My Warhammer Rant (warning: high whimper factor) [Archive]

Caracol

2008-03-16, 01:38 PM

So a friend of mine came to visit me in the city where I study, and we talked a lot about rpgs and games since we were in the same DnD party a while ago.
He told me that I started playing Warhammer recently, with the Vampire Counts Army. I played the Lord of the Rings wargame in the past, and I really liked it, but I never played Warhammer, and I was interested about it, since everybody seem so enthusiastic about this game. So I took him at the local GW store, that I had never visited by myself before. There I met a lot of cool people and took a look at Warhammer armies for the first time.

The Dryads looked awesome and so I was really about to start my own Wild Elven Army, but then I realized "wouldn't be better to actually TRY to play before?"
The GW storekeepers were really nice and let me play a free demonstrative battle against one of them. The miniature were really cool and well painted, the overall look was great.

So, was I convinced? Heck no! Because even the most good-looking game needs good rules to be a good game. And the rules of Warhammer happen to be illogical, unrealistic and unfunny.
I played another battle the day after, just to give the game another chance, but I was more and more convinced of my toughts. The basic rules fail in describing a realistic battle against two armies.

Before I continue, I must clarify that a fantasy game could be (should be, actually) unrealistic, but only about the descriptions, the creatures and their abilities, the existance of magic: the "fluff", you get it. But it should be realistic when it comes to the actual situations, or at least shouldn't look completely illogic.

But let's go on and see why Warhammer, unfortunately, sucks:

- everybody attached to eachother butt: the fact that the game is based on units unseparable from each other (except for skirmishers) makes every tactic you can come up with less effective. You are highly vulnerable from range weapon and spells when you're in unit, so why can't you separate the units? In a real fight, you aren't attached costantly to the other, even if you fight in close quarters. Whats the point of having painted every single goblin if you have to move them all together?

I know that skirmisher units exists, but that should be the regular type of unit, because that what happens in reality, and not special unit with special rules just for it.

The unit system is supposed to make the game run faster, but seriously, you spent like hundred hours to paint every single monster and you don't have the time to move them one by one?

- extremely squared and fixed: if you happen to have started with a wrong strategy, you're pretty much f***ed. Because you can't really change, mobilize and counterattack when you don't have 20 dwarves but a single cube of undetachable units.

- a strategy game that isn't really about strategy: The best strategy is the one that changes and adapts. In Warhammer the fights resolves so quickly that you don't have the time to change anything before you realize the imminent destruction. You spend most of the time rolling dices actually and hoping for good rolls, and even if you created the best strategy ever, in this game a single bad roll can make you lose without coming back. There is no actual strategy, just luck.

- not really an army game: Fixed unit are equal to a big square with a lot of hit points, so you aren't really attacking 100 dwarves with you 150 goblins: you are attacking two squares with 20 hit points with your 3 squares with 15 hit points. There are a total of 5 people here, not 250.

- unrealistic as hell: for the following reasons:

- who charges first, attacks first: hell no. that's not true. Actual armies have developed polearms and reach weapon just to block the attacks of the charges. Why this doesn't count in a wargame?

- you can't attack champions and musics: why? when you attack an unit, you kill the first in line, but no, if he's the champion, the music or the guy who keep the banner, he does not die: he dies for last. Even if is right in front of you. That is soooooo stupid. And unrealistic. And if you want some chances to win against a unit, you should try to kill these guys for first. Why can't you do this?

- a close quarter unit is too vulnerable: The fact that they are all attached makes them extremely vulnerabe. If attacked, they just wait until the ones in front of them die and then step forth to be killed too.

I was attacked by a big monster. He just had to keep attacking, and he would sure destoy all the dwarfes in my units. I could only try to attack him with the line of dwarves in front of him, hoping for a good roll. If it was reality, the dwarves would just dispel themselves and sorround the monster by all sides, making 16 attack istead of 4. WHY COULDN'T I DO THAT? that's soo unrealistic. Do I really have to purchase a special unit of skirmishers to do that and hope that the monster attacks them? Or a dwarf is too stupid to realize that if something big is attacking, it's nonsense to STAY THERE istead of sorrounding him?
What's strategic about that?

- the lamest rule on earth: The one that makes you lose or win a unit-unit fight after a turn. The one that says that if you lose the count of hits made, you have to flee. And if you are followed and reached by the winner unit, you lose the WHOLE unit. This is so illogic, so unrealistic, so unbalancing that I can't ever convince myself that is for fun's sake. Makes you wonder why the hell you would even try to play something that is not dwarves, since if you're unlucky on a single discipline roll, you are likely to lose the entire battle. I still can't be able to found what's the role of STRATEGY in a game like this.

- EXPENSIVE!!!!: Jesus christ that stuff cost. A lot. I have to spent like 120 euros just to make a decent army, color excluded. I know that games cost, but this is a bit too much.

You can say: "you have played a base battle, at higher levels with more stuff and powerful special units, you start to appreciate the rules and have fun". A good game is a good game even at lower levels. In DnD, you don't have to wait to be level 20 to start having fun. And you don't really need more time to appreciate a rule, if the rule is illogic: you can't appreciate it at all.

The Dryad unit remained in the store, and the 30 euros are still in my wallet. Because I realized how to play Warhammer in a different way: take some cubes, say that they are 20 dwarfs, add some square based stuff for the monster and you'll have a game less good-looking but with the same gameplay. Have fun, and maybe you have enough money left to buy something for your girlfriend.

Hazkali

2008-03-16, 03:13 PM

- everybody attached to eachother butt: the fact that the game is based on units unseparable from each other (except for skirmishers) makes every tactic you can come up with less effective. You are highly vulnerable from range weapon and spells when you're in unit, so why can't you separate the units? In a real fight, you aren't attached costantly to the other, even if you fight in close quarters. Whats the point of having painted every single goblin if you have to move them all together?

Historically, armies did move in regimented groups; perhaps not to the extent that Warhammer displays, but it happened, and ultimately Warhammer has a strong basis in historical wargaming. The point of having "every single goblin" is aesthetic. Play with square bits of card if you want to, but miniatures are prettier.

I know that skirmisher units exists, but that should be the regular type of unit, because that what happens in reality, and not special unit with special rules just for it.

That is more true for modern combat, and is precisely how Warhammer 40,000 works.

The unit system is supposed to make the game run faster, but seriously, you spent like hundred hours to paint every single monster and you don't have the time to move them one by one?

That is the reason movement trays exist.

- extremely squared and fixed: if you happen to have started with a wrong strategy, you're pretty much f***ed. Because you can't really change, mobilize and counterattack when you don't have 20 dwarves but a single cube of undetachable units.

It depends on the size of the board that you are using, and the number of units in your army.

- a strategy game that isn't really about strategy: The best strategy is the one that changes and adapts. In Warhammer the fights resolves so quickly that you don't have the time to change anything before you realize the imminent destruction. You spend most of the time rolling dices actually and hoping for good rolls, and even if you created the best strategy ever, in this game a single bad roll can make you lose without coming back. There is no actual strategy, just luck.

There is some luck, yes, but it never claims to be a 'pure' strategy game in the same league as Diplomacy or chess.

- not really an army game: Fixed unit are equal to a big square with a lot of hit points, so you aren't really attacking 100 dwarves with you 150 goblins: you are attacking two squares with 20 hit points with your 3 squares with 15 hit points. There are a total of 5 people here, not 250.

That is true, in a sense, but hardly a problem.

- unrealistic as hell: for the following reasons:

- who charges first, attacks first: hell no. that's not true. Actual armies have developed polearms and reach weapon just to block the attacks of the charges. Why this doesn't count in a wargame?

Okay, you have a point. However, spears do do other things.

- you can't attack champions and musics: why? when you attack an unit, you kill the first in line, but no, if he's the champion, the music or the guy who keep the banner, he does not die: he dies for last. Even if is right in front of you. That is soooooo stupid. And unrealistic. And if you want some chances to win against a unit, you should try to kill these guys for first. Why can't you do this?

You do attack, and kill them first. However the game assumes that the members of the unit pick up their equipment as they fall, which, in the case of standards at least, is not unrealistic.

- a close quarter unit is too vulnerable: The fact that they are all attached makes them extremely vulnerabe. If attacked, they just wait until the ones in front of them die and then step forth to be killed too.

They are only a representation of combat, and yes, when fighting in this way there are people behind who are not in the fray until their comrades fall. This is the way wars were fought historically.

I was attacked by a big monster. He just had to keep attacking, and he would sure destoy all the dwarfes in my units. I could only try to attack him with the line of dwarves in front of him, hoping for a good roll. If it was reality, the dwarves would just dispel themselves and sorround the monster by all sides, making 16 attack istead of 4. WHY COULDN'T I DO THAT? that's soo unrealistic. Do I really have to purchase a special unit of skirmishers to do that and hope that the monster attacks them? Or a dwarf is too stupid to realize that if something big is attacking, it's nonsense to STAY THERE istead of sorrounding him?

What's strategic about that?

When you win combat, you have the option of wrapping around the enemy. It is in the rules (at least the 6th edition ones).

- the lamest rule on earth: The one that makes you lose or win a unit-unit fight after a turn. The one that says that if you lose the count of hits made, you have to flee. And if you are followed and reached by the winner unit, you lose the WHOLE unit. This is so illogic, so unrealistic, so unbalancing that I can't ever convince myself that is for fun's sake. Makes you wonder why the hell you would even try to play something that is not dwarves, since if you're unlucky on a single discipline roll, you are likely to lose the entire battle. I still can't be able to found what's the role of STRATEGY in a game like this.

The leadership test is a key part of the rules, and unless your unit is seriously outperformed, you are unlikely to fail it. Ok, so the "lone character runs down a 20 man unit" scenario is a bit dodgy, but that is rare.

- EXPENSIVE!!!!: Jesus christ that stuff cost. A lot. I have to spent like 120 euros just to make a decent army, color excluded. I know that games cost, but this is a bit too much.

Yes, it is expensive, and that is the reason I no longer play. However there are other miniatures companies that you can buy minis from, so long as you don't plan to use them in GW-sanctioned events.

You can say: "you have played a base battle, at higher levels with more stuff and powerful special units, you start to appreciate the rules and have fun". A good game is a good game even at lower levels. In DnD, you don't have to wait to be level 20 to start having fun. And you don't really need more time to appreciate a rule, if the rule is illogic: you can't appreciate it at all.

There are rules for skirmish battles. They are fun, but the Warhammer rules are designed for large armies. That is its purpose.

The Dryad unit remained in the store, and the 30 euros are still in my wallet. Because I realized how to play Warhammer in a different way: take some cubes, say that they are 20 dwarfs, add some square based stuff for the monster and you'll have a game less good-looking but with the same gameplay. Have fun, and maybe you have enough money left to buy something for your girlfriend.

That is your prerogative, I suppose, but some people buy the miniatures for the fun of painting and modelling.

Caracol

2008-03-16, 03:59 PM

Historically, armies did move in regimented groups; perhaps not to the extent that Warhammer displays, but it happened, and ultimately Warhammer has a strong basis in historical wargaming. The point of having "every single goblin" is aesthetic. Play with square bits of card if you want to, but miniatures are prettier.

Of course armies did move in regiments, but is sure as hell that they didn't remain in regiments when attacked by projectiles.

That is more true for modern combat, and is precisely how Warhammer 40,000 works.

No, because in Warhammer 40k there is also the concept of unit, even if they are all skirmishers. And if they fail their discipline roll, they flee alltogether and can be destroyed alltogether. Wich is stupid.

That is the reason movement trays exist.

Then make every unit detachable, and put a tray under that if you want to move them altoghether. See? If they are all separated, you can move them separately or altogether, without special rules.

That is true, in a sense, but hardly a problem.

Oh, the fact that an army game doesn't involve armies does not qualifies as a problem?

You do attack, and kill them first. However the game assumes that the members of the unit pick up their equipment as they fall, which, in the case of standards at least, is not unrealistic.

What? are you kidding me? That's even more unrealistic that the fact that they don't die for first because the others shield them.

They are only a representation of combat, and yes, when fighting in this way there are people behind who are not in the fray until their comrades fall. This is the way wars were fought historically.

I can understand that that's the way of fighting between units, but the rules should allow you to fight like this or pick another strategy, and they don't.

When you win combat, you have the option of wrapping around the enemy. It is in the rules (at least the 6th edition ones).

Why can't I just decide for that to be my starting strategy?

The leadership test is a key part of the rules, and unless your unit is seriously outperformed, you are unlikely to fail it. Ok, so the "lone character runs down a 20 man unit" scenario is a bit dodgy, but that is rare.

Are you sure? 25% of loss is not "seriousiosly outperformed". And call me unlucky, but I failed every single leadership test I could and even if I suceeded it, the rules still allows you to eliminate a whole unit just running faster (wich involves ONLY LUCK). And the example you made to me just make me more convinced about the illogicity of this rule.

There are rules for skirmish battles. They are fun, but the Warhammer rules are designed for large armies. That is its purpose.

Skirmish battles shouldn't require special rules, since you can actually play by skirmish or close quarters if they units are indipendent from each other.
As I stated before, the fact that the unit are really a single thing in the battle makes this games designed for 3-4 combatants actually, not armies. So, the purpose is not conveyed well.

That is your prerogative, I suppose, but some people buy the miniatures for the fun of painting and modelling.

I thought we were talking about a GAME here. Of course, the miniatures are fantastic and the fact that you can paint them is awesome, but that's still a game.

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh, but I had great expectations on this game and it deluded me. No offense intended to anyone who plays or loves this game anyway.

Narmoth

2008-03-16, 04:01 PM

Maybee you should try Mordheim?
You've got warbands (from 5 to about 30 persons, depending on race) in stead of armies, and all go separately. The still mostly follow the warhammer battle rules, which are far from perfect, but it's better at least.
There was also once an AD&D variant for large armies, the name escapes me now, but it had rules derived from the D&D system

JellyPooga

2008-03-16, 05:52 PM

One thing in the Warhammer FB Rulebook that most people I've met miss (and I believe you may have done too Caracol) is that the miniatures are not a literal representation. If you have a unit of 20 Dwarves, that could be representing anything from 200 to 2000 or even more actual fighting people. The actual scale of the battle is much larger than however many miniatures are on the table...they're just a representation for game purposes.

Given that 1 miniature represents a multitude of fighters, the rules do make a certain amount of sense...

...units that fight in formation do have a certain amount of flexibility (with regards to being shot at, etc.), it's just not on a scale that is relevant to the game.

...banners, champions and musicians are not just one guy, it's a collection of people in the unit...champions represent the veterans in that unit who will more than likely survive where greener troops will die...a standard is just a pole, anyone can pick it up and there will be many in the unit willing to do so...likewise regimental instruments are usually fairly basic (like drums) and if the main drummer does happen to kark-it, there's probably at least someone willilng to keep a beat (which is, after all, more or less all they have to do).

...when a unit is run down, it does not neccesarily mean that every single member has been slain, it just means that the unit has been scattered and cannot take any more meaningful part in the battle.

It's like in D&D where combat rolls do not represent every single strike...you roll your attack roll and that represents a certain amount of cut-and-thrust, parry-and-riposte and the result is just the overall impact on your opponents combat effectiveness (i.e. HP). Likewise, in Warhammer, the miniatures and rules are just a representation of something much more detailed. It's just that Warhammer is a simple game (as opposed to a complex one), which is its appeal to most who play it. I'll admit that I went off of Warhamer long ago for its simplicity and seeming lack of detail (and the price...ouch that hurts!), but it doesn't detract from the premis of the game. Think of it like Chess...chess is supposed to be a representaion of war, simplified into a strategic game format...if it were to realistically portray a battle, then the rules would be hideously complex and you would have a few more pieces than pawns, knights, bishops, rooks, a king and queen.

I'm not trying to persuade you that it's an amazing game (like I said, I'm not overly fond of it myself), but I just thought I'd point out the one thing in the rulebook that most people miss.

:smallwink:

Bryn

2008-03-16, 07:03 PM

TheThan

2008-03-17, 01:33 AM

The biggest glaring flaw here is obviously that you haven't had the chance to read the rule book. Like Dungeons and Dragons the rules system is rather immense. There are rules for terrain .. rules for castles sieges. Tons of Scenarios that you can set up other than playing the straight up force. vs force game that was demonstrated. There are rules for night fighting. You can call out other heroes and challenge them to single combat. There are siege machines and boats. Ladders and battering rams. The list goes on..

This isnt a computer game.. this is what there was before all that, its not going to be realistic or perfect but its about having fun. sitting around painting guys with friends or bantering about how to build up a force. Its a all out hobby not just something that sits on your harddrive you double click when your bored.

Either its for you or it isn't. Why not ask questions to find out more info instead of just ranting off a bad experience?

Starblade

2008-03-17, 01:58 AM

Caracol

2008-03-17, 05:18 AM

As has been mentioned, you might be more interested in 40k (or even one of the specialist games such as Mordheim, as Narmoth described).

For example, in 40k, units are a lot looser, the models able to spread as much as 2" apart - which really helps against blasts and templates - although they are still forced to stay in a unit. Although morale checks exist, they are unlikely to be failed in practical circumstances, as most armies have ways to increase Leadership and help regroup, so you won't end up with units running away at a whim. In close combat, the order of attacks is based on the individual unit's Initiative value.

Warhammer 40k seems to make more sense about the rules, and I was going to considerate to play it, if only....
... it wasn't Sci-Fi. I love Sci-Fi, a lot, but not THAT kind of Sci-Fi. For what regards battles, I prefer fantasy settings, so...

I don't know if some of noticed it, but as I said, I played the Lord of the Rings Wargame a while back, and I really loved it: everybody is free to move by himself, you can make pack of huruk-hai move in a close quarter unit OR change their formation as you wish. Since they said me that it was derived from Warhammer, I tought "why not trying the original game?".
I was deluded, but that doesn't mean I won't probably play LotR again or even make my own haradrim army...:smallbiggrin:

The biggest glaring flaw here is obviously that you haven't had the chance to read the rule book. Like Dungeons and Dragons the rules system is rather immense. There are rules for terrain .. rules for castles sieges. Tons of Scenarios that you can set up other than playing the straight up force. vs force game that was demonstrated. There are rules for night fighting. You can call out other heroes and challenge them to single combat. There are siege machines and boats. Ladders and battering rams. The list goes on..

This isnt a computer game.. this is what there was before all that, its not going to be realistic or perfect but its about having fun. sitting around painting guys with friends or bantering about how to build up a force. Its a all out hobby not just something that sits on your harddrive you double click when your bored.

Either its for you or it isn't. Why not ask questions to find out more info instead of just ranting off a bad experience?

I don't doubt that Warhammer has tons of additional rules about different situation, psicology, terrain condition and so on. I never said that this system was semplicistic. I took a look at the manual and the different armies splatbooks and there was ton of stuff extremely cool. But as you can see, I'm not questioning this.
What I'm saying is that there are major flaws in the BASIC rules. The ones needed to play a battle are illogic in my opinion. Sure, they aren't the only rules and there are a lot of additional stuff, but they can be the best additional rules in the world: the game still sucks if the basic rules are flawed. Why do you need to ask for more, when the basics do not work?

This whole thread saddens me.. this form of gaming is dying out. Its a very small community of people that play these games and an even smaller part that manage to paint/model the units and terrain that goes into being able to play this game. There is no love here and that is because the game is misunderstood.. and also that people are not growing up with it anymore. TV/computers are the replacement. People complaining like this totally don't help those few of us that are left that love warhammer, and wargaming.

Video games sell themselvs.. they sit on the shelf and wait for people to pick them up.. these kinds of games need one on one special attention to hook new players.. Seems like a couple of people went out of their way to do that for you in hopes of bringing more into the flock. I agree with the above guy.. try finding out more before just bagging on it.

I never said that I prefer video games. Actually, I never played a strategic computer game ever (except Warcraft 3 a couple of times). And I was convinced to try wargames just because I didn't like strategic videogames, and the fact that you're alone when you're playing them. As I said, my friend and the guy at the store were really nice to me when trying to join the army (although the guy at the store was also trying to SELL me some stuff, so let's not be too candid here).
Also, I wasn't whining about ALL the wargames out there (which I never tried), but just about the most famous of them, Warhammer. I said about three times that LotR wargame was very nice.

I understand the fun of making your own army, of painting it with your favourite colors, of babbling with your friends about that special unit you want so much but you can't afford....
What I don't understand I why a game with such a cool outlook and peculiarity had to have such ILLOGICAL rules. No game is too realistic or perfect, sure, it's about the fun, but seriously, this game is so unrealistic and imperfect that the fun has good chances to disappear suddenly.
As I said before, Warhammer looked so cool that I'm still bewildered about how much I did NOT like it. What more I need to find out of?

Hazkali

2008-03-17, 05:50 AM

Of course armies did move in regiments, but is sure as hell that they didn't remain in regiments when attacked by projectiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhIsgJpFCho

No, because in Warhammer 40k there is also the concept of unit, even if they are all skirmishers. And if they fail their discipline roll, they flee alltogether and can be destroyed alltogether. Wich is stupid.

When my friends and I used to play, we enforced a "twice unit strength" rule, in which you could only run down a unit strength equal to twice your own; the remainder is shunted 1" away from the peruser's position.

Then make every unit detachable, and put a tray under that if you want to move them altoghether. See? If they are all separated, you can move them separately or altogether, without special rules.

But the point is that units move as blocks of troops, just as they did in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

Oh, the fact that an army game doesn't involve armies does not qualifies as a problem?

When you play a proper, 2000 or more point game, do you really want to be keeping track of each individual creature? Treating them as units simplifies things immensely; its a trade off between simplicity, time for a game and realism.

What? are you kidding me? That's even more unrealistic that the fact that they don't die for first because the others shield them.

It used to be a grave dishonour to allow your flag to fall in battle, and if it fell, there was considerable honour for the soldier picking it up. As for musicians, if you were allowed to target them first their expense would hardly ever be justified- there is a balance issue.

I can understand that that's the way of fighting between units, but the rules should allow you to fight like this or pick another strategy, and they don't.

There is plenty of strategy involved, but I suspect you were playing with very few units, which would be a suboptimal experience for tactics. If you properly learn the rules, try playing with a dozen or more units, tanks and characters on each side, over a 6' x 4' or larger board, with more than one other player. Then you can appreciate how tactical it can be.

Why can't I just decide for that to be my starting strategy?

Because if the opposition is trying to wrap around as well, it becomes a case of who can break the other first- i.e. win the combat, which is exactly what the rules state.

Are you sure? 25% of loss is not "seriousiosly outperformed". And call me unlucky, but I failed every single leadership test I could and even if I suceeded it, the rules still allows you to eliminate a whole unit just running faster (wich involves ONLY LUCK). And the example you made to me just make me more convinced about the illogicity of this rule.

See above. Chances are you were unlucky, unless you were playing a low-leadership race like Orcs and Goblins.

Skirmish battles shouldn't require special rules, since you can actually play by skirmish or close quarters if they units are indipendent from each other.
As I stated before, the fact that the unit are really a single thing in the battle makes this games designed for 3-4 combatants actually, not armies. So, the purpose is not conveyed well.

A 2000 point army will probably have between 8 and a dozen units in it, and often more than a hundred miniatures. If they were all to be moved individually it would take days to play a single battle.

I thought we were talking about a GAME here. Of course, the miniatures are fantastic and the fact that you can paint them is awesome, but that's still a game.

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh, but I had great expectations on this game and it deluded me. No offense intended to anyone who plays or loves this game anyway.

I think you're being a bit petulant, launching into this rant based on one short introductory game. If it was anything like my introductory game, you will have had probably 3 units, tops, and they will have ignored several layers of complexity.

Terraoblivion

2008-03-17, 06:21 AM

Like Hazkali said the constant presence of the standard and the fact that units move as units are in fact realistic elements of the game. As late as the Napoleonic wars armies predominantly moved in large clusters and the units in rigid formation. The reason for this is two-fold. One is that without modern communications it is next to important to coordinate a whole lot of groups, let alone individuals, in the confusion of battle. The other is that formations were designed to provide optimal coverage against enemy soldiers and to avoid having your troops torn apart by better drilled more controlled troops. Late medieval warfare was dominated by square boxes of pikemen with crossbowmen standing in the front row, supported by cavalry and great sword wielders to break the formation of the other side. The standard served the purpose of giving the members of the unit an idea of where to rally and who to follow and was the means with which the leader of the army could keep track of who were where. Remember back then uniforms were not used and even if they had been it would be hard to tell them apart on a long range. A lot of individual soldiers running around is a fairly modern occurance and relates closely to advanced communications and high powered firearms and even they are not running around at random but are in fact in more complex formations to make the best use of the terrain.

Destro_Yersul

2008-03-17, 08:46 AM

A lot of the scenarios involve the concept of scoring units. To be a scoring unit, a unit has to be over half strength. If the models are spread out all over everywhere, it's harder to tell who's in what unit, and what they can capture. Warhammer frequently has objectives that need to be captured and held. LotR does too, but it counts models and not units. It's also a smaller scale game, and really more about skirmishes than grand epic battles quite a lot of the time.

Elfanatic

2008-03-17, 10:01 AM

The people before me have made some very good points, so I'll just ask you a few questions about these two Warhammer games you played.

1. How many points did each side have?
2. What army did you play?
3. What units (and equipment) did you have?
4. What army did your opponents play?
5. What units (and equipment) had your opponents?
6. Anything else worth mentioning (terrain, scenario rules, magic etc)?

This could help us relate to your troubles. Perhaps it went wrong with army selection, the wrong unit at the wrong time (Empire archers stand-and-shooting against skirmishing beastmen come to mind..) or it was al just a misunderstanding.

psycojester

2008-03-17, 10:31 AM

Caracol

2008-03-17, 11:15 AM

You guys have a lot of good points, and I must say that maybe I was a bit exaggerating in my critics.
Nonetheless, I must still point out what didn't convinced in this game, since I'm still not convinced about it.

JellyPooga said that I've missed that the miniatures aren't actual representation of people but are about 200-2000 people really. If so, why the special units are considered single people? Sorry, but if the manual says that is rather contradictory.

When my friends and I used to play, we enforced a "twice unit strength" rule, in which you could only run down a unit strength equal to twice your own; the remainder is shunted 1" away from the peruser's position.

So you agree with me that this game needs to be houseruled even in its basis to be played?

But the point is that units move as blocks of troops, just as they did in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

I don't doubt that is what happened in the past, but really, you're not moving troops, you're moving 3-8 blocks.

When you play a proper, 2000 or more point game, do you really want to be keeping track of each individual creature? Treating them as units simplifies things immensely; its a trade off between simplicity, time for a game and realism.

If only every unit were indipendent and you can ALSO have the option of moving them with a tray, it would be a looooot better. You would lose the same time if you move them separately if they are skirmisher, and lose like 3 seconds more for moving them as a unit.
In Warhammer system, istead, you over-simplify, you gain like 3 seconds more and you almost lose realism.

It used to be a grave dishonour to allow your flag to fall in battle, and if it fell, there was considerable honour for the soldier picking it up. As for musicians, if you were allowed to target them first their expense would hardly ever be justified- there is a balance issue.

That is true, but capturing the opponents flag was an actual tactic too. To lower the moral of your opponent, and if you want to win in a unit-unit combat, you should be able to eliminate the flag, the musician or the pestering veterans, expecially if your unit has a low discipline, or you should be able to position them wherever you want in the unit to protect or reserve them for later.

There is plenty of strategy involved, but I suspect you were playing with very few units, which would be a suboptimal experience for tactics. If you properly learn the rules, try playing with a dozen or more units, tanks and characters on each side, over a 6' x 4' or larger board, with more than one other player. Then you can appreciate how tactical it can be.

Of course, I need to purchase a ton of miniatures to enjoy a game or start being "strategic".
What kind of point is that? A good game is good even at low levels (in my opinion, EXPECIALLY at low levels). A game in which you have to wait like a year to start having fun is not so appealing.

Because if the opposition is trying to wrap around as well, it becomes a case of who can break the other first- i.e. win the combat, which is exactly what the rules state.

So, you're saying to me that exists a rule that allows to wrap a unit ISTANTLY if you win the fight?
Do I need to repeat the realism critic again?

A 2000 point army will probably have between 8 and a dozen units in it, and often more than a hundred miniatures. If they were all to be moved individually it would take days to play a single battle.

I think you're being a bit petulant, launching into this rant based on one short introductory game. If it was anything like my introductory game, you will have had probably 3 units, tops, and they will have ignored several layers of complexity.

See above for the fact of moving a unit one by one.

Anyway, my first try at this game was not good, but I repeat: a game that needs to be played only at higher leves to be appreciated doesn't really appeal me.

The people before me have made some very good points, so I'll just ask you a few questions about these two Warhammer games you played.

1. How many points did each side have?
2. What army did you play?
3. What units (and equipment) did you have?
4. What army did your opponents play?
5. What units (and equipment) had your opponents?
6. Anything else worth mentioning (terrain, scenario rules, magic etc)?

This could help us relate to your troubles. Perhaps it went wrong with army selection, the wrong unit at the wrong time (Empire archers stand-and-shooting against skirmishing beastmen come to mind..) or it was al just a misunderstanding.

1- I don't know. That really counts?
2- The Dwarves sieged into a castle, then Orc and Goblins.
3- Don't know, some artillery, a cannon, a ballista, a catapult. Then only fantery and achers.
4- Orcs and Goblins in the first, then dwarves.
5- Same as mine in the game before.
6- Few special rules (higher ground, a bit of magic)

I don't really think that it was the army or the onit selection, however. I had problems in not blowing my head off when I heard the basic rules. I don't think that changing the army modifies the basic rules, so...

Yeah..... because no ancient armies that made extensive uses of formations ever got anywhere. The romans were wiped out in a couple of weeks by the gauls.
Seriously, how hard is it to grasp the fact that whats happening on the battlefield is an approximation of a battle, your men aren't just standing in a big cube as they fight, its a swirling melee down there, its just stupid and impractical to break up the formation of your unit every time you enter combat.

*smashes its fist on the table* I DIDN'T SAY THAT NOBODY FOUGHT IN FORMATION OR THAT IT WAS STUPID!!!! I SAID THAT YOU CAN DO ONLY THIS!!! OR YOU HAVE TO PURCHASE A SPECIAL UNIT TO SKIRMISH OR JUST CHANGING YOUR FORMATION, AND THAT'S STUPID!!!

Yes, it is about strategy. Part of strategy is being able to adapt when things go badly. Believe it or not wars are not fought by robots and troops respond like people in highly stressful and dangerous situations. A good general will be able to roll with the punches are adapt his strategy.

What are you trying to say here? Have you even read my critic about the preponderance of the luck factor?

Are you angry about realism or the lack of it? please chose one. Whats wrong with the idea of units breaking and fleeing after seeing their friends hacked into pieces by their enemies. They're running away with their backs to the enemy, its perfectly realistic that a pursing enemy would cut them down if they overran them.

About the lack of it. I tought it was clear. And the situation you are describing is unrealistic. The fact that you can lose an entire army just being outrun is unbalancing. Nor is for fun's sake. Which lead us to the conclusion that that rule is:
- unrealistic
- unbalancing
- unfunny.
And is a base rule. Go figure.

This point is actually valid.

Thank god, someone that agrees. :smallbiggrin:

Terraoblivion

2008-03-17, 11:31 AM

Ummmm...losing an entire army by being overrun was what happened to the Persians at Marathon, Caracol. 6,400 Persians died, 203 Greek soldiers died. That was because in traditional melee people died when they ran or otherwise broke formation. Wikipedia has a quite detailed article about the battle as Herodotus recorded it. Right here in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon

Another example of breaking formation that proved disastrous could be seen at Hastings in 1066, where one of the British flanks gave chase to fleeing Normans and cut their formation open. It is really quite simple. In massed melee breaking formation means you get killed.

psycojester

2008-03-17, 11:53 AM

JellyPooga said that I've missed that the miniatures aren't actual representation of people but are about 200-2000 people really. If so, why the special units are considered single people? Sorry, but if the manual says that is rather contradictory.

I think jelly is wrong on this one. If you want to play huge battles they've got Warmaster and epic 40k, which have smaller minatures and much larger armies.

Of course, I need to purchase a ton of miniatures to enjoy a game or start being "strategic".
What kind of point is that? A good game is good even at low levels (in my opinion, EXPECIALLY at low levels). A game in which you have to wait like a year to start having fun is not so appealing.

Its a wargame not an rpg, stop trying to think of it roleplaying terms. There aren't any low levels. Yes you need a full army in order to play strategically. Chess isn't a very exciting if you only play with an army of pawns.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT NOBODY FOUGHT IN FORMATION OR THAT IT WAS STUPID!!!! I SAID THAT YOU CAN DO ONLY THIS!!! OR YOU HAVE TO PURCHASE A SPECIAL UNIT TO SKIRMISH OR JUST CHANGING YOUR FORMATION, AND THAT'S STUPID!!!

Last time i played Warhammer you could change unit formation in the movement phase. I really don't see the problem with specific units having special qualities like skirmishing. It adds more depths to game.

If only every unit were indipendent and you can ALSO have the option of moving them with a tray, it would be a looooot better. You would lose the same time if you move them separately if they are skirmisher, and lose like 3 seconds more for moving them as a unit.

Until you got into the combat phase and then it would start getting overly complicated.

Hazkali

2008-03-17, 11:55 AM

So you agree with me that this game needs to be houseruled even in its basis to be played?

That rule makes more sense in my opinion. However, I don't think it makes so much difference to the game that I would not play Warhammer "straight". Just like I still play D+D, even though some of the rules are broken- the game as a whole is still good.

That is true, but capturing the opponents flag was an actual tactic too. To lower the moral of your opponent, and if you want to win in a unit-unit combat, you should be able to eliminate the flag, the musician or the pestering veterans, expecially if your unit has a low discipline, or you should be able to position them wherever you want in the unit to protect or reserve them for later.

You can capture the flag by running the enemy unit down or wiping them out in melee, and in a victory point game this counts as +X to your total. Skaven, who have a low-honour aesthetic, can place characters to the rear of a unit, but that is one of their race-specific rules.

Of course, I need to purchase a ton of miniatures to enjoy a game or start being "strategic".
What kind of point is that? A good game is good even at low levels (in my opinion, EXPECIALLY at low levels). A game in which you have to wait like a year to start having fun is not so appealing.

The skirmish rules are good for playing small battles whilst you build up your forces, but the standard for Warhammer is 2000 points, because at its heart it is a mass-battle game. You can play smaller battles, just field fewer men per unit, but that is the standard. It doesn't really take all that long, especially if you are more interested in the game and hence take a "slop n go" approach to painting.

So, you're saying to me that exists a rule that allows to wrap a unit ISTANTLY if you win the fight?
Do I need to repeat the realism critic again?

I never said instantly, and I cannot offhand remember the full rule, but I really don't understand your criticism. Firstly you criticise the game as unrealistic for not being able to wrap around, and then you criticise the rule for being able to wrap around as not being realistic, when you haven't read said rule in context. In fact, it appears that you actually haven't read any of the rules in context.

psycojester

2008-03-17, 12:31 PM

Also i just noticed that is a freaking sweet Commissar Z-Axis. Nice to see another guard player as well :smallsmile:

warty goblin

2008-03-17, 07:56 PM

Warhammer is a game focusing on high level strategy right? In other words a game where you take the role of the general? When was the last time a general ever worried about the placement of a single soldier?

Put another way, a general is likely to say something like "Push the line of pikeman up along the roadway to cover the archers against their heavy horse." Notably not "Frank, I need you to move ten feet to the left and attack the blue goblin, and Bob, go flank the orc wearing three severed heads as a necklace." That is the job of the Sergeant or commander for a squad, not the general.

Also having formation changes requiring special units to do makes sense. Organizing 20 or 30 individuals to carry off precision maneuvres is hard to do, even when there's not arrows raining from the sky and somebody's best friend dying a slow and messy death with a three inch bodkin where their throat used to be. It takes training, and training takes time, resources and somebody with the skill and personality to command and discipline the unit into carrying off the formation change successfully. Given that, having to spend extra points to attach a leader of some sort to a unit to give it the ability to change formation make sense. From a purely game design standpoint it is also sound, because it differentiates formations and adds a nice logistical level to the game.

Finally I will point out that there is absolutely no need for a game focusing on pre-firearm dominated style combat to include rules for units fighting out of formation as individuals. If such rules were at all realistic, absolutely nobody would ever use them. There are words for people who attack formations out of formation at an individual level, and those words are "gladius bait." Seriously, ask the Gauls how well fighting drilled soldiers working in formation with out of formation soldiers worked out. Not only is it not the general's job to manage troops at the individual level, but even if you could, it would be irrelevant. Since any rules for such would be at best useless, and at worst hideiously unbalanced, counterintuitive and flying in the face of hundreds of years of military history, I don't see why not having them should be a problem from a 'realism' point of view.

Swordguy

2008-03-18, 01:54 AM

This whole thread saddens me.. this form of gaming is dying out. Its a very small community of people that play these games and an even smaller part that manage to paint/model the units and terrain that goes into being able to play this game. There is no love here and that is because the game is misunderstood.. and also that people are not growing up with it anymore. TV/computers are the replacement. People complaining like this totally don't help those few of us that are left that love warhammer, and wargaming.

Predatory pricing structures and mismanagement on the part of the parent company, combined with a largely insular, newbie-hostile, and socially inept player base have a lot to do with this as well.

For example, lets look at the reaction to this particular newbie. He came away from a test game irritated at vagracies of the rules (which were probably the "demo" rules that get used to start people on the game) and upset with the entry cost for the hobby. Those are entirely legitimate complaints. Somebody mentioned that he should rant off of a "bad experience". What else is he supposed to do? It's his only contact with the game system! Is he not allowed to complain until he's dropped a minimum $500 on a game he may hate?

Tabletop games other than GW products are doing better than ever. Warmachine, Classic Battletech, and AT-43 have all had "career years". I can only speak directly for Battletech (I worked for Ironwind Metals, producers of the CBT minis and I keep in touch with them), the sales for Catalyst Gaming labs have literally tripled this last year. It's not really the hobby as a whole - it's just the most visible game out there starting the inevitable slide under the table, which people who've been in the hobby for 20 years have been predicting for a half-a-decade now.

To the OP: I feel for you. A girl I knew really liked my Brettonians and Empire armies, and wanted to get into the hobby. She went...alone...into the GW store near Denver, and didn't get helped for 30 minutes. When she was helped, she was asked if she was there to get something for her boyfriend. When she replied she was there to start playing the hobby, she was invited to a demo game of Warhammer, where she was given Elf models instead of the O&G she specifically asked for because "Girls should only play elves because they're prettier." (Direct quote) The question was directed to her chest. She walked out, and has categorically refused to play anything by GW since. See? Your demo could have been worse...

TheThan

2008-03-18, 04:15 AM

I’m not going to argue the point on the company’s business practices since I agree with sword guy there. I bought into LOTR and tried 40K several times. I don’t particularly like their LOTR game (makes good dnd minis though), and I loath 40K. As far as the player base, I wouldn’t know from first hand experience (though I’ve heard stories just as bad as your friends’). I’m blessed with a very good gaming store where that crap really isn’t tolerated, if that is the only kind of gaming store in your area, I really feel for you. People don’t realize they represent the rest of their gaming community (particularly store owners), and if you’re a jerk then others will believe everyone else is too. Really nobody should be talked at like that.

Now I mentioned I hate 40K, but I keep my opinions to myself and don’t post a thread about how much I hate the game and how much I hate the stupid rules. I’ve only played it 3 times, and don’t have the experience to really understand the inns and outs of game. I remember my first game tabletop game was almost a nightmare to understand, but I tried it again and I was hooked. The OP is almost inviting an attack by ranting. Sure some of the rules may not make sense to you, but there are kooky rules in any game. Ever hear bucket healing?

What I think that Starblade means is that its as much a hobby as it is a game. There are other aspects of the hobby than just playing the game. I know someone who buys models just because he enjoys painting them, he’s played the game (warmachine) once or twice but he really enjoys the painting aspect of the hobby more than just the gaming aspect. I personally just enjoy being in the company of people that have similar interests to my own (like I said I’m blessed with a very good gaming store).
While warhammer is expensive, spreading out your purchases can offset that cost. Don’t drop $500 at once; instead buy it in pieces.

What I do is I paint everything I have, then when I’m out of things to paint (or nearly out), I go and buy something new to paint. While I’m not spending any less money, the shear cost is spread out over the course of however long it takes me to collect it. That, and I’m playing ogre kingdoms which is financially the cheapest faction in warhammer.

Now if he just doesn’t like the mechanics of the game, fine he’s entitled to his own opinion. I won’t buy a game I don’t like. I suggest the OP just do the same, if he truly doesn’t like it, he doesn’t have to. But I think he should give the game another chance.

Caracol

2008-03-18, 05:18 AM

Terraoblivion keeps to proposing me historical examples, and has a lot of good points for justifying the existance of the rule I'm so angered at. Even if that situation is historical and realistic (and it is), it's bad described in the rules mechanics. You should have the possibility to recall your fleeing troops, and to try to recover your defeat, with all the penalities of the case, of course. But losing an ENTIRE UNIT, like they are all dead, with no chances to defend, and just because your enemy run faster (a total luck roll, since it doesn't even consider the movement factor of your race) is unlikely to happen in the real life and it UNBALANCES the game. You have two bad rolls? You've lost a unit. Note the absence of strategic factors here.

You can capture the flag by running the enemy unit down or wiping them out in melee, and in a victory point game this counts as +X to your total. Skaven, who have a low-honour aesthetic, can place characters to the rear of a unit, but that is one of their race-specific rules.

Why can't I capture the flag just for win against a unit? Because with low-discipline unit, it's one of the things you should do to avoid being defeated. If the ability to kill important person in a unit is unbalancing for some aspects, it helps balance for others.

The skirmish rules are good for playing small battles whilst you build up your forces, but the standard for Warhammer is 2000 points, because at its heart it is a mass-battle game. You can play smaller battles, just field fewer men per unit, but that is the standard. It doesn't really take all that long, especially if you are more interested in the game and hence take a "slop n go" approach to painting.

That, of course, depends on how much money you can actually spend on it. Anyway, since a unit looks like a single man istead of 20, due to the rules, I can't really see any "mass" battle there.

I never said instantly, and I cannot offhand remember the full rule, but I really don't understand your criticism. Firstly you criticise the game as unrealistic for not being able to wrap around, and then you criticise the rule for being able to wrap around as not being realistic, when you haven't read said rule in context. In fact, it appears that you actually haven't read any of the rules in context.

Yeah, like you read all the rules of a complex game before starting to play, or to realize if a rule is broken. To be honest, I actually read some of the rules the day before my demo game, and while a lot of them seemed to make sense and be really descriptive and funny, others left me really doubtful about the mechanics (read: the lame rule). I said "let's wait to see them work before", I saw them, and I was deluded for the reason I stated above.

Warhammer is a game focusing on high level strategy right? In other words a game where you take the role of the general? When was the last time a general ever worried about the placement of a single soldier?

Put another way, a general is likely to say something like "Push the line of pikeman up along the roadway to cover the archers against their heavy horse." Notably not "Frank, I need you to move ten feet to the left and attack the blue goblin, and Bob, go flank the orc wearing three severed heads as a necklace." That is the job of the Sergeant or commander for a squad, not the general.

Yes, it's the job of the sergeant to move every single man in its unit, not of the general. Oh wait! I didn't have sergeants! Nobody mentioned them! And of course, my soldiers aren't good even at blowing a fart without a specific order.
Seriously, in a fight, unless your chief tell you to concentrate on a specific task, everybody attacks whatever can attack. Nobody tell you where to go to attack. I'm assuming that my soldiers, since they are living things with a mind, can decide that by themselves and it's your job to move them, one by one.
Warhammer as like 10 or more pages of rules about psicology, and can't consider that?

Finally I will point out that there is absolutely no need for a game focusing on pre-firearm dominated style combat to include rules for units fighting out of formation as individuals. If such rules were at all realistic, absolutely nobody would ever use them. There are words for people who attack formations out of formation at an individual level, and those words are "gladius bait." Seriously, ask the Gauls how well fighting drilled soldiers working in formation with out of formation soldiers worked out. Not only is it not the general's job to manage troops at the individual level, but even if you could, it would be irrelevant. Since any rules for such would be at best useless, and at worst hideiously unbalanced, counterintuitive and flying in the face of hundreds of years of military history, I don't see why not having them should be a problem from a 'realism' point of view.

Fighting in formations has a lot of advatages and disvatages. Like fighting scattered, of course. It was used almost always, historically speaking.
Now, since everybody continues to point that out to me, I will reapeat for the the 10th (and I hope last) time: I'M NOT QUESTIONING THAT. What I'm trying to say is that you can ONLY do that. A close-quarter formation can't scatter himself when needed, almost like they are too dumb to do that without being a stupid special unit: this is what I'm trying to point out. This is unrealistic. Why would you scatter a close formation? None of your business, but this is not what we are discussing, we are discussing the fact that you CAN'T do that if you want.
If only I could scatter my dwarves to wrap the giant, I would at least have a chance of winning the fight, bumping the attack ratio against him. I couldn't, and I could only keep rolling hoping for a six and continuing to roll for the discipline, while my dwarves were killed at every turn. If that situation would happened to you, what would you have done? Keep staying there, stepping in line on your dead comrade, waiting for another blow? Or a unit of soldier trained in unit formation can't break the formation to sorround an enemy by all sides, without the risk of brain damage for such an high intellectual conclusion?
Sorry, but a game that can't allow me to do this with a regular unit doesn't qualify as realistic to me.

Predatory pricing structures and mismanagement on the part of the parent company, combined with a largely insular, newbie-hostile, and socially inept player base have a lot to do with this as well.

For example, lets look at the reaction to this particular newbie. He came away from a test game irritated at vagracies of the rules (which were probably the "demo" rules that get used to start people on the game) and upset with the entry cost for the hobby. Those are entirely legitimate complaints. Somebody mentioned that he should rant off of a "bad experience". What else is he supposed to do? It's his only contact with the game system! Is he not allowed to complain until he's dropped a minimum $500 on a game he may hate?

Tabletop games other than GW products are doing better than ever. Warmachine, Classic Battletech, and AT-43 have all had "career years". I can only speak directly for Battletech (I worked for Ironwind Metals, producers of the CBT minis and I keep in touch with them), the sales for Catalyst Gaming labs have literally tripled this last year. It's not really the hobby as a whole - it's just the most visible game out there starting the inevitable slide under the table, which people who've been in the hobby for 20 years have been predicting for a half-a-decade now.

To the OP: I feel for you. A girl I knew really liked my Brettonians and Empire armies, and wanted to get into the hobby. She went...alone...into the GW store near Denver, and didn't get helped for 30 minutes. When she was helped, she was asked if she was there to get something for her boyfriend. When she replied she was there to start playing the hobby, she was invited to a demo game of Warhammer, where she was given Elf models instead of the O&G she specifically asked for because "Girls should only play elves because they're prettier." (Direct quote) The question was directed to her chest. She walked out, and has categorically refused to play anything by GW since. See? Your demo could have been worse...

My personal experience was not that bad. The storekeepers were nice and helpful. The only complaints I have are these:

- They explained me the rules like I was a ten year old. I know that you're trained in talking with childs (the target costumers in my country at least), but when I asked for the explanation of some rules they keep saying "don't worry, you'll get them sometime". How can I appreciate the rules of a game you don't tell me what they are and tell me just to keep rolling the dices?

- I found the skirmishers units more appealing to my style, and so I asked to try them to see if I liked them. What did I get? Dwarves against Orcs. What did I get the following match? Orcs against Dwarves. And since the people there said to me that they have almost all the armies by themselves, I don't see why can't I just try a single unit of skirmishers.

But as you can see, they were nice after all and so the problem to me is not in my first game approach, but with the absence of logic in the basic rules.

Now if he just doesn’t like the mechanics of the game, fine he’s entitled to his own opinion. I won’t buy a game I don’t like. I suggest the OP just do the same, if he truly doesn’t like it, he doesn’t have to. But I think he should give the game another chance.

I don't know. Maybe Warhammer is just not the game to me. Maybe a skirmish with less people (but actually more stuff to move) is what fits better for me.
I was just trying to point out the flaws of the sistem to know the other people toughts about that. It's unlikely that I can found a sense in the rules I criticized, or give another chance to this game, but you can't never tell.

Swordguy

2008-03-18, 05:28 AM

To be fair, most of my post was directed towards the theory that tabletop wargaming is dying out, and why I disagree.

I am glad you had a generally good experience with the staff. If you were to go back, I'd specifically ask them if they had any other demo armies in-store for you to use. If they don't, well, then you'll know why they stuck you with those armies for your demo game.

Keep in mind as well that the target audience for the Warhammer hobby has repeatedly stated by GW to be the 12-16 age bracket. That may explain why they "talked down" to you while explaining the rules.

From your commentary, it seems that Warhammer may simply be at a level of arbitrary abstraction that's too much for you. I understand - it's one of the myriad of reasons I stopped playing GW games that aren't titled "Mordheim". Unfortunately, there isn't much else in the same genre bracket anymore. You could try the DBx games, but they're pretty much strictly historical and explicitly large-scale. Off the top of my head, everything else that would compete with Warhammer Fantasy is either out-of-print, has a tiny player base, or (most likely) both.

Oh...you may want to look into Wood Elves. IIRC, they're basically an entire army that uses the Skirmish rules, and some of them have the option to rank up or skirmish as the situation demands.

Narmoth

2008-03-18, 06:39 AM

I think it would be possible to modify the mrodheim rules to be used for large scale armies as well. Simply make most army units henchmen rather than heroes.
One aspect I particularily like with Mordheim is that the warband gets experience.

Zenos

2008-03-18, 08:52 AM

I remember some rules for loose formation in the Lustria book, although it didn't give the penalties that enemies have against real skirmishing units it made the units using it able to move about in a freer manner.

Bryn

2008-03-18, 09:36 AM

Also i just noticed that is a freaking sweet Commissar Z-Axis. Nice to see another guard player as well :smallsmile:

Thanks for the kind words! I think there are a few Guard players in the 40k thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55140&page=41) (which sadly has been inactive recently).

Regarding the main discussion, would it be worth houseruling Warhammer Fantasy to remove some of the issues you have with it? As long as you and your opponent both agree (which they probably would if they're a reasonable), nothing would stop you splitting up your formations and surrounding Giants if you wanted to. You couldn't do it in official games, of course, but otherwise it shouldn't bring up too many problems.

That is assuming that you generally like Warhammer and your problems with the system are limited to a few main issues. I don't know how difficult such rulings would be to make.

Wraith

2008-03-18, 10:08 AM

I think we're getting a little bit too involved thus far. Caracol has played WHF and doesn't like it because of the way Rules X, Y and Z are portrayed or have been explained to him. Good. Fine. Fair enough.

While I would suggest that you try it again just to get the best 2/3 results from the game, rather than write it off immediately, I would prefer to echo Narmoth's suggestion that you try Mordheim instead, since it eliminates all but a few of your complaints and those remaining are better explained.
That, and I think that it's more fun, and more people should play it rather than let it remain relegated to the rank of "Specialist games" :smallwink:

BloodyAngel

2008-03-18, 12:12 PM

Ahhh warhammer. You either like it, or you hate it.

I'm a fan, but even I will admit that the rules are a bit wonky at times. In the end, it really comes down to simplicity. The game used to have rules for wrapping round units and all of that... but ultimately, they steamlines the rules for better or worse. In a real historical battle, the unit leader had to issue orders vocally... and in the chaos of fighting, few troops but the ones right beside him will hear. The tight units were both an tactical choice (the front line was compelled to hold, what with the second line right behind them) and a practical one. Only very highly trained units could manage a wide skirmishy formation and still respond quickly to new orders. But really, I'm not going to try to sell anyone on the game. If you didn't like it, you don't like it. LoTR may be more your style.

I personally play warhammer and love it. I've had... issues... being a girl who is a part of the hobby too, so I understand what Swordguy was saying. I was taught to play by a boy I was (and am still) dating. He was thrilled to get me into his hobby, and was much nicer about helping me learn than random guys at the games shop probably would be. I play Dark Elves... which are probably one of the most underpowered armies in the game... because I like their units and their fluff. They are fun to pay and paint... and when I do manage a win, it feels that much cooler that I won with dark elves. :smallbiggrin: I don't play outside my group of friends much... or get pick-up games at the store... because down that route lies immature jerks. The closest I came was going with my boy to a nearby game store (not a GW) and playing a small, informal tournament with a few guys he knew. All older players who were very nice. I even did halfway decent.

The game isn't for everyone, and it IS way too expensive. That, I can't argue. Ultimately, GW has been doing a pretty poor job of making the game easy and fun for new players, and it's killing them. They have also been concentrating mostly on 40k, since it brings them more sales (mostly from smaller kids who's parents give them too much money). It's not a perfect hobby... it's not even the best war-simulator game with miniatures. I just loves me my elves of Khaine, and I'm going to keep on playing them. A good game of warhammer can be a lot of fun... but it's the player more than the system that makes it fun.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and paint my dragon. :smalltongue:

Narmoth

2008-03-18, 01:37 PM

The Dryad unit remained in the store, and the 30 euros are still in my wallet. Because I realized how to play Warhammer in a different way: take some cubes, say that they are 20 dwarfs, add some square based stuff for the monster and you'll have a game less good-looking but with the same gameplay. Have fun, and maybe you have enough money left to buy something for your girlfriend.

True warhammer players don't have girlfriends. They demand to much time and money, time and money much better spent on collecting miniatures to make your army decent.

Were-Sandwich

2008-03-19, 06:52 AM

Whilst I personally have had a tolerable experience with GW staff (although the last time I went into a GW store I was only 14, so that probably helped), but I taught myself to play without a demo game, so I never had to deal with their over enthusiasm my friend did: The GW employee insisted on wearing this big Orc mask and shouting at the top of his voice incessantly, and my brother had a similar experience when he got a LOTR demo at Warhammer World. Now, I ask myself, what kind of an image does that project to non-gamers? No wonder its so hard to recruit new gamers when the moist visible company's stores are full of (very large) grown men running around in monster masks shouting "WWAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!". Obviously, you can't take gaming to seriously, as we're basically playing with toy soldiers, but would it kill them to maintain a bit of maturity or decorum? I don't know about other people, but when I was 13, seeing that would have seriously turned me off the hobby.

I also agree with Caracol on the rules, but thats why I haven't played a GW game in 2 years. But thats the beauty of gaming: there are hundreds of companies out there, and they all make rule sets. And if you don't like any of theirs, you can just write your own.

SAMAS

2008-03-19, 09:20 AM

And the rules of Warhammer happen to be illogical, unrealistic and unfunny.

Some of them, you're just looking at the wrong way (An apparent lack of knowledge of ancient military tactics isn't helping, either). But if you want funny rules, you play Orcs & Goblins, Not Wood Elves or Undead.

- everybody attached to eachother butt: the fact that the game is based on units unseparable from each other (except for skirmishers) makes every tactic you can come up with less effective. You are highly vulnerable from range weapon and spells when you're in unit, so why can't you separate the units? In a real fight, you aren't attached costantly to the other, even if you fight in close quarters. Whats the point of having painted every single goblin if you have to move them all together?

Mostly for time. A good unit of Goblins is often no less than thirty of the little bastards. You got four or five mobs of them, and that's a lot of time for just one turn, not counting Orcs, Wolf riders, Boar Boyz, and other units.

I know that skirmisher units exists, but that should be the regular type of unit, because that what happens in reality, and not special unit with special rules just for it.

Because back in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, loose formations died fast under a press of bodies. Being lose is good when people are packing rifles and grenades, but you look back to spears and swords, and the Phalanx was king. It allows the guys next to you to protect you, and for you to do the same.

The unit system is supposed to make the game run faster, but seriously, you spent like hundred hours to paint every single monster and you don't have the time to move them one by one?

Depending on the units, no.

- extremely squared and fixed: if you happen to have started with a wrong strategy, you're pretty much f***ed. Because you can't really change, mobilize and counterattack when you don't have 20 dwarves but a single cube of undetachable units.

Again, that's how warfare was back then. Individual soldiers don't mean much. It's when they banded together that their efforts made things happen (by which, I mean: "lots of the other guy dying"). You don't counterattack with six guys out of a formation of twenty, you do it with the Cavalry you kept reserved for just such an occasion.

- a strategy game that isn't really about strategy: The best strategy is the one that changes and adapts. In Warhammer the fights resolves so quickly that you don't have the time to change anything before you realize the imminent destruction. You spend most of the time rolling dices actually and hoping for good rolls, and even if you created the best strategy ever, in this game a single bad roll can make you lose without coming back. There is no actual strategy, just luck.

Any... no, every tabletop strategy game uses a little luck with dice rolls. It symbolizes the fact that a commander doesn't have total control over the battlefield or even his own men. Even in real life, you positioned your men, timed your maneuvers, made your advance, and hoped the training and equipment you supplied them was enough to get the job done.

- not really an army game: Fixed unit are equal to a big square with a lot of hit points, so you aren't really attacking 100 dwarves with you 150 goblins: you are attacking two squares with 20 hit points with your 3 squares with 15 hit points. There are a total of 5 people here, not 250.

Yep, it's one unit against the other. Yes, it's composed of multiple individual models, but they're all moving and fighting as one. But those numbers are also a big part of combat resolution.

- unrealistic as hell: for the following reasons:

- who charges first, attacks first: hell no. that's not true. Actual armies have developed polearms and reach weapon just to block the attacks of the charges. Why this doesn't count in a wargame?

Simple reason: The game's designers want you to charge into combat. Players would be less inclined to charge if there was always the risk of not being able to do any damage because your front rank got spitted before they could attack. They would sit back and shoot at each other half the time. So to give the player an incentive to attack, they let the charger strike first.

Besides, not every unit in the game uses polearms.

- you can't attack champions and musics: why? when you attack an unit, you kill the first in line, but no, if he's the champion, the music or the guy who keep the banner, he does not die: he dies for last. Even if is right in front of you. That is soooooo stupid. And unrealistic. And if you want some chances to win against a unit, you should try to kill these guys for first. Why can't you do this?

Because, as you said, everyone would kill the champion and musician first. If that always happened, what would be the point of taking them?

- a close quarter unit is too vulnerable: The fact that they are all attached makes them extremely vulnerabe. If attacked, they just wait until the ones in front of them die and then step forth to be killed too.

The positioning of troops is an abstraction. It's not a conga line of death or anything. Besides, there's the ability to move around after the initial charge, and those polearms you mentioned allow second (and third and fourth, depending on the army) ranks to battle, too.

I was attacked by a big monster. He just had to keep attacking, and he would sure destoy all the dwarfes in my units. I could only try to attack him with the line of dwarves in front of him, hoping for a good roll. If it was reality, the dwarves would just dispel themselves and sorround the monster by all sides, making 16 attack istead of 4. WHY COULDN'T I DO THAT? that's soo unrealistic. Do I really have to purchase a special unit of skirmishers to do that and hope that the monster attacks them? Or a dwarf is too stupid to realize that if something big is attacking, it's nonsense to STAY THERE istead of sorrounding him?
What's strategic about that?

For one, Dwarfs are fairly tough in Warhammer. Depending on the monster attacking them, many can survive to strike back.

Secondly, Monsters do fairly bad in combat resolution unless they do really good on the charge. A large block of Dwarfs can often tie or win combat resolution against them, win the combat, and then circle around and surround the monsters.

Thirdly, ever hear of a flank charge?

Fourthly, the strategy is in, well, strategy, which begins well before the swords start swinging. That's stuff like, placing a hard or expendable unit in front of that monster when the battle started to bog it down in combat and keep it the hell away from your war machine crews (Even if they can't win, it'll take a good three or four turns at best to chew though that unit, which means three or four more turns of your big guns blowing the crap outta the enemy), positioning the closest unit at an angle, then setting a hard-hitting unit at a complementary angle so that when he does take the bait(and in most cases, he won't have a choice in the matter) you charge that sucker in the side on your turn and take it out.

That's strategy.

- the lamest rule on earth: The one that makes you lose or win a unit-unit fight after a turn. The one that says that if you lose the count of hits made, you have to flee.

Actually, you get a leadership test to keep that from happening. Usually.

And if you are followed and reached by the winner unit, you lose the WHOLE unit. This is so illogic, so unrealistic, so unbalancing that I can't ever convince myself that is for fun's sake.

Actually, that's just what happened in real life. If a unit turned and ran from combat, they ran the risk of getting run down by the victor. If the unit they were fighting, or a cavalry unit (which is really what most cavalry did) caught up to them, the guys in the rear got killed, and everyone else generally headed for the hills. Do you know why, back in the 17/1800's, officers carried pistols? It was to shoot anyone who tried to run. The message was: stand your ground and possibly die, or run and definitely die.

- EXPENSIVE!!!!: Jesus christ that stuff cost. A lot. I have to spent like 120 euros just to make a decent army, color excluded. I know that games cost, but this is a bit too much.

Welcome to Warhammer. That's all I can say on that subject. If the cost is really that much of a problem for you, all I can say is find another game (Sounds like you might like Warmachine/Hordes, or maybe LotR). Really. Even the fans complain about that.

Caracol

2008-03-19, 09:58 AM

(An apparent lack of knowledge of ancient military tactics isn't helping, either).

I really doubt that you or all the people that play Warhammer happen to be all hystorical military experts. However, you don't have to be an expert to enjoy a game or to undestand the flaws of a rule.

Because back in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, loose formations died fast under a press of bodies. Being lose is good when people are packing rifles and grenades, but you look back to spears and swords, and the Phalanx was king. It allows the guys next to you to protect you, and for you to do the same.

Again, that's how warfare was back then. Individual soldiers don't mean much. It's when they banded together that their efforts made things happen (by which, I mean: "lots of the other guy dying"). You don't counterattack with six guys out of a formation of twenty, you do it with the Cavalry you kept reserved for just such an occasion.

Not again. Seriously, go read the previous comments.

Any... no, every tabletop strategy game uses a little luck with dice rolls. It symbolizes the fact that a commander doesn't have total control over the battlefield or even his own men. Even in real life, you positioned your men, timed your maneuvers, made your advance, and hoped the training and equipment you supplied them was enough to get the job done.

"A little luck" is when you roll to hit and then to kill units only by dices. "Only luck" is when you're FORCED to attack and try to kill 5 soldiers at the time against 5 soldiers at the time, because you can't change your formation, or trying to flee to avoid being killed just rolling a dice without even considering base unit movement and other factors like total losses, psicological state, way you flee (which you can't even choose).

Simple reason: The game's designers want you to charge into combat. Players would be less inclined to charge if there was always the risk of not being able to do any damage because your front rank got spitted before they could attack. They would sit back and shoot at each other half the time. So to give the player an incentive to attack, they let the charger strike first.

Besides, not every unit in the game uses polearms.

That could happen, but encourage to attack to quicken the game it's not a good reason to mess up with the realism.

Because, as you said, everyone would kill the champion and musician first. If that always happened, what would be the point of taking them?

If you could position them in particular places of your unit, that wouldn't happen. Also, aiming (and protecting) this special unit to achieve an advantage in a unit-unit fight would add a LOOOOOOOT more of dept, realism and strategy.

The positioning of troops is an abstraction.
Hell no. If it was it would be a total lack of realism. Oh wait, it is!!
I don't see the point of playing an "abstractive" wargame. The exact position of every unit is fundamental for the sake of fun, realism and balance.

For one, Dwarfs are fairly tough in Warhammer. Depending on the monster attacking them, many can survive to strike back.
They were killed once by once. They were 20 and they died, managing to deliver 2 single shots to the monster. And that happened, of course, because they were in a STUPID CLOSE-QUARTER UNIT. And the point value of this unit was the same of the giant that attacked me, so the situation was "balanced". I had bad luck? Of course, since luck is the only thing involved here.

Fourthly, the strategy is in, well, strategy, which begins well before the swords start swinging. That's stuff like, placing a hard or expendable unit in front of that monster when the battle started to bog it down in combat and keep it the hell away from your war machine crews (Even if they can't win, it'll take a good three or four turns at best to chew though that unit, which means three or four more turns of your big guns blowing the crap outta the enemy), positioning the closest unit at an angle, then setting a hard-hitting unit at a complementary angle so that when he does take the bait(and in most cases, he won't have a choice in the matter) you charge that sucker in the side on your turn and take it out.

That's strategy.

I agree with the strategy of positioning your unit at the beginning, but that's about it. It's not so funny to be strategic in the first five minutes and then pass the rest of the game rolling.

Actually, that's just what happened in real life. If a unit turned and ran from combat, they ran the risk of getting run down by the victor. If the unit they were fighting, or a cavalry unit (which is really what most cavalry did) caught up to them, the guys in the rear got killed, and everyone else generally headed for the hills. Do you know why, back in the 17/1800's, officers carried pistols? It was to shoot anyone who tried to run. The message was: stand your ground and possibly die, or run and definitely die.

And the fact that I can only choose this strategy and nothing else when I have a unit is what should encourage me to play this game again. Seriously, why are you keeping making me historical examples? I know warfare more of less like everyone else. The fact that I'm forced to fight like historical warfare says is what I'm questioning (and I can make you a lot of examples of battles fought and won with the use of loose units, but this is not the "let's cite the historical example thread", but "let's discuss about a flawed rule thread"). Why this is so hard to understand?

To the others: I found the Mordheim rules on the web (even translated in italian by the GW Italy), so I will take a look at them later.

SAMAS

2008-03-19, 03:36 PM

I really doubt that you or all the people that play Warhammer happen to be all hystorical military experts.

Of course not, but look at all the points you've claimed were "not realistic" only to have someone say: "actually, that's how war was done way back then"

However, you don't have to be an expert to enjoy a game or to undestand the flaws of a rule.

Certainly. But if you want to claim something is realistic or not, some knowledge helps.

"A little luck" is when you roll to hit and then to kill units only by dices.

Given the nature of massed close-quarters combat, how should it be done, then?

"Only luck" is when you're FORCED to attack and try to kill 5 soldiers at the time against 5 soldiers at the time, because you can't change your formation,

Except for the fact that you can, of course. Hell, you don't even have to put them in 5-man ranks if you really don't want to.

or trying to flee to avoid being killed just rolling a dice without even considering base unit movement and other factors like total losses, psicological state, way you flee (which you can't even choose).

Actually, Psychology and Morale is a big part of the game. You'd know that if you, ya know, read the rules before playing.

And exactly how (or why) would you choose the way you flee? "We're doomed if we stay here, men! Let's Cha-cha back to base!"

You don't choose the way to flee because nobody does. They do it the fastest way possible, and the quickest way away from the enemy. You don't control it because they're fleeing. If you had control, they wouldn't be fleeing in the first place. This isn't a staged withdrawl, this is "Run Away! Run Away!" Monty Python style. 'Cept it ain't supposed to be nothin' funny about it.

That could happen, but encourage to attack to quicken the game it's not a good reason to mess up with the realism.

Not to quicken the game, to make it playable. To discourage the player from hiding behind their archers and cannon.

If you could position them in particular places of your unit, that wouldn't happen. Also, aiming (and protecting) this special unit to achieve an advantage in a unit-unit fight would add a LOOOOOOOT more of dept, realism and strategy.

No, it wouldn't. It would just mean everybody puts them in the back. Maybe in the middle, but really, if you're getting hit in the rear, you have problems a musician is not gonna solve. Again, it is also, contrary to your belief, unrealistic. Leaders, especially at the unit level, are supposed to lead. Again, check your history, Those guys were at the front when the unit was on the move. The standard bearer, in particular, is just a regular soldier. If he fell, someone else would take up the flag.

Hell no. If it was it would be a total lack of realism. Oh wait, it is!!
I don't see the point of playing an "abstractive" wargame. The exact position of every unit is fundamental for the sake of fun, realism and balance.

To you, maybe. There are thousands of Warhammer players who feel otherwise.

They were killed once by once. They were 20 and they died, managing to deliver 2 single shots to the monster. And that happened, of course, because they were in a STUPID CLOSE-QUARTER UNIT. And the point value of this unit was the same of the giant that attacked me, so the situation was "balanced". I had bad luck? Of course, since luck is the only thing involved here.

No, trust me. As a one-time 40K player, a loose formation wouldn't have saved them at all. I've seen Obliterators and Champions of Khorne and Wraithlords munch right through guys in loose formation, because the guys not in fighting range still don't help. At most, you would've had two more guys, no ranking bonus, and just as many dead Dwarfs, probably sooner.

I agree with the strategy of positioning your unit at the beginning, but that's about it. It's not so funny to be strategic in the first five minutes and then pass the rest of the game rolling.

Well, if your only strategy after the battle starts is "move forward", no wonder you're getting your ass kicked. The movement phase is one of the most important parts in the game.

And the fact that I can only choose this strategy and nothing else when I have a unit is what should encourage me to play this game again. Seriously, why are you keeping making me historical examples? I know warfare more of less like everyone else. The fact that I'm forced to fight like historical warfare says is what I'm questioning (and I can make you a lot of examples of battles fought and won with the use of loose units, but this is not the "let's cite the historical example thread", but "let's discuss about a flawed rule thread"). Why this is so hard to understand?

Because half your problem with the game is you're expecting it be one type of game, when it's another.

Okay, so I picked up a White Dwarf issue at random. let's look at a Lizardman army used by a Warhammer player:

4th-generation Slann

Scar-Veteran

Scar-Veteran

Priest

14 Temple Guard

3 Kroxigors

3 Kroxigors

10 Skinks (Skirmishers)

11 Skinks (Skirmishers)

10 Skink Scouts (Skirmishers)

19 Saurus Warriors

This is a basic 2000-point army. with about seventy models, not counting characters. Half of which are skirmishers.

For something more conventional, here's a Dogs of War (Mercenary) army of the same size:

Captain

Paymaster

Hireling Wizard

20 Pikemen (Special Unit)

20 Pikemen

20 Pikemen (Special Unit)

10 Duellists (Skirmishers)

10 Duellists (Skirmishers)

10 Crossbowmen

10 Crossbowmen

14 Crossbowmen (Special Unit)

4 Ogres

4 Ogres with Guns

This is closer to 122 models, again, not counting characters.

Now do you really think you would like to move and fight with all this individually?

Warhammer is not a Skirmish game. It's combat on the Regiment, if not Battalion level. In other words, too many guys for most players to move around individually, and still have time to do anything else that day.

You seem to be wanting something more of a skirmish-level game. While Warhammer does in fact have skirmish rules, it doesn't seem to be the game for you. Hence, my earlier suggestion of LotR and Warmachine/Hordes (But can you even get Privateer games?).

LordVader

2008-03-19, 09:21 PM

Yes; LOTR is a skirmish game, not WHFB. The whole attraction of WHFB is large blocks of troops tearing into eachother in displays of mass carnage. Puny 5-man skirmish groups attacking each other isn't nearly as cool as 20 or 30-man blocks going head-to-head, IMO. It's apparent that LOTR is the game for you, my friend. :smallsmile:

Another important thing to note is that even in LOTR, the skirmish game, troops will inevitably form some kind of shieldwall formation. The reason for this is, simply, troops operating in loose formation without support WILL be defeated by a shieldwall of disciplined soldiers in a stand-up fight.
And honestly, if I had to move 200+ models seperately in Fantasy, I'd probably kill myself. Goblin and Skaven players....wouldn't be happy, let's put it at that.

Finally, one more thing; If you mention "WHFB" and "Realism" again, I direct you to this (http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=305834&orignav=300943&ParentID=258892&GameNav=13). WHFB is about high-fantasy armies fighting each other, not about accurately replicating historical fighting. If you want that, try Warhammer Historicals or something like that. Or even LOTR, as noted, it's probably a bit closer to historical skirmishes than Fantasy.

Were-Sandwich

2008-03-20, 07:11 AM

Given the nature of massed close-quarters combat, how should it be done, then?

I'll field that one: Condense the whole bucket of dice down in to one or two rolls for the ENTIRE UNIT. To illustrate, I'll use my favourite sci-fi game, Stargrunt, as I don't play any fantasy games:

In 40K/Warhammer: total up how many shots you get from each guy, roll that many dice, and compare each dice to BS. For each hit, cross-reference strength with toughness and roll to wound, then for each one that wounds, roll a save. Thats three buckets of dice

In Stargrunt: Add firepower of all rifles in unit, roll the nearest dice and the appropriate dice for the unit, while your opponent rolls the appropriate dice for armour. One dice beaten is a supression, two dice beaten is casualties. Do some infant school maths, assess casualties. One opposed roll, two in the advanced rules. Support weapons let you roll an extra dice

You could have a basic CC Factor for each model. Total all CC Factors of fighting combatants, find the nearest dice, roll that and their quality dice, opponent rolls armour dice. One dice beaten is 'beaten back' two is casualties. Admittedly, this method could use some improvement, as it doesn't account for defending skill or allow for individual characters, but its a start.

Fitz

2008-03-20, 08:28 AM

ok lets see: reason for lots of dice: it evens out the luck, once lucky dice roll is critical if you only roll one dice, if you roll 20 one lucky dice roll isn't as high an impact.
ok Realism: lots of the rules in Warhammer fantasy (though i havn't played the latest version i play warhammer ancients) are actually quite well representative of pre -renaissance warfare, especially dark ages.
Skirmishers: only specialists would operate effectively in this style in the "era" being modeled, and usually they were missile specialists, anyone else facing a Phalanx/Shieldwall/Knights charge was asking for a lot of pain.
DBM/A : if you don't like the abstraction of Warhammer don't try these as they are more abstract.

finally possibly try Warhammer ancients, based on an older version of WFB it still has rules for things like lapping round, has a rule that prevents auto-wipe out of the unit if you outnumber the enemy by enough, and most of the supplements are written with historical reference in mind, (ok i'm biased i know several of the supplement authors) but as a re-enacter and historical buff, it certainly seems very good for especially Dark Ages. that said no elves or orcs.

Fitz

LordVader

2008-03-20, 02:03 PM

If you want one or two dice-rolls for entire units, Warmaster may be the game for you. This creates even less emphasis on individual models than Fantasy does, but it replicates large-scale army clashes and should be good fun to play. I, in fact, want to start it because it has Araby as an army, one that is not available in WHFB.

Theork

2008-03-20, 02:16 PM

You want a funny army? Get goblins, not wood elves or (Shudder) Dwarfs.

They never pass their psycology checks, tend to kill themselves, move irrationally and only occasionally their heads blow up.
They are dirt cheep, run away and never win the fights they're in unless they heavilly outnumber.
But that's why I love them. :smalltongue:

Odin the Ignoble

2008-03-20, 06:53 PM

I think it's funny that people are arguing about what is and isn't realistic. Has anyone ever actually seen two armies fight using medieval weapons? I'm not talking about reenactments or movie scenes, I mean two groups of people actually hacking each other to death. I haven't. The best we have to go on is simulations and playacting. Claiming something is "unrealistic" is simply conjecture. Who knows maybe elves and really do fight that way. The real value of the game is the enjoyment level not the realism.

Terraoblivion

2008-03-20, 07:08 PM

We also have ancient accounts of battles, those ought to do for something. After all actual historians and archaeologists spend their entire adult lives studying ancient battles, so there is significantly more than just going with what we think about it to do. Both Herodotus and Thucydides, for all their inaccuracies, are generally believed to know something about how battles were actually fought even as they inflated the numbers.

For that matter using the argument that we have never seen it done fits just as well with sub-atomar particles or the battle of Stalingrad. Unless you hold a fairly radical solipsist view or honestly believe that medieval and ancient writers are so untrustworthy that we can learn nothing from them accounts of ancient battles is entirely useful to base a sense of realism on.

Were-Sandwich

2008-03-21, 02:14 PM

The real value of the game is the enjoyment level not the realism.

QFT.

If he doesn't like the rules to the extent that it ruins his enjoyment of the game, he plays a different game, or writes his own.

Pilum

2008-03-23, 11:36 AM

I don't see the point of playing an "abstractive" wargame. The exact position of every unit is fundamental for the sake of fun, realism and balance.

Then it's clear that you're playing at the wrong scale. You prefer skirmish gaming, presumably with as much detail as possible. You'll also be rather hard pressed to find such a game outside of the 20th century era onwards short of extreme adaptation of existing rulesets. You see, when we get to the level of war that Warhammer aims at - massed combat - a degree of abstraction becomes essential. Thus, as stated, that 20 figure unit of dwarfs could well be a simple warband of 20, but can equally be viewed as a doughty shieldwall of 200 or more.

Why don't they spread out? Well, they probably are, it's just not apparent on the groundscale and can be subsumed into the shooting rules as we assume (again) that the Captain of the Regiment is giving appropriate orders at the time. Anecdote - I re-enact the English Civil War as a musketeer (actually a dragoon, but we invariably get 'swallowed' by a musket block that needs extra bodies that day!). Our 'open order' when coming under heavy fire equates to spreading out at twice arms length to the next file - about 6 feet. The Warhammer ground scale is ~ 1" = 10 yards. So jiggling the models apart a little wouldnt be worth it, at that scale it would not be visible. A *dedicated* unit of light troops, however, WILL operate at such separations.

Ultimately, Warhammer is derived from the rulesets the authors played in the 70's at the renaissance of wargaming. To decry them as primitive compared to more modern sets is to forget or be unaware of this.

Were-Sandwich

2008-03-23, 02:51 PM

If each figure represents multiple men,, why not mount 5-10 6mm figures on a 25mm base and play the game otherwise normally? It would look better aesthetically, I think.

Pilum

2008-03-23, 03:39 PM

Oh that's been thought of, Were :smallbiggrin: Just comes down to time, space and money really. I've got far too many projects on the go as it is to simply indulge my megalomania! Pity really, as I would dearly love to do a 'real-looking' imperial Roman army that way using Baccus' minis.

But less personally, it's a historical holdover - 6mm figures are comparatively 'new' as compared to ye olde Airfix 1/72 plastics which is where most of that generation started. And as it simply wasn't (isn't?) practical to have 480 plastic miniatures, it was just easier to put down 16 figures, call it a battalion and assume that any scale issues would resolve themselves on the grounds that if a rule says that 20 men shooting cause 2 casualties* at 200 yds, just downgrade by a factor of 10 and you save on minis, dont need the back garden to play in and get the same result anyway.

*casualties - an important word that. A further point is that not all the 'dead' are dead - it can represent injuries, desertion, helping wounded back to camp... Otherwise you end up with a small border squabble being bloodier than the Somme...

TheThan

2008-03-23, 05:15 PM

Maybe the OP should try the warband rules for warhammer. It’s smaller warhammer on a smaller scale. Basically you use a force of 500 points instead of 2000, and there are some other rules concerning unit composition. But other than that, it’s basically just like regular warhammer.

I tried it out for the first time yesterday, and I liked it. Magic is a little scarce, unless you’re running something like scaven which are pretty awesome at offensive magic. The problems the OP talked about are still there, but since there significantly less units (and models) on the table, they are going to be reduced. I suggest giving it a try.

Oh and another thing the OP hasen’t thought of (at least not that have noticed), is that unit quality makes a huge difference.

If for example a unit of my ogre kingdoms bulls charges into a unit of bretonian peasant infantry. The ogres are going to slaughter them. Why? Because the ogres are simply put, a better unit. However if my gnoblar fighters charge into the same unit of peasants, the two units are going to slug it out for several rounds because they are about equal in overall power (so neither unit is better than the other is), until one unit achieves victory. It’s all done with dice, and there’s always a little bit of luck involved in rolling dice.

But then again that’s also where strategy comes into play.
Example 1
If I see a unit of bretonian cavalry sitting there, I know that he’s going to charge into something. Probably something tough since he’s not going to waste his extremely powerful charge attacks on something weak. So I may try to bate him into attacking something strong, but not the strongest thing I have, then outflank him with another (more powerful) unit and smash his cav to pieces. That’s strategy for you, I figured out what he had planned and out played him.

Example 2

My enemy has a lot of long range attacks, be it archers, cannons, warp lightening throwers or whatever. Now I have the problem of surviving until I get close enough to initiate a charge. Since ogres are big and tough, I can create a big meaty damage sponge to soak up all that damage until I get close enough to charge, once that happens I (hopefully) slaughter his archers or whatever and that threat is gone. Or I could field my scout unit and place them BEHIND his ranged units and attack them before they get a chance to fire at my ogres.

Granted, no strategy or tactic is perfect, but these are examples of how I’ve dealt with problems in real games (to varying degrees of success).

I think the you (the op) is too focused on small-scale squad based tactics and aren’t seeing the whole picture of what warhammer is about.

Were-Sandwich

2008-03-24, 06:09 AM

Pilum

2008-03-24, 07:38 AM

True, true. 6mm gives a much better feel of an army, though. Baccus's proprieter makes a good case for the aesthetic advantages, using the example of a Greek phalanx.

It was seeing a Napoleonic French unit (not sure exactly how big, but couldn't have been far off 500 'figures') on his stall at a show that really set the fireworks off in my head, but the principle's the same :smallwink:

Criti

2008-03-24, 10:18 AM

I think part of the problem may have been that you got a demo game from a staff member at the shop. Staff members are NOTORIOUSLY bad at running demo games.

And while I can appreciate frustration - I would thank you not to use the term "unbalanced" so freely. The rules you claim to be unbalanced due to your demo experiences are rules I've seen for the last 8 years - and I've never found them to disrupt gameplay balance.

A note:

- the lamest rule on earth: The one that makes you lose or win a unit-unit fight after a turn. The one that says that if you lose the count of hits made, you have to flee. And if you are followed and reached by the winner unit, you lose the WHOLE unit. This is so illogic, so unrealistic, so unbalancing that I can't ever convince myself that is for fun's sake. Makes you wonder why the hell you would even try to play something that is not dwarves, since if you're unlucky on a single discipline roll, you are likely to lose the entire battle. I still can't be able to found what's the role of STRATEGY in a game like this.

I'm not sure this was presented to you correctly by the staffer (or something is being lost in translation on this thread).

Monsters ARE good at killing, yes - but regiments are good at holding. In fact - more often than not, I find my regiments actually really on ZERO luck - using instead, the "unchangables" to win combats.

At the end of a fight, you should add everything up. For every rank behind the first, you should have gotten a point (up to 3). Since you outnumbered the Monster, you should have gotten a point. Since (I assume) you had a Standard Bearer, you should have gotten a point. You have a score of 5 BEFORE any dice are rolled. Meaning the Monster needs 6 wounds to win the fight... a tough prospect for any Monster, especially against Dwarfs. THEN - when you determine the winner, you determine how badly the loser lost. Say the Monster did 2 wounds, and you did 0. Well, you had that standing score of 5 from the ranks, banner, and outnumber versus the Monster's 2. You win by 3 points, so now the Monster takes a Leadership test at a -3 modifier. If he fails, you get the chance to wipe him out. If he passes, you fight again next turn.

Units being destroyed by a pursuing enemy? Seems realistic enough to me. It doesn't just represent the unit being killed - it represents a number of things... members of the units being cut down... members hiding in bushes/wherever to keep out of the raging battle and enjoy their newly browned pants... members being so demoralized that they're running away and no one can convince them to come back... etc. Is it frustrating when it happens? Of course. Unbalanced? Well - if it were a pure kills game, then I'd say maybe. But combat is about MUCH more than who does more kills.

"A little luck" is when you roll to hit and then to kill units only by dices. "Only luck" is when you're FORCED to attack and try to kill 5 soldiers at the time against 5 soldiers at the time, because you can't change your formation, or trying to flee to avoid being killed just rolling a dice without even considering base unit movement and other factors like total losses, psicological state, way you flee (which you can't even choose).

As said, I think whoever ran this demo game removed a VITAL part of the combat system - unit composition and formation. In 4 of 5 Warhammer games I play, I find that kills make very little difference in close combat... it's all about ranks, standards, outnumbering, flank charges, and rear charges. And NONE of those are base on dice rolls.

Killing Champions/Musicians/Standard Bearers: you CAN kill the Champion separately. Simple enough - just say "I'm directing XXX attacks at the Champion" before you roll the dice. Flags and instruments are assumed to be picked up by the next guy in line - but if you break a unit in close combat and chase them, you actually steal their banner and get 100 extra Victory Points for it when the battle ends.

SmartAlec

2008-03-29, 06:16 AM

I was a staff member.

As a rule, we don't keep to the rules in introductory games. The intro-games are there to be as cinematic and fast-paced as possible. We'll ignore a lot of the mechanics and the complexity, set the armies up close so there's no time wasted on dull ol' manouvering, we'll make stuff up on the fly. The 'you automatically run if you lose track of the hits' rule? Doesn't exist. You CAN kill champions.

The intro-game is there to intrigue and excite. Clearly, in your case it's failed, possibly because you're determined to analyse the whole system from an armchair. You want to see tactics and strategy? Go down as a spectator to one of the Grand Tournaments, see how it really works. Christ, those guys are good. You might think the game doesn't allow for much manouvering, flexibility or taking advantage of situations, but in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing, it does.

Or, better idea; one thing we started doing at the store I worked in was giving interested folks a chance to come back and use one of the store armies in a small, 'proper' game. You need to see the system at work.

On the other hand, maybe not. Lord of the Rings has been mentioned here; if you want to see a mass combat game that is awesome and elegant but takes a whole day to play, try a 3,000 point game of Lord of the Rings.

Erloas

2008-03-29, 12:35 PM

The issue with how the demo games were ran, and how someone was treated in a particular store should have no impact on a debate about how good a system is.
Trying to say there is something wrong with warhammer because some random high school student making minimum wage in a store in a mall is sexiest doesn't work. I know in the local GW store (and other gaming stores) there were some very good employees and some not very good ones. It might make a difference if you where forced to always interact with that person but that isn't really the case. It would be like trying to say Toyota's suck as a car because you ran into one bad sales person in one of their dealerships.

One thing about the demos is that they are only designed to give a basic overview of the game and not show every aspect of the game. A demo simply wouldn't work if they started by giving someone a 100pg rulebook and told them to read it before they tried a simple demo game. They oversimplify the rules and leave some out so they can show someone the basic ideas of the game without making it too complicated.

As for the game itself it does have some problems, as all games do, but overall it is a good game. Not saying it is the best and there aren't other decent games out there, but overall Warhammer is a good game.

In terms of "dice luck" that is going to happen with any system that uses dice, but rather then taking strategy out of the game it actually introduces a whole new aspect of strategy. A good player is one that can work around possible dice luck and still win. A good strategy is going to be done a lot in the building of the army list before the game starts and how the units are deployed to start out with. A good strategy is going to take into account possible leadership tests and taking the required planning to minimize the chance of a failure and its impact. If you think strategy only starts once movement has begun then you are missing an important part of the game.

A very common occurance for new players is to expect too much out of their units. An experienced player knows before a fight even starts if they have a reasonable chance of winning, and if the chance is likely to come down to 1-2 lucky dice rolls then they don't make that charge or decide to flee, or make sure in a turn or two that they have 2 units available to charge a specific enemy rather then just one. You have to know when you will have to sacrifice a unit, which unit to sacrifice and how you need to do it to give you the biggest advantage. If there is something important that needs to be done and there is a chance of failure then redundancy comes into play, you have to plan that something bad might happen and have a backup plan ready even before the first one fails.

You can attack and kill champions in a unit (unless they've erratated this recently but I doubt it) by directing attacks at them. The difference between a unit champion and the rest of the unit is that only adjacent models can attack a champion and the attacks have to be declared at the champion before any rolls are made. Extra wounds on a champion are also not carried over to the rest of the unit. Musicians and banners can't be killed because, as mentioned earlier, when they are killed another model in the unit steps up and takes their place and the banner/instruement.

In terms of striking first, there are a few units that can strike first even when being charged but it is the exception. There are also some weapons that do the same thing, but they aren't commonly used weapons. They are also weapons that can only logically be used by units in formation, which is somewhat ironic given the complaint of not striking first and fighting in formations. Pikes and spears simply don't work on your own. Charging even in real life gives the charging unit an advantage over the defending one, it is how battles are controlled. It is very hard to recieve a charge and attack at the same time, if you aren't braced against a charge then you will likely simply be ran over, and you can't brace for a charge and attack with weapons like swords or clubs at the same time. You really just can't get much strength behind an attack without stepping into it, and if you step into it then you are going to be ran over.
The way casualties are handled is somewhat abstract, but it does work well in terms of game balance, if you think it makes the game unbalanced then trying playing with everyone attacking at the same time all the time and you will see that it completely destroyes how most armies are balanced. It also works to some extent with reality too, an in-game round is actually a very short period of time in the equivelent real life time, its a matter of seconds really, not minutes. When someone in the front is cut down it takes a little bit of time before the people behind them can work their way up to the active combat. Considering that it takes a little bit of time for the fight to happen and for the people to die and fall to the ground out of the way the time that a round represents is mostly gone before the person in the back even has a chance to start reacting.

Yes, that means the battles are really a fairily short period of time. A real life equivelent battle would take less time then the game usually takes. That is of course considering the time once the armies get onto the field of battle and not long marching times. A real battle doesn't really start until both sides get at about long range weapons range of eachother, what happens before that is estimated in the construction of the game army and the deployment phase. When you look at the range of these types of weapons it usually isn't more then a few hundred yards.