worth mentioning are new wargear items. There are, as usual, 6 unique items. A pretty good master crafted power sword, a mask that gives a 4+ inv, it will not die and causes fear, and 3 order/morale boosting items. One in particular that allows Inspired Tactics on any double but 1. Some new vehicle upgrades, one that gives Adamantium Will, and one that explodes when enemies charge the vehicle. These are pretty much the only things that don’t have models for them that are worth note, really. Enjoy the one Codex you have them for.

In Closing
Overall, the Codex is reasonably solid. But it is in many ways a seriously over-powered Codex, and there will be a lot, and I mean a lot, of new Guard players. Whilst largely a lot of veteran Guard Players wont be disappointed, seeing as most of the staples of the army are, surprisingly for GW, more or less as they were. But anyone who built an army around Al’Rahem (Tallarn) or Chenkov (Valhallan) have pretty much nothing to show for it. Space Marines have ways to distinguish their Chapters, but Guard has no such luck on that front (although that’s an older criticism: you suck for not buying Spess Mahreens!).

Guard (or Astra Militarum) were in dire need of a bit of nerfing. Whilst this has become a reality in places, the places where the nerf-hammer fell most heavily were on things guard players didn’t much bother with that also didn’t get new models (like Rough Riders and certain characters such as Harker). What was staple has been made more obvious, or at least discounted, which in the pattern of 6th Ed Codices was already anticipated. Russes are slow, but in most ways better, the orders system is more refined, but as a result significantly boosted. Guard are still a leaf-blower force, and given a turn to unleash ungodly amounts of fire, can, almost without effort, shoot most forces off the table.

If one looks over it, there are some interesting touches, and GW could have certainly gone more overboard on this book. But regardless, if it does anything at all, it asserts the typical GW hegemony of their miniatures, out of the box, and if you buy any, start with the new ones. GW doesn’t make very much effort to encourage conversions, or customisation with this book. Sure there are some options, even some really cool ones that players could use, but it’s tempered with the fact that rules have disappeared just because they couldn’t be bothered to put models for them out there, and are evidently more concerned that some other company could be, than whether their fans will buy GW’s kits to convert their own.

It’s a disturbing possibility for 7th Edition, and even worse for armies that thrive on conversions, such as Orks, but I’m expecting the newer rulesets to give increasingly less opportunities for companies that make add-on bits to GW’s miniatures. So rather than manning up and filling the void themselves, they’ll merely remove the options to compensate. I am genuinely astonished that veterans can still take shotguns, because I was betting against that (and dreading the possibility). It does at least show me that on occasion, I am wrong about the evil empire. Time will tell to what extent I am wrong about them. This latest instalment does have me absolutely DREADING the next Ork Codex release, but the signs aren’t awful, merely disturbing.

A passable effort. 3 stars.

Factionism: Wargaming Bread and Butter or Burnt Toast?

There isn't enough vomit in the world...

The intention is to hopefully avoid the next 3 or so articles descending into GW bashes, but I can't make any promises. It just so happens that the 3 things I'd like to talk about over the course of these few days (week, month or however long) are examples of how not to needlessly damage the appeal of a wargame, and GW just so happen to be a fantastic example of how this can go disastrously wrong. Especially since the really bad writers of the GW Dev Team got on board (Ward and Cruddace particularly), GW are hitting meme-tastic levels of awfulness.

This particular one has a few aspects, so it's worth discussing these before moving onto the examples. Wargames revolve (obviously) around conflict. Conflict on such a scale requires two or more factions who cannot at that point possibly resolve their issues through any other means, in order to sustain the concept. You could play one off battles, the Historical bunch sometimes do, but nothing beats a setting where a large amount of conflict, if not infinite, takes place. In such circumstances, it is a given that the factions involved will have their differences. Perhaps they fight in different ways, perhaps the nature of each is in flux. One thing is certain: most Wargames play up the differences for all they're worth.

To an extent, that is expected. Most people are glued to the allure of stereotypes, clichés, and abstractions. Often, general attitudes are attributed to factions, rather than particular details, which may be mentioned as fluff. This is pretty much the only sane way to do it, because adding in additional detail to something that largely needs to be visceral is often counter-productive. Thus most fantasy/sci-fi wargames have factions that inhibit a particular aspect of personality/ethos/attitude and usually particular preferences to wargear. This is usually a good thing, because people can enjoy the different experiences, and can feel the difference when playing different factions.

Done badly however, this concept can easily become more or less the point of the game. Whilst most players will want a particular faction to be "their" faction for playing the game, the motivations often revolve around sales of new miniatures, or emphasis on new gimmicks, encouraging trends or fads, and generally getting people to feel empowered or inadequate. This seems to be a potent business model if anything else, but is it?

I'd argue that it actually isn't.

In the short run, perhaps this encourages the well-known pack instincts, brutal indifference and arrogant pride of gamers, but it really just breeds a culture of insecurity. Games Workshop, for instance, consider themselves "sellers of miniatures" and try to underplay the importance of the horribly shit rules that accompany them as secondary, and this does show incredibly well. They seem to have no idea how to make an actual wargame these days. They bring out a core system, which they proceed to completely undermine with Codex releases. Encouraging shifting faction combinations, only acerbated by the blatant and overly emphasised inclusion of allies. 40k in particular is a case in point. How much thought went into the allies system? Well, Ward invariably made sure all of his Codexes were more or less allies of convenience. The rest he took from the WHFB allies system, which itself was likely largely nabbed from some Grand Tournament material.

Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy Battle have both gone from games with extreme faction isolation (even within groups that should really be fighting together) to a clunky, exploitable and largely pointless system of faction interbreeding, overcomplicated by the inconsistent, badly written, and completely imbalanced Codexes. With the new Rulebook, there was potential to standardise a large portion of the rules, and take things such as special rules, weapons, and alliances into a consistent and thoughtful framework. It would be generous of me to say that this was attempted. To be more accurate would be to say a small portion of this might have been realised, very likely by accident.

That is not to say that Warmachine and Hordes are much better for this, although they do try to address the differences in factions with much greater attention than GW even bothers with. Warmahordes are far more loyal to their core ruleset, and more consistent towards it, aside of the GW-like anti-upping, and faction difference that is equally inevitable. Some rules are standardised, and readily available, but many arent.

Faction difference is inevitable, but is it a problem? Well, it depends. On a how to mess this up example, the best one without doubt would be 40k. That game is a total mess, and was worse in 5th Edition. Given enough time 6th Edition will likely be just as bad, if not worse. It's turning into a mongolian clusterf*** of positively epic proportions.

As far as I'm concerned, if a wargame hasn't got a consistent core, or loses one because of emphasis upon faction difference, then you really have a problem. A core ruleset is far, far more important than making a faction feel more different than the next one. Within a core ruleset, this can even be done. Most rulesets, even offending ones in this case, manage to standardise some difference by including it in the core. It isn't just a matter of it being there so you can see it though, it gets right to the heart of the matter. If you need to change the way your game plays by making faction change massive, then your wargame is a waste of time.

Good faction writing is all about utilising the core ruleset to offer difference in a way that works. Sticking it closer to the core makes balance more likely, and regulates what can be done. Sure, anti-upping is reduced, but is that a bad thing? Besides, new ideas can be introduced, but they must work within the logic of the Core and not undermine the point of it. Necromunda, for instance has House Gangs, where difference is tracked through in-game mechanics. It's not perfect, but it shows the idea's potential. Whereas the real bugbear is the Outlanders gangs (Skavvies, Redemptionists, Spyrers, Ratskin Renegades, Pit Slaves and Enforcers), where factions start getting special rules. Most of these come with heavy downsides, which is more effort to balance than GW has bothered with since the late 90s.

Still, the true secret to making factions is to stick as rigidly as possible to a pre-determined set of guidelines. If factions are going to get special rules, all factions should. All benefits should be relative: it's hard for some benefits to not be more useful than others, but they should be of equal value in some way. If new equipment and rules are brought in, they should be considerate of all factions. Never, ever, update the core via the rules of a single, or more up to date factions. If your core needs updating mid-way, you're doing it wrong.

Above all else, difference shouldn't exist for the sake of it. Have logical reasons why they are worth including. Difference impacting rules is fine, but don't overdo it. Wearing woolly hats isn't enough to make your faction any better in cold conditions automatically, unless your faction is actually used to cold. Good factions will provide ying to another's yang, but make sure that other factions don't get advantages because some factions are over-specialised towards a specific enemy. Make sure all factions stand a fair and even chance against any faction.

Use the core ruleset wisely. Make sure rules set up a logic that you are always loyal to (that way rules issues are easier to resolve), and that is always consistent. Only include universal weapons and upgrades if they actually are universal to all factions (or at least parts of each combined means they are universal to all factions). Make sure that factions are not undermined by certain battle types, unless there is good reason for it. Encourage players to get the feel for factions. If some factions are more difficult to master than others, provide incentives or options that allow those factions tactical flexibility, even if they appear weaker.

Always remember that no faction is bigger than a setting. All factions are interesting if done well, and a good faction will sell itself. There is no need to oversell something that is obviously cool already when other factions deserve equal attention if not more because they are less obvious. Why do GW still, for instance, exert so much effort to push Space Marines, when they are so cool anyway that they sell themselves? The more they waste their time beating a dead horse, the less time can be spent on development that is actually useful. Not that I want to encourage the current Dev team to do much development to other factions. Other factions are actually still interesting, and it would be nice if they stayed that way.

Organisation, Organisation, Organisation: Venues and Gaming Clubs

This one is going to be brutally honest, because it needs to be. So, perhaps you are considering starting up, and running your own gaming club? My first suggestion would be to consider long and hard as to whether or not you actually should. Because if there is one thing any hobbyist learns, is when actually organising a group of any enthusiasts, the amount of problems that rise from doing so are enough to prematurely age a teenager into a grumpy sod in their 50s within weeks. Running a gaming group is one of the most stressful, thankless, and frustrating things you can possibly do, and I work in the care profession!

So why is it so fraught with peril? What are the pitfalls? How can one avoid them? The sad truth is that there’s very little you can do to avoid some of them. One thing I never begrudge GW staffers is the act of having to run campaigns and gaming nights, and having to keep gamers happy. That’s a tough enough task without the added baggage of having to also go to the effort of actually establishing a venue as something that people should bother to attend.

The best place to start with such a venture is to look at yourself. Can you do the job? Being in charge of a club requires certain values, which you really need in order to keep going at it. The primary one is patience. You may think you have patience, but do you truly have it? A few hours of being in a position of responsibility and stress will quickly determine if you have, and it will usually inform you that you don’t have any, or at least certainly not enough of it.

Managing people will be the main source of irritation. If you are easily stressed, upset, or in a particular position in your life that brings on stress (such as uni, tough patch at work, just had a new child, etc), then such an endeavour should ideally be avoided. Why? Because people are annoying, and Gamers are exceptionally annoying; they expect something to be done about gaming, but you can count on one hand the amount of people who will actually do anything other than maybe turn up when all the work is done, and expect a game. If that annoys you (and it will), then you need a contingency for it. You need to prepare yourself mentally for a thankless job, because it almost always is a thankless job.

Now, you can certainly benefit from a bit of an easy-going nature, but you will need drive as well. You need to effectively be a dictator, because you’ll have a large mix of the uselessly indifferent and a select group who fancy they can do it better. There will be tension. There will be exchanges of views, and you need the self-certainty to be able to plough through that process with firm ideas. You have to be prepared to fight your corner, be awkward, and to confront people, especially if you are charging admission/membership to pay for the venue. Because people wont pay if there aren’t sufficiently noisy authority figures. People will take facilities for granted. The only way to guarantee payment is to prevent entry without it. Never accept IOUs because you will be waiting far, far too long for them.

You also need to be ruthless, especially if your venue has strict rules about cleanliness and contraband (i.e. do they let you bring your own food, pop, alcohol etc). If you’re getting the venue at particularly low rates, or even for free, it’s usually a good idea to use your camera phone, and take before and after pictures each time the facility is used, at least until you determine that your hosts aren’t going to be awkward. As someone who has also been in a band, you have to be really careful, especially with jumping between multiple venues. Your hosts will be ruthless, and I have had cases of staff saying lights have been left on; tables have been left a mess, etc. It’ll come down to your word against them, so you either need evidence (hence the camera suggestion) or be prepared to find another venue.

It’s also worth trying to talk sense to, and indeed haggle with hosts. It sounds mad, but I have regularly got the impression that most host venues would be happier if you weren’t using their facilities. Rates charged could be unrealistic, they’ll be awkward about packing up (turning up early to remind you to pack up is a party favourite), and they’ll generally go out of their way to make you feel like you’re a burden. Do not accept it. Always be polite, clean, keep your ship in good order, but remind them that you pay a rate, that you’re using the room (i.e. it’s not going to waste), and you’d be happy to recommend their facilities to others (although be careful about this one, as it seems many hosts actually hate having work to do, and by work I mean sitting on their arses all day and at the end of it you give them money. What a chore it must be to be them!). Don’t be afraid to give your members a hard time if they’re letting the side down too. Many a gaming club that actually had cushy facilities has fallen on the wayside by a few bad eggs spoiling it.

Also, make sure, absolutely sure, that payment is given properly. Often individual staff can sink so low as to pocket your admission fee for themselves and say you didn’t pay. Make sure you give the money either to a trusted member of staff, the manager, or at least have plenty of witnesses. If you are all quite young, pay at the start or end of your session and make sure an adult relative or guardian is on hand to witness what is paid.

One way to keep the budget down is to set up a society if one of your members is at university. Obviously, this is temporary, and some universities might not allow the general public to join them. It does come with issues though. I did this, and in spite of my gaming “buddies” getting a free venue to game, they managed to muck it up for me, and whilst I had genuine stresses at uni, they succeeded in adding to them. I do often blame a little part of my transfer from Durham to Teesside (brought on from smegging up my first year of Anthropology) down to having to look after a bunch of gamers after GW turfed them out. There were about 30 of us. TWO of us looked for venues.

So what about other venues? Well, it pays to think outside the box. Community centres and sports facilities tend to be the obvious ones. I’ve had reasonably mixed results from those, but depending on your area they may be the only choice. Pubs are best avoided in my experience; pub staff can be the least reputable when it comes to fees. Also, don’t forget to check your local area. There are often other schemes that are looking for community based activities, and it’s also surprising how many existing gaming clubs can actually fall under the radar. Explore word of mouth; see what’s out there.

Obviously it depends on your area. It’s important to cultivate every possible relationship that can be useful. Find out if any of your group have friends or family in council positions, or in a position to offer advice on potential venues, or put in a good word for you with one of their own. I also know of groups that actually own their own facilities, and membership a year is steep per person, but you can go in wherever you like. There are lots of options, and potential out there, you just need to keep half an eye open for useful opportunities. Just remember that finding a venue isn’t even half the work!

So you have a bit of a taste there. The important thing to remember is that gamers are absolutely bloody useless, and in spite of this, some of the most expecting, exacting and whiny gits that the universe has ever spawned. So understand that when setting up clubs, you’re doing so on the back of a massive disadvantage, which is that most people take everything for granted, and will never appreciate the value of something you work so bloody horribly hard to provide for them. If you’re still happy to give the smelly gits a place to game after that realisation, then you’re the kind of worthy, almost saintly person who needs to do just that. Who knows, you might even enjoy it!

Not likely. But what else is there to do? Take up golf? Politics? Cross-stitch? Go into a GW? See, there are a few bonuses…