9th Edition Musings: Paint your Minis!

Hi folks,

With 9th Edition just around the corner, it is pretty hard to block out the collective excitement and gnashing of teeth in the 40K community. Even for a crotchety old neck-beard like me, it does feel a bit like Christmas. In this post I'm hoping to dump my feelings on the whole thing, some of the online debate regarding the painting of armies, as well as my cunning plans for the future.

If the title of my Blog hasn't already given it away, my heart is still firmly anchored in 2nd Edition. Miniatures from the earliest days of my hobby journey will be featuring heavily on my blog over the next 6 months, as I embark on Dr The Viking's army painting challenge. In total, I have been through 6 edition changes, each having their own high and low points. 3rd Edition was brutal in its streamlining, but brought with it a totally new way to play the game and the world-wide Armageddon campaign (which was my first real taste of connecting with the international 40K community). 4th Edition brought back some of the old mojo. The introduction of flyers was another brutal shift for me, as it really was a case of evolve or die (I mostly died), until Sgt Waz and Wade got me some wings:

As a Dark Angel player, the introduction of Primaris was/is a particular concern, from both a background and miniature collection perspective. Background-wise, Games Workshop has been pushing hard to create a genuine place for Primaris in the Dark Angels. They were always going to struggle with explaining how a fresh intake of superior (but untested) warriors were going to be accepted into a Chapter that looks at everything with suspicion. I think they have done fairly well with this; conceptually I don't hate them anymore!

Model-wise, Dark Angels players have a lot to lose as the classic marines get phased out. Both the Deathwing and Ravenwing are of critical value stylistically to a Dark Angels collector, but neither cross the Rubicon Primaris particularly easily. Deathwing Terminators are not just a unit, they are in institution; what happens when they get rid of terminators? I don't think Gravis armour cuts it. The new Bladeguard look pretty damn righteous, and I don't mind them being Deathwing from a conceptual perspective, but they aren't terminators. 

Ravenwing can probably be more easily phased out with the new Primaris bikes, but you would surely need to add some plasma weapons to replace the Black Knights. And what would you replace Landspeeders with? They have been an important part of many Dark Angels collections for years, so would be missed if they were phased out without a solid replacement.

Got anything blacker?

Now, I realise I am getting way ahead of myself, but these are the things that keep me awake at night (well, not really, but I do think about them). With the Deathwing and Ravenwing models I have ready to go, I would be able to put together a pretty nice 9th Edition force if they don't drop either in the new codex. It would be a lot of painting, but I have fallen into a groove now that feels pretty good. I would need to get a couple of Primaris squads, but I already have a huge chunk of the force I have "penciled" into Battlescribe. The thought of bringing my beloved 3rd Company into 9th Edition, whilst paying it homage at the same time in 2nd Edition, is enough to sting my eyes. Then again, with the challenges that this year have brought, it doesn't take much to make me emotional!

It is worth noting that I never use unpainted models in games. This has caused me to lose many games, and prevented me from participating in the hobby for a number of years with models better suited to modern game mechanics. But it has been a point of pride that, when I stand across the table, it is always with a painted army that reflects the love I have for the hobby. The recent 9th Ed. rules-leak was jumped upon by quite a few people on social media, particularly in regards to the +10 VP bonus for battle ready armies. To be honest, despite my own self-imposed rule, it makes me scratch my head. I literally cannot imagine enforcing it on one of my friends. Or with a new player at a store (can you imagine?).

My little one painting his first Ork.

Many players who throw their support behind the rule all seem to talk about the annoyance of losing to the "grey netlist" of the month. Those against the rule often state the obvious argument, "people love this game for different reasons and painting doesn't have to be one of them". In having such a rule, I imagine Games Workshop is making a statement about how they feel the game should be played. Seeing two fully painted armies and a beautiful terrain setup is awesome to behold, and GW want to promote that experience. But I don't think that placing a VP reward on painting your army is the way to go about it. There are so many reasons for people to have an unpainted unit, that have everything to do with having a positive attitude towards the hobby, that I simply wouldn't use the rule at all.

If I was losing every week to a grey netlist, (and I was worried about it) I would play against someone different. Having a painted army is reward enough. Having said that, I have come to realise in the past couple of days, a 4-5 colour paint scheme is not that hard to achieve, physically/mechanically speaking. I gave my son a bit of instruction and some tools that I myself would be comfortable using, and he whipped some orks together that I think most people would be happy with. I helped him with the mouth and the checkered pattern, but he did everything else himself (including the eyes!).

Assuming that most people completely ignore the rule, I think we can all go a long way towards promoting the aesthetics of the game by being the change we want to see. Paint your minis!

I would love to hear other perspectives on this, feel free to leave a comment below.

See you across the table,

Marc