Chateau Lloyd

After a brief search, I found that dakkadakka.com is still around and has decent traffic, so I joined.

I think I was a member there 15 years ago or so.  I recall there being a pie fight amongst moderators at Portent or warseer.com and people looking elsewhere, only to come back when things settled down.

Dakkadakka was mostly for orc (and ork) players, but now it seems more open to other points of view.

It is nice being able to talk about apolitical hobbies, and the minutiae of game mechanics.  There was a spirited argument a few days ago about aesthetics of the various Warhammer 40k factions, which was enjoyably trivial.  My first flame war in years.

Society needs more of this.  Everything is political, and people don't debate or even argue, they just insult and cancel.  That's why I've embargoed myself from the news.

The fact is, posting about gaming stuff makes me want to game, and that in turn causes me to work on my collection or come up with new rules.  Conqueror: Fields of Victory was born in a gaming forum, and while it's not a runaway financial success, I enjoyed making it and playing it.

By contrast, nothing positive comes of political or news commentary.  People just get worked up and stressed out. 

It's been a few weeks, and the results are clear: cutting out news makes me more productive around the house and happier in general.

That being said, I'll continue to post columns at bleedingfool.com in part because it's more cultural/entertainment commentary, and often I'm just watching old movies and writing about them.  That's a pretty stress-free environment.

For two decades, I got my 40k fix at one of two discussion sites.  First there was Portent, which started in the 1990s and was for a time the premier news and discussion site for all things Games Workshop.  Sometime in the Aughts, the proprietor had enough, and sold the site to some of the administrators.  That became Warseer.  There was a seamless transition - new accounts were needed but everyone kept their handles and so things went.  I eventually lost interest in being "current" in 40k, but continued to chat with 2nd edition enthusiasts.

I also developed Conqueror: Fields of Victory on Warseer, and the site hosted a "sticky" threat where one could actually read how it came about and discussion about what mechanics it should use.

Alas, a few years ago there was an attack on the site that knocked it down for months and when it came back, most of its users had gone away.  Since then, a few straggled back, but it was mostly a ghost town, a vast site populated with conversations that were frozen in time.

Further complicating efforts to revive it, the site owners refused to authorize a much-needed reorganization, nor were they punctual about updating site credentials, which meant users had to click through warnings to even get there.

It's been down for a bout a week now, and while it has not year reached the "site not found" stage, I fear the end is not far off.

It's a reminder that the internet is by its nature a very temporary thing, and a beloved site with thousands of users can vanish in the blink of an eye.  Warseer may yet come back, but I think it will only continue its zombie existence. 

A large part of the problem is the competition by facebook (the site has a page) but I have no interest in giving my content to tech billionaires.  I guess I should check to see if any of the other contemporaries are still out there.

For reasons known only to themselves, during the 1990s the Games Workshop design team decided that both their flagship fantasy battle game and their rising space opera spin0ff, Warhammer 40,000, needed to use the same sort of card-based magic system.  For the 40k version, the term "magic" was discarded in favor of "psionics" or "psykers."

It was not popular.  During the entire time Warhammer 40k 2nd Edition was current, I only used the psyker rules twice, both against the same Eldar player.

It really came down to efficiency.  The psyker rules added a lot of complexity to the game with little to show for it.  In a medieval fantasy environment, throwing fireballs is a big deal; in a game with tanks, rocket launchers,  and flamethrowers, a fireball is just another hand grenade.

I should add that in both 40k games where psykers were used, they were ineffective.  Again, D&D style magic doesn't make much of an impression on people throwing miniature black holes around the battlefield.

[The opposite was true in the 5th edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, where magic came to dominate the game - much to its detriment.]

So why am I taking a second look after all of these years? 

The answer is that there are technically two sets of psyker rules for 40k 2nd edition.  The deluxe set with all the cards does not interest me, but in the core rule book, there is a simplified system that would add minimal complexity but allow psyker characters to assume a battlefield role.  That's why I'm interested.

You see, as the years have passed, I've gotten interested in exploring more aspects of the game.  One area that I've never even touched on is using the basic psyker rules.  I don't think these will make much of an impact on game play, but I like the idea of it adding some color to the campaigns we run.

It also presents the opportunity to use previously sidelined unit and character choices.  Many of these had aspects beyond psionic use, but since they were priced with psyker abilities in mind, they've been idle.  This provides a chance to expand my battlefield options a bit. 

Yes, it also opens some space to collect a few additional models, but that's not much of an issue.  I generally don't use GW models and I've got so much stuff kicking around the collection that I don't think it will amount to much.  The most likely impact is that I will get out some of the unfinished stuff and repurpose it as psykers. 

The longer one collects, the larger that 'reserve' becomes.  Mine is not as big as 25 years of collecting would indicate because when we moved into our present house, I sold off a lot of the excess.  Indeed, I've continued to do that periodically as part of my drive to reduce clutter.

In any event, I think it offers some interesting possibilities and look forward to seeing what happens.

Over the course of watching the various Mad Max films, I've noticed a peculiar shift.

The aesthetic in the 1980s was one of biker junkyard tribal punks - spiked mohawks, salvaged hotrods and a callous, barfight-level ethos.  The villains in both The Road Warrior and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome are brutal, but not particularly sinister.  They laugh when the other side is hurt, but they laugh when their own lads get smashed.  All in good fun, mate.

They consciously copy J.R.R. Tolkien's visions of orcs as callous, bullying Cockney louts.  There is a scene in Lord of the Rings where one orc leader tells his counterpart about a time they thought one of their soldiers had been killed by Shelob, only to find him quite alive, but hanging in a web.  Oh how they laughed, and of course they left him there because they are callous, cruel and also cowardly. 

This vision clearly informed Games Workshop's background for Warhammer 40,000.  The space orks (note the spelling) are entirely based on the biker types from the Mad Max films.  In fact, GW goes even farther, with wildly improbable machines, all described in Cockney terms.

With Mad Max Fury Road, the aesthetic changed sharply.  The vehicles are still modified, but they are built with a far more sinister purpose, and instead of tribal warriors with strong individual identities, one sees homogenous shaven-headed dark-eyed fanatics serving a skull-mask wearing leader. 

Or, as anyone familiar with 40k would say: a Chaos Lord.

Indeed, there is a vehicle in Fury Road that could have been cribbled from one of the Chaos rulebooks - I'm speaking of the vehicle with a helmeted guitar player surrounded by a wall of speakers wielding a flame-throwing instrument.  If this guy isn't a Champion of Slaanesh, I don't know what is.

Is George Miller a 40k fan, or is it mere coincidence?  I have no idea, but I find the similarities to be striking.

I started playing Warhammer 40,000 back in the 1990s.  In those distant halcyon days, one could buy the Warhammer 40,000 starter boxed set and the included figures were a good start on a combat-ready army.

In fact, if you and a friend both went in on boxes, you could trade the figures and each would have a pretty decent force.  Buy a few extras, maybe a tank, and you were ready to go!

Plastic Space Marines ran about a dollar a figure back then, and I remember my disgust when Games Workshop raised the prices until they reached $2 each.  When the price hit $3, I was done with the game, which was not only expensive but devolving into a never-ending upgrade cycle.

I see now that the marines are $5.50 each, and while one is tempted to blame overall inflation, this is pure greed on the part of GW.

A clear indicator of this is that as the rules continue to churn every 3 years, new units are created and old units are rendered obsolete.  It's like buying vaporware that never finishes getting upgraded.

A major reason I stick with 2nd Edition is that I no longer care about the current rules cycle.  I own the rules outright.  Similarly, I developed Conqueror: Fields of Victory as a way to getting off the upgrade treadmill.

I mention this because I've decided to part with some of my 40k figures which have seen zero use over many years and are better off in someone else's home.

I'm still building armies, but I prefer out of print figures on the secondary market and I'm happy to use ones that don't originate from Games Workshop.

Anyone interested in picking them up?  Keep your eyes peeled on ebay for some Blood Angels in varying stages of completion.

A few weeks ago I noted that I was rediscovering my interest in Warhammer 40,000.   The necessary first step was revisiting the baseline post for the game on this site, which includes a series of rules changes/clarifications that improve what I consider to be the definitive edition, the 2nd.

I should clarify that I'm not one of those people that enjoy painting miniatures for their own sake.  I paint to play, period.  Absent a gaming environment, I wouldn't own any models at all.  The only model kits I retain from my childhood are the ones I adapted to use in wargaming.

That being said, if I know a game is coming up, I will throw myself into the act of creation and few things bring me more joy that watching a unit go through the process of acquisition, assembly, priming, painting and final finishing.  My painting table had languished for months, collecting various sundry items I was too lazy to put elsewhere, but now the main space is cleared and groups of models are staged around it, waiting their turn.

Amidst the current turmoil, it's a welcome escape to put on some music and focus my thoughts entirely on what shade of blue will suit the unit of Swooping Hawks I am working on.  Yes, the Eldar army is my current focus.  While I remain a 2nd ed. loyalist, I have no particularly affinity for Games Workshop's overpriced kits.  Many of my armies are built around equivalent figures from other manufacturers.

For example, my Imperial Guard is largely WW II historical models, and I've used some creative color choices on weapons finish and the rim of the base to indicate weapon types in the 40k environment.  The armored vehicles are modified Tamiya kits and these have been more extensively altered to feature weapon sponsons, crash bars and other features necessary for combat ops in the Grim Dark Future.

The determinative factors for me are cost and aesthetic.  For example, my Tyranid army is only a few years old, the last one I collected.  It is exclusively made of GW figures because these fit the bill and older kits are now selling for very reasonable prices.  My Eldar, on the other hand, is almost entirely Void models. 

Void was a short-lived competitor to Warhammer 40,000 that collapsed after a very ambitious launch sometime in the Aughts.  The parent company's demise (i-kore) coincided with worsening economic conditions in Michigan, and the result was many of the independent hobby stores went out of business.  As a result, I was able to buy a huge collection of figures for pennies on the dollar.  The Void aesthetic was more streamlined and less steampunk than GW's, so these models worked well as the advanced but declining Eldar. 

In fact, I only recently bought some actual Eldar models (jet bikes).  Again, prices for older edition kits are now quite reasonable, even as the current game's prices soar.

It's axiomatic that miniatures collections are never "finished."  People might sell them off, or they might stop using them, but no one ever proclaims the thing complete.   There's always room for one more model - and in fact, there's probably more than one model that still needs to be assembled or painted at any given time.

This means that if you take a month or a year off, when you come back, there's something ready and waiting for you to work on, which is nice.

One of the fun things about revisiting a favorite old game is that you get to revisit all the cobwebby nonsense you previously wrote about it.

As an author, I can say with some authority that revisions drive me nuts.  Nothing is worse than finding that you're circulation and obsolete version of a document you've long since improved.

With that in mind, I'm happy to direct people to the new, revised, clarified and in every way better post on my fixes to Warhammer 40,000, which of course center on the 2nd edition of the game.

Other than a few posts about my still-incomplete Conqueror: Siege Assault supplement, I've been pretty light on the topic of gaming lately.  I intend to change that.

In the past couple of weeks I've rediscovered my fondness for Warhammer 40,000, though I must clarify that this is focused exclusively on the 2nd edition of the game, which went out of print in late 1998.

I'm sure cynics will suggest that I retain a fondness for that particular version out of pure nostalgia, but my affection for it is based on the objective superiority of its design over any of its successors (GW is apparently on the 9th edition now) and part of that excellence stemmed from it much more limited scope.

I don't think even seasoned players can reliably count up all the current army lists, variants, sub-variants and specialty lists GW is currently pushing.  I find that a huge deterrent to "getting current" and playing the in-print version.  I believe the 2nd edition, which had fewer, more distinct factions gave the armies much more divergent tactics, which made the game more interesting.

In any event, I reckon I will revisit some of these topics in greater detail in the next few days, and likely update my materials pertaining to the One True Edition of Warhammer 40,000.

UPDATE:  While this is a venerable post, I've dispensed with the nonsense of linking documents and just posted the whole thing, including the revised close combat system.

If you aren't a miniatures gamer, you probably have no idea what this post is even about, but if you are vaguely aware of a company called "Games Workshop," odds are you've heard of their flagship product:  Warhammer 40,000.

The game system has changed quite a bit over the years, and I'm one of those geezers who think it's been getting worse for 20 years.

The edition I prefer is the one that went out of print back in the 20th Century:  the second edition.

This post is dedicated to my thoughts, optional rules and is a resource for late-comers to what I consider to be the definitive version of the game.

Even fans like me acknowledge the game has some issues.  Long ago, there was a web site called Portent.net and together with like-minded people, I generated a list of fixes and rules clarifications.  One of the interesting aspects was how widespread these patches were - a lot of people saw the same issues and came to the same conclusions about how to fix them

The Rules

While technically “house rules,” these changes are strikingly common and already in use around the world.  The purpose of this document is to organize and codify them, making it easier not only for experienced gamers to keep things straight, but also to recruit new players into the One True Edition of Warhammer 40,000.

Frequently Fracked Facts:  Except where noted, the written rules published by Games Workshop take precedence.  Unfortunately, some of these rules were not always clear and/or were distorted over the years.  To that end, we have provided a list of popular misconceptions to help players fully understand the underlying genius of these tragically flawed but ultimately brilliant rules.  Items that are marked (FFF) therefore not changes per se, but rather clarifications of things that players regularly got wrong.

1. Core Mechanics

1.1 Measurement:  Many players may prefer to allow free measurement.  If both opponents agree, this is perfectly acceptable.  If it is used, “guess” weapons are placed where desired.  The defending player may adjust the template if it targets specific characters/special weapon troopers so long as the same number of models are affected.  To hit and/or scatter rolls are then made normally.

2. Movement

2.1 Jump Packs:   Jump packs do not roll for scatter.  Ork jump packs roll a d6 for each model every time they jump:  on a 1, consult the malfunction table in the ork codex.

2.2 Charging (FFF):  Models may charge squads they cannot see.

2.3 Transports (FFF): Models in transports may only charge if the transport has not moved.  They do NOT count as charging from cover unless the transport itself is in cover.

3. Shooting

3.1 Sustained Fire: Rather than use a 6” radius, sustained fire must be directed at a single squad, vehicle or squadron. 

3.2 Distribution of Hits (FFF):  Hits flow from front to back, both with templates and direct fire.  Thus a grenade or other blast template using direct fire would have to hit visible models at the front of the squad rather than bursting over (unseen) ones in the middle.  

3.3 Persistent Weapons: To speed game play, weapons with persistent effects (vortex grenades, plasma cannon) do not remain in effect.  The only exception is blind grenades/smoke launchers, which remain in effect (but do not roll for expansion/contraction) until the start of the firing player’s next turn.

3.4 Fire: Flamers, fire-based weapons and similar devices do NOT set models on fire.  Models hit by these weapons take damage as normal after which the weapon has no further effect.

3.5 Overwatch Follies (FFF): No rule in the old game is more controversial or subject to being screwed up as Overwatch.  Yet it is essential to keeping the game honest and not all that difficult to use.  Remember: models on overwatch still follow the normal targeting procedures.  The only difference is that it occurs during the opponent’s movement phase.  Non-phasing players should be open and honest about who is on overwatch and what they can see.  Similarly, phasing players should move their forces confidently and expect them to be shot at if they are in the open.  Again, the targeting rules are still in effect, so moving a more protected or expendable unit out in front will, in almost every case, draw overwatch fire away from more valuable targets.  Overwatch is the single most realistic aspect of Warhammer 40k.  Deal with it.

3.6 Reliable Weapons: Under the normal rules, ballistic template weapons (i.e. battle cannon, frag missiles) that miss must roll scatter.  A combination of “Hit/Misfire” results in the weapon hitting the user, an extremely silly (if sometimes entertaining) event.  Instead, template weapons that score a “Hit/Misfire” result are considered jammed instead.

4. Close Combat

4.1 Leaving Close Combat (FFF):  The rules here are vague and poorly understood.  As the rules state, engaged models give their opponents a “free strike” if they wish to leave the combat.  Unengaged models (that is, those not in base-to-base), however may disengage without penalty, but must retreat and are counted as BROKEN.

4.2 Squad Cohesion in Close Combat:  Because the cohesion rules do not apply in close combat, some players have used the fact that unengaged models may leave close combat without “free strikes” to force attackers to chase them across the board.  This runs contrary to logic and the spirit of the game.  Therefore, unless unengaged models choose to disengage (and are broken as outlined above), they may not otherwise move away from an enemy engaged in hand to hand combat with their squad.

5. Vehicles

5.1 Transports Are Not Death Traps:  Most datafax cards contain damage results that either kill passengers on a simple die roll (usually a 4+) or exterminate them wholesale.  This ignores the often considerable amount of armor they are wearing.  Therefore, passengers on board a transport that is the datafax indicates are killed (either on a 4+ or “all models on board are killed”) instead make an unmodified armor save.  If they pass, they are placed adjacent to the wrecked vehicle.

5.2 Out of Control (FFF): Vehicles that are stationary do not move out of control.  Only vehicles that moved during the previous turn must move out of control.

5.3 Taking The Wheel (FFF): If the driver is killed for any reason, the vehicle will still move out of control until another model on board can take over.  The earliest this can happen is after the owning player’s next movement phase.  Note that 5.2 still applies, so a Leman Russ that did not move in its previous turn that has its driver killed would remain stationary until its next movement phase, when a gunner could take over and drive it.

5.4 Turning Scrap into More Scrap (FFF): Remember that if a vehicle location is destroyed (such as tracks) additional hits to that location have no further effect.

6. Army Lists

 6.1 But I Thought Farseers Were Rare:  Eldar are not required to take an avatar or farseer as an army commander, nor must Space Marines take Captains.  Any character can be the army commander.  EXCEPTION:  Because of the rigid hierarchy of both armies (for very different reasons) Tyranids and Imperial Guard must use their mandatory commanders.

6.2. Something’s Wrong With the Comlink: The Imperial Guard Codex has players roll a d6 for the “interference” on calling in a barrage with the comlink.  This can result in either extremely easy (2+) or almost impossible (6+) artillery support.  To make things more consistent no die roll is made.  Comlinks will work on a 4+.

7. Wargear

Virus Weapons: Virus weapons are extremely unbalancing and should not be used.

8.0 Accelerated Close Combat resolution
Instead of rolling dice equal to the number of attacks, roll a single die and add a +1 to the model that has the higher attack characteristic (if it is a tie, neither side benefits).

When additional models attack, retain the +1 but omit the additional die.

For each parry, add +1 to the model's combat score.  Use all the other modifiers (charging, cover) as normal.

I alluded to this in an older post, but it really deserves to be highlighted on its own.

One of the problems with Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition is that the close combat system required a lot of dice rolling.  It was one of the areas of the otherwise excellent system that needed revision.

As we all know, GW decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and trashed the whole thing.

Still, the definitive edition of the game lives on.   It is fascinating to see how valued that edition remains on ebay and elsewhere, despite its publisher's efforts to kill it.

Anyhow, here is my method to resolve close combat with only two dice - one for the attacker, one for the defender.

The key to the concept is understanding that rolling multiple dice, forcing re-rolls, etc. are really only tools to change probability.

40k (in all its editions) is a game of probability.  You roll lots of dice, not matter which version you use.  If you understand the odds, it is a simple thing to reduce the number of dice you need to roll.

In 2nd ed., a higher Attacks rating gives you more dice to choose from.  However, the odds of rolling a 6 and a 1 are the same.  In fact, as you continue to add attack dice, the fact that 1s hurt more than 6s help becomes apparent.

In addition, the bonus of the parry ability to force a re-roll loses some of its utility.

Instead of piling dice on the tabletop, an easier method is to just roll a single die and use modifiers.

Thus, instead of rolling dice equal to the Attacks stat, give the player with higher number a +1 on their die roll.  If it's a tie, it's a tie and no bonus is awarded.

A parry is also equal to a +1 bonus.  If both sides have them, they cancel, just like in the rules.

In the case of additional combatants, you add the usual +1 bonus for each additional model engaged, but the +1 attack is instead added to their stat.  This may or may not result in the outnumbering player getting a +1 depending on the models engaged.

Here's how it would work in practice.

Imagine a space marine with chainsword and boltgun fighting a genestealer.  The genestealer is charging.

Under the old rules, the marine would roll two dice, add its WS (4) and force a re-roll.  The genestealer would roll 4 dice, add its WS (7) and +1 for charging. 

So you'd have to roll two dice for the marine while the genestealer has to roll 4, re-roll one and then add the numbers.  The highest dice for each player are going to modified by +4 for the marine and +8 for the genestealer.

With the new system, each player rolls a single die.  The marine would add his WS (4) plus 1 for the parry while the genestealer add his WS (7), +1 for attacking plus +1 for having a higher Attacks rating.

The end result is similar (+5 for the marine and +9 for the genestealer), but less dice are rolled.

Now here's the important part:  The modifiers are really what decides the combat.

It isn't the 4 dice the genestealers roll that make them scary, its their WS 7.  Same with the other combat monsters.  The extra dice and re-rolls are a distraction.

Now having the luxury of choosing the best result from multiple dice is an advantage, but it's a limited one because of the fumble rule.  With this system, the fumble rule has to go away because rolling a 1 is it's own punishment.

The end result is similar odds with less rules and die rolling.  I've tried it out and combat goes much faster.

Against evenly-matched characters it holds up just as well, and the advantage of piling in is still significant - the extra +1 A will first eliminate a character's +1 bonus for having more attack and (if the numbers are there) flip it to the other side.  That's what happens with the dice-rolling version, but it takes more time to resolve.

I will note that this is the kind of system analysis I performed in Conqueror:  Fields of Victory to eliminate useless stats and dice rolling.  Too many game designers focus on aesthetics and ignore the numbers. 

Give this a try and let me know how it works for you!