A love letter to Tempest of War, and why I believe 10th edition needs a third way
In 9th edition I, genuinely, solely played Tempest of War.
There were a number of reasons for this; principally, that it was cheaper to secure than the competitive mission pack at the time, and less subject to change.
But mostly because it provided what I was looking for in a game. A slightly less formal version of playing the game that - while the underlying game was competitive, and thus fair - was quite clearly not just "tournament competitive". Either intentionally or otherwise, it became the preferred way-to-play of those in the more "friendly competitive" strata of the hobby: those playing for fun, but still keen to win, on an evening after work in a local hobby club or a friend's garage. It was undoubtedly my favourite way to play, and also my favourite version of the game to watch, typified by the likes of Winters SEO, Liam Dempsey and Play on Tabletop on YouTube.
"It became the preferred way-to-play of those in the more 'friendly competitive' strata of the hobby: those playing for fun, but still keen to win, on an evening after work in a local hobby club or a friend's garage."
In my general social circle, Tempest of War was readily adopted as the general way-to-play for the latter half of 9th edition in everything from friendly games to pick-up games in the local gaming store. I also attended several tournaments in the dying light of 9th that ran a Tempest of War rules set, including at the last iteration of Warhammer Fest.
This was, for me, fantastic as it promoted a way of playing balanced and competitive games without needing to jump into full-blown UKTC or ITC-level competitive play. Sure, the armies involved often featured relatively punchy meta lists in some instances, but they also very much weren't top-end competitive play because they weren't using the official tournament mission packs. That meant they were aimed at - and generally attended by - folks looking to play well, and do well, but not at the cost of having a good game.
The tournament I played at Warhammer Fest utilised this format. I had the most fun I have had at an event, playing slightly more chilled, but still close and exciting games, with people who wanted to compete without the associated stigmas that come with the razor-edge nature of true competitive. It also seemed to attract players with some really beautiful armies, and getting to play on the same table as a gorgeous Goff Orks army or a full, metal Steel Legion army was a real treat.
You might think, therefore, that given the change in 10th from fixed secondaries to a format clearly heavily inspired by Tempest of War and its predecesor Maelstrom of War (back in 8th edition). And in short, you'd be right:
I really enjoy the style of game presented in 10th edition competitive, with the mission decks taking quite a departure from what had been the norm for mission packs throughout 9th edition. Gone are faction secondaries and, while fixed secondaries remain, the "tactical" vs "fixed" split offers players a choice of how to approach their strategy for each game.
It's a hybrid approach between the previous maelstrom/tempest approach and that of the more serious mission pack fixed secondaries and on the face of it, I think that's a great change. The "tactical" mission deck does genuinely promote building for the mission when considering lists which, while it doesn't temper fully just how lethal 10th edition feels, does at least make a more subtle, balanced list somewhat viable for a lot of factions - especially in a competitive teams format.*
But.
Tempest has, for all intents and purposes, become high-end competitive. And as a result, there is now nothing between tournament-style mission packs and crusade-led narrative - something that I think is a real shame.
"Tempest has, for all intents and purposes, become high-end competitive. And as a result, there is now nothing between tournament-style mission packs and crusade-led narrative."
You see, I do feel that competitive play is much more interesting with the mission play style the tactical deck brings - hell, I think it has really helped me in a move towards playing more competitively as I love the nitty-gritty of scoring secondaries and primary with a (usually) half destroyed army. That for me requires far more tactical nuance than merely blowing enemies away with a massed artillery alpha-strike.
But I also feel that the promotion of the Tempest deck to the tactical deck has robbed the hobby of a sort of middle-ground format. Before, if you wanted to play an aggressively tournament style game, you utilised the tournament mission pack. If you wanted a more narrative encounter, you could employ a crusade mission, or open war. If, however, you wanted to play competitively, but not quite as cut-throat, but without slipping into the unbalance (and associated unfairness) that can come with true casual open play or the endless admin of Crusade, then Tempest filled that niche.
It was competitive but was also adopted as the gaming standard for a more friendly, open format. It was the go-to format for pick-up games in a more friendly environment, more structured than open-play but with a little bit of uncertainty that meant it lent away from real, top-table competitive. And with that gone, the game is now pushed towards the fringes of either competitive-as-default, or the lesser-seen Crusade as the only recognised ways to play.
The tournament that I adored at Warhammer Fest is now much more difficult to define. Sure, you could market a more casual competitive tournament setup using the current Mission Deck, but it is that much more difficult to encapsulate and advertise to a more "ccasul-competitve" crowd if the event is employing the standard tournament format.
Perhaps that could potentially take the form of a "rule of two" restriction, or reapplying a batteline "tax" to factions that steers them away from the most oppressive of meta lists**. However, I do feel that - typically - adding further rules on top of the already considerable complexity of 40k is perhaps not the best way to engender interest from a more casual fan-base.
Instead, as we likely head towards 10th edition's third mission pack in the near future, I hope that we see a new way to play being promoted alongside the existing competitive and casual formats. The recently well-received Crusade supplement for the Nachmund Gauntlet, featuring some really fun, more chaotic rules, does fill me with hope that maybe the relentless emphasis of competitive might be abating slightly. A well-balanced, well-considered game is a boon for 40k players of all stripes, don't get me wrong, but still, I don't think that should come at the expense of casual or casual-competitive type players.
In conclusion: a third way?
In conclusion then: how would I like the casual-competitve void be addressed? I would love to see a revival of a version of the game explicitly catering for the sub-tournament, but still competitively-minded, beer and pretzels/garage hammer crowd. A mission pack, perhaps with slightly more esoteric end-of-game scoring missions, but which still encourages good play across an even and fair terrain layout. Something to fit between the shenanigans of Crusade and cutting edge tournament play. I'd love to see some variance or randomisation of mission rules, win conditions and battlefield climate. I would love a slightly more narratively minded approach to the game, without going too far into the admin of Crusade. Perhaps even a slightly different approach to terrain, perhaps promoting the use of battlefield layouts where not everything is an MDF L-shaped ruin, but retaining the footprints to keep the melee/shoooting dynamic in balance. Above all, I'd love for a version of the game that is clearly fair, and in which playing feels challenging and rewarding - but which isn't about winning at all costs, win-rates and "optimised lists".
Will we see something like it? With the state of the top-table competitive game having so heavily borrowed from previous card-based mission packs of the past in 10th, I somehow doubt it. I do believe encouraging the engagement of the more casual-competitive crowd is important, however.
Otherwise, a large and relatively silent majority of 40k players will continue to feel that the game they love maybe, just maybe, isn't really meant for them.
Until next time,
Alex
*Competitive teams is the best way to play competitively, don't @ me.
**And not half-arsing it with some vaguely battleline-themed rules no one ever remembers to play (Pariah Nexus cough cough)
Comments