Vigilus crusade - a new start for 9th?

 Back when the first Vigilus book came out, I grabbed a copy and voraciously read through it. For a campaign book I just fell in love with the whole story. I felt like an absolutely perfect example of a 40K campaign. Only thing missing was a means to include Tau, Necrons and Tyranids but I get why they were not included. It would be just busy for lack of better words. 

One aspect of the book that I loved was the campaign system. Each stage of the war came with a couple specific blanket rules that allowed the campaign to be played nice and thematic. Nothing game breaking but cool all the same. I even started up a league, for lack of a better word, for the local club. The idea was to be play out the whole story over a couple years. To start with it the campaign seemed popular enough but after a couple months things turned a bit sour. The more competitive players at the club decided that narrative missions and the specific round rules did not suit them. Even though I had said that they could play any mission they wanted, they pulled out of the league and soon enough the whole thing had fallen apart much to be disappointment.

To say I was annoyed would be an understatement. But fair play. Can't please everyone all the time.

Recently I have finally got my hands on a copy of the second book in the series and as 9th edition has a few players from the club interested in the Crusade system I am hoping that I can restart the Vigilus campaign with them utilising the new rules once we get out of the pandemic and lockdown. Maybe with fewer players and with those more interested in a narrative play the idea might get somewhere.

10 points for a painted army?

In the 9th edition rules there is a new addition that says that you get 10 victory points if your army is painted to a battlefield standard. I think it is a bit of a silly rule especially as it is technically part of the rules system now. Such a rule... the requirement of a three colour minimum.. used to be a part of every tournament. After all, you want your models too look good to anyone walking past rather than grey plastic. 

It has always caused some consternation among a lot of Warhammer players that painting your models is just as big a part of the hobby as setting up a table and fighting it out against your friends. That painting was a requirement to play Warhammer. As some one who doesn't really enjoy the painting element (although these days my space marine force is fully painted) and for many years never had a painted army, I find it unfair to push this sort of element onto the fun and friendly casual game. But that is what is happening under 9th edition.

I personally would not use this rule and if playing against someone who had an unpainted army - whether due to time or a lack of desire to do so - I would simply say we're not using that rule. Let's just play. In competitive tournaments, leagues and the like, I can see that makes sense to use this to make people play painted forces or risk not winning over all (most likely) but it should not have been included as part of the core rules. 

Why?

Two reasons.... firstly, by the wording this means that tournaments can be played by opponents who do not paint their models. They will be down on points but it does not stop them playing. I'm sure most TO's will stick to a rule of painted armies so this isn't such a deal.

Secondly.... no where does it say what the definition of "painted to a battlefield standard" actually means. Is that the same as the old three colour minimum? Or does it imply something more? I would assume that the model itself must be painted with suitable colours and not just slapped on. Does it require models to be based? Probably not.

I don't think this was well thought out by Games Workshop and I'm sure that it was included solely to try and nudge players into buy their paints as a money making exercise. Painted model is always going to look better than the basic grey. I just don't like the concept that GW are trying push everyone into an area of the hobby that not everyone is interested in. Surely, having people play the game is a better way forward?

What are your thoughts on this? 

I'm Back!

 I haven't been all that active of late mainly due to the epidemic, work and the lack of gaming opportunities. I want to start up again and get back to posting. My plan is to do at least one if not two posts a week. I'm not going to focus on battle reports as I don't feel I do them justice so I'm going to start covering my thoughts on various aspects of the game and army reviews.

I have managed about a dozen games when we haven't been in lockdown after the release of 9th edition so I feel that I know something of the edition - what works and what doesn't. That'll be something I'll cover as well later this week even if a 9th edition review is a few months late.

Hopefully you are all still out there and reading, and we'll get back to regular posting.

May the Emperor protect! 

2021

 Hi all.

Hope you all had a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Hopefully 2021 will be the year we all get back to normal sooner rather than later, with much wargaming ahead of us!