I'm back!

 

Hey everyone. Long time, no see. I've been gone because I tried to see if Youtube might be a better platform for my 40K thoughts but it hasn't really reached anybody and trying to become a popular channel is impossible when you don't have all the bells and whistles. So, I am going to look at reanimating this blog and I hope you'll join me again.

Since my last post we finally got 10th edition and despite a shaky start I have been extremely surprised at just how good 10th edition actually is. I used to say that 9th was awesome but in truth, 10th is definitely my favourite version of the game so far. It plays so much better and the games I have played I have played (nearly 200 since it dropped last summer) have been so much more cinematic and immersive than anything previous. It still isn't perfect and they still need to fix a few things but 10th gets a full two thumbs up from me.

So, how have you all been and what are your thoughts on 10th?

What Supplement Should Games Workshop Publish Next?

 

When 9th edition dropped we were introduced to a new narrative format within it's hallowed pages. Crusade was the new narrative where you could take a starter force and slowly build it up while playing against your friends who were doing likewise. The system worked by awarding experience points to units for having played the game with a couple extra for things like being "marked for greatness", gaining and removing permanent injuries or negative effects, plus the addition of new narrative relics for your characters. Add to that, this is where your narrative missions came in for a better gaming experience. 

All in all, Crusade was a very fun style of play. But it is not without it's detractors among the community and it does have some small flaws. Crusade uses Power Level over the points that Matched Play uses as a means of keeping things simple. Players don't like Power Level though, as it does not take into account the difference between say a heavy bolter and a lascannon. There is also the small problem that if one player's army consistently wins games and keeps improving over other armies it can become a little unbalanced. It does work if you play for the fun and not competitively, as was intended. But competitive play, from my experience, has unfortunately creeped into Crusade and it does make a difference. Even so, I really enjoy Crusade games. I find it highly enjoyable and slowly you can add your entire army to your roster. Technically I find it more enjoyable than regular Matched Play I suppose.

However, in the two years since 9th edition hit the shelves Games Workshop has done almost nothing to expand upon the Crusade mechanic. We had a couple of campaign books for the Pariah Nexus and I think Octarius, and one other (I want to say Death Guard vs Mechanicus). But they haven't really supported Crusade with proper materials. What Games Workshop need to put out is a decent series of expansions for the Crusade format, and I don't mean specific war zones like they have done. If you look at the source books that have been released for Necromunda you'll see what I mean. We need a nice hardcover book or two that includes errata to balance out a few things, options for playing with points rather than power level, the relics and upgrades from the old narrative books like the Pariah Nexus, rules for creating our own HQ characters, and a host of new narrative missions. 

Crusade really feels like it has been almost abandoned and left for dead. It feels like an after thought that has been forgotten in favour of the standard competitive play - which obviously does make more money for the company. I think some of this is because they probably didn't expect people try and play  it in place of regular games. I fully imagine that it was expected to be something played a few times and then put to one side and if so, that is a real shame. With some proper thought out expansions we could see Crusade set up and expanded upon like we see Necromunda has been over the last few years. 

If you haven't tried Crusade I heartily suggest you give it a go. Leave your usual Matched Play expectations at the door and play for the fun. I can almost guarantee that you'll have a fun series of games telling the story of your own personal crusade. Let's just hope that Crusade as a format won't get left behind again.

Musings on 10th edition

There is a lot of talk online at the moment about the idea of a new 10th edition of Warhammer 40K coming some time in 2023. When it drops, we'll all buy it even though arguably the game does not need a new edition at this time, if ever. For me personally, bar a couple of things, I find 9th edition to be the best edition of the game so far. I don't want to see it go away. I'm not finished with it yet. It's not like the edition needs to change but fresh editions every few years puts cash in the bank for Games Workshop as everyone out there has to buy the latest rules to realistically keep playing. It's understandable why they keep doing it.

One thing to remember is that 9th edition dropped during the middle of the Covid pandemic and for nearly 18 months players had little chance to get games in. With that in mind I do think if Games Workshop are going to put out a new edition they should wait two more years to compensate. It's not like they didn't make a small fortune out of Covid after all. I do feel that because of this, if 9th gets replaced this early then the edition was somewhat shortchanged.

There are a few grumbles about the current edition and here are my thoughts on what 10th needs to do if it wants to improve upon 9th. Firstly, they need to reduce the number of stratagems in the game. There really is no need to introduce thirty new ones in every codex especially when some could be condensed down and made more universally viable. For example, in the Space Marine codex there is a strat called Rapid Fire which allows an Intercessor or Veteran Intercessor squad to fire again at the end of the shooting phase. This is far too restrictive. Why can't Tactical Squads benefit from this? Better yet, open it up to all Infantry units but adjust the cost. Make it 1 CP if the squad is a Troops choice and 2 CP if the unit falls under another slot. Likewise there is a strat just for Whirlwinds. Again, condense this with other vehicle strats and make one that just works for space marine vehicles. Games Workshop could easily cut ten stratagems (pulling that number out of my hat) if they did this. Other codexes could benefit from the same. It makes it easier for a player to remember what they have available and more likely to remember what an opponent could do without having to memorise potentially hundreds of stratagems.

Secondly I feel that they should undo the changes to Overwatch. Keep it as a universal stratagem but make it so that it can be used multiple times in the same turn but by different units. Don't leave this as buff purely for the Tau Empire. Assault is too strong as it is and making Overwatch a one use strat is not helping. Every army should get the benefit like they used to. This would help balance out the strength of assault based armies somewhat in my opinion.

Third... although I grumbled initially about the changes to Matched Play under Warzone: Nephilim when the book came out, they have grown on me. I'd stick to the changes to CP and warlord trait/relics. I might even go so far as to say only one warlord trait and one relic regardless. The secondaries are much more balanced under Nephilim so I'd keep those as well. Nephilim has improved the game in these aspects so they I think they should be ported over to any new edition.

An important one that I touched on in my previous article would be to ditch some of the hold objective missions in favour of capture table quarters, kill points or even something like The Relic. Make them default missions as well. Don't focus 40K on tournament or competitive play. Right now, 9th edition Match Play missions are quite frankly boring and repetitive. I much prefer to play the Crusade narrative missions under Match Play rules. The game was never designed not intended to be tournament based and making it so has been a step in the wrong direction.

Lastly, the one remaining thing that I would change would be to fix terrain. 9th improved upon the pointless 8th edition terrain rules to make them more usable but it's gone a step too far. Right now ruins over 5'' in height completely blocks line of sight as though it were a giant metal box going all the way up. But what about a unit that has been deployed on more elevated terrain and can easily see over the offending ruin with true line of sight on the enemy? By rules as written they cannot shoot which makes no sense at all. Terrain just needs some slight changes and rewording to make it better. Bring back true line of sight.

Even with these ideas I am still not convinced that we need a new edition of Warhammer 40K. I can remember right early on when 8th was being previewed that there was mention of the gaming becoming what I call a living system. That means you have a standard rules set that never gets replaced. Instead, you would get an annual update similar to what 8th had with it's Chapter Approved books. Codexes could be updated every few years as normal. All you have to do with a living rules system is correlate all the errata and updates, and reprint the rulebook say every four years with the errata in it. It does seem that Games Workshop went that route with 8th edition as we had those Chapter Approved books. But then something changed, and I guess that it has something to do with sales, and that went away in favour of a new edition and a new rulebook. A living system like I describe would be better. By their own admission, Games Workshop are a miniatures company not a games company so focusing on new model kits and the like while maintaining a single rules edition would be the way forward. But I'm not trying to run a big business. I can only speak as a player of said game and how I would like to see my favourite war game go forward.

What are your thoughts? Do we really need a new edition or are you like me and happy with what we presently have? If you want 10th edition what changes do you want to see made? I look forward to reading your responses. 

9th Edition Missions Are Boring

Potential controversial topic here but let's see where it takes us...

Under previous editions Warhammer 40K had a variety of mission types. As well as the standard hold the objective missions that we have these days, there were also kill point missions (score VPs equal to the cost of destroyed enemy units), capture table quarters and special missions such as The Relic. The reason why I at least, prefer these old style missions is that they were suitably different and gave variety to our games. The 9th edition missions being all objective based basically means that every game is essentially the same. Only a couple secondary changes really make them any different.

So, what changed? The 9th edition missions are heavily influenced by the old ITC mission format. The ITC (International Tournament Circuit) altered the missions because basically they felt the standard missions were not suitable for tournaments, and by suitable, I mean balanced for standard match play. The current secondary objectives system is also based upon additions introduced by the ITC. On one hand they may have been right but on the other, the argument can be made that Warhammer 40K was never intended to be competitive to the level that tournaments make them now. Technically the missions as presented were perfectly fine. Some where certainly more suited to certain armies over others, but that's the fun of playing. Take what you have and use your playing skill to try and overcome the obstacles presented against you. 

Games Workshop has obviously taken a lot of their recent direction from the ITC format. Objective based missions as the default as these favour tournament play. However, it forces even casual home games to follow the same path. Objective based missions are frankly dull and quite boring when that is all you play for two years. I'm hoping that if or when we get a 10th edition that things will change and we'll get a variety of default missions again.

Now, for those who play at home there is another option that I heartedly recommend. That option is to play the Crusade missions as matched play games. The Crusade narrative missions are much more fun to play than the default missions. They favour a casual approach where less competitive lists will work a lot better. They give the option to play units and detachments that you might not otherwise use, and that can only be a good thing. Your only problem might be convincing your opponents to try them as an alternative because Games Workshop push the more "balanced" matched play missions. But I can promise you that you'll have much more enjoyable games.

But that is just my thoughts as a casual wargamer. What are your thoughts on the missions as presented in 9th edition? Do you agree or do you think the perceived balance is more important to maintain? What about using the Crusade missions as I suggest? Have you done so and how did you find they played out? I look forward to hearing your responses.

The League of Votann Controversy

Unless you've been living under a rock lately you know that not only are space dwarves returning to Warhammer 40K but their return has come with some controversy. Two issues mainly. One important and one not so but just a big niggle to those of us who have been in the hobby for a very long time. With that in mind, let's discuss what has happened.

A long time ago under Rogue Trader and 2nd edition, there existed a subhuman faction allied to the Imperium called the Squats. You have to remember that back in the very early days of the game, Warhammer was essentially a parody of Games Workshop's other wargame, Warhammer Fantasy Battles. 40K was basically fantasy in space. You had space knights (space marines), space elves (eldar), space orks (orcs... duh) and space dwarves. 

Squats were presented as fantasy dwarves with a odd Hell's Angels style bike/trike fixation. Models and artwork showed dwarves on attack trikes with horned viking helms in addition to the flak armour and lasgun wielding dwarf troops. They were all a little comedic in a way and at the time they really fitted the strange tongue in cheek approach that the game had back then. As Games Workshop took 40K into a more serious style in the 1990's, Squats were found to be not in keeping with the new feel of the universe. Squats vanished from the rules and their miniatures likewise faded from the shops. In universe it was decided that their homeworlds were devoured by the Tyranids and they were no more.

For many of us who remember those good old days, we have always held out hope that Squats would one day make a return. Under 6th edition I even used some Mantic Miniatures space dwarves (Forge Fathers I think they were called) and used the space marine codex. There were rumours that they might come back as the Demiurg but that never happened. But we never gave up hope. Then this past April it was announced that space dwarves were coming back and we got excited. Rumours and whispers ran rampant through the community and excitement was high. And then it came crashing down.

This is the niggle and less important issue that has arisen with the previews of the new Leagues of Votann. The initial models looked like armoured space dwarves and while different to the classic Squats we were interested. Then we got that awful awful hover trike and for many the excitement dropped away. As further previews were released it became very obvious that these were not the Squats we were looking for. Many people changed their mind about buying the new army, disappointed with what we got. For transparency I was one of those people. The new models turned me right off. Oddly though, the Squat models released for Necromunda would have been perfect had they used those and kept a similar aesthetic for the vehicles. I'm hoping that the new army does well for the game and Games Workshop, but they could have sold a lot more if they made them more the Squats of old but updated.

But I hear you cry that isn't really the controversy and you are right. So let's hit the current problem. Take a look at the follow screenshot. 

So what is going on? The codex was leaked a few weeks ago whether intentionally or not I cannot say but many players have seen the rules for the new League of Votann. The army is horribly overpowered, even more so than recent releases such as the Tyranids and Tau Empire. The Leagues have all the best attributes of Space Marines and the Tau Empire. They even share some of the same rules such as a variant of Armour of Contempt and the Railgun of the Tau Hammerhead. They are going to be exceedingly tough and difficult to deal with. Assault seems to be their one weakness but you've got to get there and good luck with that.

This has led to a number of tournaments and local gaming stores banning the new army in organised events until such time as it receives a suitable FAQ and appropriate nerf. Both of which may well be two to three months in coming following the release as that seems to be what Games Workshop has done in the past. I do not blame stores and tournament TO's for this reaction and I sincerely hope that Games Workshop takes this onboard. While the controversy over the overpowered nature of the army has certainly fuelled many players into buying the initial release and put money in the company coffers, Games Workshop needs to take on board that this continued excess power creep is going to hurt the game. Older codexes cannot handle the new armies. If this is the new power level for the game, and dear gods I hope not, then all previous armies will need a severe overhaul to balance them out. 

With that in mind I do have to wonder whether this is a sneaky ploy on the part of Games Workshop. Have they released this codex in it's current state just to reduce the power level in a couple months after they have everyone's money? Is this just me being negative because of knowing what the company was like of old? Probably but time will tell once we have had the full release.

It must be reiterated that this only applies to organised games. Players can still play friendly games as always and I do look forward to being crushed by them in the weeks to come. It will be a new novel experience and a fun game. But having seen the codex I have to join my voice to those who are calling for an FAQ and a nerf as soon as possible.

So what are your thoughts on the new Leagues of Votann? Do they deserve to be nerfed or do you think that they will fine once the community adjusts to their arrival? Do you agree that they are not the Squats we were looking for or are just happy to have space dwarves back? Let me know what you think it the comments below.

To Paint Or Not To Paint... That Is The Question

 

Greetings and welcome fellow wargamers. This was not going to be my original first topic but a recent discussion among some gaming friends prompted me to make it so. It is a topic that has plagued Warhammer for pretty much as long as I have been in the hobby and I started back in 1987 with Rogue Trader. Back then it wasn't really an issue but in the last twenty odd years as the Internet became a thing it has certainly become something that has raised heated discussions. That question is, should players paint their models?

I have always been of the opinion that it is down to the individual player as to whether they wish to paint their models or to focus on the gaming aspect of the hobby. Personally I am more interested in the gaming side but I too like to paint my models, and two painted armies on the table top look a lot better than the basic grey plastic. I'm never going to say no to a game where my opponent rolls up with an unpainted army.

Tournaments have always put out a requirement that models need to be three colour minimum or more recently, be classed as "battle ready", in other words they look good enough on the table. When people come in and see fully painted armies or see photos of the event, it looks more respectable and visual. This looks good and helps to potentially draw new people in to at least look at the game. Games Workshop even went so far under 9th edition (I can't remember if it existed under 8th but I don't think so) to introduce a 10 victory point reward for a player whose army was painted to a "battle ready" standard. Outside of tournaments no body uses this rule. It's unfair to people who don't want to paint their armies or perhaps don't have the time. Also, are we not here to play the game rather than quibble over painted models?

What raised this topic among my friends recently was with regards to leagues and tournaments run by our local gaming store. The idea is to get people playing. Get them into the store, meeting fellow gamers who they might not have previously met, rolling some dice and pushing little toy soldiers around the table. The point was mentioned that this should have been for a limited period and then the store should have been including the "battle ready" standard to promote players painting their models. It was felt that by not using the painted bonus that it simply encouraged WAAC (Win At All Costs) players.

I disagreed. Firstly because I have seen that locally players have been slowly painting their models and expanding their armies. There is one player who I know will probably not paint his models and is by his own admission WAAC. Can't do anything about that. 

From a personal perspective I feel that it has to be down to the individual. For all of us who field painted armies and work to reduce our pile of unpainted models, there are players who simply don't enjoy the hobby side of Warhammer and instead just want to play the game. As long as everything is WYSIWYG or close enough, then I don't worry about it. For me, playing the game is where my enjoyment of 40K comes from and even if that wasn't the case I wouldn't begrudge an opponent because they don't have a painted army.

Now, my friend wasn't being a jerk about it. It was just a personal preference for himself. For him painting comes first and the gaming side of things second. But from pervious discussions it has meant that he would rather travel to another store or club where they enforce fully painted armies rather than play at a friendly local games store where it's more casual and new player friendly. 

So, the question is, should stores and clubs enforce fully painted armies? One one hand, as I mentioned above, painted armies look better and are more appealing. Painted armies on parade on the table top look better to passers-by and may tempt them to pop in for a look. On the other hand, enforcing painted models could result in losing players from their events or even friendly pick up games. Potentially even hurting sales if you're a store. 

I now open the floor to you. Do you agree that armies should be painted or are you happy to just the play game regardless? I look forward to your replies.