Unfortunately, I didn't manage to get a game in last week, so I am yet to test out my new list. In the meantime, I thought I talk about why I've set myself the "10 week challenge" to stick with an army list for 10 games.
Firstly, I'm not a very good Warhammer 40,000 player. Yes, I probably win as many games as I lose but most of that is down to the resilience of the Space Wolves. So, how do I get better? Well, I'm going to take a tip from David Brailsford. He is Great Britain's cycling performance director and he speaks of the aggregation of small gains. That is, instead of making big improvements, you make lots of small improvements.
What does that have to do with me and my 10 week programme? Well, by keeping the list the same, I can focus on the areas where I struggle, namely Objective placement, Deployment and movement in the first turns - what in chess would be called the opening.
I also want to take this opportunity to finally decide what kind of player I am. Now, broadly there are two kinds - proactive and reactive. I intend to do a more in depth post about this in the future but for now I shall just say, I feel like more of a reactive player.
Step 1 - Objectives
We always talk at work about the 70/20/10 model. Now, I think it will be hard to get the 10% formal training but fortunately, there has been a post his week which I would consider to be role model. Dash makes some really good points but the thing I think the thing I took away is that there really isn't any had and fast rules. You need to know how your army behaves (which I get from sticking with it for 10 weeks) and you need to have an idea how your opponent's army behaves (broadly - fast, slow, do they need cover or not?)
Are you proactive or reactive? Do you have any hard and fast rules when it comes to Objective placement?