Rogue

Thanks. I don't think I'd call it complete - I still have a few bits in the box to work through (the newer Patriarch, the other Magus, bits of the combat patrol and so on. And the Brood Brothers are going to expand at some point in the nearish future, as I want to build them into a stand-alone force that I can play as Guard if I want to. But I know what you mean - my last few models took me ages, as I just wasn't in a rush to finish them and move on.

From a rules point of view, the times that I've felt most like my models were also 'my guys' was in 4th with Marines, and in 9th with GSC (in both cases, my main army at the time). The 4th edition Marine codex introduced chapter traits, and I spent most of the edition running around with souped-up assault squads (fierce and stern, maybe), and no tanks. It wasn't incredibly different, but it was fun, and I was the only person I knew playing Marines that way. And in 9th, I ended the edition really leading into the creeds and relics that gave me very powerful psykers whilst doing nothing for the other 95% of my models. But it didn't matter, because that was the vibe I wanted to lean into - they were my guys, and over time, the Magus had become (narratively) the linchpin of the force (with the Patriarch as more of a over-powered experiment/minion. Which leads into my other take on 'my guys'. My armies have felt more like 'my guys' when I've had a narrative investment in them. Across 7th and 8th, a friend and I created a ongoing narrative out of every game we played (and occasionally used it to create scenarios too) - in the end, we had a whole history of the Uktramarines' attempt to subdue the Stalinvast uprising: named characters, events, notorious engagements, rivalries, the lot. Both armies were more than playing pieces - they were full of characters. Similarly, although less extensively, I had a game against a different friend's Necrons that involved grabbing an object from the centre of the board and holding it till the game ended. My Marines slammed a rhino up the table, jumped out, grabbed the McGuffin and ran. The rest of the game involved the Necrons ruthlessly eliminating unit after unit, but never getting quite enough to prevent the survivors passing off the relic to the next unit. It was fi e turns of self-sacrifice that ended with the Captain holding the relic, surrounds by the few survivors of a devastor squad, and then pulling off some ridiculous shot to bring down the only necron that could have reached him. Clearly the relic was a powerful weapon, and ever since, that captain carried a relic bolter, because if it costs that many marine lives to get it, he better be using it as often as possible. Again, the narrative made him 'my guy'. These weren't crusade games - just regular battles with a narrative gloss, but it really went a long way to personalising the armies we were using.

I've added a few photos of my "completed" Cult forces over in the Hall of Honour, if anyone fancies seeing the whole lot at once.

June, huh? It's been a while, then. Turns out it's been so long that I've kinda finished the army. I mean, not for ever - I still have things I want to add, but I've got at least one of every unit in the book, and enough to run whatever I want at the moment, so I'm going to paint something different for a bit. So, finished for the time being. This army is almost entirely a product of the Hobby Challenge over the past five years, which is worth checking out if you're not already involved. Here's how it all looks:

Before the Hobby Challenge 2023 gets completely wrapped up, I wanted to drop back in to say thanks to Grot for running it over the last five years. Sadly, I'm not taking part this year - too many small children, too much work, too much HeroQuest and BloodBowl to paint - but it's been brilliant to be involved in something like this, and to feel like part of this particular community within the wider B&C. Over the last five years, I've been motivated to complete something every month (even if it was bases a couple of times, and a genestealer familiar at least once), and having picked up some unexpected (but extremely encouraging) artificer awards in the first year, I determined to paint every entry from year two to that standard. It was occasionally a bit of a stretch, but I feel like my Cult army represents a step-up in my painting skills, and a consistent quality that I'm really pleased with. And scoring a couple of favourites along the way was ridiculous, but very flattering. So, here's everything I've painted over the past five years - 209 infantry, 14 bikes, 7 vehicles. As it happens, this is pretty comparable to my Marine force (a full battle compamy plus options, and a half company of terminators), but that took me around 25 years on and off to put together, and at a lower standard of painting (base colours and drybrushing). So whilst this may not seem much to some people, for me it represents a big jump in both my painting standards and productivity. Again, that's something that's really grown out of participation in the Hobby Challenge, and the encouragement I've received from it. Thanks everyone.

We had an 8x4 table in my parents' loft, which served for Fantasy Battle, Epic and 40k. By the mid-nineties, we were taping off the last two feet as the 'standard' size dropped to 6×4. I'm guessing slightly, but that suggests that 6x4 either came in with 2nd edition, or was adopted during it, as I'd moved out a couple of years before 3rd edition arrived.

Like NTaW, I have three pieces of mdf that make a 6x4 tabletop - it sits on top of my dining table when I need it. These days, it gives me a slight border around the battlefield, which is handy for cards and so on. And if we're playing KillTeam or something of that size, I don't bother to get the boards out and we just play on the table top. My friend doesn't have space for a 6x4 table at all, temporary or otherwise. So when we play at his place, we house-rule deployment a bit - the deployment zones get cut down, and sometimes we limit movement in the first turn (because the armies start too close together). So I guess my answer is that the game is what it is (and always has been) - it requires space to play at a certain scale. But outside of tournaments, nothing is set in stone, and if you and your opponent are keen to play, there are ways to make it work.

For me, this is spot on. My primary enjoyment within the hobby umbrella is playing games (mostly 40k these days, but almost everything at some point). I very rarely need to generate any motivation for a games night. As I've gotten older, I've increasingly appreciated playing with painted forces on painted terrain - it improves the overall game. But it's not my primary focus. I've come to find painting relaxing, and it's now the thing I spend most time doing (because I don't need to arrange an opponent or set aside a whole evening). But it's still secondary. I play because I enjoy it. I paint because I want my army to look nice while I play. And sometimes I need to motivate myself to do that.

I wouldn't call it a house rule, but our general approach to this sort of thing is to decide in favour of the player who was 'wronged' - not implying intent or gamesmanship, just the player who's potentially disadvantaged. In this scenario, the Sisters player made a mistake, so the resolution falls in favour of the Tau player - let him roll the save again if he wants to. And as an illustration, if the Tau player had mistakenly rolled too many save dice, then any excess results would be removed from the 'saved' pile first - his mistake this time, so the resolution goes against him. But I agree with others up-thread, that in your particular situation, where both players were happy with their solution, then it's a good solution.

Those skin tones are great. Very moody.

On a related note, what happens if I'm firing at a tank that's just at the limit of my range - the front of the tank is out of sight, but in range; the back of the tank is visible but out of range. So the tank is both visible and in range, but I'm not in range of the bits I can see. Can I shoot the tank? This came up in a fairly recent game, and I think we rolled for it because it wasn't a big deal. But I'm curious to know if anyone has a clear answer.

My acolytes come and go at the moment. I've been experimenting with a unit of ten maxed out on four demo-charges. They're very, very killy, but also very limited when coming in from deep strike - they need Tunnel Crawlers to be in range, but with their large footprint can still be screened out fairly effectively (and are wasted on screening or outlying units). And more specific to my group, a lot of the high-value targets that I'd want to hit with demo-charges either have a lot of flamers, ride in transports, or both (like Incinerators in a Repulsor) - so I can't get at them without getting toasted. Alternatively, I've also taken small units of acolytes for chasing secondaries, although metamorphs are a viable option too.

I've been running two Primus for a while (at 1500) - one with 20 neophytes to hold my base objective, and one with 20 neophytes to drop in (or up) and shoot stuff. They make a real difference to the output of the units, so I think they're worth the 90 points. Before Christmas, I finished a third Primus, who will accompany a third block of neophytes once they're finished (still got the seismic cannons to do). So yes, I'd recommend them :)

They look fun. And I think it reflects well on the models (and your kitbashing) that they're very obviously GSC, even when lots of bits aren't.