apologist

The 'third army' should be a key part of planning and inform the game – whether that's ensuring you've got a 'fair' mirror-layout for competitive Matched Play, or an interesting themed battlefield for Narrative Play. A good table helps with immersion and enjoyment, (at least, if they're set up with a setting mind, as @Inquisitor_Lensoven says; and not a weird laser-tag arrangement of random corner ruins), but also – as @The Neverborn is finding out to their cost – make a substantial difference to the balance of different armies. Unfortunately, suggested terrain and table layouts are under-explored both by GW and the community. I'd love missions to come with guidelines for an ideal table to play it on, as it would encourage more creative and asymmetrical scenarios. In the meantime, I suggest having a look through this thread on Dakka Dakka, to get a sense of how other groups set up their games of 40k. You'll find a lot of variety. Personally, I've tended to adhere to Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson's comments that 'the more terrain, the better the game'.

The poses are so similar between the Mark III and Mark VI Tactical squads that it looks like they're made from the same dollies; but are the parts actually interchangeable? For anyone who has them in hand, or has tried it themselves, how compatible did you find the new infantry models for Age of Darkness? Can you literally kitbash (i.e. glue together straight from the sprue) these like the old models, or do they require actual conversion work (i.e. trimming, clipping etc.)? Things like the arms, heads and guns are pretty obvious, but I'm wondering if particular torso fronts or individual legs (for example) designed to be interchangeable between the kits. ...and for anyone with the Mark VI Assault squad, how do they combine? Thanks in advance for your insights and thoughts.

The best technique I’ve been taught for getting holes drilled straight (for gun barrels and so forth) is to push the tip of a craft knife into the area before drilling. It’s much easier to get precise, and the subsequent drilling is then guided in.

This gives a good overview of the pre-Indomitus system: IMG_3165.webp …though whether the examples given are pre-or post the appearance of the Cicatrix Maledictum, I can’t say. +edit+ … actually, from reading it, it looks like these are the new calendar, with the last three numbers saying 7 and 17 years after the rift appearing, rather than indicating the millennium. That’s probably why they look weird to someone familiar with the old system.

'How like a god he is, that ancient machine, primal of his kind, the Imperator! His mighty fists, massive like two towers of destruction, laden with the doom of mankind's bitter foes. He watches over us now as battle joins, and in his shadow we shall advance upon our enemies and defeat them.' A very generous gift indeed! The mighty @Lucifer216 has graciously rendered the Imperator Titan Cassus Belli to the forces of Metalica. I just need to paint him up. I've started from a base coat of black, with Mephiston Red layered on top from a slight angle. The Cassus Belli [sic] was the name used for the GW Studio Imperator from White Dwarf issue 179 in the Inferno battle report, during the battle for Gehenna Prime: I'll likely use the colour scheme as the basis for my attempt, but need to decide whether to update/correct the name to the Latin/legal term Casus Belli, as Gav Thorpe did in his book about this Titan (entitled Imperator). Any thoughts?

We don't get a 'typical army' in 10th, but we do get two armies set up on an example of a Strike Force battlefield – that is, a medium-sized 2,000pt game. You can compare the Space Marine army here with the 3rd edition example above. Both represent what GW thinks a 'normal' game is in each edition – something intended to be played to conclusion in up to 3 hours. It's interesting that the armies are so similar – lots of direct comparisions: 5 Terminators in each; 10 Tactical/Infernus; 5 Assault/Sternguard; Rhino/Impulsor; Razorback/[modern grav-tank whose name I forget]; Dreadnought/Dreadnought; Land Speeder/Land Speeder... Really, the main difference is that the bikes are replaced with a big tank; and the command group with the new heavy marines. Overall, I think they look pretty damn close in size, but the physical space the models take up on the smaller board makes them look much bigger. +++ What's the conclusion of all this? Well, if we can't compare points for points to work out a normal size game (and thus whether armies are getting bigger), we can perhaps look at the implicit messages that GW are giving us in each edition, and use 'time taken for a game' as the single thing that's remained consistent. From the examples here, I don't think GW's understanding of a normal game has fundamentally changed since 3rd edition.

+ Rogue Trader + For interest and comparison to later editions, Rogue Trader intially had only this to say on points values: ... so really there was no expectation of army size at all, at least initially. This persisted through the edition, and though restrictions came in (see the extracts from the Space Marine and Imperial Guard army lists below), there's no explicit statement anywhere that I can find which gives a suggested size of army. However, as you can see, the lists did allude to proportions and upper limits – as you can see from the fact that a Space Marine army was limited to 8 Tactical Squads and 2 Devastator Squads. A lot of these restrictions strike me as remaining more as guidance for a role-playing experience than formal guidelines for a competitive game. The limitations would give a theoretical maximum points value for an army (somewhere around 15,000–20,000pts), but they're so large that it's essentially meaningless in game terms. Such a game using the RT rules would take weeks! +++ + 2nd edition + 2nd edition was explicitly a cleaning-up and revision of Rogue Trader to make it possible to play balanced games, and so was the first place army size was referenced in an edition. Since my previous note about the 'Black Codex' implying a 2,000pt norm, I flicked through the 2nd edition rulebook to see whether there was any confirmation. It says: So still no explicit statement about what's considered a 'normal game' army size, but alongside what it said in the Black Codex, I'd suggest 1,500–2,000pt is what the game designers were expecting. This is borne through by the battle reports of the time, which fit neatly within this range. Army selection changed to percentage proportions for various unit types (Character, Troops etc.), and so like Rogue Trader, beyond a few 0–1 choices, overall army sizes were effectively limitless. +++ + 3rd edition + The phrasing remains much the same, though we now get expected hours alongside the vaguer 'evening's gaming' phrasing: ... though we do get the Force Organisation chart, which makes a big difference. We're also given the very first 'Typical Space Marine army', which looks like this: So here's our first idea of what the GW Studio expects an army to be. +++ + 10th edition + Spooling on, and the phrasing has been tightened up and formalised, but the heart of it remains much the same. The game sizes have been given names: Incursion, Strike Force and Onsalught for games of to 1,000pts, 2,000pts, and 3,000pts respectively; and we're told that they will take a duration of 'up to 2/3/4 hours' in each case. +++ + Bigger models, smaller tables + I'll also note here that larger individual model size and smaller suggested table size must influence how a game feels in terms of space. A modern marine is roughly twice the size of a RT/2nd ed. marine, for example, and is mounted on a larger 32mm base, rather than the old 25mm ones. Other armies have similarly got bigger, though not all to the same extent. At the same time, table sizes have got smaller. While similarly vague about table size as they are about army size, the RT, 2nd and 3rd edition rules all suggest that the game is most commonly played on an 8 x 4ft or 6 x 4ft board – that's 96 x 48in or 72 x 48in. Compare that with the suggested table sizes in 10th edition. A Strike Force battlefield is noted to be 60 x 44in – a foot less in width and four inches less deep than the smaller suggested table size, and a full three feet less than the bigger.

A rather unceremonious pict-capture disloaddump last weekend, but hope you like the finished Maniple: Tricranium the Great! The Princeps Senioris' Titan, Steel Hammer. The only member of the Maniple to survive all five games! +++ As noted, I also made a load of themed markers. These are Varus miniatures' sculpts, based on the Armageddon Steel Legion. Titan Hunter Infantry markers – I figured ambushing heavy weapons teams might strip a shield or two. From left to right, an Astropath and his bodyguard, a Senior Officer and colours of the 7th Army, and a Metalican Techpriest Dominus. These were used as objective markers to secure and extract. ,,, and for missions where the objectives can not be moved, I have these hefty crates, each guarded by recon or advance troops from the 7th Army.

@Arikel Can you remember roughly how many models were in that 1,500pt list for 5th – and likewise how many are in your ‘normal’ list today?

... and on intended army size, here's what the 2nd edition Codex Army Lists book (sometimes called the 'Black Codex') had to say: Looks like my assumption earlier was wrong, and that 2,000pts was the intended army size (at least from GW's point of view). Note also the bit at the top, and the intent that existing players should be able to use things with minimum disruption. At the bottom, we see why things are restricted – both for background (implicit in the 'armies don't consist entirely of [...]Space Marine Captains' comment) and for balance reasons. Unlike 3rd, the proportions for each army are explicitly different, rather than all fitting into a Force org chart.

This is a 2,000pt (well, 1,995pt) army from the sole Rogue Trader report in WD141: The points costs are based on the Eldar list presented in WD129; and these would soon be replaced by the release of 2nd edition 40k. Interestingly, this army works out to about the same cost in that edition (I'll post up the list later), though it's interesting to see that the points cost of the characters shot up (a 2nd ed Farseer was 170pts before wargear), while the cost for troops dropped. In terms of army size, there are ~50 infantry models here, and two small support weapons. I think that the number of models might be a good area to explore in finding out whether (and how) army sizes have differed from edition to edition.

Interesting discussion; thanks @Toe Bee. I think that the data could do with some more refinement to see what's happening with army sizes overall. As @Xenith points out, while the points per model may have remained consistent, it's the overall size of the 'default' game that's really key – otherwise we're only really analysing how different factions have changed relative to each other. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? The change from 2nd to 3rd is probably the key area, as that was accompanied by articles that made it explicit that the designer's intent was to increase the number of models a player could use (i.e. use their whole collection). We should see if we can find that issue of White Dwarf. From my tattered and patchy mem-banks, the article also explicitly stated that the points were roughly halved across the board for the factions – Space Marines being picked out as dropping from 30pts to just 15, for example. As a result, what was a 1,500pt army overnight became worth around ~750pts, while the expected points level remained 1,500pts... so while the army size nominally remained the same and remained playable, in practice there was an expectation that you would essentially double the size of the army. +++ + Expected points level and actual points level + I wonder whether that 'Expected Points Level' is worth trying to pin down for each edition? It would be relevant to the discussion on army sizes in general, and I'd be interested to see how GW's explicit aim for army size actually translated into the general populace. In 2nd edition, battle reports were typically 1,500pts, with 2,000pts called out as 'big games'. By 3rd, the points values remained roughly the same – with GW suggesting a typical game should be between 1,500 and 2,000pts; but the amount of models had thus doubled. I'd have to rely on others' experience for more recent editions, as I really only play with our gaming group, and I'm not sure that's really representative of the broader trends. +++ + Rogue Trader + I think it'd be worth adding Rogue Trader/1st edition back in for the purposes of discussion. While the early part of the game was very RP-led, it became increasingly codified (ho-ho) by the eve of 2nd edition, and the army lists were pinned down. I'd be happy to help gather info on points level differences between 1st and 2nd – I'm looking at some projects based around that crossover period at the moment, funnily enough.

Yes, you absolutely can – @Bob Hunk and I have picked this edition back up recently, and had a fun game using the Army Lists that came in the basic box, which are sometimes called the 'Black Codex'. In terms of tips, I know there's a Facebook group dedicated to Second Edition. Enthusiasts for this edition also maintain the 'Battle Bible', which can be found on the group. This is a fan-made compilation of the original rulebook along with all additional material and FAQs for it. It's well worth seeking out, as it gives a simple, clean and cross-linked reference for what can be a complex-seeming game.

Keep going, @Brother Christopher – it's looking fantastic! I think your decision to beef up the sponsons was a good one. While the surface texture might seem disheartening, I'll echo the choir that it's very subtle – and you might turn it to your advantage. Rather than weathering it, have you considered something like a Black Templars version of this Ravenwing banner? Having something like that hanging on the side might add to the overall feel, and reinforce the Chapter identity. Alternatively, perhaps a cluster of purity seals – something that I always think adds a great deal to the 40k feel of vehicles – or if you prefer something more functional, perhaps a scanner/directional light or similar? The point is that a little decoration and greebling will make a virtue of the minor damage, where weathering might draw the eye.

I rather like the idea that the Start Collecting/Spearhead boxes would have easy-build (monopose) sets, but that the more flexible (multipose/dual-pose) sets would remain as the standard. One seldom-noted benefit of the easy-build kits is that the designs can include more cool one-off poses, while the more flexible sets have to be a little more conservative to ensure the options fit. Having both alongside each other means that you get more overall variety. As an example, compare the push-fit Tactical Intercessors from Dark Imperium with the standard Tactical Intercessor box: Note the more natural poses, with the marines bringing the rifle sights up to their eye. Having too many of the easy-build immediately gives you repetition; but likewise having only five basic poses in the flexible kit will look repetitive nearly as quickly. Fielded alongside each other, however, that's fifteen basic body poses (ten unique easy-build, five modular/flexible). I hope that makes the broader point, though I don't think the Space Marines above really show what could be done. The Death Guard are perhaps a better example. Again, easy-build first, multi-part next. Both kits are highly distinctive, and even with the options in the multi-part kit, their distinctive individual appearance of each figure would quickly start to stand out. But having both in your army is the best of both worlds – 12 distinct individual models without any conversion work at all. Like the Space Marines, this range was particularly well-served because GW also released lots of 3-man mini-sprues that further increased the variety. Next, let's look at the much-derided ork boyz set: This was received with distaste by many for various reasons – inflexibility, few options, poses too distinctive... and replacing a very popular and highly-modular one. But what if it had it been released as part of a Spearhead box, and followed-up by a complementary multi-part box sold on its own? I think at that point the very distinctive poses in the set above would have gone a long way to adding an overall sense of dynamism and interest to an army, were they dotted among the more conservative poses necessary for the options in multi-poses. +++ To summarise, then, the idea of having Spearhead models as easy-build seems a great one to me. Easier for beginners to get into, but also attractive to long-time players looking for increased variety, more distinctive poses and more individualistic models to dot around their existing army. For an idea of what GW could do with basic models in such easy-build sets in 40k, just compare the poses in the easy-build sets for Warhammer Underworlds (below), and compare them with the equivalents in the standard box (bottom) [Mods, hope it's okay to show these here for purposes of explaining things?] Interesting, distinctive poses that you'd only want one of... ... mixed in alongside more generic, less individual ones. I've deliberately chosen one set famed for being a bit stiff and uninspiring, alongside one that's very individualistic anyway. In both cases I hope you agree that mixing in the distinctive details and body shapes from the easy-build kit to the unit in the multi-pose kit would improve the overall look of each.