Is 9th Edition the 'Tournament Edition'?

[Xenith]

And it is now too complex?

 

This mainly concerns the scoring system for normal games, where there's an inbuilt 'sportsman/painting' points, and progressive scoring over x rounds, for primary and secondary objectives - something we had only really seen as the norm in 'tournaments' or possibly maelstrom games.

 

I haven't played 9th yet, but I'm kind of aghast at how complex it is, going from "I have more objectives than you at the end so I win" to having to cast psychic rituals, hold multiple objectives, etc.

 

I was thinking of introducing friends to the game now, but as it stands I feel that the scoring for a game is way too complex, now not only do they have to simply pick their favourite models, but they have to actively know a lot about their and their opponents armies to pick achieveable secondaries, etc. 

 

This, combined with the 'lawyer-proof' language of the rulebook, and the new meta-watch articles imples that GW are catering heavily to the tournament players, possibly at the expense of the casual player. Does anyone else feel this?

 

What are your thoughts and experiences of playing the new progressive scoring system as a casual player? Is it actually pretty simple and I'm worried over nothing, is it a good or bad change? From a tourney or casual perspective?

 

Addendum:

 

In my opinion, 5th ed was great for tournaments, but for different reasons - most codexes were valid and had strong builds, mostly being written by the same person, rules were simple and not too confusing, scoring was simple. 9th seems to be specifically geared for non-casual play, but in a different way. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Xenith

[apologist]

I see your points, but I don't think that the game is inherently geared towards tournaments or competitive play.

 

I think that there is a bit of a hangover from previous editions in that Matched Play is seen as the default 'proper' way to play – and that is indeed very complex.

 

Narrative Play has also seen an increase in complexity. Because this was generally interpreted as the place for 'everything that wasn't competitive Matched Play', the impression is that 40k as a whole has got quite intenstive.

 

Fortunately, that leaves some space for the red-headed step-child of the recent editions: Open Play. From what I can see, this was (and remains) largely dismissed as a bit pointless; but it's ideal for introducing new players, as well as for allowing simpler, more casual games. Of course, it's not restricted to that. You can bring in as many additional bits as you want – missions, points, power level etc.

 

That 'plug-and-play' approach makes it great for beginners, but also for gamers who feel a bit overwhelmed by all the bells and whistles of the new edition. You can simply introduce the bits you want to use.

[Xenith]

Very true - I guess I was looking from two angles - pick up games in a club which are invariably matched play, and most of the games I play. I kind of forget about the other options, however any new player will have to work up to matched at some point. I still think that the matched play rules appear more 'tournamenty' this edition than in others, which is maybe what they were going for? A more balanced, albeit complex, way of playing?

 

I need to go back to the BRB and refresh my memory on the other ways.

[Charlo]

Having played a few games, I think the new missions and scoring are utterly excellent!

 

It took me maybe 2 small-scale games to get my head around it, but actually its much much better overall.

 

I think the best thing to remember about casual play (and introducing new players especially) is that you don't need to use every rule to begin with.

 

Keep it simple; just use datasheets and throw models on the table with a central objective.

 

Then a few games in introduce faction rules and maybe a more complex mission.

 

A few more later you pop in secondaries and detachments and CP.

 

The game as it stands is super clear imo and a lot less bogged down in its rules presentation than 8E at least.

[TrawlingCleaner]

I agree with apologist on all of his points but want to add my own.

A lot of the complexity of current rules and the way they are written is mostly down to the short comings of 8th which were (IMO): lack of complexity in some respects and rules written to be too open ended and open to opinions. Matched play should be used for competitive games, as such the rules needed to be written in a way that couldn't be exploited (remove RAW vs RAI).

I was watching a Tabletoptitans video recently and they were talking about a lunch they did at an event last year with the Rules team. The Rules team were very open about being surprised about how important strategems are, how they dictate which units are viable and how easily the rules can be bent. This has been echoed by a lot of play testers. The Rules team are narrative players through and through, read any White Dwarf battle report and you'll see what I mean.

 

Making a sweeping generalisation here but: Tournament players are the (very) vocal minority, matched play/narrative/beer and pretzels players are the majority. Most people who play the game just want to have an enjoyable game, the Rules team echoes this. Tournament play exploded in popularity at the end of 7th/8th but the Rules team were still in chilled games mode. This isn't a bad thing at all, I think the new rules are great for all forms of play but may take a few tries to get it right

[apologist]

GW's 'three ways to play' is a neat concept, and one I like – but I don't think that it's really gained much traction, which is a bit of a shame. 

 

There's thirty years' worth of ingrained habit that mean people tend to gloss over Open and Narrative Play in favour of Matched Play. Of course, part of that is exactly as you mention above, Xenith; the new Meta-watch articles etc. reinforce the importance of competitive Matched Play.

 

However, there is more support for Narrative Play than there was. The Crusade system, for example, is a nice way of showing people that you can play competitive games within a broader story-led framework; which is a bit improvement on the vague suggestions to 'make up your own stories' of previous editions. There're lots of articles on Warhammer Community and in White Dwarf that are implicitly Narrative or Open Play, too; so I don't think Matched Play is being unfairly pushed – it's simply a case of confirmation bias.

 

TrawlingCleaner makes a lot of excellent points with which I agree; and I'd like to highlight and echo his note that the rules team tend to gravtiate to Narrative Play as the default – which is quite different to what we might expect as forum readers, where discussions on Matched Play tactics and army lists etc. are far more common. I think this is partially down to the fact that it's simply easier to discuss army lists, rules interactions and so forth than more nebulous things like ongoing stories, which necessarily can only be presented for comment.

 

I suspect there's also a geographical element to this. From what I understand, Pick up play is very common in the US, and that relies on having common ground. It's not something I've ever done. In contrast, with gaming groups at people's houses or clubs, you tend to know who you're playing. As a result, there's more opportunity to plan something slightly more unusual or varied.

 

I like ongoing storylines and a variety of gaming styles, from competitive to collaborative story-telling; and I generally prefers 'clean' abstracted gameplay in  to the highly complicated granular approach that you identify above. I'd like to see a push by GW to show how every type of gaming is worthwhile; and that people don't have to 'pick a side'.

Edited October 23, 2020 by apologist

[Valkyrion]

I find there is too much to remember, for me at least.

Auras, Litanies, Psychic Powers, Secondary Objective (or Agendas), Stratagems, Command Protocols, Codex Doctrines, which 1's can be rerolled when by whom - somewhere down the turn I am going to forget something.

 

I'd prefer it if Characters didn't have an Aura but could join a unit instead, giving that unit and that unit alone the ability of the aura and granting the character the usual immunities until his unit is dead. Ditto with the chaplains litanies - it should be auto on but only affect himself and unit he is attached to. 

I'd prefer it if Stratagems were all done at the Command Phase Step with perhaps limiting the use of Command Reroll to only being allowed if your Warlord is on the board.

I'd prefer it if instead of secondaries it was simply a case of each objective is worth 10, +10 if you control the one in your opponents deployment zone and +5 for each enemy unit destroyed.

 

I realise I'm probably alone in this, but whilst the rules themselves are simple and the game mechanics are easy, remembering everything is difficult.

I also realise that with just those three changes it's a whole new game, so I'm just spitballing rather than identifying ways this edition could be changed. 

 

I'm also not a big fan of FOC restrictions. I get their purpose, but if all units have their own pros and cons (cost, mobility, damage output, endurance etc) then it shouldn't matter if someone wants to field an all Wraithguard army, or devastator company, or all destroyer forces etc. 

[Rik Lightstar]

I think the issue the rules team have is that they're aware of what they see as the two "main" ways to play the game:

1. Attend a Tournament, expecting all the things you would from this environment, tight time frames, wins are what matters, min/maxed lists, pre-published rules packs.
2. Scheduled games with regular opponents at local clubs or peoples houses which are more relaxed and you'll try out new stuff and it's about the social aspect. There's almost always a discussion of some sort in advance agreeing size of game at least.

In 30 years playing GW Games in the UK this has been the majority of my experience too.

 

But there's a third type of game that seems to be pretty big in other countries:

• In store pick up games, where you don't know your opponent, and it can be really hard to balance this kinda thing, it was more popular here back when GW stores tended to be a bit bigger and had more games nights.

This third type of games seems to be where the more recent changes have been aimed.

 

Rik

[chapter master 454]

I find there is too much to remember, for me at least.

Auras, Litanies, Psychic Powers, Secondary Objective (or Agendas), Stratagems, Command Protocols, Codex Doctrines, which 1's can be rerolled when by whom - somewhere down the turn I am going to forget something.

 

I'd prefer it if Characters didn't have an Aura but could join a unit instead, giving that unit and that unit alone the ability of the aura and granting the character the usual immunities until his unit is dead. Ditto with the chaplains litanies - it should be auto on but only affect himself and unit he is attached to. 

I'd prefer it if Stratagems were all done at the Command Phase Step with perhaps limiting the use of Command Reroll to only being allowed if your Warlord is on the board.

I'd prefer it if instead of secondaries it was simply a case of each objective is worth 10, +10 if you control the one in your opponents deployment zone and +5 for each enemy unit destroyed.

 

I realise I'm probably alone in this, but whilst the rules themselves are simple and the game mechanics are easy, remembering everything is difficult.

I also realise that with just those three changes it's a whole new game, so I'm just spitballing rather than identifying ways this edition could be changed. 

 

I'm also not a big fan of FOC restrictions. I get their purpose, but if all units have their own pros and cons (cost, mobility, damage output, endurance etc) then it shouldn't matter if someone wants to field an all Wraithguard army, or devastator company, or all destroyer forces etc. 

 

To your last point: you can do that. Just pay the command points for it because you are trying to take all meat and no veg.

 

Characters joining units was far more complicated and annoying because of various "can and cannot" join clauses, which would be compounded by if you mix and match chapters a little in building lists and by all accounts technically they have a lighter form of joining squads now with the need to be within 3" of a unit or become target practice. Don't get why people want this rule back when it was a head-ache and equally silly that the character like say a chaplain who is meant to have a presence in total can only affect one squad (I mean, they are meant to bellow their litanies and inspire those around them not just a select few who bought tickets to chaplain's litany concert!)

 

Stratagems I will admit still need refining but ultimately the only thing I would say now, with how they have added categories to stratagems (Epic Deed, Wargear, etc.) is letting some categories not be limited to once per phase. However on the whole it prevents some rules be completely overbearing and make other units invalid, it does cause issues with it sometimes meaning that a unit went from auto-include "why run less than 6 with 9 supporting characters with them" to "why run them at all?" which indicates an element of player inflexibility but could also point to lazy rule writing. Aggressors currently suffer from this as people comment why run them if they can't double tap (which I think the more egregious thing is they removed their move and advance for free rule).

 

The objectives comment I feel has other layers I would like to address but sadly your catch-all method causes issues. It would mean things like "murder a unit" objectives become the norm and hey look at that we are playing First Turn win shooting gallery again.

 

This does not distract from your core issue is that you feel the game is getting too many aspects to it which compared to older editions, including editions back when character joining units was a thing, were more complex and incomprehensible as there was the massive section of USRs (Universal Special Rules) which you needed to consult the main rule book for instead of your own codex, blast weapons being a chore to set-up ("how many can I hit with the template...hmm"). I will say however this edition is more accommodating for players like you who are able to play with what you like. I mean if you don't like the FoC then I mean, Open Play don't care just say screw it and play whatever with max CP. Don't want secondaries? Screw it and set whatever objective parameter you like.

I can understand that it may be your play group doesn't like that but you would consider that there may be a reason and hopefully it isn't because they are sweaty try-hards but more because they want to have a game where there is balance and interesting choices to be made.

 

Setting up a "kick the heck out of the enemy" game is fun once in a while, but when its all the time it becomes less fun and warps how people play unrealistically.

[apologist]

I find there is too much to remember, for me at least.

Auras, Litanies, Psychic Powers, Secondary Objective (or Agendas), Stratagems, Command Protocols, Codex Doctrines, which 1's can be rerolled when by whom - somewhere down the turn I am going to forget something.

[...]

I realise I'm probably alone in this, but whilst the rules themselves are simple and the game mechanics are easy, remembering everything is difficult.

I also realise that with just those three changes it's a whole new game, so I'm just spitballing rather than identifying ways this edition could be changed. 

 

This is what Open Play is aimed at, I think – a sort of official stamp for house rules, special scenarios etc.

 

Let me also say that I very much sympathise and understand your point about the sheer weight of things to remember. Familiarly goes some way to solve these things, as does simplification – whether in playing small games, or using a small variety of units. The broader point – about abstraction versus complexity – is a different matter, however. 

 

I think Chapter Master 454's comments highlight the prevailing view of Open Play as 'don't care just say screw it and play whatever with max CP. [...] I can understand that it may be your play group doesn't like that but you would consider that there may be a reason and hopefully it is[...]because they want to have a game where there is balance and interesting choices to be made.'

 

I don't think Open Play, balance and interesting choices are mutually exclusive. Open Play can be chuck stuff on a board and have at it, but it doesn't have to be. It's a place where the rules are intentionally less restrictive, in order to allow you to apply your own.

 

This makes it ideal for beginners as you build up to other styles, but it can also be useful for groups who are well-used to providing balance themselves but want to play a scenario where (for whatever reason) the normal rules don't allow; or who want to play an intentionally unbalanced scenario.

 

Just as Narrative Play doesn't inherently involve playing scenarios; and Matched Play doesn't inherently involve optimisation; so Open Play is not inherently chaotic.

Edited October 23, 2020 by apologist

[smileyjim]

I think 9th is awesome, last one I played was 6th and nothing I've heard about 7-8 makes me feel I missed out. The way the game is just about tabling your opponent but playing a mission that you can influence through your secondaries and army build.... its just cool. Models have come a long way too

[Closet Skeleton]

I don't think its a tournament edition, but its not a casual pick up game edition. The missions assume that all matched play games will be tournament style games and that if you want something else you're playing narrative.

 

I've played a total of 5 9e games all at a tournament and still don't have my head round choosing secondaries, its very easy to find yourself realising at the end of turn 2 that a pre-game choice already decided the victor,

 

On the other hand there's a subtle difference between 9e and 8e ITC that 9e's objectives are more thematic so you can play more narratively in matched play.

 

You can just play 8e missions, missions are not the game and can never define what is 'correct' 40k.

[Dark Shepherd]

Having played a few games, I think the new missions and scoring are utterly excellent!

 

It took me maybe 2 small-scale games to get my head around it, but actually its much much better overall.

 

I think the best thing to remember about casual play (and introducing new players especially) is that you don't need to use every rule to begin with.

 

Keep it simple; just use datasheets and throw models on the table with a central objective.

 

Then a few games in introduce faction rules and maybe a more complex mission.

 

A few more later you pop in secondaries and detachments and CP.

 

The game as it stands is super clear imo and a lot less bogged down in its rules presentation than 8E at least.

This^

 

You dont have to start dialled up to 11, simplified or house rules are grear for new players or casual games with friends

 

I have sympathy though for people looking for pickup games if their local clubs/store is hyper competitive and tournament orientated. Maybe smaller point games where possible would help there

[BluejayJunior]

I think Apologist's posts have been on point!

GW is definitely supporting tournament competitive play more than they did last edition, but they are also pushing narrative play more now too. The Crusade system is great. Codexes have both Crusade and Matched Play options. Of the 3 supplement books out right now (Pariah nexus, CA GT pack, terrain book), 1 supports crusade and 2 are for tournaments, so it appears they are pushing both fairly equally at this point. Warcom has a metawatch series going, but they've also published a bunch of crusade focused articles as well. 

[MegaVolt87]

Complexity is diminished with familiarity by practice. Just need to have more games. Also mono faction players who know their army and list will always have an edge against those who chop and change their faction and lists all the time. An even better way to learn is to use a friend's army and have them play yours against you. You would be surprised with what you could learn from each other.

[Snazzy]

I'd like to point out that most editions have had scenarios with different objectives.  It is just that our online culture is paying more attention to it.  I think part of that is GW finally taking a stand by dipping "officially" into tournament territory with the Grand Tournament publication.

 

Good points on pick and play culture.  That is a much more common experience for players than tournaments.  The complexity of 9th works against this improvised form of play, in my opinion.

[Dark Shepherd]

This was said a bit in 8th but they should/could do 2 sets of matched play quite easily, one full tournament mode and one less so

[The Yncarne]

For me it isn't so much the tournament focus, so much as the complexity of interacting parts of the game.

 

I tended to play, and vastly enjoy more, the narrative game that was presented in 8th. I'm finding 9th matched play to be too much to remember, too much to keep track of, and too often consulting reference materials (stratagems, core rules, codex data sheets, etc). If I need to have a scoring sheet for a pickup game and spend as much time looking at rules as measuring, moving and rolling dice, it seems too much.

 

I glanced at the Crusade rules (I bought the GT pack which has the core rules), and it seems just as burdensome on the tracking every model/unit front. It may not be, but if the rules are complex and require pre-game, in-game, and post-game updates, then I'm probably back to lugging a notebook with me. Honestly, if I wanted to do that, I'd go back to roleplaying. I wish I could pick up the crusade rules on their own, as I think I could adapt and grow to love them.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think the missions switching from "who control more objectives in the end" to a progressive system is better for new players. Missions without progressive scoring traditionally favor gunlines and death stars which aren't the most fun to play against. It also makes troops feel stronger because they're completing actions and scoring points instead of being a tax.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Matched play is definitely designed for tournament play. The developers went out of their way to get rid of all the jankiness of eighth edition. Most of the play testers are competitive tournament players.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Matched play is definitely designed for tournament play. The developers went out of their way to get rid of all the jankiness of eighth edition. Most of the play testers are competitive tournament players.

I agree. I think 9E is not necessarily the tournament edition, but matched play is now tournament. If you aren't playing tournament, then you're expected to use the open or narrative. A lot of people that played matched play in 8E should be more playing narrative play in 9E. I'm in that boat for the most part, and I think it's fine.

 

Many people are scoped out of matched play to narrative play now I think. This I think is a correction to 8E, where most folks were trying to share the same space with the tournament players for various reasons, such as failure to update PL, less content, etc.

Edited October 24, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[mughi3]

Yep  Xenith just as blackblowfly said this edition is designed for tourney players with direct imput from them. 

 

After  seeing how 8th edition progressed and reading the 9th edition rules. having had some experience in the past with GWs official sanctioned  rogue trader and grand tournaments( as in strongly disliking the attitudes and types of players it attracted) It is one of the reasons i walked away after reading the rules and went back to playing 5th at my FLGS.

 

Like you,  i enjoy  the old scoring system where it didn't count until the very end. where a skilled player could turn the tide of the game even if they were loosing on body count. 

 

My opinion of the new scoring system after seeing it in action is that it is garbage. any game where you can lock in the win condition by turn 2 or 3, even if you get tabled, making it impossible for your opponent to have any chance of a comeback by the end of the game is bad design.  the great thing about previous editions, especially with random turn 6 or 7, is you never knew how it would turn out till the very end. giving you a reason to enjoy the whole game. 

 

 

GW is taking the game in a direction that utilises many of the resource and buff mechanics of a collectible card game like magic. relying on said mechanics to give army unique "character"(until you run out of CP)  that was previously in-built into their faction rules to reflect the in universe lore. 

 

 

I have an entire multi-page topic on another forum i frequent specifically for those of us who prefer to play other editions of 40K , or in our local groups case adding in 15 "house rules" from 3rd/4th and 7th edition into 5th to make the "perfect" edition of 40K.

[ServoBadger]

With the caveat that I've never played in a tournament...

 

9th feels like tournament edition to me. The games resemble the ITC battle reports I've watched on various YouTube channels, and while it's not identical, I was never that keen on what I saw of ITC rules compared to late 8th matched play.

 

This is only my rambling thoughts and I don't expect people to agree with me:

 

Matched play fills a different spot in 9th than it did in 8th. I agree that in 8th it was seen as the "correct" way to play, rightly or wrongly, but it was also good for my group, where the biggest problem is getting time to play. In 8th matched play, you turn up with an army list, roll up a mission and go. There was no need to worry about balancing a narrative mission, both players felt they had an equal chance to win. Matched was actually great for casual play.

 

In 9th matched play you have to pick secondaries and deal with the inevitable book keeping. It takes extra time before you start and it's more to keep track of during the game, which is a bit of a problem because...

 

In 9th matched play it seems to be too easy for one player to run away with the game, usually the player who's got first turn. You get on the objectives early for the primary, and if the opponent can't take them from you quickly, you build an unassailable lead. The secondaries that you spent time agonising over aren't strong enough to make up for losing the primary.

 

There's also little chance of pulling off a dramatic late game turnaround, which was always part of the fun - that feeling that you were still in it, right until the end.

 

This makes games shorter because one side throws in the towel when victory becomes impossible. This can be unsatisfying for both players in my experience. Everyone wants to feel like they had a chance of winning and no one wants to feel like all the time they put in picking secondaries was a complete waste. No one wants to force their friends to play out a game they have no chance of winning, but equally you want the battle to end, not be abandoned.

 

This may be great for players with a tournament mindset, but my group doesn't have that mindset so it poisons the game for us.

 

People have said step down (and rightly or wrongly, it does feel like stepping down) to narrative play, but narrative play in the rulebook is just Crusade, which before I discovered a website (don't know the policy on whether I can name it?) that tracks all your stats and stuff was a horrendous amount of pen and paper admin, which takes time that some in my group don't have.

 

That said, we played our first games of Crusade just recently and it was great! We stuck to combat patrol and incursion and there was less of a feeling after turn one that one player had no chance. But GW should have had their app ready for launch and it shouldn't cost what it costs.

 

That leaves stepping down to open play. Rightly or wrongly, in the past open play has felt like stick some models on the table, roll some dice, who cares about rules balance whatever, and for people who have been playing the game "properly" for several editions it's honestly galling to be told that's the mode for you now.

 

Again, we do play open war games, and the cards can be fun! But they can also produce some hideously one sided games.

 

I would have preferred GW to add 9th matched play as "tournament play" or "competitive play" and left something for people who want a balanced game outside of a tournament environment.

[Closet Skeleton]

My opinion of the new scoring system after seeing it in action is that it is garbage. any game where you can lock in the win condition by turn 2 or 3, even if you get tabled, making it impossible for your opponent to have any chance of a comeback by the end of the game is bad design.  the great thing about previous editions, especially with random turn 6 or 7, is you never knew how it would turn out till the very end. giving you a reason to enjoy the whole game. 

Its pretty much impossible to outscore your opponents in the first two turns, get tabled and win a 5 turn progressive mission and still not that likely to be able to be tabled around turn 3 and have a strong enough lead.

 

The only way to guarantee a win by turn 2 is the same in every edition of 40k, destroy enough of your opponents army that they cannot score points.

 

 

In 9th matched play it seems to be too easy for one player to run away with the game, usually the player who's got first turn. You get on the objectives early for the primary, and if the opponent can't take them from you quickly, you build an unassailable lead. The secondaries that you spent time agonising over aren't strong enough to make up for losing the primary.

 

Going second is a pretty major advantage because you know your models are going to be where you left them when its time to count points.

 

But it is definitely a tournament led design choice to have the points so granular. In a one off game where victory is binary the points scoring is too complicated while in a tournament there's actually a massive difference between losing by 5 points and losing by 40 points so every turn does matter even if you're not going to win your effort in those last turns can still end up with you placing higher than your current opponent.

 

But I can't help but find it amusing that a problem caused by GW taking control of tournament mission packs can be easily solved just by ignoring GW's missions and acting like GW still had no interest in what missions you were playing.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Closet Skeleton

[ServoBadger]

Going second is a pretty major advantage because you know your models are going to be where you left them when its time to count points.

 

But it is definitely a tournament led design choice to have the points so granular. In a one off game where victory is binary the points scoring is too complicated while in a tournament there's actually a massive difference between losing by 5 points and losing by 40 points so every turn does matter even if you're not going to win your effort in those last turns can still end up with you placing higher than your current opponent.

 

But I can't help but find it amusing that a problem caused by GW taking control of tournament mission packs can be easily solved just by ignoring GW's missions and acting like GW still had no interest in what missions you were playing.

My group aren't tournament players by any stretch of the imagination, but no one who's gone second in any of our games has considered it an advantage in any way, so I'd genuinely be grateful if you could expand on this.

 

What we have found is that with scoring being at the start of your turn, your primary points are out of your control after turn four - you are either on the objectives or you're not, and if your opponent knocks you off an objective in their turn five that's it - in your turn five you can only affect the game by scoring your secondaries, you no longer have the ability to deny primary points to your opponent in your last turn, which they can do to you in their last turn.

 

I hope I'm missing something fundamental here because one of my armies is Drukhari, and I used to choose to go second in order to have that last turn, but I'm not seeing the advantage any more.

 

Also, I take your point about not using the GW missions - and of course it's valid, just like choosing to play 8th/5th/whatever is valid - but we want to play the current edition of the game, not a homebrew.