Rambling thoughts on 40k PDF Print E-mail
Written by Adam (Vergil)   
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Where in I sort of collect a bunch of rambling thoughts on 40k.

Discuss this article on the forums. (1 posts)

1999.  That was the year when I moved to Port Huron.  It was also the year that my hobby gaming habits finally transcended Magic: The Gathering and transcended into Pen&Paper Role Playing and Miniatures Wargamming.  I ran my very first role playing game - an eight session Palladium Rifts campaign that actually went to completion, and, under the tuteliage of B'harroth, I began my 40k experences.

That means I've been playing Blood Angels for almost nine years now (assuming we assign an arbitrary fall start time of my 40k experences).  For nine years, and through 3 editions of the game, the red armored, blood drinking space marines have battled the enemies of the Imperium at my behest.  There were a few side projects, a la my short spat with the 3rd Ed Eldar (which went as crappy as trying to play 3rd Ed Eldar with a 2nd Ed Eldar army would go ><) and of course the Tau of Shi'ukos (why did I name my sept 'Victory Spoon' again?), but in the end I'd always roll out the Blood Angels when I was "playing for reals."

Now after a rather long-ish stint of being disillusioned with GW for the way they've managed to some how screw up 4th ed, my interest is returning.  I'm still irked by Apocolypse, irate that all my army gets is a White Dwarf article, and disappointed in the continued ritual destruction of unique sub-armies.  However I begrudgingly respect and recognize that the 40k they are building now is more customizable from the ground up, allowing you, rather than forcing you, to take you units you want to without horrible expenses to your tactical flexability.  Yeah the armies themselves lose some individuality, but typically their faction gains overall.  The new Codex: Eldar and Codex: Orks epitomise what is great about these changes, while Codex: Chaos Space Marines demonstraites sort of the double-edged sword of the situation, giving you cheaper troops and more flexably org charts, while destroying individuality, vet skills, and nerfing some units significantly.

Though I have reconciled with the Blood Angels WD article (do I have to call it a Codex?), I'm still left with this lingering sense of completion. As I'm watching Misharium and Dominion building exciting new armies and Kitty continuing to work on her's, I find myself longing for that energetic freshness that comes from getting to work with a new army again.  I can't let my brain go down that path without suffering from a bit of guilt for a moment.  After all, I already have not just one army but two, and the second one is at least $100 away from being "done."   That said I'm still not sure that the Tau were that great of a idea by GW - making an army so dependant on powerful ranged combat that they devistate their foes horribly and early, or fail to do so and are so totally crushed - when there are much more flexably and versititle armies available.  I suppose that sort of thing works since I imagine Imperial Guard and Dark Eldar work much the same way.

But if not the Tau then what?  I really love the new Eldar codex, and Eldar was my 2nd choice after the Blood Angels back when I was going to start playing 40k.  The new Ork codex is nice and all but Orks haven't ever been my speed.  I love them as foes, but not really as playing them (that and even when I'm not playing a shooting army I imagine BS 2 would piss me off). The new Chaos Codex has enchanted me, perhaps because it's less about the original traitor legions (most of which can go right to hell imo) and more about letting you create your own flavor of Chaos.  There's also the idea of the fun modeling project that would be a Sisters of Battle army, but I can't help but look at their codex and worry about certain long-range combat and durable-close combat limitations that might make playing them quite bothersome.  The sisters also have the problem of being another Imperium army, therefore they aren't as flexably for allies in games of 40k as a Xenos army  that could go either way would be.

As I continue to wrestle with this conundrum my brain sometimes gives up and says "meh, you play Blood Angels, deal with it.  Go buy that 2nd Razorback and then just start getting more stuff so you could field that 4,000pt army even though you probably wouldn't go nuts at the idea of a game that big.  Or just newer-pretier models for things, like the new Terminators to replace your old-fashioned ones with bases that are too small." Afterall, I know I like that army, I like to think I play them quite well, and I tend to end fewer games with them, even the losses, in utter frustration.  For now the debate continues in my head and in conversations with a few of you, and at this point I don't know how it will end.  One way or another I'm not getting rid of the Sons of Sanguineous.  They have served me too well to not want to preserve them as long as I can.

< Prev   Next >
Content and Images are copyright of Adam Robert Clegg 2017
Kitty-chan content and images are copyright of Grace Ruch 2017
This site is powered by Mambo
Copyright 2000 - 2005 Miro International Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mambo is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.