Fields of Blood 40k Teams Championship

 Over the weekend I ran the inaugural 40k FOB Teams Champs here in Wellington. Six teams of five in a round robin using the WTC rules.

Everyone was very relaxed and overall seemed to enjoy themselves. It was great to have a team come down from the north. Certain appreciate the drive they had to make.

First Place, with 4 wins and a draw went to the Properly Cocked Team made up of Steve Joll, Aaron Wilson, Louis Thomson-Gregg, Jordan Green and Sean Sullivan. Four of the team were scheduled to take part in this year's WTC in Austria before the Covid intervened. The armies they used were Tau, Imperial Soup, Admech, Aeldari and Death Guard/Chaos Knights.

Second Place went to the team captained by Ryan Stuart (Tyranids/GSC). He was joined by Locky Reid (Sisters), Paul Knieriem (Grey Knights), Scott Paterson (Tau) and Sam Whitt (CSM/Thousand Sons). They won three games and drew one.

Third Place went to the Auckland Raiders (2 wins, 2 draws). A loss in Round 2 to the team finishing 5th ultimately proved costly.

Great to come out of lockdown with such a fun event. Looking forward to doing it again late 2020/early 2021.

40k - The Great Mat Controversy

Yesterday saw the breaking of the first real piece of controversy around the new edition.

This was the changing of table size for a 2000 point game to a minimum 60” x 44” (currently most games are on 72” x 48”).

Cue much gnashing of teeth.

The Current Recommended Mat Size Cut to the New Minimum Mat Size

Both GW and the playtesters (one of which is the biggest US producer of mats and owner of the ITC) have said that 2000 point games have been balanced on the new minimum size. FLG have also indicated that they are shifting production to the new size.

So what does this mean for TOs? Especially those who have invested in 6’ x 4 ‘ mats.  Well I think you have three options:

1. Move to 60” x 44” - either by buying new mats or cutting/marking existing mats
2. Stay at 72” x 48” and accept the game is “balanced” for a smaller playing area
3. Do something else

At the moment I am erring towards the last of these options for events I run. I’ll effectively mark off the 12” from one short edge to give me a 60” x 48”  playing area. Yes, there will be 2” extra depth each side for a Daw of War deployment but I don’t think that will necessarily be unbalancing. It is however a practical and pragmatic solution to the new dynamics. It also doesn’t involve physical altering the mats so they can’t be used as 6’x4’ if GW changes again.

I likely use masking tape to delineate the edge but may use marker pen if that proves problematic.

The Benefits of Lockdown Continue

Last weekend I was asked whether I has some certain bits a mate wanted for a conversion.

Now all my bits are sorted and bagged.

Back to the basement with you!!!!!

40k - Thoughts on What We Know So Far re New Edition

Over the course of the past week GW has released teasers on the new edition of 40k.

Everything that we have seen so far seems to point to a desire to speed the game up. They have foreshadowed a reduction in army size by pointing towards matched play occurring at 2000 points but with a likely increase in points costs. This morning it was flagged that the minimum sized table for 2000 points is 60” x 44”  - and importantly the game was playtested (and presumably balanced) on that sized table. FLG - one of the biggest producers of mats and ITC owner - have indicated that their own events will be moving to that table size.

We also got the new army structure rules.  CPs are determined by army size and you then purchase detachments. The cost of the detachment is refunded if your Warlord is part of it. I am hoping that where you buy additional detachments and these are outside your faction/legion/chapter/craft world then these are punitive. Something like 8CPs for non-battalion different legion please! Make the cost of soup hurt (I know it won’t because “Freedom”).

We also saw an Americanisation of missions. The US gaming scene doesn’t like uncertainty as much as GW has had in the past. The ITC and Nova packs have removed variability and allowed players to largely “choose their own adventure” rather than have to react to uncertainty. Personally, I think this makes the ITC missions very bland, the variability being muted.

The other concern about the missions is the scoring. It appears that there will be more points on offer. While this can create granularity in score, it does look that there will be more bookkeeping. One of the benefits of the current GW and ITC Scoring is that it is straightforward with little room for error.

Overall the material to date looks quite encouraging. I don’t like to judge without seeing the whole product....however it doesn’t stop the internet. The ability to “see” the full system based on limited data points appears the default mode for a lot of commentators.

Looking forward to seeing what else GW previews.