I’ve been playing this game on and off for a very long time. It’s safe to say that I have played for every reason under the sun during that period, boredom, love of the fluff, a reason to hang out with mates etc etc.
These days the reason I play is for a test of my mind. That doesn’t mean I don’t play for fun, quite the opposite, but the fun I derive from the game comes primarily from seeing a plan executed or a thought sequence proven. I enjoy the process of 40k in addition to the game in a way that I never did earlier in my gaming. I enjoy playing with list ideas in my head, juggling the points around to see what is possible, what might conceivably work and, by exclusion, what I simply don’t think could ever work. As a result I find that quite often I’m more interested in playing unusual builds or with sub-par armies simply to see if I can get them to work in a way that isn’t expected.
While I consider myself to be a competitive gamer, I’m not necessarily talking about ideal competitive gaming. I’m interested in tournaments as they currently exist. The tournaments that you or I could sign up for today and attend tomorrow. This is convenient because the tournaments that actually exist are generally a far cry from ‘competitive’ events in their format and scoring, they often actually make viable options out of armies that would never see the light of day in a truly ‘competitive’ event.
So my hobby recently has been developing armies for specific tournaments and particularly identifying tournaments that I think my two primary armies, both of which are weak, can be competitive.
A classic example is a tournament I played in recently where the games were 1500 point, played on a 4’ by 4’ table with a simple single objective in the very centre of the table. Game length was limited strictly to 5 turns.
This is not a competitive tournament by any balanced standard, it definitely favours certain armies over others and it definitely impacts on the game to the extent that it simply isn’t quite the same game that the general rule-book intended.
Even just the change from variable game length to 5 turns is a massive change for the viability of many armies, particularly since it is an objective based game.
The change to a far smaller table and a certainty of objective location in every game made a host of different things far better than they would ordinarily be. Flanking on a 4’ by 4’ table is completely different to flanking on a 6’ by 4’ table for example. On one side flanking troops with short range or assault capability immediately become better than on a 6’ by 4’ table, on the other side longer range flankers looking for flank shots on vehicles become slightly disadvantaged by the likelihood that wherever they emerge they will be in range for a counter-attack of some form.
The central objective (and single objective) on such a small table immediately boosted assault heavy armies and low-mobility armies amongst other effects.
For this tournament I took an army I would never consider competitive in a general environment. It included abaddon. Why? Because the key thing that restricts his playability and causes him to be overcosted is the requirement for mobility. In the average game an opponent has plenty of opportunity to stop him from getting anywhere useful and can generally leave him wandering around the table on foot having minimal to no impact.
On a 4’ by 4’ table with a central objective that changes significantly. Now all you have to do is get him near the centre and the enemy will come to you.
Was it the best possible army for that tournament? No.
Was it about the best possible tournament for that army? Yes.
I had an army in mind that I knew could work in certain circumstances, so I looked at the tournaments available and waited for one where that army would be useable.
This is an example of what I’m aiming to discuss on this blog. It’s an area that I don’t think is covered heavily elsewhere, so hopefully it is a niche that I can fill and offer some helpful advice along the way.
