The Mummy Returns, Pt1

My title is, of course, referring to the recent release of Codex Necrons. So I'll have a wee talk about my first impressions of book.

As most people do in 5th ed i looked straight at the anti-tank potential. I'm going to disregard Entropic Strike for just now (I'll muse on that later). We've got the Heat Ray wielding Stalker throwing out 2 multi-melta shots every turn, sound good? Well...maybe. I can see the stalker going the way of the vindicator - got a great anti-tank gun, but only one, only moves 6'' when firing and has negligible combat potential. Not to fret though it's not our only melta...wait...facepalm. I do think that when fielded alongside its clankey creators it'll preform admirably thanks to the mass shake/stun dished out by the rest of the army and the nightfight manipulation available to crypteks and I-mo-tekh.

Moving on to an option that very much still up in the air for me. Massed Crypteks with Eldritch Lances. First of all they don't have the lance rule!!! Competitively speaking i don't realy care about the lack of the lance rule (DE players know what I'm talking about), in fact, lack of it probably shaved 5pts off its cost. But still, it is called a lance. With that mini-rant out of the way I'll start on why these could be a good choice, but probably arn't. For 35pts you get dark lance without the lance but with the assault rule, i'd say that sounds alright. They have the option of splitting up into other squads of stick together and hang around in a ghost ark or a pyramidy looking piece of terrain. The trade off is that you'll be needing an Overlord of every 5 Crypteks you take, leading to more points spent than just the 35 per lance, and to take 10 you'll be denying yourself the rather impressive Destroyer Lord (his name is Lord E Lordie and you will kneel before him). Possibly more importantly though, if Crypteks have lances they don't have tremorstaves, which I'll discuss in good time.

The command barge. Stick a Warsythed up Overlord in one of these puppies and make some sweep attacks. Can't argue with the (theoretical) results. Though when it comes down to it if your opponents tank wasn't out of position, yours probably will be.

I'll not bother assessing heavy destroyers or wraiths because, well, did you use them in the last book? They haven't changed, that is, when it comes to killing tanks.

I'm not relay that big a fan of the Doomsday Ark, and basically the reason is that if you want it to be good at killing tanks then it has to stand still. Not cool. It's not bad but it just seems like there are far better options available. I'm undecided on whether or not the same can be said about the Doom Scythe. What i am decided on is that the Doom Sythe is very vulnerable to luck, for example - your opponent gets a lucky night fight roll and blows it out of the sky or your 3D6 roll for the length of the line you draw when you fire the weapon. Of course the opposite could also happen resulting in massed devastation and surviving to fight another turn, hence the undecidedness.

You think you hate dreadnoughts? Well Destroyer Lords seem to have made it their one goal in life to wreck the lot of them. With preferred enemy, s7 and 2D6 armpen these guys seem perfect for killing those pesky psyflemen. Granted they don't like DCCW but how often do we see them? And this is all provided that he can get behind all those blocking rhinos and razorbacks. He will also have a good go at anything that's moved less than 6inches.

I'll finish with the annihilation barge. I think its great. For 90pts you get 5-6 s7 hits per turn. its -ap leaves it a difficulty with killing tanks, but it is particularly good at putting shake/stun results across the table.

So that's us for now, leaving out entropic striking scarabs, i would say these are the predominant anti-tank options in the book. On this alone I'd say i was unimpressed, so thank god for entropic strike, which I'll talk about in a later article along with anti-infantry and general shenanigans.

Happy reading.

Sunday Night Quote No 3

On Monday. At half 3. Err.

Yeah.
Anyways:

"The history of religious conflict is a history of people fighting over their imaginary friends."
Yasser Arafat.

I like the quote, obviously, firstly as an atheist, but also cause it being Yassar Arafat was unexpected for me.
Cheers folks.

Sunday Night Quote No 2

Terry Pratchett quote for you today, folks, and one that I'm bloody tempted to get as a tattoo. Don't know if knowing that the grammer is poor on purpose would make it doable.

"Someone has to speak for them as has no voices."

And someone does.
The character is called Granny Aching, and it's from the novel "The Wee Free Men" by Terry Pratchett.

Cheers folks. Have a good week.

Skau!

So, decided to make a cheap-ass ghetto Tau army, using spare bits and Skaven. Idea is it's a Skryre army using looted tech from various battlefields. The race of course being Skaven, just imagine they exist in 40k ;)

Grammar Not Included

Well, hi.

Just a wee post letting you know a bit about your future king/overlord/dictator (take you pick, I'm really not fussed about the title). Archnomad felt like there just wasn't enough bad grammar, spelling mistakes and down right big headedness on his blog, so he invited me to write for him.

I'll be posting with varying frequency about an array of subjects. Although I'll mostly be talking about 40k, Warmahordes and other, similar subjects. As it stands I'm building a Dark Eldar army and have fallen head-over-heels in love with Legion of Everblight, a smart guess would say that my first few posts will be somehow linked to one these.

I'll try to get my posts proof read by someone who actually knows the correct place to put punctuation and, well, letters.

Happy reading.

Sunday Night Quote No 1

Well, this is something I've wanted to do for a while: a Sunday night quote section. Basically, this will be a selection of quotes thrown up for your enjoyment every Sunday night.

Some will be witty. Some will be funny. Some will be downright thought provoking.
Quotes will be from a variety of sources, and could be relating to current affairs, or to life in general.
So, without further ado, quote number one!

"This struggle, until the very last hope is entinguished, that is what I stand for. I stand for all those people who live their lives, not by some shining ideal, but as well as they can in order to survive. I stand for life, impure and imperfect, and by all that is mighty, we owe a debt to the gods to fight for every last breath of it."

This is from a novel called Taint of Evil, by Neil McIntosh. The character speaking is called Stefan Kumansky.
I like this quote because, well, people get too obsessed with high morality, and glorious ideals. They forget that people have to fight, every single day, to survive. And fighting to help those people? Well, that seems like a damn good idea to me.

Cheers, have a good week, guys.

Don't Believe The Mask, It Adapts To Any Lie

Good evening children.
Welcome to Bacon Tasty, a new blog from myself and Mr Cruickshanks. We'll be covering a variety of topics, generally split between us.

I'll be covering politics, current events, religion and shit that makes me laugh. I'll also be recommending music/films/tv you should really watch. In essence, I'm trying to make your life better. You know. Yes, you, you ungrateful sods. Try to pay attention, you at the back. I'm not doing this for my own fucking benefit. I'm just one man, one lonely soldier trying to make a difference. Or something. Whatever.

Billy (Archnomad) on the other hand, will be covering gaming posts, regarding, well, just about anything with a rules structure that society looks down on us for playing. Also, you know, other shit he finds floating about the internet that you really should pay attention to.

Anyways, my first post is entitled "Don't Believe The Mask, It Adapts To Any Lie".
As such, this post is about David Cameron.

This has been inspired by a recent Strathclyde University think tank (CERS), which published a report showing that more people think the Conservative Party is most likely to "find out what voters want" and then be "willing to change what it stands for to meet these demands".

This, shows precisely why David Cameron is, well, a cunt. Prior to the last election, he would do or say absolutely anything if he thought there was even the slightest chance people would be inspired to vote for him. To paraphrase Charlie Brooker, if there was a poll released tomorrow morning which showed 75% of British people supported child rape, Cameron would be in an open topped bus, driving round London with a sack of five year olds and a catapult by lunchtime.

He had absolutely no political morals. Nothing. The man is a political chameleon. He'd have backed anything to help him get into power. His party were all but promising voters the shirts off their backs if their vote went Tory.

Course, now he's in power, he's proven to be a fairly old school Thatcherite. But now, he's having to duck and dodge and distance himself from those members of the Party who have the temerity to follow his orders to their logical conclusion. Selling off all the forests, that went well, didn't it? He's having to apply every whit of political cunning he has to avoid looking like the prick he is.
Telling us all to clear our credit card debts in the middle of a recession he's not making any better? Aye, piss off Dave.

After 17 months of the economy juddering along at rock bottom, it might be an idea to change your policies, rather than tell us to make a fucking change, you millionaire fuck.

Ahem. That got heated.

So, where was I? Oh aye, a report announcing that the Conservatives are now seen as more likely to change their policies to conform to public opinion. Course they are. They'd give a tramp a blow job if he promises to vote Tory. Well, not right now, because due to the fantastic way our democracy works, they can do what they like for the next four years and we can't do a damn thing about it.

But the really funny thing about this report? The survey also shows that "voters are reluctant to vote for a party if they think it is highly willing to change its mind to fit in with public opinion."

So. Voters don't like a party of highly changeable flibbertigibbets who are seen as liable to change their policies as we are to change our underwear. The Tories are finally seen as the "listening party", the party who cares what people have to say and now it turns out that people ain't a fan of a party of no-spined whores.

It's wonderful. Genuinely wonderful. It's also fucking funny that Tories think this report is a good thing: "Yay, we're finally the party who listen to people!"
Yeah guys. Read the rest of the report. People still don't respect you.

I haven't mentioned the Lib Dems cause I mostly just feel sorry for them.


I think that basically sums up my point. Uh, anything else I wanted to say? Oh, kudos if you recognise the song the post title is from. If you've liked this post, great, if not, oh well, I imagine I'll deal with the disappointment somehow. Tune in for Archy's stuff, he writes about games and shit. There's usually less anger in his posts. Usually.

Uhm...anything else? Don't think so.

EDIT: Bastard, of course there was something. Link to the article I've been referencing: http://www.strath.ac.uk/features/archive/cers/

Welcome to the blog guys. Hope you like it.