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.