+ inload: Legion symbols and finishing +

+ Betrayal at Calth +

+ *Phew!* That's a wrap – on mission one, at least. Last night I finished re-basing and detailing the squads of Ultramarines and Word Bearers that I'll need for mission 1 of Betrayal at Calth. Now just to find someone to play it with! +

+ Next up for this project – well, after a game, that is – will be Captain Aethon and five Terminators. I'll be making a new model for Aethon, but the Terminators will be a sprucing-up and repaint of my old Novamarines. Painting up the bits for this boardgame is proving a very enjoyable way of consolidating lost projects and satisfying random bursts of enthusiasm... +

+++

+ Your army, your way +

+ In fact, the project is helping me to further shake off the idea of a set of models 'for one army, for one game'. A few years back, I was used to collecting X points-worth of models, generally to a set army list. While this was great for getting stuff done – far less faffing around in my painting then than now – the result was that I always felt a bit restricted, and had a sense that the lists and model selection needed to be polished, or optimised, or refined. Today, I find it better to run with my enthusiasms and spend that time refining and polishing on the models themselves – whether sculpting or painting. +

+ Of course, there's nothing wrong with painting/collecting for gaming in and of itself. Playing competitive or Matched Play style games – and not just 40k, of course – you'll need to toe the line on what you add to your force, and that makes for hard decisions. However, I think the principle of such restrictions apply so far across the tabletop wargaming world that it's become a de facto standard – and that is a shame. I'm a firm believer that there's no right way to play, but when discussion is predicated on tabletop efficiency, rather than that being one of a spectrum of considerations, it's restrictive. +

+ Models built purely to look how I wanted have turned out to be surprisingly (and fittingly for Ultramarines) flexible in gaming. +

+ Using 40k (and 30k) Space Marines as an example, we've seen the premier weapon choices alter from one edition to the next as the rules altered – five man squads with lascannon and plasma gun in 3rd, through to grav cannons in 7th, for example. Again, that's not a problem, but it's a shame when such choices become exclusionary, to the detriment of the visual appeal. I don't think heavy bolters and chainswords have ever been the tournament players weapon upgrades of choice, but they certainly look awesome! +

+ With this in mind, building models with a certain look in mind – rather than a certain game effect – is a good way to surprise yourself. It's an approach I took with my Ultramarines years back, with the happy result that they've remained largely 'edition-proof'. By using restrictions given by narrative and aesthetic – i.e. getting ideas from stories and artwork – rather than by rulebooks and weapon tables, I've ended up with a force that is versatile enough to be usable in virtually any game – from enormous 40k or 30k games to tiny skirmish (or even tabletop roleplaying) games. +

+ Sergeant Aquilla leads his men through the ruins of Numinus City, avoiding TItans of the Legio Suturvora. +

+ I'm likely preaching to the choir here, but I do want to be clear that I don't see any problem with gaming competitively, or in equal points matches – those can be great fun. My point is not only that you don't have to play like that, but that there's a huge world of opportunity and cool games to be played beyond the symmetrical. +

+ In fact, even if you're a dyed-in-the-wool competitive tournament player, you've certainly used a number of forms of imbalance:

• Asymmetrical table setup
• Different army lists
• Different missions

+ These things are built into Matched Play, but they are at root part of the broader scope of playing – in its truest sense. GW provide rules that attempt balance, but they're ultimately never going to be truly fair: that's why there's such an emphasis on discussion with the other player, and the collaborative nature of tabletop gaming. There is an 'inherent social contract' – but really that's just jargon for playing to ensure everyone has fun. +

+ Anyway, back to the models. I'm not suggesting that it's for everyone, but if you are tempted to build or paint something a bit off-the-wall, then go for it. You might not find what it's useful for for ten years – but by then you'll likely have a whole cast of such figures, and that's given you the props you need to tell all sorts of cool stories. Good luck! +

+++