40K and Competitiveness

This post started as a review of the Grey Knights and my thoughts on it, as well as my thoughts on the general internet opinion of it. (I apologize in advance, as I've had to rearrange my thoughts after deciding to split it into two posts.) Needless to say, I wouldn't be considered part of the current "popular" view of it. I liked it. Most of the internet - and by that I mean, most of the player base that frequents the internet, which is best described as Mos Eisley Space Port - believes that this Codex is, simply put, bad. But before I address why I like this codex, I think I need to first address the elephant in the internet (clogging those tubes I would imagine).

Where to start?

The 40K blogosphere is ranting about the latest release the Grey Knights, and much of it stems from the lowering of the competitive edge the codex once held.  I know why they think this way and I understand it. For example, the recent Grey Knight codex seems to have two distinct groups that are defined by their reason for their dislike for it. Both groups are unhappy with the codex being stripped of half it's units, the Inquisition and the Assassins, along with two Grey Knight specific characters that had no model, which is completely understandable. Anyone who played a Grey Knight codex army that was pure Inquisition, will find themselves buying a the digital only Inquisition codex. Is this a money grab by GW? Yes and no. GW has ridiculously overcosted eBooks, especially in their iBook format. But it makes sense when one looks at how 7th edition plays with detachments.

When it comes to the Inquisition codex, the lore sections are weak. It is essentially a copy/paste from the old Grey Knight Codex and the Inquisition Illustrated Guide, but for people who lacked either, it was useful. The rules, however, are updated so that if you run an Inquisitor and crew, then now have access to their own detachment, warlord traits, relics and valkyries as dedicated transports, as well the ability to run an inquisitor not as the primary detachment, but still your army's warlord. In my opinion, if you are running an Inquisition list, it is preferable to run it out of the Inquisition codex (surprise!). And, despite what I keep hearing, you can buy it if you don't have an iPad. I bought the "cheaper" epub versions straight from Black Library's site and use it on my Android tablet. Alternatively, you can get a PC epub reader and print it out. I sucks to have to buy another codex, and this hobby is already expensive, but if you play pure Inquisition, then you just saved money, unlike those of us you play both sides combined and need both codices.

The second, and most vocal from what I've seen, groups dislike for the Grey Knight codex and the most the recent codices in general is derived from the competitive nature of the players and their dislike of the way GW is taking 40K, coupled with their view (one that is think is incorrect) that 40K is a competitive game. Warhammer 40,000 is not a competitive game system. Games Workshop has flat out stated that Warhammer, both varieties, is a game for narrative play. It isn't designed to be played competitively - at least not without restrictions and rules placed on it by tournament organizers that realize that - and it shows when someone tries to play it as such. If you want to play a game designed from the concept stage up to be competitive simply look at Privateer Press's Warmachine and Hordes. It's release strategy even emphasizes this with every faction is a system getting updates simultaneously. Unlike Games Workshop which has a staggered release schedule for each faction, which has lead to issues of some factions being updated multiple times before others; for example, Sisters of Battle who haven't had a fully-fledged codex since 3rd edition.

In 7th edition, more narrative elements were added, especially with the ability to make "Unbound" armies, throwing balance right out the window. If you let it. When players play 40K as a narrative game, you avoid the overly unbalanced issues that occur in a tournament setting. You don't see the large, overpowered "Deathstar" units that frequent tournaments that are not fun to play or play against. The game no-longer has that tactical feel to it, that other games retain while being competitive. It becomes a "who's got a bigger stick and swings first" game.

This isn't to say that players who enjoy the competitive style 40K shouldn't. If competitive play is your thing, all the power to you. However, it's hard to justify complaints that a narrative designed game plays poorly in the tournament scene. That's like complaining that the cops and robbers you played as a kid with finger guns isn't competitive.

That being said, it is not impossible to make 40K "competitive" - I used the term loosely - however, it takes a lot of work on the part of the Tournament Organizer, and usually a lot of additional rules and restrictions on what you can and can't bring to the event or how your build your army in an effort to create balance.

The best experience I've had with a tournament is the Astronomi-con event, which has fairly extensive set of guidelines for building a list, but in no way does it detract from the tournament. In fact, the way the entire tournament is set up, with points awarded for thing like theme ("adherence to the background of the 40k universe") and adding things to your list like names and fiction, in addition to each table having it's own scenario - like protecting/raiding a base using kill team rules until the alarm sounds, at which point turn one begins, or random aliens attacking both players - leads to a competitive tournament that includes the narrative elements of the game and it's background, and limits the problems that arise in extremely competitive environments. It also makes for an event that anyone who's played agrees is one of the best 40k experiences you can go to.

A Narrative Campaign Weekend I created
at the release of 5th Edition 40K

I'm not saying GW is perfect. Because God knows they're not. I actually want to get to the Grey Knights review, so I won't even talk about the latest financials or their business model, so I'll just end with this: There are lots of things to gripe about when it comes to Games Workshop and how they do things. That their rules are poor for the tournament scene isn't one of them. If you want to go to tournaments - which I do on occasion too - that's all fine. But don't expect some great balanced competitive environment from a game that isn't intended to be, without changes to format of the game. If that is what you're expecting, I would suggest other games. Go to have fun, and talk and play with people who enjoy the same hobby as you. Make the tournament appeal to to everyone by adding thematic elements, maybe awards for best faction/team, or have secondary goals that are based on each codices lore. Emphasize these positive elements, and not only will it make the tournament better, but help build the community.

Or run/play in campaign events. Those are a blast! I should run another one of those some time...

A Campaign I created for the release of Apocalypse

*Addendum: As I was finishing up this post, I saw on my Facebook that the Alberta Grand Tournament Circuit is coming to an end, at least temporarily. I don't know the details as to why, but now might be a good time to start a discussion on what can be done to improve the tournament scene in the Alberta community.