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.