TWC's Top 16 All-Time Favourite Wargaming Miniatures

Every now and then people tell you they wargame because of the game. The system, they say, is what they play for; which of course is wargaming shorthand for “I can make brutal lists and always win”. You ignore these people, if you’re not one of them, anyway. If you’re anything like me, the main reason you wargame is that you like pretty toy soldiers.

Of course, what you do with them when you get them varies, not everyone made VROOM VROOM noises when they played Krash or Dark Future, but everybody knew that the games wouldn’t be much without the toy cars to push around. Although with those games you tended to need better-looking cars. Then you needed to train your voice so that your V8 Interceptor sounded better than your riveted Cadillac...

Wargaming Miniatures (which of course is wargaming shorthand for “Toy Soldiers, pew, pew, pew! BANG! Argh!”) are a massive appeal, and over the many decades that they have existed, there have been lots of very aesthetically pleasing ones. Let’s face it; it’s the main attraction, really. The only reason I bought the board game Descent is so I could unpack and categorise all the goodies in the box.

Below is my Top 16 list (I couldn’t get it down to 15, never mind 10). It is a summarised version of my Top 25 “short-list” (that’s one thing it isn’t), which was shortened from a list of over 50 miniatures. I should note this is my list of “favourites”, or as close as I can get to it from games I have played in my time, and is limited (with a couple of exceptions) to miniatures I own or have owned. Some were eliminated from the list because I don’t own them, or because I wanted a fairly equal spread. Once I start up a few other games, the list would most likely change, so the reason it is a Top 16 is so I can at least mention Dystopian Wars and Malifaux.

On some occasions I’ve cheated, mentioning multiple models, but we’re not all perfect are we, and that’s your problem, and you’ll have to deal with it. ;)

They are of course, in descending order of preference, or audacity, I can’t remember which.

[Yes, I have been reading Cracked recently.]

16. beakie Tactical Squad [Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition, Games Workshop]



Let’s start with something I think could actually make a place in a list of the best miniatures of all time. As a 26 year old Wargamer who has been gaming for about 17 years; I’ve had about 17 years too much exposure to beakies. But as someone who was first introduced to 40k during 2nd Edition, I had a number of beakie units, and I hated assembling them all. Every time someone complains about how annoying current GW miniatures are to assemble, I immediately think of those sodding plastic arms that you somehow had to attach bolters to, or metal heavy weapons, in such a way that they actually looked good.

I failed constantly.

Still, I was rather fond of them, but when 3rd Edition rolled along, and I saw the new plastic tactical squad, I (and probably every other gamer my age) completely forgot about every single beakie model I had seen before that. Compared to the previous ones, they were absolutely amazing, and to this day I still have no idea how GW came up with them at that time.

Ironically I only ever had one box of them. But that was the thing; I didn’t need them. My beakie army swiftly became combat orientated. The reason for that was the absolute avenue of choice that was opened up, based upon a foundation that was set by that one squad, from which all Beakies pretty much to this day originate.

I know we often blame the kiddies for beakie’s popularity, but GW really couldn’t have helped it, I don’t think. The whole of 3rd Edition made 40k a resounding success and a household name, and I think that one Tactical Squad was mostly responsible for it. It certainly killed any chance of Dark panzee doing well. Let’s face it, the Tactical Squad was selling 40k Boxed Sets single-handedly. The Landspeeder was pretty much a mess, and Dark panzee were massively unpopular (although only having the warriors in the boxed set sealed their fate).

Although the Tactical Squad box has since been refined, and added to (and had stuff removed if my friend speaks the truth), it hasn’t quite had the impact it had back then. These days we take for granted that Beakies could be put together and easily look awesome. In 2nd Ed the only thing that looked impressive was the bits of your finger stuck to the godawful “cupped hand of uselessness”. What the hell was he supposed to hold in it, a bag of frikkin’ marbles?

So there you have it, don’t blame little timmies for the popularity of the beakies – blame the beakies.


15. Aenur, Sword of Twilight [Mordheim, Games Workshop]



Aside of being the only Non-Dark Elf GW has produced that I have ever liked (without converting it first), it could be argued that Aenur is likely the most-painted wargaming miniature of all time. Those of you youths out there will wonder, “Why, were they giving it away?”

Well, yes, more or less, they were.

UK White Dwarf 228 had it as a free miniature. That’s right, a free metal miniature. Naturally, you could still buy it, although these days it is rather pricey. Not surprising actually, because it is bloody gorgeous. The Sword in particular is magnificent yet understated, and that cloak, which I don’t think GW has ever topped.

If you search the Internet, you’ll find lots of versions of it painted, as naturally it is the sort of miniature you just paint, you just do.

I think part of the reason is you can tell a whole story based upon that miniature from a single glance. I still view it as Mordheim’s swansong, as I desperately try to remove the visage of the Shadow Warriors and Carnival Chaos from my mind... with a rusty razor.


14. The Atlanteans [Dystopian Wars, Spartan Games]



I have been looking very eagerly at Dystopian Wars, ever since I heard about it. As will become obvious throughout this article, I love steampunk. I’ve been reading Victorian literature since I was in my early teens for pleasure and educational purposes, so Steampunk wasn’t a huge jump for me. I even listen to Steampunk music, because it is awesome.

I also vaguely flirted with Battlefleet Gothic, but found it flawed. I’ve been waiting for a game that actually did the whole Epic and BFG thing properly, and it looks like my prayers have been answered. At the very least those miniatures are absolutely stunning, truly showing off the power of CAD sculpting. Not only does this game have a cool aesthetic, its success likely means that Spartan Games’ other game Firestorm Armada will eventually look as nice, meaning if you did want spaceship battles, you can actually enjoy it without selling your kidneys for it, and then having to watch the panzee or tin'eads urinate on your fleet.

I’ve liked parts of most of the factions on display for Dystopian Wars, even some of the American things (they have a massive walker called the John Henry. Yeah), but up until now I’ve mostly only warmed to the Prussians (I love airships and pointy objects) and then I saw the Atlanteans…

The concept is just so damn original. I mean sure, it’s based on Verne in particular, but they look so different, yet recognisable at the same time. I truly have to thank the Podcast All Along The Watchtower for getting me even more interested in the game, and for alerting me to the incoming Atlanteans. As they said in the podcast, the drones do look a bit like penises, but if you avoid skin tones for your colour scheme you should be all right.

I could go on for ages about Dystopian Wars as a concept, but the obvious thing to discuss is the ridiculously amazing detail, in resin, at a reasonable cost. Just take a look at that GW. [i]That’s how you actually do it[/i].

13. The Red Gobbo [Gorkamorka, Games Workshop]



Well, as obvious choices go, this is right up there. If anyone actually wondered why the artwork for the Red Gobbo is in my avatar, I would have hoped it would be obvious, really.

Those who know me well know I have a bit of an affinity for Grots. It comes mostly from the fact that I loved Gorkamorka, and loved the idea of the Rebels. Any self-respecting Rebel player has that model (or at least did in the 90s) and it is, as far as I’m concerned, the single most stunning Gretchin model ever sculpted. The fact they discontinued it, the bile I could utter about that travesty wouldn’t begin to cover the sheer horrendous crime against grotdom that it is. At least they had the wit to keep it longer than the rest of the Rebel Grot range (apart from the regular Grots).

The Red Gobbo is from a past age, when the effort plunged into all of GW’s games was positively monumental. You might not have liked the results, but you knew they tried. A Specialist Games enthusiast can most likely tell you based upon miniatures (or an entire redux in Necromunda: Underhive) when GW stopped giving a crap. Unfortunately Gorkamorka never succeeded enough to reach that stage of ultimate failure, and as a result most of the range that was left behind is actually as collectable as most of the Necromunda range.

A honourable mention goes to the entire Rebel range, particularly the vehicles. The metal Grots were so good the new plastics were made to fit in with them. Those were all from Gorkamorka, and they still look amazing. The vehicles, the Big Lugga and the Cutta are iconic in concept, and the ship-like motif is something I’ve expanded on for that Rebel Grot Codex I’ve been writing for Blakkreaper’s Clanz Projekt.

The only downside to the Gobbo was his staff. Although great looking, it always snaps off. Although oddly enough I have found both of the ones I lost for both my Red Gobbo models. Unfortunately one of the two is converted, ones is for GoMo (on GoMo bases, not 40k ones), so I lack one for 40k. Until I buy some instant mould ;)

Viva Da Revulushun, ya Gitz!

12. Skaven Doomwheel [Warhammer, Games Workshop]



Well, I was actually on about the one from 5th Edition, but as the new one is also very pretty, and I want one (plus finding a picture of the old one was a sodding pain), so it’s not too bad of a violation of the rules I made for myself now, is it.

There are miniatures that can say a lot about you, about what kind of person, or gamer you are. Some of it is your taste, but some of it is also a little more sophisticated than that. If you played Warhammer fantasy at any point, the miniatures you had in your army was essentially a sliding scale of images that ranged from Cheddar to Stilton. Or baby-eating if you’re a Dwarf player.

If you took a Doomwheel in 5th Edition fantasy, it informed the opposing player that they should be very scared of you. Because then they instantly knew that you were above it all, that you didn’t care whether you won or lost, you had a Doomwheel, and it was going to kill things. Probably Skaven models, but your opponents always dreaded the day that the Engineer on the top wiped his goggles, because when he did, your opponent could have had all the best parts of the magic deck, the cheesy magic items, and Chaos Warriors he liked, he was still doomed.

Models like the Doomwheel represent pure insanity. They represent the exact opposite of the things I love to hate about this hobby: mathshammer, statistics, reliable/effective/viable units. The Doomwheel is the sort of thing you take when your hobby is mostly about beating your opponent to killing your own army. I’ll race you to defeatism…

You win.

There’s just something about Skaven. Their machinations, like they are in the fluff are absolutely better than everything else in the world that they exist, if only they didn’t have treacherous tendencies. I’m the kind of person who watched Wacky Races and concluded that Dick Dastardly won anyway.

Also, monowheels are cool. Crazed contraptions are better, and crazed rats riding crazed contraptions really resonates complete coolness.

11. The Orks of 2nd Edition [Warhammer 40,000, Games Workshop]



I have a confession to make. People often wonder why I have an army of Grots. It’s because I’m not really a big fan of modern Orks. I’m a 2nd Edition Ork fanboy. From then on, with the minor fluff exception of Andy Chamber’s absolutely awesome Anzion articles (although actually most of them are technically from Gorkamorka, not the 3rd Ed Codex), it has all been pretty downhill from there, really.

I still really love Orks, but I was never a big fan of the added crudity and angry-beast syndrome that overly simplified the Orks and made 40k revolve around They Shall Know No Fear and Fearless rules for about twenty billion editions. Even the models, they are still characterful, but when you contrast them with the character of the old Orks, they look positively monochrome.

My favourite model is Zodgrod Wortsnagga, the model most people know as “That cool Slaver/Runtherd model”. It is the kind of model that makes me cry inside. I look at what the Orks were, and what they have become, and know that when I come to use it, and to finally finish my Madboyz army with all the greenstuffed hair and crazed hats, expressions and demented things, I’m going to get comments in real life, and on this forum about how Orks don’t look like that and are bald, and can only have topknots.

Every time I see a RT/2nd Ed Ork army in the Mek’s Garage or Trophy Rack, I seethe with envy. I would love to have that many awesome looking Orks. Still, I have most of my favourites, Ghazghkull and Makari, the Goff Rockers, Zodgrod, the old SAG (somewhere) and recently, 2 of the 3 Tinboyz. I plan to use most of them, and I’m already working on making more Tinboyz and Rockers.

10. Wyrd Miniatures [Malifaux, Wyrd Miniatures]



I liked Wyrd Miniatures before Malifaux was out, and I am currently cursing my horrendous poverty that I can’t buy absolutely every flipping thing they’ve made. I haven’t wanted pretty much every model in an entire range since Rackham still had stuff that was actually worth buying.

As mentioned earlier, I love Steampunk, and anything a little bit off the wall, especially if it twists popular, cultural, historical or mythological images into something vaguely different. Wyrd does this, it seems, on a daily basis. They are also the only company, since GW in the 90s to realistically get the idea of what Terrain is supposed to do, and how to design it so people can realistically, you know, use it, with wargaming bloody miniatures.

The first models to grab my attention were the Witchling Stalkers, but so much of the range is actually collectable, as well as amazingly being fit into an interesting system. Characters such as Pandora, the Mad Hatter, War, and Death, are amazing, twisted, and, well, Wyrd. There is much promise in this company, if it keeps going at this rate. And, of course, it uses proppa metal. Not cheap, overpriced resin.

9. Varghar, Limited Edition Wolfen [Confrontation 3, Rackham]



The first Rackham entry, it was only really a matter of time. It should be noted in my first list of over 50 miniatures, about half of them were Rackham models, and I hadn’t even included the Rackham models I never got a chance to actually own. So if you ever wondered why every Confrontation player in the entire planet spends most of their time in a GW store going “Meh” you are about find out a small amount about why this is.

Wolves. Ah yes, now there’s an image that can resonate. I’ve seen lots of Wolfy things in popular culture over the years, not least the actual Space Wolves, but I’ve not quite seen anything as impressive as the Rackham Wolfen.

I’m sure most of us have some kind of monstrously large creatures in our collection, things from troll/ogre size to the odd dragon and such. Rackham is the only company I have ever known to devote the detail you would expect from a tiny character model into a 55mm+ figure, and still be vaguely affordable, or designed to actually use in wargames. The Wolfen are Ogre sized, and you’re not wanting for detail, not at all.

There are of course a few really nice massive ones, their Cynwall Dragon, Midnor Daemon Tower, and the absolutely massive and disgustingly beautiful Ogre Cyclops (all of which can be easily googled), which were fairly expensive, but utterly beautiful, and I would have happily bought all of them if I had the money. They are the kind of models that, after being in a GW where some Staffer is trying to hype me into loving the Storm of Magic monsters, his face rather drops a bit when I mention the lack of detail, and the typically make-or-break GW paintwork cover-up attempt to hide it. He may wonder why this is. The one-worded answer is "Rackham".

Varghar is one of many beautiful Wolfen (Onyx, the Prowler and Predators of Blood in particular) and was a limited edition model, based on the front cover artwork of the Confrontation 3 rulebook, and managed to be more beautiful than the artwork. Only the French could pull that off. They don’t always, mind you, because Rackham’s artwork also tends to be outstanding, to the point that I bought Griffin’s Garrell the Redeemer based on his artwork picture, and was deeply disappointed.

I don’t know why I wrote so much, just look at the picture.

8. VASA Viper Wings [Void 1.1, I-Kore]



I miss Void. Mostly because I don’t remember much about it, other than me and a few friends mercilessly looting a lot of their models to use in our own systems, although we did play a bit of Void from time to time.

I-kore were the first company I encountered that produced miniatures for bikes that didn’t look like they were bricks with wheels, and made me realise that bike models could actually look extremely nice. The riders were a little bland in style, and those bikes ALWAYS fell over, but they were just utterly beautiful, and the riders didn't distract you from the appealing lines of the bikes. Of all the original Void range, they still stick out to me as the most beautiful ones.

It was a shame about Void really, because there were lots of beautiful models in that range, the Syntha and VASA tended to be the main ones, but I-kore succeeded, in the 90s, in making absolutely stunning and interesting sci-fi miniatures. These days, I actually wish I’d spent my money on Void miniatures rather than all that money I wasted on GW. I’d actually be happy to still have those models. I’ve not looked at my Beakies, or my Chaos, since I shoved them in a corner to collect dust.

Gaming truly isn’t everything.

7. Legion of Everblight Carnivean [Hordes, Privateer Press]



The first time I saw Everblight, I knew I’d get them. They looked like a Dragon and Daemon had shagged for a fortnight. Nothing else could be quite as awesome as that mental image.

...

Just me? Okay then...

The first time I saw the Carnivean, my jaw was sore for about 3 months afterwards. I have two of them, and they are as awesome in the game as they look. Any doubts I may have had about Hordes at the time were put to rest with a handful of models. The Carnivean is so awesome; that the Everblight range still hasn’t topped it, and it’s the one you get in the Everblight starter set.

A name I often horrendously misspell (and probably have done so again) is to thank for this beauty. One Felix Paniagua, you know, the guy responsible for Avatars of War. Yeah, him. Now you know why it looks so damn awesome.

I play Everblight mostly to put that model on the table, and I do so with horrific amounts of glee.


6. Lanyssa Ryssyll, Nyss Sorceress [Iron Kingdoms, Privateer Press]



I’m sure we all have at least one model in our model collections that we bought just because we saw it and we wanted it so bad we simply had to have it. I get the sensation a lot, but I still get blown away by the beauty of this model. I do have a soft spot for Elves with a Darker ilk to it (especially Drow) but I must sadly report that I believe this is the only Elf model that PP has made that is any good.

You can now use the model in Hordes, if you’re an American, but I have still yet to decide if the best of Privateer Press is behind them. Even though I collect Everblight, I am quite disappointed with PP’s Elves since Lanyssa, and well, the models I feel, aren’t as good as they were, and the rules, questionable. Still, PP is worthy enough to be giving Games Workshop some serious competition, and one hopes they at least learn from [i]some[/i] of GW’s pitfalls.

5. Ira Tenebrae [Confrontation 3, Rackham]



Every now and then you find models that simply strike a chord with you, and they have potentially life-changing (or wallet emptying) consequences. The Ira Tenebrae got me into Confrontation single-handedly. Aside of the fact that I love Latin; I bought a blister of 3 of the most stunning models I have ever seen for £9. For the three. No, really. At the same time, you could buy that bloody Captain Corteaz model for the same price. [i]There’s some perspective for you[/i].

I suggest googling these models. See if you can find some pictures of the back of them, because a look at the front alone does not do them justice. At the back, they have cloaks, or wings, something like that, [i]of skulls[/i]. It’s absolute insane detail. The kind of thing that makes me laugh every time I hear the pitch for “Finecast”.

In Confrontation, they are Elementals of Darkness, which requires for them to be summoned into the game, which means using the divinity rules. They didn’t get much play, let’s put it that way. But if I had to pick a model that to me had the most lasting impression, I’d pick my favourite of the 3 Ira Tenebrae. I’ve liked one in particular the most since I first saw them. Guess which one.

4. Cryx Harrower Helljack [Warmachine, Privateer Press]



The Harrower is by far my favourite Warjack in the entirety of Warmachine. When I started Warmachine, I loved the Leviathan Helljack (Cryx call their large Warjacks Helljacks, and the Light Warjacks are Bonejacks), but found it rather understated compared to the other Helljacks. The Harrower resolutely solved my problem. It is wonderfully overstated, with a BFG and a claw that can put out your own eye, not to mention models on the table.

Never before have I actually loved a model for being a pain to transport, and being a Cryx player, it isn’t as rare a complaint as you might think. Ever since I bought it, I’ve always used it. It’s not the best Helljack out there, but it just radiates awesomeness, and cuts through troops like they’re not there, and a turn later they usually aren’t.

Cryx Warjacks tend to radiate a purely evil and unsavoury aesthetic. Honourable mentions include the Nightmare (which only just failed to get on the 25 shortlist), the Leviathan, the Slayer, and Reaper. Even the smaller “Bone Chickens” Bonejacks are cool looking, although PP ruined the Helldiver with rubbish rules, and to spite them it doesn’t rate in my Top million. Damn you PP. Your Removecontinuouseffectsdiver thing is no Helldiver.

3. Cryx Mechanithralls [Warmachine, Privateer Press]



Mechanithralls are almost my favourite unit in the entirety of wargaming. Steampunk Zombies with Power Fists. It brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “You are already dead”.

I simply love the aesthetic of them, and again, with Warmachine you buy awesome models, and almost always they actually [i]are[/i] awesome. People say Warmachine is only about Warjacks and doesn’t hold a candle to 40k, but in Warmachine, units actually do something other than die. They are all good, and they can all hurt everything else. The amount of Warjacks my 20 mechanithralls have ripped through is simply hilarious.

Plus, for a gamers’ game, Warmachine and Hordes models are really quite stunning. Sure they are getting pretty damn expensive, but unlike 40k you’re not paying a premium without getting something for it. PP’s models look good, and they tend to work very well, in a system that is well written. That makes the models even more attractive. Even in Mk.2.

Warmachine is something that is very much dominated by taste. If none of the limited factions appeal to your tastes, most likely you wont pick it up, but if you do like the aesthetic, chances are you’ll love the game, and adore the models.

If I had but one complaint regarding Mechanithralls, is that there are too few poses. Still, it doesn’t make them any less awesome.

2. Hive Primus and Its Inhabitants [Necromunda, Games Workshop]




This is cheating isn’t it? I know, and I don’t care.

Top X lists need to get bigger and better, so I opted for an entire hive. Because let’s face it, Necromunda is a game of awesome models, at least until some utterly cheap and annoying twerp turns up with plastic guard, and then says something about how he wants to use them as Van Saars because they all have Lasguns, but he has ordered 50 plasma guns on ebay. Then I kill him.

Anyway, Necromunda has always been about cool models. Even before it was called Necromunda, when it was called (ironically in this context) Confrontation, there were lots of interesting models that explored a completely different style and theme within the 40k universe.

Necromunda has many beautiful models, especially the first few waves of gangs and hired guns. The later models although still usually nice enough looking, lacked the depth and scope of the original ones. Don’t get me started on the Redemption and the Ratskins, or GW’s “Sneak Peak” of the Spyrers that they never f***ing changed anyway.

Ultimately though, the best models were actually the terrain. People played Necromunda for the same reason that people played Bloodbowl over the cores. They were complete games, ones that could be set up, enjoyed, and were simple and different enough to keep the thing running to a defined outcome. And they weren’t that pretentious enough to say: “for a good game you need fancy plastic terrain that requires a second mortgage to pay for it”.

If you wanted more variation in your games, you bought more starter sets. It was that simple, and the terrain was interesting enough, and some wonderful features were chucked in by the Outlanders supplement. More to the point, Necromunda is a game you can add to, and if you had no terrain, you could play Ash Wastes instead.

Necromunda just got it right, where Inquisitor was ambitious but rubbish, and Mordheim had massive promise and a great ruleset, but the terrain just failed to live up to it. Seriously, there was better buildings in the MG “Dark Age: Village of Fear” and “Dark Age” board games, and I used them for my Mordheim games. They cost me a lot less than the 40 quid GW were charging for their boxed set at the time.

All attempts to modernise the specialist games failed and I think all non-cores these days are built to fail in the long run, as they inevitably will.

Despite this, I could write a list of favourite miniatures into the hundreds, and I’d be more likely to mention Specialist Games miniatures (mostly Necromunda ones) before 40k, LOTR or Fantasy crept in at any significant quantity.

Particular favourites of mine include the entire range of Delaques (except for the Gang leader with hair), most of the Pit Slaves, the original Scavvy range (Scalies, Karloth Valois and Plague Zombies in particular),all the Wyrd models, the creatures such as the Milliasaurs and rippa jacks, the old Redemption, both ranges of Golaiths, both ranges of Orlocks, and, well the Escher are positively iconic.

Also, did you know the Spyrers were the first introduction of fish'ead (well, their tech) into 40k? Bet ya didn’t know dat one.

1. Sentinels of Danakil [Confrontation 3, Rackham]


Yes well, put simply, I have never seen anything that comes close to these models. They blew my mind away when I saw them, and I still get blown away when I look at them. I have absolutely no criticism for these models. They are as good as gaming models get, and are closer to pure art than anything else, and yet like any fantasy gaming miniature, they are based on a purely awesome concept.

That concept is Sword Axes. That pretty much speaks for itself, doesn’t it.

It’s models like this that made pretty much the entirety of the Confrontation fanbase stop playing Confrontation when Age of Ragnarok came out, with its plastic, overpriced, boring, pre-painted miniatures. The only thing that was good about them was seeing rackham models with paint on them for a change, as I dare not, because I am to the painting fraternity of Wargaming what Matt Ward is to the fraternity of wargaming writers. In other words, I put far too much crap onto models with no particular skill, flair or ability. Just like he does.

If you want the last word on Rackham’s legacy, it can’t hurt to find it on Coolminiornot.com. Rackham metals are the painter’s miniature of choice for showing off ridiculous skill. It isn’t surprising to see why, when you look at the canvass you’re painting on. You just bought a Finecast miniature didn’t you? Kept the receipt did you?

You’ll notice there are no current 40k or fantasy non-plastic miniatures in my top 16, nor are there any in my Top 25, nor my Top 50. Because they just don’t cut it any more, Finecast doesn’t matter, and if it does, it does so for all the wrong reasons.

GW presents Finecast: Because You're Worthless!

Okay well, everyone else has had something to say on the matter, so why don't I just beat the dead horse for a bit? I was trying to avoid it, but with a blog title called "The Wargaming Cynic" if I allowed the biggest mistake in Wargaming history since Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok to pass me by without even a passing mention in this blog, any hope of ever making this blog actually worth something would be completely pointless.

I've seen many pictures on the internet, and I've seen actual ones in the flesh. Judging from what I've seen, any conclusion taken from it is that at best, Finecast has been horrifically rushed and poorly handled. At worst it is the biggest insult to miniature collectors and gamers in the history of the hobby.

The first alarm bells rang when I saw the name. "Finecast". I already knew GW were moving to resin, but it doesn't matter what you know about GW's "special recipe", resin is cheaper than metal. My first gut reaction was to think how typical it is of Games Workshop to spin their measure (along with their collective ego) out of all proportions.

The public understanding is that resin is a cheaper alternative to metal, and indeed it is. GW would have stuck with metal if this "finecast" endeavour was going to cost them more money. Unfortunately, GW clearly doesn't care if it costs the consumer more money. They like it that way, judging from the unnecessary move to hard-backed WHFB army books (which no doubt will be moved to 40k when 6th Ed comes out).

GW does seem to get off on this idea of adding aesthetic "improvements". The sad thing is, I really don't think the consumer ever asked for them. They are essentially tacked on as a "we want more money from you" tax. There has been an argument that GW just happened to increase prices alongside the move to Finecast. Whether you believe that or not just depends on whether you think GW are scheming greedy bastards or incompetent greedy bastards.

I'm not going to compare models. I really don't need to, because there are many already across the internet. I have bought one Finecast model, and it didn't make it out of the shop. Having read a number of separate cases of horrendous moulding errors and an apparent lack of any quality control, I immediately checked my Tomb Kings Liche Priest (which I was planning on converting for use in Necromunda). I found several bubbles and errors.

I immediately sought a replacement, however the staff member told me how I could easily rectify this. I responded with a question: "Why should I need to?". That had him going for a while, until the responses about how the first wave of castings is bound to run with errors that are still easily fixed. I responded by invoking the name of this abomination: "Your company should have thought about that, before it called something Finecast, and priced it accordingly." He got defensive, and I got quite vociferous, during which time my quest for a replacement became a successful quest for a refund. It had a lot to do with the new customers entering the shop at that time.

It is an important point, but the pill is just too hard to swallow. You have a gimmicky name that is so egotistical and blatantly hiding a quick cost-saving cop-out, that is also the herald of, if not part of a price hike at the same time, yet you have a record amount of "poorly cast" miniatures being marketed at a massive mark-up as "Finecast". No wonder the internet is bursting to the seams with unfavourable references to this product with the pet name of "Fail Cast".

Of course, fanboys have been rushing to defend it lately. Lots of inferences about how GW are still miles ahead of the competition in miniature quality. Hardly. Most of the other companies haven't exactly had the 30 years practice and time to establish and fund their brand, yet by comparison, I don't quite think the comparative time reflects poorly on the other companies, who to some are just as good, if not better. GW's models are certainly nice, but there's a good reason for that. They rip their customers off horrendously.

Especially now that a cheaper material is being marketed as a premium product. The trouble with offering a premium service is that people expect one. You charge more money, and they want the service that comes with it. Do companies think people will view High Definition televisions in the same way as they view other old televisions? Do you think people are going to be happy when those things break? Not on your nelly. The more sophisticated you make it, the more people take notice, and because it cost more, they expect more.

It is at this point that you may be thinking: "But what about Forge World? They produce things in resin at a massive mark-up!", but there are a few issues with that. Firstly, Finecast is mass-produced, Forge World miniatures are cast by hand. Secondly, their quality control is pretty exceptional, and needs to be at such a price range. Thirdly, they produce things that are far greater in detail and quality than what GW usually has to offer.

This is another issue. The apparent "better detail". It is utter rubbish. If there is even a slight of bit of truth to it, it seems a minute difference for such a drastic name change and horrendous price increase. From what I've seen it gives the appearance of more detail by being crisper, and that is all. Having been a Confrontation player for many years now, this claim that resin holds detail any better than resin is a load of hogwash. I've seen better detail on a rackham model than the best forgeworld has to offer. I don't think the material makes a lot of difference with regards to detail.

A greater issue is the quality of the material itself. It seems counter-productive to me, that GW would start introducing hard-backed books, boasting additional resilience, yet move something like 25-50% of their miniature range in a more brittle and less hard-wearing material and then increase prices as well. There's already a few claims about GW's "special resin" (or as the rest of the world knows it: "resin") melting, snapping, and numerous casting issues that you just don't get with metal.

Metal models chip easily when they're dropped, this is true, but resin shatters when it is dropped. Metal models are less flexible, but unlike resin, they don't snap. The difference in painting? Questionable. Certainly you're supposed to clean resin before painting on it. despite this apparently not being needed with GW's finecast range, I'm expecting issues to crop up from time to time for people who don't clean them. Not that you even needed to worry about that with metal.

Resin should offer a saving, either to allow GW to make more money at the same rate or to give their customers a saving. GW opted for neither of those, taking double profit anyway (despite the switch to a cheaper material), so quality drops and the price rises. How predictable are GW? Very. There are other companies making the switch to resin who are offering savings, or in a few cases, extra models for the same price.

What "Finecast" ultimately is, is a cheap piece of optimistic marketing. It is a massive mistake of a horrendous nature, ill-timed amidst other GW issues, such as putting trading restrictions on non-EU countries, and calling internet-based companies "freeloaders". This is from a company that sells cheap, resin miniatures as if they were the greatest advance in gaming history, when they're just cheap models with a gimmicky label, to go with their gimmicky and poorly written games.

As I said, the quality control has been appalling, or else we wouldn't have such a frequency of complaints. The fact that they insist on making ridiculous amounts of cash from countries with their own currency, don't check their new and experimental range for poor quality casts, made from a material that can bubble and melt, and has the nerve to call other companies for offering a competitive service just gives you an indication of the kind of company that GW is.

Games Workshop is a company that doesn't care. All they care about is making loads of money, and they hope their customers are gullible enough to "make do" with an inferior product sold at a premium price. Do yourself a favour. Don't buy it.

And if you absolutely must, don't "make do" with something that isn't justifiably "finely cast" make sure you send it back, for a proper replacement, or a refund. Because GW doesn't deserve your money if they don't even bother trying to earn it.

'Ere We Go! An Introduction

Well, I thought I'd begin by trumping out the Blogger cliché: Hello again, and I'm back after a brief hiatus. I'd like to continue this cliché by issuing yet another one of my already numerous thread sections. This time I'd like to centre it around my favourite gaming subject: Orks.

A recent comment in the It's a Hard Fluff Life section has caught my interest. I suppose it is fair to say that Orks are my main interest when it comes to Warhammer 40,000. I find them the most dynamic and interesting race in the entire of the 40k canon. There is just something about them, something very visceral and interesting.

Firstly, there's the over-trumped Grimdark setting in which 40k inhabits. Orks sit awkwardly to one side. I've heard arguments how Orks are a parody of themselves, but I find this is something 40k does to itself. Taking things too far, going over the top, is something that you find in 40k, and then there's the friggin' space marines. Who evidently can count to 12, which is one more than 11.

40k itself started as a parody of the Grimdark style, and at some point, both its writers and fans started playing this straight. Throughout it, the Orks have never changed their tune, and have always remained resolutely the same beast, with a crude and simplistic, but workable ethic, and a vicious, but quite affable honesty.

In a wargame, this is such a refreshing approach. In a setting of grim and twisted machinations, one can find the greatest contrast in Orks. It is actually quite funny, because for a setting that sets up not only that war is bad, but that it is also a constant, most other factions are depicted carrying out over-elaborate gambits, ploys and machinations which invariably fail.

Yet of these, the most memorable is the one the Orks created, that of the second and third Armageddon Wars. What we have discovered from this is that Ghaz is using this essentially as practice, and trying his luck against the Imperials. One can get the impression from reading the fluff that Ghazghkull hasn't quite gone all out yet. If you contrast this with Abaddon's Eye of Terror campaign, it is Ghaz who comes across as the sophisticated warlord, and Abaddon who is the redundant B-Movie super-villain.

Orks are an army one cannot completely take seriously, which is both a boon and a bust for Ork players. Generally speaking it means that Orks are often dismissed, or deeply disliked, as not fitting into the grand scale of things, and dismissed as stupid, random and crude. Yet at the same time, your average 40k player even now, despite how powerful the current codex is, deeply underestimate and dislike Orks. Which helps a lot when they think their fancy power armour can do all that much against simple brute force and sheer force of numbers.

The true irony of this as far as the background goes, is that Orks actually work in a dysfunctional universe by nature of their simplistic view. All the other factions are deeply divided by in-fighting or internal politics, yet the Orks just get those out of the way and get on with it. This idea that Orks are too silly for the setting is ridiculous, when you realise the situation IS already silly, and that the situation is a unhealthy setting, and what sets Orks apart is that they alone have the healthy attitude to the setting.

Orks are a hard race to champion. There's always some group who hate them, but then that is true of most 40k races, as invariably, a poor balanced game has an insecure fanbase. However Orks get it just for being stupid. I find this hard to swallow, because there is a big difference between crude, and stupid. You'll find the primary difference is that crude can still work. If you haven't been tabled by an Ork player yet, most likely there's no Ork player where you game. Lucky you.

I love the Orks. In a game that doesn't know what it is any more, that is consumed by power-gaming, poor balancing, horrendously overpriced models, and some of the worst reputations for poor sportsmanship, painting and modelling abilities in a vastly wide-ranging hobby, with a system so bad even the FAQs need FAQing, sometimes you just want everything to shut up for 30 minutes so you can roll some dice, and have fun.

I am yet to find a faction in any wargaming system that does that as well as Orks. Skaven used to, but then 8th Edition arrived. GW obviously don't like it when you have fun. They'll have to try very hard to drill that into Ork players. Orks makes 40k better. We give it more rivets, paint it red and say job's a gud un, and generally you'll find a lot of begrudging GW "fans" who can only endure their crap because they love their greenskins.

Over the course of the next month or so, I'm going to try and write some articles about Orks, greenskins and such. I might even put up some pictures of my models! First however, I'd like to discuss a issue close to my heart, Orks in Fluff. At the same time, I'll unveil my most recent Ork Fluff project: Wurrgitz!

Games and Gameplay Innovation: Part 3: The Issue of Change

I first started gaming in 1994; the year that D:Ream had topped the UK charts with the song "Things Can only Get Better". As always with the UK, it was an optimistic symbol of hope, that ended up standing for the exact opposite. It ended its short, but increasingly festering career as the theme song for Tony Blair's New Labour election campaign; with a unique performance of the song during their election victory party. So that went well, didn't it? One day I would like to meet the members of D:Ream so I can shout at them for getting my sodding hopes up. I suppose I could clip Howard Jones around the lug at the same time.

The point is, not all change is good. Change is the reserve of the optimist. Now, those who follow this blog regularly will know a particular fact about me. I'm not an optimist.

Change to me invokes several emotions, and one of them is always deep concern. It is something I learnt in part from playing Games Workshop games (whose rules change more often than a schizophrenic leopard in an abattoir), but also because any gamer has emotional and financial concerns with any gaming system.

For the computer gamer, change is annoying, and expensive if you want to change immediately. But the expense generally encountered by a wargamer is significantly larger than this, and can be something of a constant for some gamers.

Especially with GW games, such as 40k and WHFB, where there is an edition change about every 5 years, bringing out a new rulebook (of increasingly significant expense), and at some point during the run of a new edition, every single faction will be treat to a new Army Book or Codex, throughout the run, with a significant amount of new shiny models that most likely you'll want to buy, and in many cases, usually have to.

Change is realistic for any game. You need to keep people buying if you want to further support, but each change runs the risk of undermining your fanbase, their interests, and the whole ethos of the game you wish to promote.

The main problem is, that if you are releasing a new rulebook, it needs to be noticeably different to justify the gamer's expense. If you just change the artwork in it, gamers are going to feel cheated. Every single change you make will impact on the nature of the game that your fans have been buying.

As we have seen in my previous article in this series, this often lends itself to gimmicks. If you are going to change the ruleset, you need to attract attention to some particular mechanic or aspect that you are inevitably going to deem as "ground breaking" or "innovative".

This runs a number of risks, most prominently, breaking the game away from what it originally was, and risking a fan-revolt. Rackham managed to achieve this quite spectacularly on several levels with Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok, which rebooted the old Confrontation Skirmish system into a regiment based wargame with pre-painted miniatures mounted on different bases. This forced gamers to challenge a lot of their ideas and perceptions they had about the game they loved, and it made most of them noticeably furious.

This is something that generally gets rather understated when it comes to gaming. The integrity of games is always put in question when a change looms along the horizon. Whilst most will put up and shut up, or immediately drop the game and seek other entertainment, an increasing number of gamers and hobbyists are getting increasingly insecure about their gaming environment.

This situation is so pronounced, that with GW games, generally more discussion is dedicated to speculation and debate about change (no matter how far off it is) than the existing merits of the product as it stands. It seems the gamer's coping mechanism (and can you blame them) is to have as fluid a concept of the game so that they never find themselves in such an existential crisis as some gamers who get attached to a particular way of playing end up facing.

Games Workshop's change is virtually constant, bringing out a new faction every 3 months, and with two cores where this occurs regularly, it can seem like every other month, there is something else to buy. The worst of it is that despite this constant change, the product support to keep the game more or less intact is positively non-existant.

There is no way to directly contact the writers, and despite some customer support existing to address some rules and gaming issues, only this week I encountered one email from a customer service representative of Games Workshop that simply had to be wrong. The "answer" provided was with reference to whether Zzap Guns (an Ork Big Gun) hits automatically. The Ork Codex says nothing of the sort, but a summary in the 40k rulebook says it does. The responding email to this question confirmed it did, because the rulebook said so. But it said so in a summary, clearly labelled with a disclaimer that any discrepancies in the summary are overwritten by the Codex.

It doesn't help that GW's writing is poor and inconsistent (but more on that in another article), but it is a prime example of the fact that too much change can constrict a gaming system. Warmachine has changed recently, and this has provoked a lot of controversy (as I said earlier, gamers, quite rightly, hate change). But the difference, to my eyes at least, is consistency.

If you are changing a system, you need to keep it fairly consistent. The game may need improvement, you may also want to encourage sales, but you also have to spare a thought for the gamers who already support you, because they already like what you have produced, or else they wouldn't front you any money.

You need to consider the integrity of the game, what it stands for. If you change that completely, you are going to undermine your own fanbase considerably. It is of even more importance if you have several inter-playable systems. Rackham had 4 it managed to undermine. Privateer Press has technically 3 (although Iron Kingdoms merely shares models, not a ruleset with Warmachine and Hordes). Games Workshop has a number, but the most notable is LOTR and WOTR. The important point to bear in mind that if you are going to change a system, it impacts on the others it is connected to. So, Hordes players will react to change in Warmachine (and vice versa), so had better make sure that you don't undermine the ethos or style of either game.

Change is often necessary, but it is not without risk. The other companies should take note to notice what happens when change starts occurring to a ruleset merely for the sake of it...

Games and Gameplay Innovation: Part 2: Gimmickhammer

What makes a good game?

I'm sure we all have some inclination as to the answer. A lot of it is taste. The favourable internet expression for this is your mileage may vary (or YMMV). Throughout my wargaming "career" (the one I've paid other people for), I've striven to get to grips with this subject. Not least, because I actually write my own gaming systems, and fiddle with existing ones. The concept is something I think all rules writers consciously think about, in the same vein that a writer of fiction considers narrative devices, and the film maker considers myriad cinematic approaches: camera angles, soundtracks, lighting, casting etc.

Anything produced for any medium has a sense of style and theories surrounding it. The Critic in particular looks into these, as a critic does of any other work. You generally have to form an opinion of what works and what doesn't in order to discuss it. This can run the risk of being too interpretive of something (like a film critic going on about the "innovative" and "brave" switch to black and white, or less CG in a film, when in all likelihood they simply ran out of money).

One can also be a tad too elitist, or dismissive of something that doesn't really bother other people. The trouble is, that is what the critic is for. If you endeavour to understand any medium, you inevitably find its foibles. It comes with the territory, especially when your quest is to determine the best concepts to work with, you are inevitably going to find issue with solutions people use.

This brings me quite well into the realm of Games Workshop. They have their fair share of critics, and as the "most popular" out there, they have a nice selection of examples. It also makes them an easy target, but then, I don't think a medium attracting a larger crowd makes it any less worth criticising. If anything, it probably warrants it more. If it improves, it benefits more people.

The worst thing a Wargame can do, is much the same as a computer game can do. That of offering up some kind of gimmick, whose purpose is ultimately designed merely to pull in the audience. The word "innovation" or in particular the adjective "innovative" is thrown around by fans and popularisers about various incarnations of GW's big three: Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000 and Lord of the Rings (or the pointless War of the Ring).

A good approach to the psychology of wargaming is to make a wargaming feature easy to use, and/or intuitive, so that the gamer relies more on their perception and instincts, and less of the actual rulebooks. Good system concepts can be ruined by far too much "lawyerese" language that tries to avoid exploitation. 40k in particular suffers from this tendency to reword subjects and concepts to fit new situations, rather than trying to make a system that fundamentally stays consistent (like Warmachine to some extent).

Also, just because you feel you've "involved" the player in the system directly, does not remove the need for you to make sure the system itself is well-handled, or even if it works at all for the system you are using it for. A good example of how this doesn't work, is Warhammer 40,000 5th Edition's True Line of Sight (or TLOS).

True Line of Sight is used in many systems, although only Games Workshop could be so cocky as calling it "getting down to the model's eye view to observe the battlefield, bring you directly into the games you play". It basically entails that what the miniature can see, can be targeted. Cover may be considered if the model is in any way obscured. In some games (such as Necromunda and Warmachine) you also have to observe the degree of obscurity with usually two or three (sometimes more) defined terms that have an additional affect on gameplay.

Although the original system was quite clunky and prone to causing arguments, it worked on a consistent set of definitions, and suited the style of the game. What do I mean by this? Well, terrain was judged on an estimated basis; forest terrain would be impossible to see through at a certain depth. As 40k has never really been particularly appropriately scaled, reverting to a system of seeing things as they are presented, causes a number of problems. In particular, those floating around in the air, or elevated by scenic bases become discouraged, which is one concept that Games Workshop has consistently promoted, and until 5th Edition, never affected gameplay.

In particular, Wargaming terrain is also generally designed for ease of use in games. "Forests" comprise of three or four trees, often ones that can be lifted away if movement becomes a problem. Things have been estimated around ease of use, rather than to provide adequate cover. When you use TLOS with typical Games Workshop scenery, you very rarely block visibility at all, which is a poor consideration.

Even without these aesthetic issues, it isn't really a concept particularly suitable for the 40k system. Cover provides "cover saves", which can be taken instead of a regular save, or prevent vehicles from being damaged if the save is passed. This itself is a particularly muddy subject, and has caused a number of issues, especially for countries where English is not the main language, such as a particularly unfavourable ruling on the effects of a Kustom Force Field upon vehicles in Poland.

Now, as 40k goes, the easiest tactic is to roll lots of dice, and make your opponent roll lots of dice. It is actually possible to come close to breaking the game quite easily by simply being able to see lots of units with long or medium range firepower and spamming them ad infinitum. Your opponent will get cover saves for those that go through cover, even other units (but as we've seen, it is very difficult to outright block visibility), but you can let them have that, knowing that often, any dice rolled on the lower scales (1 and 2 in particular, sometimes 3) are going to result in casualties, whether AP or any other issue comes into it or not.

Sure there is the Go To Ground rule that sacrifices the unit's turn in order to improve the cover save, but no matter how good a concept this is to slightly improve the TLOS system, you still have the same likelihood of casualties. Weapons that normally ignore armour will suffer, but weights of fire will not.

This is the problem with TLOS in 40k, because it places the main drawback of firing through difficult circumstances upon your opponent, when it should be the other way around. Given the propensity for 40k players to have some version of Power Armoured Space Marines (who really need very little aid to survivability anyway), most often this facility will simply not get used. When it does, it will provide a very minor defence against an attack that should have been greatly reduced in effectiveness, but works essentially, more or less the same as it would in the open.

It benefits those with poor armour saves, but those forces are typically fast, or have means of distracting enemy fire. Plus, one really wonders if the original system would not have worked just as well, if not better, by simply integrating the units providing cover to other units concept into the existing system in 3rd/4th Edition. It would have been easy, as the rule already existed for Gretchin in the 3rd Edition Ork Codex.

Places where TLOS have worked well is the likes of smaller scale skirmishes, such as Necromunda, Hordes and Warmachine, where cover has impacted on the accuracy and likelihood (or lack thereof) of hitting, rather than the propensity for a seldom-used defensive gimmick. Funnily older versions of 40k used this system, and Warhammer Fantasy (no less capable of large scale battles) still uses it.

This whole concept does play to the idea that certain Wargames market themselves to particular consumers, or particular groups of intellect (or both). Privateer Press' Warmachine and Hordes market themselves to power gamers, pushing forth the gimmick of playing to tear your opponent's liver out (with a small hint to the effect that this should extend merely to the gaming table, with some mention of those weird concepts called manners and sportsmanship); LOTR in particular plays to the aesthetic of the films (a sparkle doomed to diminish as the films disappeared - perhaps GW is holding out in hope of being able to represent The Hobbit too?); Warhammer very much markets the historic style of wargaming, with modern powergaming thrown in; and 40k markets itself as a fun system, with space marines.

40k itself seems to make very little assumptions about the age (or intellect) of its audience, and assumes it hates maths, English, critical thinking, or game theory. GW really don't read forums much, do they? Do they assume that players can't be bothered to subtract or do any amount of numeric considerations? They certainly squandered a wonderful and adaptable Wargear section in order to make it "easier" and "quicker" to write army lists. Funnily, you have all the time in the world to write army lists. It's playing games without needing to check the rules every two minutes and arguing about them for hours on end that I'd rather avoid.

It leads me to the conclusion, in a roundabout way. Always be wary of concepts in rules that are designed mostly around a "pull" to attract you to play. In the same way that you should be wary about those bullet points on the back of a computer game box (which more often than not are merely gimmicks that comprise of your entire gaming experience - such as a gimmicky gun that only has one particular use).



In much the same way, Wargames can do this to attract new interest. The trouble is, if not well-handled, this becomes yet another bugbear to deal with for anything other than the casual gamer. Unfortunately, most money is often spent by casual gamers and children (in most gaming industries) who often have little conception for the overall quality of a work. Until those interest areas start to dry up, many companies will avoid cleaning up their act. GW especially.

It can really make you feel for the dedicated fans of a system, who have to endure change. Most of these companies have more or less forgotten about you. You've spent your money, so they need fresh people. This can be particularly jarring when a game takes a radically new direction, and virtually undermines the fanbase. You're expecting a GW reference, but fear not. There has been one company to pull a bigger dick-move than anything GW has ever done. Step forward Rackham, for their reset button action of Confrontation, spawning the infinitely poor replacement Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok (which incidentally undermined 4 games, of which only two - Confrontation (but so many factions have been reset to virtually nil, and old models - that are infinitely collectible - essentially need rebasing(!) to play) and Cadwallon (which from the looks of it, is ridiculously expensive to play) have made much of a comeback. Did I mention the models aren't as nice looking?



Age of Ragnarok also lets us round off with one more gimmick. Pre-painted miniatures. This is a particularly large bugbear for anyone who views Wargaming as a hobby, and not just a game. For gamers, it is rather pick up and play, but for this convenience, all gamers/hobbyists are paying a massive premium for them to be pre-painted (not only the painting costs, but the elaborate packaging that is necessary so you can see them before you buy) and anyone who wants to customise or improve the appearance of those miniatures are going to put paint to them anyway, rendering the entire process redundant. Plus, At43 demonstrated already quite well that the gimmick alone does not a gaming system make. The system itself actually needs to be decent as well.

It is rather telling when all you read about on forums is discussion of how to modify the models for use in other games.

Now, not all gimmicks are bad, but always be wary of ones designed to integrate the gamer into the system. This kind of concept needs to be handled extremely well to satisfy gamers, and with a lot of gamers being insecure and temperamental, you really have to make sure that your changes stand up to scrutiny. Step up 40k. Step up Fantasy. Step up War of the Ring. Step up Warmachine Mk2. Step up Age of Ragnarok. Step up Necromunda: Underhive (an old gripe, that) and finally, step up Inquisitor, for always being a gimmick. Maybe that's why we love you. Well, why those people love you.

TWC's Gretchin Tactica

[or: Everything you Wanted To Know About Gretchin But Would Never Bother To Ask]


Introduction
You were probably expecting my Gimmick article. But seeing as it is Christmas time (well, it's gone, just, but never mind that minor detail...), I thought I'd start uploading some of the tacticas and articles I've written during my forum years. This one may be a treat for some of you, as I haven't put it onto the main forum I frequent yet. This month and next will have a distinctly grotty feel, as I've just remembered a promise to an old forum acquaintance I made a while ago that I haven't got around to finishing yet. But hell, it'll be free promotion, so why not.

Okay, so, this is a tactica born mostly from my last 6 or so years playing a Grot Horde in Warhammer 40k. I've experimented with Grots in almost every combination over the years, especially as I've spent the last 6 needing them to do a pretty good job. I warn you, it is very long, but hopefully it will be informative. A friend is going to help me post a shorter/better version on forums soon, but I will be keeping the original here, for those who crave far too much information.

Well, so long as you haven't spent the last 5 or so years dead, or hiding from 40k players, you'll have noticed that the Orks have been back, for quite a while, and stomping heads in. One of their more perplexing units is Gretchin (or Grots for short); both Ork and other 40k players have a tendency to pour an awful amount of disdain and ridicule in their direction. Muttering about them being "too weedy" to be of any use. There are of course a lot of shrewd Ork players out there who actually know how to use them, and it has an awful lot to do with embracing their weediness...

The True Value of Weediness
So Grots are rubbish are they? A lot of people think so, and I don’t correct them. Being underestimated gives Grots a tactical edge, but also explains why Grots are a very love/hate unit. Ask most Ork Players what they think of Grots and you’ll get a mixture of responses. Mostly though it is likely that they will be dismissed as little more than cheap cannon fodder, cheap tactical maguffins and/or not as good as shootas.

There is a fair amount of merit to this. Grots are clearly no replacement for shootas, and they certainly die very easy and are rather cheap. Of course, it remains that many 40k players heftily underestimate the importance of cheap tactical maguffins, and are just as likely to look a gift horse in the mouth as far as anything that costs points, whether it’s a huge bargain or not.

A lot of people really don't seem to 'get' what Gretchin are about. There were a lot of 'Grots Suck' threads thrown around during 4th Ed after the Codex had just come out, despite that in my estimations they were better than before or since, even without the Grot Screen/unit cover rules. People do tend to place a lot of individual pressure on units as if they all have to perform to 'effective and optimal standards' and need to be made 'viable' to use. People should really start looking at their armies collectively, rather than just unit by unit, because if a force can't support itself well, having the odd unit being 'viable' doesn't count for all that much.

Believe it or not, but Gretchin are one of our most flexible units. Whilst it’s clear that there's one thing they can never deal with (vehicles), Grot mobs of all shapes and sizes have many uses in pretty much any Ork army. Before we get around to discussing how to use Grots in more detail, first lets explore The Weedy Side of Gretchin usage.

The Power of The Dork Side
The important thing to remember about Grots is to never fight fair with them. Grots in the fluff don’t fight fair, and neither should you. Grots are best used in underhanded ways, manipulating the course of the game or affecting it (or your opponent) in subtlety. Grots do not win fair fights, but if the odds are slightly stacked in their favour, they can perform much better than you’d anticipate. Expecting Grots to be a directly useful unit and successful in combat unaided is to misunderstand what Grots are about.

As a generally underestimated unit, they can have a massive impact on the outcome of games whilst still being a relative unknown to your opponent. The one thing that people do know is that the Grot statline is rubbish. They may be right, but they don’t know anything else. If you exploit this, your Grots will be a lot more effective.

Also remember that it is perfectly fine to dismiss your grots and treat them with utter disdain; casually letting them wander to their deaths. Regardless of the kind of Ork (or Grot) army you have, Gretchin mobs will not be the elite of your troops. They are there to fight a bitter battle, and unless survival is very important (kill point games for instance), one should not be squeamish with using them. Although their subliminal uses are far more useful, when these are done, Grots should be utilised viciously.

Grots have a number of subliminal uses that I will discuss in this section. Unfortunately some of them are increasingly more common knowledge than they once were, and are certainly the least sneaky things you can do with Grots, but are the most effective and commonly used ones:

Nabbing Objectives
As a cheap troop choice, Grots are ideal for ‘Objective Sitting’. If you have an objective (such as a bunker) in your own deployment zone, Grots are a very good choice for babysitting it. Even if you are using a Speed Freaks force, you should consider taking some Grots to ‘leave behind’. Whether it is about holding table quarters, bunkers or other objectives, Grots are cheap enough to throw at them, ‘weedy enough’ to forget about and generally out of range enough of enemies to spend most of the game going to ground.

Opponents really hate ‘wasting shots’ on Grots, so it really isn’t a problem for you to send them after valuable objectives. A cunning Ork Player will be giving their opponent far more dangerous things to worry about than a small group of runts! Don’t expect Grots to hold an objective from an awful lot that moves in to contest, but regardless they are still one of our best units for taking objectives.

I will discuss techniques for taking forward objectives in a short while.

Providing Cover
The ‘Runt Save’ as I like to call it, Grots have always been popular for their ability to screen the much more expensive and valuable units behind them. In the last codex, it was an inherent rule, and now it is incorporated in the 5th Edition ruleset. Runt Saving is so popular with Ork Players because it easily allows for Grots to revert to tarpitting when the ground is closed and with Grots moving directly ahead, they are also in a good position for grabbing enemy objectives.

Runt Save units can provide the odd unit (say, that your KFF cannot cover) with a very effective cover save and your opponent is unlikely to 'waste shots' on the Grots themselves. When they close ground they can help in assault, revert to tarpitting, send them after objectives and/or use blasta shots to annoy your opponent and score cheap kills.

The smaller the Grot unit, the more annoying they can be. They are easy to kill though, in combat and shooting, so they are not invulnerable. However a unit starting with 10-20 Grots can cover a large amount of Orks and make a difficult tarpit obstacle for the opponent. It can often be worth covering the Grots with a KFF. This may seem counter-intuitive, but this ensures grot survival and the save for the unit they are personally covering is already better anyway, just now, you might keep it a bit longer.

Obviously the main issue is running. If either the covering unit or the unit behind fall short, issues start to arise. I’ve found that the easiest way to avoid this if both units are running is to line the covering grots on the deployment edge in as few tight rows as possible, and give between 1 and 3 inches between them and the units they cover behind them. This will reduce the potential of the Orks sitting around with movement they can’t use.

The other main issue is that Grots being in the front almost definitely slows down the potential progress of the unit/s it covers. Usually, this is worth it, even with Shoota units who in most cases have the Grots providing the enemy with cover as well. Be aware of what your opponent is. Against Beakies, that cover is generally worthless, and if they go to ground, that is an advantage to you anyway.



In the poorly drawn diagram above, you’ll see a rough example of the kind of things you can do with Grot cover. Here, a Gretchin Mob of 20 is providing cover to a 30-strong Boyz Mob. Obviously a Grot unit could cover more, or less, but the principle I see is that, unless you are desperate, Grots should provide a long row that is at least 2 grots deep. 1-deep cover can be whittled away very easily, but covers more, so it is ultimately up to you.

You may be wondering why the Runtherds are on the ends. It is purely aesthetic on my part, really. I suggest experimenting with where you put your runtherds. I sometimes align them like that, and I definitely avoid placing them in the front line where possible. You want to try and maximise the location of those grabba Stikks/grot prods, so think about where you need them at the time. Remember that the Grots are probably an inch or so ahead, so better run rolls can be spent reforming whilst running. Also, sticking two on the end (whether they’re grots or runtherds) extends your LOS coverage slightly.

The distance between the two units isn’t always important. If you are using Shoota Boyz, you don’t need to be so far behind the Grots, as you’ll be shooting most of the game (and running for one turn might not account for the distance). Grots should run every turn, and even if you don’t want to move too far forward from the unit/s you are covering, you can use the run moves to form your Grots up into a useful tactical shape. There are many, but I’m going to talk you through two.



We will discuss tarpitting in a short while, but you can prepare for it whilst advancing. The formation picture above shows how I have moved the runtherds into the centre, deepened the flank sides, moved the Orks in and curved the front row slightly. The reason for all of this is control. When you choose to tarpit, you need only move your Grots the full distance, unload a volley of shots from the blastas and brace for the charge, taking any position you like (remember that this picture is showing a formation preparing for a tarpit, not the actual tarpit itself!).

The flanks of the Grot unit are deeper to allow optimum cover whilst making sure you won’t run into coherency issues (which is why the Runtherds are in the middle, as no matter what happens you’ll not remove the runtherds if you have the choice, and you still have coherency if they are sniped). The Runtherds are also in the middle so that they can be easily moved to get into b-t-b with any charge. You can have them on the front row, but that depends on what you are facing. Sometimes it is better to choose positions that allow you a better choice of placing for the first round of combat.

Always think about where your runtherds should be placed. Although no longer easy to remove in combat, these are your main combat elements and you do need to exploit your runtherds’ location if you want to reduce the combat impact. Your Runtherds with grabba Stikks in particular need to be deployed effectively, so always be wary of where you place them.



An alternative formation that I favour is a flanking formation. You use this if you intend to move the Grots and Orks in different directions, such as flanking an enemy unit. The main advantage of this manoeuvre is that it still provides cover but allows both Ork and Grot units roughly the same movement potential, but on the downside reduces the amount of Grots that could potentially provide cover, as well as being fairly predictable as to what your units are going to do. It is generally a good idea to face the Grots’ flank towards the largest mass of enemy firepower if possible. I will cover flanking shortly, but first let’s discuss tarpitting.

Tarpitting and Charge Blocking
Two terms you may or may not be familiar with, but mean essentially the same thing. The idea is to place a blocking unit that prevents the enemy from assaulting more valuable enemy units behind them. The enemy can ignore the Grots, but if they remain intact, the Grots will still be able to move freely, and either way, the enemy still cannot touch the unit behind in combat. More to the point, regardless of the result, the enemy will not be able to reach the protected unit/s behind and are now at the mercy of those units in the following turn.

The important thing to remember about tarpitting is positioning and bait. You want to make sure that the Grots are positioned in such a way that the enemy cannot easily move around them, and that your valuable units are a sufficient number of inches away that they are protected but able to counter charge in the following turn. Obviously, if your enemy units have larger charge ranges or fleet, you will need to take the extra movement into account (an easy way to do this is to widen your Grots and move your Orks back). Here is another bad picture to show a general tarpit setup:



As you can see, the Grots are set up to accept the charge from one opponent. The basic idea is to fully block the unit and a good rule of thumb is to prevent an enemy model from drawing any straight lines to the unit/s you are covering without passing through the Grots. Runtherds sit in the front (with grabba Stikks, accepting a charge is an easy way to reduce attacks no matter what the position, so positioning is only important if you want to neuter a specific character) and try to keep your grot rank deep if possible.



On occasion, you may need your Grots to protect valuable units from a number of enemy units. In these cases, the process is still the same. Spread your Grots wide enough to cover the unit/s the Grots protect in such a way that you cannot draw a straight line from the enemy units to any of them, and keep the rows of grots at least 2 deep where possible (this will mean that it is easier to maintain the protective barrier of grots if you have to remove shooting casualties).

Once positioning is sorted, baiting is usually the easy bit, and is also when you find out if your tarpit is successful, or if your Grots are lucky enough to be out of charge range (ignoring stuff that can fleet, anyway). To bait an enemy into accepting the tarpit, all you need to do is unleash a Grot Blasta volley. Some shooting at BS3 should be enough to suggest to your opponent that leaving the Grots alone is a reasonably bad idea. Plus, killing enemies increases the chance of the Grots surviving to at least attack back, so either way shooting them is good.

As Sweeping Advances are gone, fighting Grots is pretty much a death sentence if the enemy will promptly stare down an Ork unit that is within 12". A situation of tarpit trapping is the one main time you should consider not re-rolling with the Squig hound in combat. Although consolidation becomes an issue (for getting out of range of the Ork unit/s behind the tarpit), keeping Grots around for a second combat means even with fresh attackers on your side, without wiping the enemy out you will probably lose the combat if there are more Grots than attackers.

Because consolidation cannot lead to assault, there is not much stopping you from keeping your Orks a lot closer, and this is most recommended when trying to tarpit jump troops, as you’ll need to make sure they can’t get past the grots, and the best way to do that is have the other side of the grots being 1-2” away from Orks (which would be an illegal move for jump troops). Generally though against really fast things, the tarpit can fall down if you aren’t careful, so always remember to exploit positioning, distance and terrain if you can.

The main downside of tarpitting is that it can, on occasion, block your own units from getting into combat themselves. This is fairly rare though, as Grots are very easy to kill and the opponent is not really rewarded in success anyway. It is however, almost guaranteed to result in either a destroyed or fleeing Grot unit; an almost certain kill point for the enemy, especially in units of 20 or less (inflicting 11 or more casualties to a Grot unit in a single turn can be very easy).

Remember that often (especially with multiple units) it is easier for the foe to just shoot your grots dead. The speedbump/tarpit effect is the same, as they can only shoot you after moving, and it is unlikely that they’d be within 6” after shooting if you’ve placed them correctly. It is best to always be cautious about losing your grots to shooting, especially when nearby units can fleet. People can get around speed bumps, so always think twice when trying to deploy one.

Unit Flanking
Depending on the situation, tarpitting can sometimes be a waste. If you have the advantage of distance and your opponent’s unit/s lies within 6-12”, there is seldom much point in letting your Grots stand around doing nothing! A tactic I tend to favour is Unit Flanking.

This is essentially the final development of the flanking formation I showed you earlier (it may help to go back to familiarise yourself if necessary). The theory behind it is that the Orks have continued to gain cover from the Grots, but are merely less than 2” behind the front of the uppermost Grot rank. This means that the two units can split apart, and with the right amount of cunning, can do a number of clever things, and the distance travelled between them is very similar.

The flanking formation mostly protects a single unit geared for assault (but provides an impressive screen to other units behind as well!), but otherwise allows that little extra movement to deploy quickly and effectively into combat. If timed well with the rest of the army, this is a wonderful time to consider calling your waaagh and getting as many of your Orks into combat as possible. You should also bear in mind that Grots cannot ‘Waaagh!’ (and thus cannot fleet), so they may not have as much potential to move ahead as the Orks potentially have.

The main tactical advantage of the flanking manoeuvre is being able to surround an opposing unit from two sides; either to throw both units into combat, or to move off the Gretchin for a few volleys of shooting without interfering with charging potential.



Although this manoeuvre mentions a ‘double assault’ it is not necessary. The important thing to take note is that the Orks have a greater potential to surround the enemy if you are able to fleet that turn. If you have no need of running the Grots, even if you do not charge in, a volley of Grot Blasta fire (plus whatever the Ork unit has if they don’t fleet) is worth unleashing. This could potentially lead to the unit fleeing, but it all depends on what you want to achieve. If you are hesitant to consider any concept of charging Grots in to assist another unit, I will cover this later on when I discuss using Grots in Combat.



Alternatively, you may want to use this tactic to tarpit an enemy unit close enough to support the unit your Ork unit will be charging. In this instance you may need to utilise a run move to pull it off effectively (although avoid this if possible to get a volley of blasta fire off). Alternatively you could use this manoeuvre in order to make a sprint for an objective, leaving ‘da boyz ta get on wif watz proppa’. If they win the assault, consolidation is best spent making sure the tarpit works, otherwise ideally the enemy unit (if it survives) should provide an obstacle to aid the tarpit. Be clever if you can about where you place your charging Orks, and from where you remove casualties.

Flanking is very simple to do, although can be a little time consuming. It is however very effective for exploiting movement, if a little more predictable and easy to spot for the opponent. A clever opponent will tend to ignore the gretchin half (although depending on how well you did the formation it is possible to switch around in a turn if you have time. However the best way to get away with this is to make your opponent notice other rather dangerous Ork units and otherwise distract from the weedy nature of the grots (although they could be screening 30 boyz, which would scare anyone…) with more vital concerns. However if you want to deploy two units quickly in separate ways, it is a very useful tactic.

The Price of Weediness
The Price of Weediness is something worth paying, and (more to the point) not as expensive as you might think! I’m prepared to assume that a lot of “Mathshammer” will be thrown around to show that statistically, at least, Weediness isn’t much to be sniffed at. I am hoping the content in this tactica has at least got you to consider rethinking your position on Grots.

Obviously, the main failing of Grot units is the Gretchin statline. The 2s in particular are considered with a great deal of dismissal. For the most part it does mean that you at least know why Grots are so cheap. But Grots do at least have the saving grace of BS3. This is particularly attractive in other Gretchin units (Big Gunz, Grot Tanks and Kanz), and in a regular Grot unit this does mean that blasta fire can be reasonably destructive up close.

The main thing people tend to complain about with Grots is their apparently poor leadership. So I had a quick look through the codex. With Runtherds, a Gretchin unit has between 1 and 3 models that grant leadership 7 to the unit. More than half of the units in the Ork Codex with an Ld stat (some 11 units) have a maximum base of Ld 7 (outside of the Mob Rule and IC joining), and only two of these can greatly exceed a unit size of 8 without a significant cost. These two units are Grots and Boyz (the unit Grots usually screen). Weirdboyz, Nobz, Meganobz, Burna Boyz, Tankbustas, Lootas, Warbikers, Deffkoptas (who cannot exceed 5 models), and Big Gunz (who are in the same boat as Grots) are the others, and only really the Weirdboy can avoid leadership issues by joining Boyz units.

There are 9 units in the Ork Codex who have access to leadership 8 or greater, and of those about 80% of them are special characters or a unit that gains a higher leadership by having a special character upgrade: Ghazkhull, Mad Dok Grotsnik, Wazdakka Gutzmek, Old Zogwort, Warboss, Big Mek, Kommandos (Snikrot only), Stormboyz (Zagstruk only) and Flash Gitz (Badrukk only).

There are 4 Independent Characters with access to Bosspoles (2 of which are Special Characters), 7 units with access to bosspoles, and of those, only one Flash Git unit may have one (through Badrukk), and Storm Boyz (with Zagstruk) and Kommandos (with Snikrot) must do without a bosspole if they take their special character upgrade.

So on that note, Grots are very cheap, and runtherds provide the average Ork leadership as well as a leadership re-roll for the cost of a nob, whereas other units need an IC or pay an additional 5pts for the privilege. Oh and you can have up to three of these in a unit and are a lot harder to take out even with marksmen on the board. So what was that some people were saying about Grot leadership being rubbish? By the looks of it, they’re bordering on above average for Orks.

The major threat to Gretchin is just about anything that isn’t them, really. Specifically though, Grots really don’t like dedicated combat units (especially ones with a high initiative and armour save) and units with a high toughness value. In shooting, Grots can handle stuff a bit better, but with strength 2 attacks in combat, only your Runtherds have any hope of hurting monstrous creatures. As monstrous creatures tend to be common tarpit targets, this almost guarantees the slaughter of your grot unit.

Grots that aren’t protected by their own cover can be quickly whittled down by enemy shooting. Strangely gaming savvy opponents will determinedly deal with them, especially if you use a lot of tarpitting against them. Grots killed though are cheap casualties. This is one of their main advantages, but coupled with this, they do take a valuable troop slot.

Grots have some specific banes of course, which may appear to be an unreasonably short list. The truth is that most units can kill Grots. There are a few that are utterly perilous to come up against. Grots can always stand a chance of doing some damage to even the most dangerous of foes. I’ve beaten Khorne Berzerkers in combat with a Grot unit before. But here are a few things to watch out for:

Vehicles/Walkers: The obvious is unerringly true. Grots can never harm vehicles. Nope, your Runtherds can’t use furious charge, so you can’t even dent AV10. Grots make excellent tarpits against walkers (especially dreadnaughts), but they can only hold it up, and can never harm it. Dreads in particular will make you regret the day you dropped your grabba stikks for grot prods.

Pie Plates and Template Weapons: Like most Ork units, Grots don’t fare well against template weapons. By far, flamer weapons are actually worse, because even if you’re cunning enough to protect your Grots with a KFF, flamers will ignore any cover save your Grots have and still wound on twos. Templates are always an easy way to remove Grots. Your only solace really is that at least it isn’t your Orks this time (watch these though when covering, especially against hellhounds!).

Now is a good time to mention this. Watch out for pinning. It is a serious problem for Grot units that you have on the move.

Scout Sergeant Telion: Of the space marine characters, Telion is by far the worst for Grots, as he can easily take out your Runtherds, and has two shots within a very decent range. Scout squads are a bit nasty for Grots anyway (especially with snipers), but with Telion they are a very serious threat. Other space marine characters to watch for are Pedro Cantor (mostly as he’s so sodding popular) and Shrike (who is unlikely to be waisted on your grots, but stranger things have happened…). Space Marines are particularly tough opponents for grots, but they are not numerous, and they are very expensive in points. Every marine lost (especially terminators) to gretchin will be a major blow to your opponent, and a good way to pay for a Grot unit’s points.

Death Company/Sanguinary High Priests: I hate Blood Angels. They’re fast, as hard as any space marine, and now annoyingly able to hand out Feel No Pain to tonnes of units. Feel No Pain is one of the Grot unit’s biggest weaknesses. Grots struggle to make dents as it is, and FNP greatly reduces this even further. Count in power armour and it starts getting really annoying. Oh, you want to know about Death Company? Nobody likes Death Company.

Plague Marines and Berserkers: Chaos are quite nasty to Grots, but those two are my least favourites. Although you’d think I like Zerkers less, it’s actually Plague Marines. The FNP and high toughness are a horrible combination. The only time my Grot horde has ever been tabled and massacred recently was down to a Plague Marine army. Zerkers, have extra dice in combat. I have beaten them before, though, and the best thing about Zerkers is, you can always shoot them first.

Dire Avengers: If your panzee playing opponent is willing to waste a turn’s shooting on your grots with his avengers, in all likelihood, they will not be there afterwards. Avoid, where possible.

Before I move on, I’d like to say this isn’t an exhaustive list, and I invite people to suggest other examples that I can add. This is merely based on my experience of opponents. I’m yet to face the new Space Wolves for instance.

Constructing Gretchin Units
Okay, now I’ll give some advice on how to build up your grot units. It seems pretty simple, but it ultimately depends on what you want them to do. Grots are incredibly flexible, but how you build a Grot unit will have a massive impact on how it works in game.

Unit Size
How large to make your Grot units is probably the biggest issue you will face. Regardless of how you go about it, there are two things to remember: firstly, Grots take up a troop slot, and secondly, that Grot unit will be hugely cheap for what you’re getting.

A big deal in the Ork 40k community is the amount of Runtherds. A lot of people like to take up to one less grot than required to buy the next one. Previously, I used to oppose this as against the rules, but I don’t bother now. It can add army list flexibility and save points, but it is often not as practical as people make out.

You can indeed buy a fair bit with 13 points (two more Orks etc), but it is worth considering paying that little bit extra, for what you get out of it. For a start, there’s strength in numbers. It isn’t always important to just have lots of Grots. Runtherds are hard to get rid of without Marksmen, but it is still possible. Also, an extra runtherd adds a massive (for Grots) amount of extra combat clout to the unit.

I’d say the cons of not taking the extra runtherd usually outweigh the pros of leaving him out. Ultimately, it depends on the rest of your list. Grots need to work well, but the same is true for the rest of your army, so it is up to you.

Sizes vary, depending on what you want to do.

If you only have a few points to spare, a unit of 10-18 Grots can be a useful harassment and/or objective sitting unit. You can even use them to cover and tarpit, although I wouldn’t expect them to last very long.

In my view, Grots start getting good from 19 onwards. A unit of 20 preferably (or if you need to save points, 19 and a runtherd) will do what you want and survive quite well. The extra investment beyond this depends on the army, but you can do all of what I have mentioned previously pretty reliably.

The larger units can be quite unwieldy, but they also take a bit of shifting. Units close to the 30-mark pretty much need KFF protection. Otherwise the chance of them pegging it and you not getting the use of them becomes too irritating to budget for. Grot units of this size will attract firepower. This can be beneficial for you, but if you want them ignored, I’d stick closer to the 20 mark and no higher.

A lot of people advocate 29 grots and 2 runtherds. Seriously, don’t bloody bother. Go up to the bell, and ring it, or don’t go up to the bell. A unit of that size needs all the help it can get to be useful more than it does to save points. 120 points is not a lot for what they do. I fit 3 maxed out units in 1000pts and more than that I have 4. I know how those units work, and I find the lack of runtherd seriously detrimental.

A unit of 30 Grots is to be used as a combat unit. Seriously, if you’ve got that many, you want them in the thick of it. At that point, the extra runtherd makes a massive difference. If you keep them out of combat (which is difficult) then Grots are what you need for shooting. In combat however, it is all about the runtherds.

Runtherds
Always remember that Runtherds are dependant on the amount of grots you take. Those people who tell you that you can take 3 and only 10 grots are talking rubbish. Runtherds can only be bought per 10 grots. People exploit this by taking grots under 10 (i.e. 12, 19 or 29), but it doesn’t work both ways. You don’t get to choose when you buy runtherds. You take them when you need them and only when you need them.

When choosing how to equip your Runtherds, I suggest, that unless you have a specific reason not to, you take Grabba Stikks. You can take on some pretty nasty charges and claw enough back to potentially survive combat resolution. When charging they give an extra edge, but runtherd positioning becomes vitally crucial.

I heavily discourage Grot Prods. Unless you're facing a force that is likely to have some kind of monstrous creature, they're hardly worth it, and the Grabba Stikks are more useful anyway for reducing attacks. The Grabba Stikks have saved me from far worse Combat Leadership rolls countless times, and the Grot Prods are expensive for what they do.

You could always mix it up and take a bit of both, but I generally advocate that you stick to one type. If you’re going all out to wound, take Prods. If you’re going for damage limitation, take grabbas. Grabbas are much cheaper, and in my view, work best with Grots.

Grots On The Battlefield
Now finally, I’m going to mention a few basic pointers for using them in a game. I may have mentioned a few things previously, but these are just general thoughts I have put together for your delectation.

Deploying/Moving Grots
This will be the most important part of the game for your grots. Obviously the scenario/mission objectives will greatly determine where you place your gretchin. Ultimately though, it comes down to what role you want them to play in the battle. If you want them to lurk or sit on an objective, then finding cover is the best bet. Grots without cover are in serious trouble.

Usually, I advocate not deploying with the preparation procedures I mentioned above. It is best to move into them later, as the less time you give your opponent to think about them, the better. Most people undervalue Grots so greatly, that they doubt in the ability for Grots to do one purpose well, let alone multiple ones. However, this is no reason to give them the chance to consider it.

Unless you are playing a Grot Horde, always run with your Grots if you are covering something (even if you just use the run inches to reform them). In my experience, a Grot Horde should be moved with careful consideration, because once the enemy closes ground, you run out of chances to dictate when your Grots charge or are charged if you also close ground. If you can, draw your opponent in, then you can maximise firepower and combat clout.

Move your grots according to your expectations, and be wary of potential charges. Only take the charges you want them to. Remember what I said at the start; never play fair with Grots.

Grots In Combat
I was going to discuss Grots in the shooting and close combat phases separately, but seeing as Gretchin shooting range is so low it is almost inevitable that combat is going to shortly follow suite (either in your turn or your opponent’s).

In Combat, the true secret of Grots are 3 things: Runtherds, Squighounds and Grot Blastas.

As we’ve discussed Runtherds in some detail, let’s move on specifically to Squighounds.

Squighounds
They are part of a Runtherd's wargear, but they are so awesome I’ve decided to mention them separately. The Squighound re-roll is an outright godsend, but there are a few important things to know. The squighound re-roll costs Grots. The bigger your unit is, the better (in particular to keep above 50% unit size) because your Grots will fail A LOT of leadership tests, especially in combat. In almost every situation, if you fail you really have to re-roll. Losing more Grots isn’t always good, but making sure your Grots stay put is usually a better bet.

Important Note: Always remember that if you cannot sacrifice the amount of Grots needed for the re-roll, the re-roll does not happen. Squighounds will never eat Runtherds to make a re-roll, so you need the Grots. Bear this in mind.

As far as the Re-roll goes, it is amazing. People forget that a Grot runtherd provides the same leadership as most other Ork units and this unit has a built in re-roll. This makes them one of the best objective-sitting units in the Ork Codex!

The only disadvantage is the lack of Mob Rule, but if you expect your grots to be brave, you're in for a shock, but not as much as you'd imagine. On a good day, my Grots don't run. Ever. On a bad day, they do anyway, but it’s always funny.

One final piece of advice. If you may fail a leadership test and you have exactly half the size of the unit, it is worth considering (particularly if this is during your enemy’s turn) not forcing the re-roll and waiting. The logic is that if you force the re-roll and fail, you lose the Grots (because the casualties from the squighound will take you below 50%), however if you wait until the following turn, you will get two chances to pass it. It will limit what you can do with your Grots, but worth considering for a scenario involving kill points.

Grot Blastas
Grot Blastas are one of the most underrated weapons in the game. They're probably the most rubbish guns in 40k, but if you have enough of them together, they can be extremely nasty. Given the choice, yes, I'd plump for shoota shots any day, but Blastas are horrendously evil simply by nature of Grot BS. I've already gone over it earlier, so I just thought I'd add that Grot shooting is a seldom known effect. So many people (Ork Players included) have no idea how nasty Grots can be in shooting. People rule out Grots as a threat, but when they close distance, a turn's shooting will make most players re-evaluate their attitude towards them, whether you follow it up with a charge or not.

A turn's blasta fire is ultimate Tarpit bait. No opponent will leave those guys around to fire again. Also, never forget that Runtherds have sluggas. BS2, but sluggas. Don’t forget to fire them, it all adds up.

Grots can and often will do themselves proud, but it is almost always down to luck: good to wound rolls and opposing failed armour saves in particular. If you help Gretchin to soften up a unit with even a slight amount of fire support, Grots can take units down.

Expecting Grots to win assaults is extremely wishful thinking. Nine times out of ten Grots win assaults only by wiping out what they are attacking. Grot casualties are always going to be high, so usually you are relying on failed armour saves or an already weakened foe. Their numbers can be favourable and the Runtherds add a bit of combat bite to them, but expecting them to charge in and succeed can never be taken for granted, even against a weakened foe.

Grots are still very flexible, but they need support. Grot units work extremely well together. Putting them both into a combat is still a fairly large gamble, but a lot less painful than adding an Ork unit that will tend to be stuck with a lost combat regardless of how well they did.

Of Ork units to support in combat with Grots, generally it is better to keep them out of it unless you think the Orks could use help inflicting wounds. Grots however support Meganobz extremely well on occasion, because MANz generally have enough killy ability to destroy units, but the Grots give the enemy something else to attack (reducing potential dead MANz before they strike) and if the Grots are entering in the combat after an initial round, those extra attacks really add up. Plus you can surround any character with 3 grabba Stikks if you're smart enough. Only Khorne Lords tend to cope with that kind of restriction.

It is also worth noting that boyz units tend to lose anyway, so what exactly is stopping you from putting the Grots in? If the boyz are likely to remain fearless (even more so if Grots are dividing the enemy attacks) chuck the little sods in. If the Grots run, who cares? They did their job.

Grots As Retinues For ICs
Grots make good retinues on occasion, but here are a few things to consider.

There is much talk often on the Internet of using Mad Dok Grotsnik to make super grots with cybork bodies and popping him into the unit to grant feel no pain. This is almost always an utterly bad idea (and thankfully often discredited). Maybe in Apocalypse it'll be fun, but actually getting something out of FNP would be (other than against the likes of an Imp Guard horde) a rarity, and a 5+ invulnerable that although is VERY useful for Grots in assault, is a very expensive upgrade better spent on units that can do better in combat anyway, such as Meganobz.

Grots are never a good idea for Warbosses. Seriously, put them somewhere useful! There may be a debatable use of sticking a Bikerboss in a grot unit in case of first turn shooting, but as Warbosses are combat beasts, Grots are not the ideal candidate for retinue duty.

They might work for Weirdboyz (but shootas or Flash Gits are better imo) but the only real useful retinue job is Big Meks, and in most cases this is limited to SAG meks. As the SAG is a potentially disastrous weapon, Grots are a cheap babysitting unit that takes hits instead of the mek and doesn't hurt as much when he explodes. Generally though Lootas or Big Gunz teams are the best babysitters because of the dakka they chuck out as well (Big Gunz also don’t always restrict targeting the same thing). Grots, however, are a decent, and cheap alternative!

Most games I play at the moment are around the 1000 pt mark, and I tend to run 3 units of maxed out grots, covered by a KFF. There are so many Grots that players concentrate most of their firepower on them, rather than the much smaller but equally squishy unit of MANz and Warboss. The Grots at that size are unwieldy and tough to move, and seem to be useless, but 90 Grots makes up less than half of the army cost. Plus, when they close range, that grot BS starts to work wonders. I've dropped Avatars and many other 40k badasses with Gretchin fire.

Conclusion
…

**Sounds of evil cackling**

Welcome, my young apprentice, to the Dork Side!!!

MUWAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Walks away muttering “I don’t think this whole ‘Dork’ Side thing is going to catch on…”**

TWC