The Results Are In

Last week, I got griped at pretty good for saying that Orks sucked after playing a sub-optimal list in a game where I had a handy advantage after only 2 turns.  You can see that battle report here.  From there, I got a mention and some interesting ideas from AbusePuppy over at 3++ about what makes an army "good".  Of course, AP looks at things from a fairly competitive, tactical perspective, which guided the article. 

From there I decided to put out a poll to see what prompted people to pick an army.  The options available were competitive ability, multiple viable builds, fluff/character of the army, and models.  I tried to arrange the options in a vague spectrum from competitiveness to fluffiness.  Competitive ability and multiple viable builds fall more towards competitive quality while fluff/character of army and models follow more solidly in the fluffy camp.  The results were interesting, but what do they mean?

For all of you youtube fans

Out of 24 respondents, 2 would chose an army based on competitive ability.  That constitutes 8% of the field*. 

Next, 5 respondents chose multiple viable builds.  While I am somewhat competitive, I like this option best as I don't like to feel stagnated in any army.  Armies like Tau or Necrons would not rate high on my list of armies simply because there isn't much choice on how I build my armies.  Armies like Eldar and Marines provide whole hosts of models and options that create multiple builds of which many are viable.  I like this.  Anyway, tangent aside, 20% of the field* was taken from this selection. 

Next, fluff/character of army had 9 respondents accounting for 37% of the field*.  I think this is a huge one as the average gamer with zero experience in the game chooses the army that strikes a chord with them.  I began playing with Black Templars because I loved the knightly feel to the army. 

Finally, 8 respondents said that they chose an army based on the models.  That was 33% of the field*.  I find this one interesting because I can see how a player might be swayed to play an army based on the look of its models, but I think this a dangerous slope to be on.  DE are a great example of this.  Mandrakes, incubi, talos pain engines, etc. look amazing, but in a hobby where everything costs so blasted much, you begin to see a trend of models getting relegated to the shelf because, while looking amazing, they don't play well at all.  This can be really frustrating as a gamer. 

*Oddly enough, Google calculated the entire survey to only 98%, not 100%.  That seems odd, but oh well.

So, as I look at this poll I begin to see trends.  Here are the few things I can determine.  Note that I am generalizing across the hobby community based on 24 votes, so the results are hardly representative, but I will treat them like they are. 

1) The majority of players choose armies based on their fluff or how they look.  An army's flavor really does determine if a first time gamer (and many long time gamers) will play it. 

2) Since the fewest number of votes went to competitive ability, it is my belief that the 40k community at large isn't as competitive as some would think.  Granted, this is a wargame where the point is to beat your opponent, so I think all gamers have some spark of competitiveness in them, though this will vary greatly.  I just don't think the community, in majority, is tournament competitive. This also means that the blogosphere may not adequately portray the 40k community correctly.  Or at least not representatively.  What I mean by this is while a large number of outspoken bloggers speak about competitive gaming, their audiences are not composed in large part of competitive gamers, but rather regular joes who want to learn a bit more about the hobby and tactics.  I see this backed up when I play a wide array of players on Vassal as none of them play using optimized list or netlists. 

3) This makes me wonder what effect blogging is having on the overall community or if the majority of 40k players even look at blogs.  Surely some of the better blogs out there are putting up some big pageview stats so I assume that there is a large segment of the community reading blogs. Are players really learning something and taking away big gains?  Or, do they simply read for enjoyment? 

This was definitely an interesting poll.  I am now interested in seeing what elements of an army's fluff or character attract players to those armies.  Is it a personality thing or are there key elements of an army's composition that draw players to them?

I will have to pursue this further soon.  Thanks for reading.

Tutorial: How-to Rock Bases on the Cheap

In a previous post, here, I mentioned that I am working on making my own rock bases for my Blood Angel army.  Being the cheap cost effective hobbyist that I am, I wanted to make sure that I could make an entire army's worth of bases for very little additional cost.  Luckily, I could and am.  All you need for this simple tutorial is:

hobby clipper/small pliers
wood glue
paint: black, brown (or whatever base color you want) and grey (base and highlights for the stone)


Pine Bark Mulch



Playground Sand

And...

Bases

Pine bark is really great for simulating rock because it breaks apart in layers that look very similar to slate or other sedimentary rock.  When painted over, it's hard to tell that it was once a piece of wood.  It is also important to note that a single piece of bark, a little smaller than your hand will provide you with around 10-15 bases worth of material.

So here is a piece of bark that is of satisfactory size.  It's probably about 3 1/2-4 inches across and about 1- 2 inches thick.  Simply use your hands or a pair of pliers to break it apart.  To get varied height pull apart the layers of the bark. 

When you are done, the pieces should be about this big.  I have included a 25mm round base to give some perspective.  If you are working on 40mm or bigger bases, you may want to create some larger pieces. 

Use the wood glue to glue down the chunks in various positions on the bases. I like to vary the way they look from high to low, some bases with one piece while others have multiple.  This breaks up the monotony and make the bases look more genuine.

Glue down sand on the exposed surface of the base.  When you are done painting this will look really nice. In order to make the bark look like rocks, I start out by painting the entire piece of bark black.  If you haven't primed your model yet, you can spray prime the model and base together.  I then follow this up with a very heavy drybrush of dark grey.  I used the GW foundation paint adeptus battlegrey for this step.  The final step is to highlight with a lighter grey.  I used GW foundation paint astronomican grey.  Another thing that can add some ambiance is to use some washes of brown and green on the undersides of the rocks.  This gives the impression of water stains and mold.  When you are done, you should have rocks that look like these that I added to the base of the Dreadknight commission that I just finish.

Well I hope this tutorial was helpful.  I will post my Sanguinary Guard army when I have based it to show off an entire army using this method.  I hope you and your wallet enjoy this method.

Other articles you might find interesting:
Using Greenstuff to Create Unique Space Marine Shoulder Pads
Painting Halfway Decent Power Weapons
____________________________________________________________

Did you find this article useful? Subscribe to Gone to Ground for more great updates.

Book Review: The Bleeding Chalice

Awhile back I purchased the Soul Drinker Omnibus by Ben Counter.  I bought it at the time because I wanted a fairly long read for a good price and the local Border's happened to be going out of business at the time.  This led me to purchase the book.  I reviewed the first book in the omnibus several weeks back.  You can find it here.

I just finished the second book of the series, The Bleeding Chalice.  In this book Librarian Sarpedon, leader of the now renegade Soul Drinkers, is looking for the key to saving his chapter from mutation.  Due to the multitude of mutations occurring throughout the chapter, it can't replenish its ranks because of tainted gene seed.  Thus, it's a race against the clock as the Soul Drinkers flee Inquisition forces led by new character Thaddeus, a moraled inquisitor leading a company of Sisters of Battle.  The Soul Drinkers plunge into a sector of space controlled by daemonspawned mutant named Teuteract who spreads death and disease over entire systems of planets. 

The action is decent and the connection to the characters has grown since the first book.  Though I wouldn't rate this collection of works amongst the better Black Library writers like Dan Abnett, it is entertaining and I find it to be a step up from it's predecessor Soul Drinker.  I give this one a solid B+. 

The final installment of the omnibus is called Crimson Tears.  I hope to have it read in the next few weeks and another review  ready for you.

Sanguinary v. Grey Knights

I got a game in yesterday while the wife and kid were napping.  I got to play a Grey Knight player via Vassal.  My opponent was trying to get in a 2,500pt. 'ardboyz prep game but was kind enough to reduce his army down to play me at 2,000pt. 

I took my latest iteration of the Sanguinary Guard.

Dante
Libby-jump pack, lance, sword

3x Priests- 2x jump packs, 1 naked

5 Sanguinary Guard- chapter banner, 2x infernus pistols
5 Sanguinary Guard- powerfist, 2x infernus pistols
5 Sanguinary Guard- powerfist, 2x infernus pistols
10 Assault Marines- 2x meltas, powerfist
5 Scouts- missile launcher, 4x sniper rifles, camo cloaks

Landspeeder-multi-melta, heavy flamer
Landspeeder-multi-melta, heavy flamer

5 Devestators- 4x missiles
5 Devestators- 4x missiles

My opponent took:
Coteaz
Ordo Malleus Inquisitor- terminator armor, psycannon, 3x skulls

Venerable Dread- 2 TL Autocannons, psybolt ammo
Venerable Dread- 2 TL Autocannons, psybolt ammo
Venerable Dread- 2 TL Autocannons, psybolt ammo

3 acolytes- 3x meltas, rhino
3 acolytes- 3x meltas, rhino
3 acolytes- 3x meltas, rhino
3 acolytes- 3x meltas, rhino
3 servitors- 3x heavy bolters, chimera w/ multi-laser/heavy bolter
3 servitors- 3x heavy bolters, chimera w/ multi-laser/heavy bolter

5 Interceptors- psycannon, daemonhammer
5 Interceptors- psycannon, daemonhammer

Dread- 2 TL Autocannons, psybolt ammo
Dread- 2 TL Autocannons, psybolt ammo
Dread- 2 TL Autocannons, psybolt ammo


We played capture and control with spearhead deployment. I won the roll to go first and my opponent failed to sieze. Below are pictures from the game.

You can see that I deployed rather aggressively to get to grips with my opponent. The middle piece of terrain blocked line of sight and helped to provide me with some defense against initial shooting. I think my opponent made a big mistake by creating a parking lot of fairly weak units for me to pick on as it advanced. You can see my scouts occupying the upper left building to shoot at the opponent's flanks. Dante and a priest joined my assault squad for deepstrike.  My landspeeders reserved for deepstrike as well.

In turn 1 I moved up to the central terrain with the libby peaking out to try for a blood lance shot. Everything else prepared to shoot. My libby rolled snake eyes to wound himself before lancing and immobilizing the second rhino from the left.  All my other combined shooting shook the chimera and blew up the left rhino with the resulting explosion killing all three of it's occupants. 

In response my opponent threw every shot he could at my devestator squads killing all but 1 missile launcher from both.  The sanguinary priest also survived.  His upper interceptor squad was also able to cast warpquake. His other interceptor squad lost its psycannon due to a dangerous terrain test.

Turn 2 saw me make a boneheaded mistake.  One speeder came on, but scatter off the board and mishapped back into reserve.  I then got Dante and crew in and forgot that warpquake was up.  They mishapped as well but luckily also went back into reserve.  My SG squads move forward aggressively again.  My libby conjured another lance but it did nothing.  The rest of the squad's shooting wrecked the chimera. Other shooting saw the immobilized rhino stunned. 

My opponent's turn saw him get out his acolyte squads from rhinos and everything leveled at the libby's squad, killing them all. He then plinked off a model from my orange squad and charged in his interceptors.  He got off hammerhand, but only killed 2.  I killed 3 back, but his hammer passed his 1 fearless save (failed morale, but I caught him). 

Turn 3 saw the real carnage start.  My opponent forgot to warpquake last turn, so Dante and crew came in behind the front line of dreads as did a landspeeder.  My remaining full squad of SG move towards the acolytes that had left their rhinos last turn.  That was it for my movement.  In shooting dev missile launcher took out the black dread (the only nonvenerable in the front line).  Dante's squad took out the venerable to the left of the black dread and the other dev took an arm off of the far left venerable in the front line.  The scouts were able to plink away a meltagunner from the brown acolyte squad in the tree, but they passed all relevant tests.  My green squad of SG assaulted the front two acolyte squads amd wiped them out.  The orange squad wiped out the hammer with no losses of it's own and consolidated back towards my objective.  At this point it is also important to note that only one of the front rhinos was mobile as the other had immobilized itself on terrain.  That would change soon.

When he immobilized the final rhino trying to get the brown squad away.  With his front line in tatters my opponent knew he had to convert big in order to win.  The interceptors moved up to the hill by Dante's squad.  A dread knocked my speeder out of the air and the brown acolytes melta-ed a Sanguinary Guard while everything else focused on Dante's but did surprisingly little damage.  My armor saves were on fire. 3+/FNP is rock hard.  In desperation, the interceptors assaulted into Dante's squad, but the Lord of the Host wiped out all 5 Grey Knights before they could even strike.  His crew consolidated forwards toward Coteaz and his two dreads. 

Turn 4 was where I would wrap it up.  Dante and crew moved forward to try and pop Coteaz's ride and a dread.  My last speeder came in to shoot at the other dread.  My larger SG squad moved towards the ordo malleus inquisitor and his retinue while the orange squad moved back toward my objective.  My foot priest moved to cast his FNP bubble on them to make sure that they survived the game.  In shooting, I was able to shake one ven dread and immobilize another where it couldn't really see anything.  Dante's squad failed to pop the right dread and would have to do it the old fashioned way, with a powerfist.  My green SG squad knocked out 2 servitors and prepared to assault in and butcher the inquisitor and his remaining servitor when my opponent called it. 

In the end, I held my own objective and contested his objective with the possibility of claiming both by the end of the game.  My opponent scaled his army down from 2,500pt. and admitted that it did not scale down well.  He was running a henchman heavy build and having to scale it down really hurt the army.  The best thing he did was to keep the 6 dreads, but otherwise, having troop choices in light tanks with only 3 models in them really hurt my opponent.  Again, I played a list that is far from optimal.  I have found this to be a trend and find it funny at how people think netlists are taking over.  I haven't seen a netlist on Vassal yet. 

I believe I am beginning to get the Sanguinary Guard.  Adding the chapter banner to a SG squad really helps with controlling infantry units.  The extra attack per model means this unit is a real chainsaw when it comes to fighting infantry, even large squads, like Ork boyz mobs.  Though they don't have a fist, the libby tries to accommodate by using his S10 sword when necessary.  Otherwise, I think the army has a lot of good strengths and is starting to really click with me.

You Be the Judge: BA Jumpers and Combat Squadding

So, I got in a game today on Vassal against a GK player.  Stay tuned for the write up. However, when we started, he raised a question siting the BA FAQ.  He told me that he thought it was not legal to deepstrike a squad and combat squad it.  He cited the following FAQ item:

Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p32)

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads. (found here)

I disagreed with him over his interpretation.  It looks to me that the FAQ is simply attempting to bar a unit from combat squadding and deploying one squad in reserve and one squad on the table.  According to the codex, I think that a squad deepstriking may combat squad when it deploys.  So, after the reserve roll is made, the unit combat squads and can be placed in different locations as is stated on the combat squad rule in the codex. 

Ultimately, I kept my assault squad together and deepstriked them with Dante and a priest and they wrecked face.  However, I want to know that answer.  Can a deepstriking assault squad or vanguard vet squad combat squad when it is deployed on the table?  I say yes.  My opponent said no.  Tell me what you think.

On the Workbench this week

One really neat thing about being off of work for the summer (teacher here) and having a baby that necessitates staying around the house is that I am getting a lot of time in front of my painting table.  As such, I have quite a few things going on right now. 

Awhile back, I posted here that I had a commission from my FLGS's owner.  He is attempting to put together an all Slaanesh daemon army that can be played both in 40k and Fantasy.  As such I have been working on his daemonettes.  Here is a picture of the lovely ladies.

I still have 2 more units of 20 to paint up before I am done with this initial commission.  I believe that I will have some additional models to paint for this army before all is said and done. 

I also posted a few weeks back, here, that I received a well magnetized Dreadknight model to paint.  This has been a fun model to paint.  He is super well modeled and the weapon are just cool.  So, here is my take on a Nemesis Dreadknight. 

Kitted out with both a psycannon and a incinerator.  These are both magnetized at both the forearms and to the pistons on top.

Here you can see him with his daemonhammer. 

Another view.  You can see his shoulder shield.  That was done freehand and is a fairly common Grey Knight motif.

Here is a picture of a freehand inquisition symbol.  I got the basic idea for this from the GW site.  The white greave with the red stripe was taken completely from the picture found in the product information site. 

Finally, the big, bad sword. I love the greatsword.  I know that it isn't cost effective, but man, it looks good. 

Onto my own personal projects.  I am currently putting together my Sanguinary Guard army and have decided to make the bases rocky.  This is a simple effect to pull off and I hope to have a tutorial up soon.  Not only is it easy, but it is also super cheap!  Stay tuned for that article.

Why Vindicare Assassins just got alot worse

...to play against, that is!

Was perusing the GW FAQ for the main rules and saw this little tidbit.

Q: How does Rending work if you get to roll multiple

dice for the Armour Penetration roll? (p31)

A: The player gets to add a D3 to the total for each
dice that comes up with a 6.

Combined with the Vindicare's exitus weaponry and the turbo-penetrator round, this means that you can add a possible maximum of 4D3 to your shot (granted that is if you roll all 6s). 

So let's look at the averages really quick.  An exitus is a sniper weapon so counts as S3 and rending for armor penetration. A vindicare is BS8, so will hit almost all the time.  He then counts as S3+4D6+ a possible D3 for each six he rolls. 

Bog standard averages say that he will roll 14 on four dice (two 3's and two 4's) + the S3.  So, the rending really isn't even needed.  However, you stand a 16% chance of rolling at least one 6 and a 2% chance of getting 2 6's.  If you were to roll three 1's and a single 6, you could still pen AV14 if you rolled a 5 or 6 for the rend.  Though it seems remote that you would roll multiple 6's, this guy is going to almost always penetrate armor, even AV14.  Combine that with AP1 and he is very reliable at blowing up mech of any sort. 

Though he weighs in at 145pt, this model can do quite a bit of damage with a fairly strong statistical chance of blowing up a vehicle a turn, including AV14.  I think the price tag is warranted.  Provided with cover, this guy becomes an absolute nightmare to deal with. 

Just an interesting thought there.

By the way, there are updated FAQs on GW's site.  Check them out here: GW FAQs.

You Got Owned...Because You Didn't Know the Rules Part 2

In my last post, I began talking about how knowing or rather not knowing the rules of the game can cause you to lose.  In that article, I gave some basic descriptions of gamers at varying levels of rules acquisition and how likely they might be to make a rules mistake.

But, how does rules knowledge affect winning and losing?

I think of it as being the cause of winning and losing in 3 different categories.

1) Outright lack of rules knowledge. This occurs when a player doesn't know a rule or set of rules that could have an impact on the game. For instance, if a player is told that Thunderwolf Cav counts as cavalry, but they don't know that this gives the model fleet and a 12" assault range, they could erroneously place an easy kill point too close to the model. Lack of rules knowledge can consist of not knowing core rules, codex specific rules (especially those of your opponents' codexes), or both. I am of the opinion that it is of the utmost importance to learn and really grasp the core game mechanics, especially those of the models you use in your army. From there, you need to know your codex specific rules. There is no excuse for a marine player to not know about ATSKNF or combat squadding. Past that, as much information as you get gain about other codexes is good, but not mandatory. A good opponent should be willing to divulge any relevant rules or details as they unfold, especially in friendly games. In competitive settings (like Indy GTs), the burden of knowing ALL rules is more squarely placed upon each player.

This is a simple to avoid mistake, but it can definitely cost a player a game. Not knowing core rules and the specific rules of the codex you play can be considered a cardinal sin. It is also the easiest to avoid. Simply read the rule book. To beginners I would say, read, read, read. Don't assume you know the rules. If something comes up in a game, look it up. That is why the BRB has a glossary.

2) Misinterpretting rules. This is super ambiguous territory. GW is infamous for writing rules that have complete different RAI and RAW meanings. This can cause quite a few arguments. It also means that rules can be misinterpretted. For instance, deffrollas and the new FAQ make things interesting. Misinterpretting rules can lead to allegations of cheating among other things as well. This is probably the leading cause of the phrase WAAC as well. A misinterpretted rule can cause all kinds of problems.

Misinterpretting rules can also lead you to have issues in competitive setting where you can't go back and fix mistakes. If you make a move based on an erroneous or malicious misinterpretation of a rule and you are in a competitive environment, you are stuck and in events like the NOVA Open, you will get eaten alive.

In friendly games there is more leniency, but players with more experience should dissuade newer players from utilizing misuses of the rules and should themselves not try to use these on others.

3) Poor understanding of how rules interact with each other. The final issue I see with rules that can cost you the game is not knowing how rules interact to build synergy or to cancel each other out. There is a single rule for every situation in 40K. In some instances multiple rules overlap. For instance, how does a unit that gets to reroll hits interact with a model that forces successful to-hit rolls to be rerolled? How do defensive grenades affect furious charge? Having a poor understanding of the interplay between rules can greatly affect a game.

The most important lesson about rules is to know them. Read the BRB. Read your codex. Read other codexes. Learn as much as you can. When you think you know them well enough, go back and read them again. With such a complicated rules structure, the average player needs to refresh their rules knowledge on a regular basis. The best way to familiarize yourself with the rules is to play games, though. I would recommend getting in plenty of games with your local gaming group before you step into competitive games. In the end, the best thing to do is be an understanding yet firm player. Know your rules and make sure you can politely and respectfully support your position to opponents.

You Got Owned...Because You Didn't Know the Rules Part 1

So, I've been trying to come up with a cool intro for this article but I just haven't managed to figure one out. However, I have thought about those times, we've all had them, when things are progressing smoothly when all of a sudden your opponent pulls a weird move. You quickly wrack your brain to try to connect the rules that would allow this to happen, but you come up empty. Thus, an inquiry occurs. You ask your opponent how he managed such a maneuver. Generally, a quotation of some BRB or codex specific rule occurs. Ultimately, your opponent backs down because he misconstrued or misused a rule or you get spanked because you didn't see the usage coming. You got owned.


Rules are what makes 40k the game it is. Without the rules that provide the game structure, we simply have collections of pretty plastic soldiers. The rules make this game the dynamic, and sometimes frustrating, game that it is.

As I mentioned in my intro post, there are lots of ways you can lose a game. You can have poor dice rolls. You can play like a bonehead tactically. You can also have a lacking or faulty understanding of the rules of the game. This is what I would like to talk about in today's article, but then I realized how large the article would be so I am cutting it in half. Today's article will talk primarily about the type of gamers you see and their grasp of rules knowledge. It is important to first categorize the types of players and their perceived possibility of misinterpretting or not knowing a rule. This gives you a vague idea of what you might be getting yourself into when playing said gamer. It is also important to understand that this isn't definite as rules knowledge of this scope falls on a spectrum and there are great ranges of rules knowledge. A "beginner" can have absolutely no rules knowledge or they can have a dozen games under their belt with a shaky rules knowledge. So use labels with caution.

1) Beginner/Novice- This is a person who has little to no grasp of the entirety of the main rules of 40k. These are players who need walkthroughs, phase by phase, action by action in small controlled games in order to gain an understanding of the rules. These players have the highest possibility of misinterpretting or simply not knowing a rule. Beginners have such a small grasp of the rules that they can't be expected to know the codex specific rules of their opponents and thus need to be prepped by their opponent about race/codex specific rules that can have a strong bearing on the game.

2) Intermediate- This is a person who has a good grasp of the rules. They know the bulk of the BRB rules, but may occasionally forget some, especially if they are rules for models that they don't normally include in their armies. They have a decent understanding of their specific army list and may even have a soundly defined strategy for playing their own army list. These players generally have dozens to a few hundred games under their belt and can be expected to play a full game of 40k and be marginally to very competitive (i.e. they provide some challenge to play against). They stand a small to moderate chance possibility of misinterpretting or simply not knowing a main rule book rule. They, however, can't be expected to have a strong knowledge of their opponents' armies unless they are from the same codex as their own army or unless they are a more popular army that is played.

3) Advanced- This is a person who has the rules down well. They know the BRB and possibly mutliple codexes. They can quote rules and perhaps even page locations for rules. They also have a decent understanding of how rules interact with each other to gain them tactical advantage. They may even have some understanding of existing loopholes in the rules and exemptions that allow shady but legal play to occur. These gamers rarely make mistakes, but there is still a small possibility that they could make a mistake or not know about the rules of an army they aren't used to playing.

Now again, these aren't hard, fast descriptions. Advanced players have bad days and beginners can pick up on gaming dynamics quickly, but chances are if you play against someone who has been playing the game for 5+ years, they can be expected to know the rules well. Conversely, you can expect someone who has just started collecting to need some help throughout a game.

This spectrum of rules knowledge brings up a good point in my mind in regards to building community. That is the idea of tutelage and apprenticeship of sorts. If gamers are really in favor of building a strong gaming community (guess what, you should be), then it should be understood that beginners need to be actively sought out and tutored through their rough, initial period of learning the game. This is somewhat of a bummer from an advanced player's perspective as it means that you may be playing some games with little to no tactical excitement or fulfillment. However, if you can train up a solid gamer, you strengthen the overall community and ultimately create a better, more competitive environment. This is huge.


So, what does it take to help a beginner or intermediate player? Here are a few quick things.

1) Share army lists at the beginning of a game and explain your list to your opponent. Share any interesting or predominant rules (like FNP and FC on priest for Blood Angels) to your opponent.

2) Have a codex and BRB at hand at all times. This is not to prove you know it all. It is to show your apprentice gamer where they can find specific rules.

3) Take it slow. Answer questions as they come up and also be willing to stop your opponent to correct him (respectfully) if he is doing something wrong. Smaller points games (1,000-1,500) may be more conducive to this process.

4) Be persistent. If your opponent isn't show huge rules and tactical growth over a few games, don't give up. Sometimes it just takes a bit more time. Showing support by being consistent means that the player will be more likely to stick it out.

5) Help your apprentice build lists. Don't build them for them. Let them have input. If they want to include Legion of the Damned, let them, but help them to understand list building dynamics and how certain units affect the army's overall performance.

That's it for this post and man, was that a marathon. If you made it this far, hang on.  In Part 2, I will take a look at how rules affect whether you win or lose. Stay tuned.