PDA

View Full Version : What exactly do people not like about this game?



Foxhound_808
20-01-2010, 09:50
Hello all,

GW systems seem to get a lot of flak for some reason. A lot of people boast about how much more intuitive and streamlined warmachine/hordes is, for example, but I happen to find the 40k and fantasy to have great rulesets. LOTR was also a really well designed game.
I notice a lot of complaining around the boards...people seem to think a complete overhaul of the fantasy rules is necessary. Aside from some of the unbalanced army books perhaps, what do people find so bad about the rules? What do they feel are the glaring mistakes that need to be rectified with fantasy? I just got into the game after many years of 40k and I am having a blast.
your thoughts? please be nice.

Kuroi
20-01-2010, 10:20
Basicly, don't listen to anyone who claims that GW games are flawed....Especially the people who whine about how unbalanced the new army books are supposed to be. THey just to drink a big hot cup of L2P.

Actually, in my gaming group, the people who whiines the most are those who have the least experience. I have one friend who has been playing for less than a year, and he's already saying that he's tired of playing and how everything is unbalanced and blahblahblah.

warlord hack'a
20-01-2010, 10:22
well, the armybooks are the rules for the most part. Every armybook has their own special rules, special characters with more special rules and magic items with, yes again, special rules. All these special rules often conflict with other armies special rules, or the special rules in the BRB. So this creates confusion. And then the power levels of books vary a lot and since you play an army as well as the rules this definitely influences the game as a whole. So put otherwise: the BRB is not warhammer, warhammer is the BRB plus the armybooks and especially the last ones can be a whole lot more balanced and playtested.

Then on to the basic rules, I think they can improve a number of things:
1) terrain rules. A normal unit will avoid terrain at all cost as they cannot march AND move at half speed even in simple difficult terrain. So from 8 inch movement you are stuck with 2 inch movement. In a 6 turn game this means game over, you will never reach the other end of the 6 inch forest.. So just disallow marching in difficult terrain and give half move in very difficult terrain, for example
2) make ONE clear overview of the sequence of events, we now have a few phases but they should just write down each individual substep so that it is clear to everyone what is happening when.
3) make the movement rules for wheeling, turning and reforming more realistic. I prefer that any unit, especially fast cav, measures their movement during all parts of a reform, instead of saying "the reform for fast cav is free, so I can reform my 20" long line of conga-lined fast cav into a unit of 5 by 2, then move 18" forward and then reform again into a 20" conga line." Or "this conga line wheels and since you measure wheel from the front model only I can wheel all over the place" (this has been FAQ-ed I believe).
4) just in general give a little bit more thought on something when they write it down.

Idle Scholar
20-01-2010, 10:26
The profusion of special rules. And the magic phase. Apart from that I think the rules do a fine job.

Condottiere
20-01-2010, 10:26
You can't please all the people, all the time.

However, most people do become resentful when they realize that the rules were written or vetted by the Marketing Department.

Lord Khabal
20-01-2010, 10:39
I love this game. The problem with it is that its not designed to be a competitive game like say magic the gathering, so games can be "less" fun when winning really matters. Maybe this will change in 8th and the rules are clearer.

Tyranno1
20-01-2010, 10:40
Main rules wise I actually like it. Alot more cleaned up then 6th, and doesnt have the odd rules (lap around).

It couldnt hurt to make a few things clearer though.

Logan_uc
20-01-2010, 10:45
The real thing is that a lot of things are losing there flavor, the fluff dosent really get to the board.
And the new rules make good armys just a question of spaming the fast hard hitting stuff, or the things that dont run and hit hard and a lot of magic.
Now days you need more luck than tactical skill to win games.
The game is good just that the army books and the rule book dont work that smoothly together, and you see some large gaps in power between army books, a good core rule book would mostly correct this.
Then comes a really big problem. GW overcosts every thing, more then ever, and you are getting sub par products (model and game wise) for your money, i think this is what pisses people more compared to other games the quality/price ratio is going down.

vampires are cool!
20-01-2010, 10:57
RE gw prices;

They have to pay for all their expences. Staff, travel, import, export, maintainence, store rent, insurance, all before stuff like modeling and manufacturing comes into it.

Plus, the clue is in the name; games workshop

EndlessBug
20-01-2010, 11:04
3) make the movement rules for wheeling, turning and reforming more realistic. I prefer that any unit, especially fast cav, measures their movement during all parts of a reform, instead of saying "the reform for fast cav is free, so I can reform my 20" long line of conga-lined fast cav into a unit of 5 by 2, then move 18" forward and then reform again into a 20" conga line." Or "this conga line wheels and since you measure wheel from the front model only I can wheel all over the place" (this has been FAQ-ed I believe).


yea, I'm pretty sure a model isn't allowed to move more than it's movement value (or double for march) permits.This means no it cannot go 18" towards the main body of a unit and then 18" forward as this would mean it's moved 25.45" in total (the hypotenuse of the triangle). Obviously this kind of maths is a bit time consuming for each model.

I think the rules in general are fine. Tweak the magic phase a little or power down mages in each book. The base rules are fine, as has been said it's maintaining a constant balance throughout the armies that's the issue. But GW don't seem overly bothered with this, and to be fair due to the amount of armies out there it is a very tricky thing to do. all they need to do is fiddle the points/rules of certain armies a little and all will be great. Perhaps they should adopt the living ruleset that hordes and warmachine has (at least for the first 6 months of a books rules).

Perhaps release the rules as a free pdf for 6 months and then construct a rigid rules set in a book which you have to pay for?

Gromdal
20-01-2010, 11:44
GW should make the system alittle more simple (easier formation rules), easier more balanced magic phase. Faster and bloodier game (and thus changes to breaktests).

If they did (they seem to be doing some of these in 8th edition) it would make them more money.

Problem is, they dont really get it, they should have done this years ago.

Its about getting gamers to the hobby: Easy to use rules, balance, faster games would net GW a great increase in gamers.

Commodus Leitdorf
20-01-2010, 12:28
As far as I'm aware people don't have a problem with the rules for this edition, it's more an issue with the Army books and how none of the book writer seem to be on the same page as to what the power level for this edition should be.

They stopped pulling their punches this edition, which I have no problem with (lets face it, Elite troops in 6th sucked...too many points and not enough killyness. I would be able to march my cheap state troops forward and grind them away in a war of attrition without much worry.)

The problem is that, though they stopped pulling punches...they kind went overboard with a few things and now everything needs to be brought back to heel so to speak.

Logan_uc
20-01-2010, 12:29
RE gw prices;

They have to pay for all their expences. Staff, travel, import, export, maintainence, store rent, insurance, all before stuff like modeling and manufacturing comes into it.

Plus, the clue is in the name; games workshop

the other companies have the same expenses, and are smaller so there production cost arent as eficient as GW.
GW overprices things thats it, you cant say they dont.
A good exemple is the new fell beast, its cheaper to make, but the price is the same as the old one.

kraken
20-01-2010, 13:44
I tend to agree with the consensus that the actual core rules for this ed are in fact very good, power creep is a big problem tho.....

The magic phase is far too all or nothing aswell turns into a bit of a cold war arms race with power and dispell dice ......

Urgat
20-01-2010, 13:54
I don't like the countless occasions it offers to start arguments. There's always going to be someone who wants to argue about a 10th of inch or degree or a badly written rule, and that can make me want to pack up pretty fast.
Not much you can do about it though, apart from switching to hexagons I suppose :p

Avian
20-01-2010, 14:23
Stuff I'd like to see altered:

- limited version of a scenario generator instead of just Pitched Battle all the time
- better rules for terrain (dropping the no-march rule would by itself help a lot)
- some other minor stuff

ashc
20-01-2010, 14:30
Hmm, this may seem an odd thing to pick up on, but I actually really don't like how rank and file infantry pretty much does naff all. The idea of buying and painting 25-30 models for a unit for then 5 of them to *do* something and the others to all die and clog up my miniature boxes kind of makes me feel sad and that its a waste of time me bothering with the models in the first place.

I love the lore and a lot of the armies, but because of this I lean towards more elite/fewer model count/less reliance on rank and file armies.

Archdaimon
20-01-2010, 14:56
Hey. I am one of those, who is not a veteran, who is trying to use alternate rules, because some things just seems wacky with the way warhammer works right now.

If you like the rules, GREAT, we all have different taste, and naught wrong with that.

My main gripes with whfb is,as it stands now: Spamming of special rules (most even have illogical names and could have common names etc. etc.).
The problem, that whomever strikes first, most often wins, compared to simultaneous combat known in many boardgames. And many many more.

Base is, I background for playing WH is that I like boardgames, and play a lot of those. These games have, for the past 5-10 years or so, had a great development how you improve rules, make interaction better, streamline etc. etc.

GW was made in the eighties and even with reforms, the ruleset is not up to par with modern rulestandards!

Well then, what am I doing here?
I still like the miniatures, I play WH occasionaly and the rules developed in this forum will be a great game ( I Hope).

Except for that, I hope you never see ME whine, just point out what I'd like changed.

I_ated_Warpstone
20-01-2010, 15:49
I must say that I honestly still enjoy a good game of WHFB. There are small things that aggravate me but as a whole I don't see any "ZOMGWTF" issues in the rule systems.

If I were to pick a few changes I'd like to see they'd be:

Make melee infantry a little better. I enjoy infantry models and armies but I feel like infantry is relegated to filling out core or just doesn't perform.

Make a moderate magic phase acceptable. I'd like to be able to bring 2 Level 2s and have a decent magic phase.

UberBeast
20-01-2010, 17:31
I have no problem with the current fantasy rules. I love them in fact and I pray to God that they don't dumb them down in the next version.

I don't have a problem with most of the army books, but I do think that some of them need updated to be both fun and competitive. (Orcs and Ogres in particular)

vampires are cool!
20-01-2010, 17:39
the other companies have the same expenses, and are smaller so there production cost arent as eficient as GW.
GW overprices things thats it, you cant say they dont.
A good exemple is the new fell beast, its cheaper to make, but the price is the same as the old one.

Cheaper to make? That mold will break even in about twenty years time. Smaller companies have much smaller expenses because they are smaller plus dont have the same high street presence that GW do. GW prices things so that they can make money, yes. They have high prices however to cover their costs on everything else. If you ever see the complex in Nottingham you'd see just how much money gets put into the making and marketing of these models.

loveless
20-01-2010, 17:58
1. Magic Phase. In order to compete, you have to put a ton of points into the most random portion of the game. If you don't take enough, you get blasted by Daemons, Vampires, Elves, pretty much anything outside of Dwarfs. If you take too much, you're labeled a power gamer. If you take a moderate amount, you've typically spent points on a hero or two that add little other than a chance of defense to your army.

Follow this up with grandiose high-level spells and suddenly a massive chunk of your army is gone based solely on dice rolls. It's handled poorly, in my opinion, and is the first thing that needs changing when it comes to list building. I don't like watching those points fall away just so that I don't get blasted to bits by an old man in a bathrobe yelling some funny words at my army.

2. Ranks. Most armies require you to take ranked infantry. This in and of itself is a fine concept. There are problems with this, however. You pay the same cost for an additional rank as you do for your first rank. Excepting spears and pikes, those additional ranks don't really do anything. Sure, they add to combat resolution...up until you get flanked or you run into something that can wreck swathes of your models.

Add into the rank issue the pricing structure of the actual models. Price out any 20-25 man unit in a horde-style army (perhaps ignoring Skaven and Goblins, which aren't horribly priced) and groan at how much it costs to get your unit across the field with a +2 or +3 to your SCR.

The other problem with this? You paint how many infantry models - let's say you think infantry looks cool, or your army just plain doesn't have cavalry - and then you get them all blasted to shreds by a fireball or impaled on the lances of a cavalry unit. I remember back when they said 7th Edition was going to make infantry better. Ha!

3. The shooting phase. It's obnoxious for most people that want to reliably make a ranged-focused army. I've seen players read the rules for the shooting phase and just decide that they're done considering the game. There are so many modifiers and funny little firing conditions that it makes it a hassle. It's a strange attempt at introducing realism into a fantasy game - one that is ultimately unnecessary from my point of view. It can take new players a dozen games to learn the shooting rules for WHFB. If I try to teach the shooting rules for a different game (40K, WM/H, etc.) it will take 3 games tops to get the idea across.

4. Formation and moving. This isn't a problem, really, just an observation. There's so much focus on formation and ranks and unit LOS and wheeling and pivoting and so on and so on. With all this, you'd expect there to be multiple options for formations - but there really aren't. You get Model Block - a bunch of models in a rectangular shape that get x SCR and get to make y attacks - and Skirmishers.

The whole thing feels unfinished. It works, definitely, but it's bland. How about we give shooting units the opportunity to split, or go into a flanking formation? What about a box formation to protect mages? Why not let a spear/shield unit face out to all directions at a penalty to movement speed or something? It's all so dull - I keep expecting a page after the formation rules to talk about different formations, but I know it's not there.

Nurgling Chieftain
20-01-2010, 18:03
The biggest problem with WFB right now is the glaring game balance discrepancies between some of the army books. They also seem to have made ranked infantry less important, which is a pity because it's ranked infantry that makes WFB interesting as a game system.

In the fundamentals, I don't like the fact that two units squaring off and marching straight at each other results in just one of them getting to charge, and frequently some very weird jockeying for the privilege. I don't like the fact that it's possible for a unit to be right next to enemy models already fighting and yet be incapable of joining the fray. I think marching should be less restricted - maybe a leadership check to ignore harassers and/or an initiative check (or failed armor save?) to march through terrain.

Llew
20-01-2010, 18:31
1) I go, U go is clunky in play. There are too many stretches of the game where one player is just standing around not really participating.

2) No penalty for taking ultra-high magic. Look...you want high-magic? Great. But there should be a price.

3) Magic is still a bit wonky. There are things I like about it, but the fact that magic is either overpowered or useless in most builds is just not good design.

4) Command is really wonky. They've shown hints of some good command systems in other games, they could do some here. It's primitive, and it loses out on a lot of possible areas for really interesting tactical choices. Plus, if command mattered, you'd have an incentive for people who wanted to rein in magic -- high magic would hurt you on the field.

5) Movement rules are just wierd. The game is all about maneuver, but all of the manuevers feel very forced and unnatural. Other GW games handle movement in a far more interesting and intuitive way. (And also, I've played a lot of people...almost every player I've ever played with handles at least 1 aspect of movement incorrectly. That indicates that maybe the rules aren't very slick.)

6) There really aren't formations. You have "block" and "loose block". This could be more developed and add benefits without being overly complex.

7) Over-reliance on special rules for "flavor". It's a ham-handed design that relies on so many special rules. They need solid core rules so that subtle changes can make armies feel different and then save special rules for REALLY special situations.

8) Range-guessing. I'm good at range-guessing. (I worked with wheelchairs for a long time, so I could tell a 14" vs. a 15" vs. a 16", etc., seat width from 10 feet away. I just picture those seats on the table top.) It's silly. I want my opponent to lose because of a bad tactic, or bad dice, but not because he never developed a skill at guessing that is otherwise relatvely useless in real life.

9) Lack of balance. Point systems imply balance. That's sort of the whole reason to have one. If the army comp rules don't give similar forces similar chances to win, it's a bad design.

10) Emphasis on characters. I think characters are neat, but I want them to rely on troops. (FWIW, I like the WotR system just fine. Characters are powerful, but you *have* to use them with troops.) Characters that can run off on their own and massacre units - I guess I probably would have thought it was cool when I was 12, but I just think it's silly now.

11) 4-year revisions. It's stupid to revamp a rule-system every 4 years when it doesn't really improve it significantly. Revamp when required, and then FIX THE PROBLEMS. Don't just shuffle problems around. Also, leaving armies out for a full edition of the game is just ridiculous.

There are aspects of the game -- I guess really just the background -- that I enjoy. But those are getting overwhelmed by the parts I don't. I keep hoping that the game will come back and make me say, "wow" again, but I'm not seeing any indication of that yet.

Skyros
20-01-2010, 18:44
I mostly enjoy it and relish the extra complexity (especially in the movement phase) over 40k. Terrain is pretty much a death sentence for anyone who enters it, and dwarfs just don't have the mobility they need.

In fact, ranked infantry in WFB overall is pretty terrible, unless you get insane killy units with a million special rules like blackguard. Your basic dwarf, orc, or human trooper block is just terrible though. They can't catch anything and can get absolutely murdered by far smaller, faster, and more maneuverable units. Especially flying units. Especially flying units that cause terror. I'm starting to think any ranked infantry unit should have leadership increased by the # of ranks, the way skaven get. You simply shouldn't have huge blocks of infantry fleeing off the field without doing anything because some monster that was hiding behind some trees flew over the length of the board and landed next to you.

I do feel that WFB is closer to herohammer than 40k is, and has far less balanced army books than the codexes in 40k are.

Demons and VC in WFB are absurdly strong, whereas Demons and Necrons in 40k are at the lower end of mid tier, if anything.

The fear autobreak is kind of silly, stacking regen on top of armor and ward saves is a problem when combined with very powerful/killy units/chars.

Magic is 'go big or go home'. I'm not entirely sure how to fix that. Every army gets 2 free dispell dice, which can do a decent job of countering a level 2 wizard. OTOH magic can be very devastating so stripping armies of all innate magic defence may not be a good idea either.

the magic system seems to work pretty well in 40k, though there is less of it. There's not really any free magic defence, but you can buy it and bring it. If your opponent hasn't brought any magic defence, even a single psyker can do neat stuff, and you're not automatically going to lose if you have decided to bring points on things other than magic defence.

Stronginthearm
20-01-2010, 19:13
I do feel that WFB is closer to herohammer than 40k is, and has far less balanced army books than the codexes in 40k are.

Demons and VC in WFB are absurdly strong, whereas Demons and Necrons in 40k are at the lower end of mid tier, if anything.

The fear autobreak is kind of silly, stacking regen on top of armor and ward saves is a problem when combined with very powerful/killy units/chars.


And Its good that Necrons and demons fail in 40K? Last time I looked on a 40k forum the Necrons players were all complaining that they cant play anymore because everybody else pwns(an internet term meaning to utterly destroy) them in the face and the demon players are down to the typical mass greater demons and demon princes

Ok the autodeath on the catching might need work but the fear is what lets vamps and tombkings win without bringing deathstars, the static res defeat is one of the cooler vamp things which encourages people not to just bring 3 10man ghouls and 2 10 man bloodknight units because you already know the ghouls will get pounded unless they get lucky

Skyros
20-01-2010, 19:21
Necrons just have a really old codex. Demons in 40k are less out of line than they are in fantasy. Therefore balance in 40k is better.

No one thinks tomb kings are overpowered and VC are quite capable of making deathstar units WITH fear.

I certainly feel that fantasy has more issues of one army just being unable to counter another army. Where do O&G get flaming attacks to combat regeneration? How are certain armies supposed to beat raise spamming VC in close combat? (Tomb kings and dwarves come to mind). What about the full nasty DE list with dual hydras? And so on.

Lijacote
20-01-2010, 19:22
I'm not a fan of the multitudes of unspecific, unexpanded-upon rules of ambiguous ambiguousness, with such openness to interpretation...

WarmbloodedLizard
20-01-2010, 19:46
the main problem are indeed the army books.

but aside from that, I think unit should either be able to march through difficult terrain, or be allowed to move as normal. It really doesn't make any sense, that non-skirmishing units are just out of the game when they move into difficult terrain.

and as a whole, rules should be much clearer. (NOT SIMPLER) Just look at magic the gathering (ignoring M10), and you know what I mean.

infantry should be better.

I also think, that WHFB need a complete overhaul/reset, and then a release of all armybooks simultaneously. but that's not economically viable(well, it probably is, but GW wouldn't make as much money that way.), so we can forget about that.

Maoriboy007
20-01-2010, 22:04
the main problem are indeed the army books...

Indeed, although its really just the few of the older ones that are really suffering (O&G Ogres EtC)
With Each new book the power weirdness gets weirder and weirder. I find it harder to stomach complaints about my VC when things like Hydras Stegadons and Abombinations are strating to appear on the scene.
It something of an escalation war, where they try and counter the power of the previous books and end up creating some new rediculous monstrosity(although they seem at something of a loss of how to deal with demons).


but aside from that, I think unit should either be able to march through difficult terrain, or be allowed to move as normal. It really doesn't make any sense, that non-skirmishing units are just out of the game when they move into difficult terrain.

Amen to that, simply half movement is more than a sufficient penalty, lets hope that they look at this in 8th.


and as a whole, rules should be much clearer. (NOT SIMPLER) Just look at magic the gathering (ignoring M10), and you know what I mean..

Indeed clearer is better than simpler, simple can leave too much room for interpretation.


infantry should be better..

Actually I think Core infantry need a boost. Elite Infantry is part of the (deathstar) powergame already anyway. Giving core infantry a higher rank and outnumber bonus (+5 max rank bonus +1 one for outnumber and +2 for double unit strength of opponants) would be a definite improvement to the game and encourage people to bring base core.

A change to fear would make a big difference too. If it just gave a mild bonus to outnumber (+1-2?) then Undead and Demons would be that much easier to face.
Stubborn troops not ITP would auto lose (due to the bonus) but not auto break (which makes sense)

Alathir
20-01-2010, 23:49
3. The shooting phase. It's obnoxious for most people that want to reliably make a ranged-focused army. I've seen players read the rules for the shooting phase and just decide that they're done considering the game. There are so many modifiers and funny little firing conditions that it makes it a hassle. It's a strange attempt at introducing realism into a fantasy game - one that is ultimately unnecessary from my point of view. It can take new players a dozen games to learn the shooting rules for WHFB. If I try to teach the shooting rules for a different game (40K, WM/H, etc.) it will take 3 games tops to get the idea across.



I really have to disagree here. I've found Warhammer's shooting phase to work just fine and its realistic, just like you said. This game, if anything, needs to become more complicated not less! Of course you could explain 40k's shooting phase quicker than the fantasy one, there are no bloody modifiers! You're telling me that my Fire Warrior shooting at this massive unit of Orks right in front of him has the exact same chance as hitting a lone guardsmen halfway across the board? Do you really think this would work for Fantasy? Why not bring across their ridiculous armour penetration system because ours is too complicated while we're at it.

I will concede that perhaps there are too many modifiers in only that it can really nuder player's expectations. I remember the first time I fired 20 High Elf bow shots at an enemy and my mate said, 'Okay, they moved and are at long ranged, they are hitting on 5's' my reply was, 'but they're elves...'.

Stronginthearm
21-01-2010, 00:26
Necrons just have a really old codex. Demons in 40k are less out of line than they are in fantasy. Therefore balance in 40k is better.

No one thinks tomb kings are overpowered and VC are quite capable of making deathstar units WITH fear.

I certainly feel that fantasy has more issues of one army just being unable to counter another army. Where do O&G get flaming attacks to combat regeneration? How are certain armies supposed to beat raise spamming VC in close combat? (Tomb kings and dwarves come to mind). What about the full nasty DE list with dual hydras? And so on.

1. So GW should stop making codexs because old is better and new is cheese

2. Vamps can also make deathstars with Knights, so cav is out, Magic so thats out and Infantry so thats out, now we have armies beating on eachother with range and monsters

3. And heres the point, you dont want WHFB changed you jsut want the "nasty VC, Daemons and DE gone they mess up the game and I cant win against them, bad bad bad"

Thurizdan
21-01-2010, 00:34
I'm just glad there is a game. I was always taught to be grateful for what I've got. If you don't like Games Workshop's rules, play with house rules. Sure is glass-half-empty in here.

Nurgling Chieftain
21-01-2010, 00:41
Sure is glass-half-empty in here.That's a natural reaction to a question of the form "Which part of the glass isn't full?"

Logan_uc
21-01-2010, 00:53
Cheaper to make? That mold will break even in about twenty years time. Smaller companies have much smaller expenses because they are smaller plus dont have the same high street presence that GW do. GW prices things so that they can make money, yes. They have high prices however to cover their costs on everything else. If you ever see the complex in Nottingham you'd see just how much money gets put into the making and marketing of these models.

ok smaller companies have more expenses in production as they sell less and have to make the molds to. And basicaly you are saying that you pay more because GW wants to look big, i think thats a bigger problem then overpracing because you are greedy. the thing is simple you are paying more than the product is worth, thats all fine IF you have a top product, but you dont, just look at the beastmen range, and people buying army books to put in the shelf.

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 01:01
I used to like the game in 6th ed for its decent and less overpowered units, its more manuveuring and less stats and monster hammer like now. But now I am still playing it because the people whom I play with are great fun to be with and they make the game as good as it was in 6th ed. Of course sometimes we all try a little supprises here and there but it is mainly acceptable and not over the top.

So now I mainly love the game because I have a fun community to keep the game fun despite the let downs in overpowered stuff. That aside GW have better models and that is also a big part of the hobby, not just games.

Logan_uc
21-01-2010, 01:06
The core rules IMHO are very good, they need just a little tweak to be great.
Tone down the magic, make charging a big block of infantry in the front at least scary for cav and monsters, and change the rules for spears and halberds, these things are mainly made to beat cav, and in fantasy monsters. charging a unit of spearmen or halbardiers with cav or monsters should be suicide not a minor inconvenience.

Stronginthearm
21-01-2010, 01:22
I'm just glad there is a game. I was always taught to be grateful for what I've got. If you don't like Games Workshop's rules, play with house rules. Sure is glass-half-empty in here.

The glass is chipped, cracked and uncleaned and the water is probably radioactive, But I still like warhammer

Havock
21-01-2010, 01:42
Main rules wise I actually like it. Alot more cleaned up then 6th, and doesnt have the odd rules (lap around).

It couldnt hurt to make a few things clearer though.

The rules are fine.
The disparity between armies is not.

Scallat
21-01-2010, 02:01
The problem lies in the fact that GW keeps hiring writers to write thier latest army books. Which is great for the fluff aspects but Games Design is an actual skill that requires a specific mindset and approach. Just one talented Games Designer on staff to vet new Army Books would go along way towards improving the system and building good relations with the fans.

And hey, maybe he/she could write some additional content for the website to keep the fans happy? A couple of novelty lists? Svigbalds Magnificent Host? Kholek's Dragon Ogre army - with special rules for a storm that happens throughout the game?

Incidentally GW I'm happy to do that job for free. I'd be amazing at it.

Archdaimon
21-01-2010, 03:08
1) I go, U go is clunky in play. There are too many stretches of the game where one player is just standing around not really participating.

2) No penalty for taking ultra-high magic. Look...you want high-magic? Great. But there should be a price.

3) Magic is still a bit wonky. There are things I like about it, but the fact that magic is either overpowered or useless in most builds is just not good design.

4) Command is really wonky. They've shown hints of some good command systems in other games, they could do some here. It's primitive, and it loses out on a lot of possible areas for really interesting tactical choices. Plus, if command mattered, you'd have an incentive for people who wanted to rein in magic -- high magic would hurt you on the field.

5) Movement rules are just wierd. The game is all about maneuver, but all of the manuevers feel very forced and unnatural. Other GW games handle movement in a far more interesting and intuitive way. (And also, I've played a lot of people...almost every player I've ever played with handles at least 1 aspect of movement incorrectly. That indicates that maybe the rules aren't very slick.)

6) There really aren't formations. You have "block" and "loose block". This could be more developed and add benefits without being overly complex.

7) Over-reliance on special rules for "flavor". It's a ham-handed design that relies on so many special rules. They need solid core rules so that subtle changes can make armies feel different and then save special rules for REALLY special situations.

8) Range-guessing. I'm good at range-guessing. (I worked with wheelchairs for a long time, so I could tell a 14" vs. a 15" vs. a 16", etc., seat width from 10 feet away. I just picture those seats on the table top.) It's silly. I want my opponent to lose because of a bad tactic, or bad dice, but not because he never developed a skill at guessing that is otherwise relatvely useless in real life.

9) Lack of balance. Point systems imply balance. That's sort of the whole reason to have one. If the army comp rules don't give similar forces similar chances to win, it's a bad design.

10) Emphasis on characters. I think characters are neat, but I want them to rely on troops. (FWIW, I like the WotR system just fine. Characters are powerful, but you *have* to use them with troops.) Characters that can run off on their own and massacre units - I guess I probably would have thought it was cool when I was 12, but I just think it's silly now.

11) 4-year revisions. It's stupid to revamp a rule-system every 4 years when it doesn't really improve it significantly. Revamp when required, and then FIX THE PROBLEMS. Don't just shuffle problems around. Also, leaving armies out for a full edition of the game is just ridiculous.

There are aspects of the game -- I guess really just the background -- that I enjoy. But those are getting overwhelmed by the parts I don't. I keep hoping that the game will come back and make me say, "wow" again, but I'm not seeing any indication of that yet.

Have you seen the rules commisar has designed in the rules development forum? They live up to a lot of what you ask of a game!
Check out the sticly "making a better warhammer!"

Llew
21-01-2010, 05:25
Actually I have...and I like a lot of his design philosophies, but he's still wedded to the GW-style turn structure. I haven't had a chance to digest the 0.6 version yet, as I just DL'ed it earlier today.

There's a lot to like, but it's still not precisely what I'm looking for.

Vermin-thing
21-01-2010, 06:19
Okay, first off lets for the sake of sanity, disregard the army books, and magic for the most part. (maybe I'll touch one a few of them) ;)



Over all the main problems are small, but noticeable, they need to be tweaked.

Fist the most noticeable of all is that the rules for formations is entirely missing. :eek:

1) For infantry to be viable:

I want to play footslogger Empire, and WOC, but I know that nine times out of ten Calvary, chaos knights I'm looking at you, is going to demolish infantry on the charge. Think about it calvary generally gets double the number of attacks than infantry at any given time. Five for the mount, and 6 for the riders, Infantry, gets 6, assuming a champion is taken. A majority of those 6 attacks from the infantry is going to be nullified, so your left with 16 (20 at the start) infantry models doing jack all. So do these 16 models try to fight back? No, they take a break test at minus 2 and run. Inevitably ending in a run down.

So what needs to be done? First off a formation, of any kind is going to be disciplined, most of the time.

We should break it down into three basic formations:

1) archery line.

Units in this formation, typically in one or two lines, are discipled archers, or missile troops. They benefit from being able to shoot efficiently, and in sequence to supply accurate fire support for other units. Therefor the formation may fire the missals of up to a maximum of two lines worth of models. Each line generically consists of no more than ten models, or a single line of twenty. When in an archery line models will never suffer modifiers for moving, but will still have to reload, meaning that crossbows ect... may not fire any turn in which they moved.

2) solder block.

These form the forward parts of any army, which are disciplined troops who are capable of charging into any enemy, and lasting. Solder blocks consist of swordsmen, halberds, and other infantry which are used as a hammer. With this in mind solder blocks work as such: They may always march, unless within 8" of a enemy that outnumbers (unit strength) them or is particularity terrifying (terror). The cost of a solder block, for example using empire swordsmen, is 30 points for the first rank, 8 points for the champion, 8 points for the standard, 6 points for the musician, plus an additional 10 points per extra rank of 5 swordsmen, which provides 1 combat res per rank beyond the first., up to a maximum of 5. Therefor a unit of 25 swordsmen would be 102 points for command, and four ranks.

3) battle line.

Condottiere
21-01-2010, 06:58
Certain aspects are too abstract, since I would like to see a greater range of possible formations.

ftayl5
21-01-2010, 07:22
mostly its just newbies to warhammer, or people who played once and lost that are critical of warhammer

eg. "waaaah, my chaos hero got shot to death, dwarves are so unbalanced waaaaaaah"

eg.2 " omg look at that that singular gnoblar didnt break after that combat against 3 dragon ogres, that is so unrealistic'

warhammerz is cool

Skyros
21-01-2010, 20:45
GW should stop making codexs because old is better and new is cheese

That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Older codexes eventually become unworkable as the rules and assumptions upon which they were built are fundamentally changed. You see this with some of the older codexes in 40k (which has armies who have gone longer without updates than armies in fantasy, barring chaos dwarves). Not all new codexes are cheese. The newer codexes in 40k are quite good and generally an improvement on the old ones. Several of the new fantasy codexes are also terrific (skaven, empire, lizardmen, wood elves, etc) leading to interesting, varied, and well balanced armies.


Vamps can also make deathstars with Knights, so cav is out, Magic so thats out and Infantry so thats out, now we have armies beating on eachother with range and monsters

There is nothing resembling a coherent thought or line of argument in here. Please try again. You appear to be saying if we accept that deathstars are bad for the game, then we have to remove all troop types except missile units? But that would be absurd. So what are you saying?


And heres the point, you dont want WHFB changed you jsut want the "nasty VC, Daemons and DE gone they mess up the game

You fail at reading. No one is advocating removing those armies from the game. People are advocating placing the armies on the same power level. Anyone who has even the slightest shred of comprehension about game balance can perceive these armies are on a different tier entirely from most armies and some armies just don't have the counters necessary. (O&G come to mind)

loveless
21-01-2010, 20:59
I really have to disagree here. I've found Warhammer's shooting phase to work just fine and its realistic, just like you said. This game, if anything, needs to become more complicated not less! Of course you could explain 40k's shooting phase quicker than the fantasy one, there are no bloody modifiers! You're telling me that my Fire Warrior shooting at this massive unit of Orks right in front of him has the exact same chance as hitting a lone guardsmen halfway across the board? Do you really think this would work for Fantasy? Why not bring across their ridiculous armour penetration system because ours is too complicated while we're at it.

Oh, I don't know if it would work, but in my experience, such a thing would attract more players. We do proxy battles around here - mostly movement trays and markers - before anyone decides on anything. There's a certain level of excess measuring and disappointment in WHFB's shooting system that isn't felt in 40K. More people seem to want cool stuff moreso than realistic stuff.


I will concede that perhaps there are too many modifiers in only that it can really nuder player's expectations. I remember the first time I fired 20 High Elf bow shots at an enemy and my mate said, 'Okay, they moved and are at long ranged, they are hitting on 5's' my reply was, 'but they're elves...'.

This is soooo true. I've known people who gave up on Wood Elves because the shooting was just disappointing. I don't blame them. The greatest archers in the background should have better than a 33.3% chance of hitting their target. The Dwarfs with their incredibly fine handguns also tend to be less than impressive.

Fantasy is much about weight of models - throw enough arrows at it, and some are bound to hit. This of course means "Oh, I need more archers in this unit..." which leads to buying more models, etc. etc.

Hell, even an aiming bonus would be useful. "If a unit does not move in the moving phase, they gain a +1 to hit with ranged weapons" or some such rot.

The proliferation of negative modifiers to shooting really suck the joy out of the game for some people - were there more positives, I think they'd like it more.

Let a new player that wants to run a shooty army play Fantasy and watch them get bored. Let a new player that wants to run a shooty army play 40K and you get a new member for your gaming group.

enygma7
21-01-2010, 21:34
Having played both warmachine/hordes and GW's games, the core problem is that GW writes games for "fun" play and doesn't take the time to proof their games against ultra competetive play. Warmachine/hordes does - as a result there are less imbalances between armies and the rules are much more tightly written (and frequently erratered). As a result warmachine/hordes stands up to competetive/tourniment environment gaming. On the other hand with GW's games if you try to take a powerful list or start trying to apply the rules to the minutia of the wording the game breaks. Although it does have to be said that whilst this is the fault of GW the players themselves must take some of the blame - when played in the correct spirit the game works fine.

The rules mechanics themselves could be improved in some areas (notably basic infantry are underpowered) but by and large it is inbalances between army books that produce the bulk of the whinging - the current points system isn't sufficient to balance different armies as it should.

Also bare in mind that the collective noun for a group of wargamers is a whinge. :)

Satan
21-01-2010, 21:46
This about sums it up for me:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/01/wfb-building-tournament-fantasy-list.html

That is about as fun to face or to play with as it is getting punched in the stomach. I'm real thankful for the comp-system we've got here in Sweden which makes sure that people bring sensible and FUN armies to most tournaments.

I suppose that's my answer to the OP's initial question. However, since most opponents I face also bring interesting armies as opposed to ones as suggested by BoLS in this case, I do rather like this game...

Idle Scholar
21-01-2010, 21:53
That is about as fun to face or to play with as it is getting punched in the stomach. I'm real thankful for the comp-system we've got here in Sweden which makes sure that people bring sensible and FUN armies to most tournaments.

Getting punched in the stomach can be a lot more fun than playing like that :evilgrin:

I also extend my thanks to the swedes who came up with that system; it's made my recent games far more enjoyable for me and my opponents.

Satan
21-01-2010, 22:00
Getting punched in the stomach can be a lot more fun than playing like that :evilgrin:

I also extend my thanks to the swedes who came up with that system; it's made my recent games far more enjoyable for me and my opponents.

Happy to hear! I know it's an infected issue on these boards, but most of us here in Sweden are real happy about playing with it.

Baron Von Rotten
21-01-2010, 22:29
I am pretty happy with the 7th ed rule set. However, I would like to see models on 25mm bases go 4 wide for a rank bonus, that includes cavalry. Also, stuff on 40's, like ogres, need to get a bonus at 3 wide.

I absolutely despise the "Always Strikes First" rule. It totally negates the coolest phase of the game. It has really dumbed-down the game for me. In the last edition, the "helm of many eyes" was the only thing that could ASF. (And that came with penalty of stupidity.)
Nowadays, every army has some unit, or standard that allows ASF. We even have a whole army that can ASF. WTF? Has GW run out of ideas to make certain armies competetive? How Lame. I am sure that the next army book that comes out will have and enchanted Item called "underRoos of speed" that allows a character to ASF.

Other than ASF, the general rules do not need to be changed. Tweeked? OK maybe. What really needs to be changed are the individual army books. These books should be released in groups, maybe 3 or 4 at a time, to insure that no army dominates.

Urgat
21-01-2010, 22:40
Happy to hear! I know it's an infected issue on these boards, but most of us here in Sweden are real happy about playing with it.

Pardon me if it was easy to find, but where can I get a look at that comp system? I'm pretty curious about that kind of things.

Mikari
21-01-2010, 23:00
Why do I get the feeling there are a bunch of fanboys in this thread defending GW?

Things not to like are GW doesn't balance books at all and if you get a bad book then it's a decade to wait til it gets replaced.

Also GW's policy of not releasing a full range of models and instead making you buy multiple other models to build them or work your ass off to get them.

GW's life long goal to get everyone to hate them by invalidating half their models every army book is another reason to not like it. Remember how the Beastmen got Chaos marked units last book? Enjoy your useless models guys.. They really need to sort themselves out and get a design team instead of a couple of guys who never interact designing a book each.

Troah
21-01-2010, 23:15
I don't like how I can't ever win. ><

vampires are cool!
21-01-2010, 23:38
Why do I get the feeling there are a bunch of fanboys in this thread defending GW?

Because a broken record needs to be smashed


Things not to like are GW doesn't balance books at all and if you get a bad book then it's a decade to wait til it gets replaced.

Thats why they publish erratas or you use common sense.Not saying your argument doesnt have merit however; Its annoying to say the least, but i've found that, depending on your gaming group, it evens out on a whole.


Also GW's policy of not releasing a full range of models and instead making you buy multiple other models to build them or work your ass off to get them.

Again, i see your point - thunder wolves are a cracking example of this in action. Its done to maintain interest and also so that the staff in the hobby centers can work out how to do it and then teach you - which brings you in to the stores.


GW's life long goal to get everyone to hate them by invalidating half their models every army book is another reason to not like it. Remember how the Beastmen got Chaos marked units last book? Enjoy your useless models guys.. They really need to sort themselves out and get a design team instead of a couple of guys who never interact designing a book each.

Ok, i dont get this - so my Khrongors and pestigors cant be used as normal Bestigors?:eyebrows:

Stronginthearm
22-01-2010, 00:50
That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Older codexes eventually become unworkable as the rules and assumptions upon which they were built are fundamentally changed. You see this with some of the older codexes in 40k (which has armies who have gone longer without updates than armies in fantasy, barring chaos dwarves). Not all new codexes are cheese. The newer codexes in 40k are quite good and generally an improvement on the old ones. Several of the new fantasy codexes are also terrific (skaven, empire, lizardmen, wood elves, etc) leading to interesting, varied, and well balanced armies.



There is nothing resembling a coherent thought or line of argument in here. Please try again. You appear to be saying if we accept that deathstars are bad for the game, then we have to remove all troop types except missile units? But that would be absurd. So what are you saying?



You fail at reading. No one is advocating removing those armies from the game. People are advocating placing the armies on the same power level. Anyone who has even the slightest shred of comprehension about game balance can perceive these armies are on a different tier entirely from most armies and some armies just don't have the counters necessary. (O&G come to mind)

You stated that Necrons were Ok because they were an old codex, ok by that logic new must be bad and GW should stop making codexes because they are all fine as they are,

You made the statement that magic should be tweaked because vamps can make a deathstar out of it, yes true but they can also make a deathstar out of alot of things, should we toss those out too?

My point on the last one was that you are very anti-Vamp-DE-Daemon, the whole Tier thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that you jsut don't like them, apparently alot of people share the sentiment, and therefore it is now a pseudo-fact( Half***ed fact that lots of people believe) that those armies need to be 1) Removed utterly or 2) all their interesting, fun , or good stuff removed (you guys seem to hate their lord choice, 3/4 rare choices and 2/2 special choices, along with army wide rules (taking vamps as an example)

Idle Scholar
22-01-2010, 01:07
Pardon me if it was easy to find, but where can I get a look at that comp system? I'm pretty curious about that kind of things.

http://atlantis.sverok.net/WPS/RT_WPS_Comp.pdf

Mikari
22-01-2010, 01:17
Each tournament uses a different comp system, you may want to check out the Bad Dice podcast for information on this sort of thing.

tezdal
22-01-2010, 03:43
Prices, things like goldswords and bestigor's cost 40 bucks for plastic? I mean sure GW has to support their stores and such but.......why should I be charged for that? I dont game at a GW store, or buy at a GW store, in fact im pretty sure they closed both GW store's fairly close to me. Sorry GW if I dont agree with the reasoning "Our plastics are as good as metals, so well charge the same".

Dexter099
22-01-2010, 04:14
Then on to the basic rules, I think they can improve a number of things:
1) terrain rules. A normal unit will avoid terrain at all cost as they cannot march AND move at half speed even in simple difficult terrain. So from 8 inch movement you are stuck with 2 inch movement. In a 6 turn game this means game over, you will never reach the other end of the 6 inch forest.. So just disallow marching in difficult terrain and give half move in very difficult terrain, for example
2) make ONE clear overview of the sequence of events, we now have a few phases but they should just write down each individual substep so that it is clear to everyone what is happening when.
3) make the movement rules for wheeling, turning and reforming more realistic. I prefer that any unit, especially fast cav, measures their movement during all parts of a reform, instead of saying "the reform for fast cav is free, so I can reform my 20" long line of conga-lined fast cav into a unit of 5 by 2, then move 18" forward and then reform again into a 20" conga line." Or "this conga line wheels and since you measure wheel from the front model only I can wheel all over the place" (this has been FAQ-ed I believe).
4) just in general give a little bit more thought on something when they write it down.

1) You can march through terrain in 7th Edition.

ChaosVC
22-01-2010, 04:24
1) You can march through terrain in 7th Edition.

Yep, in Barny's Wonderful Game of Huggies Buggis Marching Parade 7the Edition.:rolleyes:

Urgat
22-01-2010, 20:09
http://atlantis.sverok.net/WPS/RT_WPS_Comp.pdf

Cheers! I'll get a look at that :)

neapolitan-guard
24-01-2010, 15:57
infantry can use some improvement and the ideas for formations sounds good(spear cube with no flanks or rear maybe?)
monster power gamers are a thing i hate but we can't do much about them untill you get to the parking lot........

is having 8 power dice on a vampire lord really necessary?

my main hate is the cost and new repackaging of the kits, i dont care what people say about shipping/ wages/ packing etc but price increases in the middle of a global recession is bad no matter how you slice it.

scarletsquig
24-01-2010, 16:33
I don't have a problem with 7th edition rules, they're great.

Army books are a complete fail though.

Stronginthearm
24-01-2010, 17:05
infantry can use some improvement and the ideas for formations sounds good(spear cube with no flanks or rear maybe?)
monster power gamers are a thing i hate but we can't do much about them untill you get to the parking lot........

is having 8 power dice on a vampire lord really necessary?



Before I start, you cannot get more then 6 powerdice for a vampirelord, and jsut for that you are paying 340 points,

I dont like the powergaming aspect but in all seriousness, should we really define the game for others?, is it ethically right to say that people cant play because they like the aspect of winning rather then other parts, its not a one-aspect game, if you dont like powergamers dont play them but don't just ist online and wail on them

Heimlich
24-01-2010, 18:01
Play Warmachine / Hordes once, and you will see why 40k is despised. Fantasy is still okay in my books. But inferior when compared to Warmachine / Hordes.

von Kessel
24-01-2010, 19:04
Overall I'm happy with the rules. However there is one rule that really gets my goat "Losing the combat and being outnumbered by a fear causer":mad:. As an Empire general it just seems a silly rule. An example of this is a unit of 25 swordsmen charge a unit of 26 skeletons neither side do any wounds and because the swordsmen are outnumber by one model they are auto broken! I would be in favour of having extra modifiers against me as for example only just outnumbered the attackers receive +1 to the combat if the enemy heavily outnumbers me then they receive +2. Just an idea just seems a fairer way of doing things.

WinglessVT2
24-01-2010, 19:50
Fear and always strikes first are both really silly.
Shooting and infantry are both ineffective, even when they cost as little as dark elves.
There's no balance, at all, except among the weaker books. The fact that there is such a prounounced rift between 'weaker' and 'stronger' is cause for concern all on its own.
Magic plays too big a part in the game. I've been told that fantasy is 'strategical,' which - indeed - it is, but people love to replace that with rolling lots and lots of dice, that remove lots and lots of units.

After my last two matches, versus raise-spam vampires and hitty/magic demons respectively, I've been completely turned off from playing the game.

EmperorNorton
24-01-2010, 20:12
One thing I don't like is the confusion about base sizes.
Why they don't simply put the proper base size in the unit entries in the army books is beyond me.
The base system as a whole is not ideal, especially when you have to mix different base sizes in one unit.

zak
24-01-2010, 20:53
I have to agree with the base thing. It annoys the hell out of me to guess all of the time.

Overall I think the game is fine. The core rules need to be tweeked a bit and this mainly covers magic, auto breaking and the rules for spears/halberds and bows. As said before the main issue tends to be the army books, which seem to be written with no heed of how they impact upon the rules and the power balance.

Astafas
25-01-2010, 03:05
I love warhammer. Its an awesome game that gives hours of modelling fun and lots of people have said what I am thinking. My two major issues though are:

1) Infantry (RANKED infantry) is pants. You pay lots to get +3cr so you can hold combats then get mowed down by cav OR smashed 1 rank at a time by multi attack troops. Thus people have stopped taking big units of infantry. I hope that there is some new rule letting static CR go past +3 or something because thats what the game should be about - ranks and flanks.

Ironically with the O&G book I thought cav's dominance was almost over. Shame that didnt last...

2) Girls. Playing warhammer makes it harder to meet them. Happily I am getting married so no longer a concern but still it held me back I am sure (certainly its not because I am crude, overweight and 30 physically but 11 mentally).

:)

Calamitous
25-01-2010, 08:41
I've never really been known to complain about warhammer, but there are definitely a few things that bother me.

1. GW prices. I absolutely refuse to believe that VC Blood Knights are worth $90. I've never played VC, but my best friend does and I hurt for him. That is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen GW do. Come on, I can buy a battalion with ten times more models for what Blood Knights cost... And of course, it's not just Blood Knights, the average price of the plastic required per man-sized model is 3 cents. That combined with other GW costs (shipping, paying staff members, modelling, articles, etc.) does not equate to a $35 dollar or more box of 10-15 troops.

2. Magic. High Elves were the first army I collected and I loved their fluff and models. But, with the advent of seventh edition, I felt as if everything in my army was secondary to the minimum 3 mages I had to take to stay competitive. This definitely doesn't just apply to my elves, every army is darn near required to field at least a couple defensive spellcasters to prevent utter carnage in the enemy's magic phase. The game has been scaled down (1 infantry or cavalry model is supposed to represent 10 or so models in realistic terms) and you want me to believe that the frail old man on the other side of the board just obliterated my 20-25 man unit, which really represents about 250 troops, in one game turn (which in my gaming circle is agreed to represent about 6-8 seconds)? I think that's fishy.

3. I think there should be some sort of adjustment to facing. My block of troops is facing one way when I get flanked by cavalry or some such thing. This is totally fine (picture the Rohirrim charge from The Return of the King at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields) but just as in the movie, the orcs saw it coming and, rather than just stay facing the same way, they TURNED. What a novel concept. Despite being formed into a block, troops can easily just make a 90 degree turn and face whatever's coming at them. I'm not completely sure what the limitations for such a rule in the game would be, but I think incorporating some way to alter facing when you get charged would go a long way towards improving infantry. Negating this insta-face rule if your unit is already engaged in combat may help keep this in line.

4. Special rules definitely need to get tuned down. My High Elves all have ASF? I don't think so. That's why I stopped playing them. Some guys are faster than others, sure, but I thought that's what initiative was supposed to measure... I've recently started playing BFG and I like the way its set up. There are a few universal special rules (special orders) and every fleet utilizes those plus a few little things here and there that other fleets don't have. The BFG system isn't perfect, but I think its a good model for how special rules should be handled. They're called "special" rules for a reason; they're not special if everyone has them.

lord ugwart
25-01-2010, 09:40
The only things I don't like are combat resolution (way to go to complicate things) and break tests.

azhagmorglum
25-01-2010, 12:44
I've known warhammer for over 14 years now.

During this time I haven't been playing that much (wish I had more), that's why I'm not going to complain about the rules, or power creep or certain armies etc...

I own O&Gs, and the latest armybook, what I don't like is how they have changed the fluff. If I'm not mistaken, Gorbad's fluff has been altered, and Azhag's one is so short you don't even understand what he really did or how powerful he really was.

Nowadays, when I read stories and fluff, will it be in White dwarf or armybooks, I find them lacking in depth, interest and novelty, it's just cut and paste from previous editions, and sometimes hideously shortened or altered.

I think GW needs to put more effort in the fluff, instead of just relying on what has been written before, and even in that case they manage to make it worse. Also a bit of new stuff would be gladly welcome, although with a bit of thinking and not straightforward ****** stories like the end of the Storm of Chaos campaign (that was really bad for every armies - empire, chaos, VC, o&g, skaven- full of clichés and bad plot twists).

Askil the Undecided
26-01-2010, 01:31
Special rules should be special. Not something almost every single unit in an armybook should have at least two of.

lotrchampion
26-01-2010, 01:47
The Magic phase's importance. That's it for me. I enjoy everything about the game, except being forced to either go full-magic with heroes or take at least 2 scroll caddies to remain competitive. If 8th ed changes that, I'll love it.

Condottiere
26-01-2010, 03:41
The all or nothing aspect of magic in this game does irritate, since medium builds are either over powered or don't accomplish much.

horrorshowmalchick
26-01-2010, 05:35
RE gw prices;

They have to pay for all their expences. Staff, travel, import, export, maintainence, store rent, insurance, all before stuff like modeling and manufacturing comes into it.

Plus, the clue is in the name; games workshop

£50 for 5 cavalry is taking the pi$$ though.

Qemist
26-01-2010, 17:49
my problem? when a FLYING unit has to LAND 8 inches away from a unit of night goblins and take the fanatics in the face.

people have tried to tell me that its because they actually hover, or skim just above the ground, ORLY? the rule is FLYING. you can FLY over any terrain, any units, it says FLYING in the unit entries there are rules for FLYING in the rulebook.

the fact that a FLYING unit that has to LAND 8 inches away from a unit with fanatics in before FLYING over them makes my head hurt SO MUCH that i wont actually play a O&G player because of it. its so immensly retarded i cannot put it into words.

other than that, i love the game.

Urgat
26-01-2010, 17:54
It's called balance. W/o that, any single ******* game involving fanatics and flyers would end up the same: turn 1, flyer flies to OnG line, releases fanatics and fly above them without a care in the world. Or charge a flank on turn two w/o dropping a sweat. Epic, heh?

Qemist
26-01-2010, 17:58
problem? let them release the fanatics, just dont make the flyer land. and im a tomb king player, so my flyers are carrion, not like im trying to land 5 dragons over there.

you cant take a rule that is simply retarded and shout game balance.

Condottiere
26-01-2010, 18:11
Perhaps his compatriots sling the Fanatic on an intercept course?

Flying rules are heavily compromised in favour of game balance.

Forgotmytea
26-01-2010, 18:19
Perhaps his compatriots sling the Fanatic on an intercept course?
I like this idea :D Or perhaps the goblins just taunt the fliers into coming down low?

I've only really started playing Fantasy again in the last month or so, having not played it before then for about 5 years. So far, the only thing I don't like is that I feel guilty for playing Dark Elves. Despite not taking any Black Guard/Hydras/Sorceress spam, reading some threads still makes me feel like I should ritually burn all my elf models and start repenting to the gaming gods for my sins :o :p

Llew
26-01-2010, 20:56
Seems like a simpler solution to the flyer/fanatic thing would be to let the goblin player decide if he wishes to release the fanatics when a flyer passes nearby/overhead without landing within 8". If the flyer does land at 8" or closer, they release towards him like he had just moved within range.

Urgat
26-01-2010, 22:44
problem? let them release the fanatics, just dont make the flyer land. and im a tomb king player, so my flyers are carrion, not like im trying to land 5 dragons over there.

you cant take a rule that is simply retarded and shout game balance.

If you find it that idiotic, why not take it even one step earlier? It's even more idiotics that the gobs would launch the fanatics at something in the sky, then. So let them release the fanatics? No, let them NOT release the fanatics >>


Seems like a simpler solution to the flyer/fanatic thing would be to let the goblin player decide if he wishes to release the fanatics when a flyer passes nearby/overhead without landing within 8". If the flyer does land at 8" or closer, they release towards him like he had just moved within range.

Nice follow up with that quote. Sadly it's not going to happen, so flyers will keep landing, and I'm fine fine that, those pegasus knights are already annoying enough as it is, and nothing scares them away better than a handful of fanatics.

Malorian
26-01-2010, 22:49
I don't know about everyone else but I love the game as it is...

Commissar von Toussaint
26-01-2010, 23:01
I don't know about everyone else but I love the game as it is...

Which is what I don't like about the game: it never "is" - it's always in a state of becoming.

In order to play WHFB, you need not only the main rules, but the books for the armies you play. In addition, it's a good idea to have the books for armies you may play against, since those special rules can catch you flat-footed.

After a while, you find yourself with $200 in rule books.

Then a new edition comes out. :(

And you get to buy them all over again.

So here's a vote for either getting it right (gee, it's been 30 years), or just putting the updates as .pdfs online so I don't have to keep buying the same game every few years.

graymer
26-01-2010, 23:06
Which is what I don't like about the game: it never "is" - it's always in a state of becoming.

In order to play WHFB, you need not only the main rules, but the books for the armies you play. In addition, it's a good idea to have the books for armies you may play against, since those special rules can catch you flat-footed.

After a while, you find yourself with $200 in rule books.

Then a new edition comes out. :(

And you get to buy them all over again.

So here's a vote for either getting it right (gee, it's been 30 years), or just putting the updates as .pdfs online so I don't have to keep buying the same game every few years.

Because I'm sure the company you've been supporting all of these years will get along just fine if all of a sudden no one bought their products. Couple this with the fact that you're basically calling for free revisions, or editions, to rulesets, and I think it's a bit crass. How do you expect them to profit?

The cost of playing Warhammer, in all its various forms, is something that became readily apparent to me after the initial excitement from making my first purchase from GW. I think that in the end, everyone who plays Warhammer comes to terms with the fact that it's an expensive hobby; not just in terms of obtaining updated rulesets, but also keeping your army, or armies, competative. Sure I can complain and moan about the price, but in the end it ultimately helps GW continue to put out the products I've come to enjoy. It's a small price to pay, in my eyes, for something that brings me entertainment and fun.

Ronin_eX
26-01-2010, 23:59
I've been playing GW games for about the last 15 years now and pretty much every iteration of their core games are pretty deeply flawed whether it is in basic clunkiness or lack of verisimilitude.

40k suffers from a rash of convoluted and non-sensical rules interactions that serve little purpose at this point except to cover the glue and bubblegum they've been using to make ad-hoc patches since they butchered the basic system back in 2nd in a misguided attempt to fix it (not misguided because 2nd was perfect, misguided because they weren't actually fixing the problems the system had). The way its LoS and wound allocations systems work is one such flub this edition as are the horrid vehicle rules that haven't been reasonable since they changed from using a standard stat-line for vehicles back in Rogue Trader. The cover mechanics lack any kind of intuitiveness to them and actively work in the opposite way cover should in many cases (i.e. offering no extra protection at all in many cases). Finally there is no central design philosophy, it constantly changes from book to book which causes large rifts in power balance from codex to codex as the designer in charge oversteps the last held design philosophy. This has led to armies that seem to be different for the sake of difference (DA/BA, Marines and Space Wolves have a lot of differences that don't make sense and only occured because GW don't apply retro-active balance changes, just new editions) as well as many, many rules that seem to work more like patches for the basic system than actual background-related rules (both SM and IG tanks get to ignore the broken vehicle firing rules because those rules don't represent vehicles well).

WFB suffers from many similar problems though it has had more editions to gloss over and integrate them. But the largest one it shares with 40k is the lack of focused design control in armies. This design philosophy seems to change on a whim and often leaves older armies in the same edition in the dirt. You have O&G players whose army list was designed under the "Fun is More Important than Balance" philosophy while newer armies like VC, Daemons and Dark Elves get the "Armies Should be Very Powerful" philosophy. If they just used one of these philosophies and refined it (for example Warmachine does the latter more than the former) then it wouldn't be so huge but they seem to flip flop every few books or so. Dwarfs were part of the apparent "We want 7th Edition to be balanced and simple with few special rules in the mix" pre-7th philosophy which was pretty much abandonned right after Empire for more special rules and then more overall power when just adding in more rules didn't work.

There inability to choose a frame of reference to balance from is a massive problem for both games and it is made only worse by their horrible FAQ support which often leaves the most frequently asked questions unanswered (or sometimes raises new questions due to poorly worded or contradictory FAQs). They also seem averse to retroactively changing things that were big mistakes on their part preferring to, instead of releasing a new FAQ with an ammendment in the Errata section, wait for the next edition of the book. This means that if your book had a glaring error of judgement on their part or was deeply flawed in some way then you can look forward to a 3+ year wait while you wait for the next edition/army book release.

The whole FAQ/Errata thing is especially frustrating when you see companies like Privateer Press or Corvus Belli who are all to happy to answer questions and even change things if a mistake is pointed out.

And I wont even get into the price gouging that are their metal minis (their plastics are largely fine).

I can still have fun with 40k or WFB but it is almost never because of the rules but rather because of the friends I'm playing it with. All told if given the choice I'd rather play a game where the fun comes from both the game and the social aspects. Since GW only caters to one of those with the core games I tend to give them a pass now.

That said a lot of their non-core and specialist games are amazing pieces of work that could be truly great if GW payed them any attention. It's sad that the most shining gems of game design from them tend to get pushed to the back while the games they seem to put the least thought into are some of the worst designed games in the hobby. But life really isn't fair I suppose. ;)

Razakel
27-01-2010, 00:08
I dislike the interaction of several armies with the Psychology rules in their current incarnation and the lack of scenarios. I also truly loathe the clear lack of effort that went into the new Skaven book, several things were left without clarification or dangling from strings for us to guess their meanings.

I also wish there were more scenarios, and more interesting scenarios at that.

Brother Edwin
27-01-2010, 00:55
It's called balance. W/o that, any single ******* game involving fanatics and flyers would end up the same: turn 1, flyer flies to OnG line, releases fanatics and fly above them without a care in the world. Or charge a flank on turn two w/o dropping a sweat. Epic, heh?

Any orc and gobbo player should be able to deal with this kind of thing, which is why they are so cheap. A orc and gobbo player should not be basing his tactics on fanatics not getting released early. Plus that is why flyers cost so much, they can do things like that.


40k has balanced books but a awful system. Mainly due to true line of sight, kill points, and to a lesser degree stealing the inititive and turn 5 ends.

Fantasy has a good system that rewards tactical play. But demons, dark elves and to a lesser degree vampires are far more powerful than the other books.

Archaon
27-01-2010, 01:45
The rulessystem as it is works most of the time. i have little complaint about it save for the magic rules. With magic you either go for full defense and can shut down the magic phase for much of the game for usually far little cost than it takes your opponent to buy his magic offense or you go all out and invest the majority in magic in which case you run the risk of losing the mage to miscasts, spells not working (or not well enough) or death by dedicated mage hunters (mages are usually on the weaker side and can be easily taken out by mediocre troops if given the chance).

What i really don't like about the game are the armybooks.. we are in a death spiral of armybook creep where even well designed, moderate (as it should be) armies of the newer kind have little chances to stand against top tier armies even if they pull out some nasty, one shot wonder tricks.
The armybooks have made it a habbit it seems to circumvent basic rules for the sake of coolness leading to all kinds of balance problems which simply ruin the game.

For you to win at a decent tournament you either have to play a top tier army and max it out or not try at all.. privately this may be not such a problem when people self-regulate themselves but once you venture out of that comfort zone it gets ugly fast.

It's not so much the GW pricing (i have a steady full time job, no family to support) but when you groan if your opponent sets up his army and you know that, barring extremely good dice rolling, you can pull off a draw at best no matter what you try it takes out all the fun.

GW needs to seriously rethink armydesign and their development method.. i don't know what struck them when re-doing the Demons and parts of other books (Dark Elves and some combinations of units/magic items) but they seriously need to improve on that.

Until they do (and knowing their development speed) i all but quit Warhammer and moved on to, my opinion, better games that give me more fun for my money.

Makaber
27-01-2010, 01:59
Generally speaking the only major beef I have with Warhammer is the currect direction. I like the game the most when it's based around infantry, supported by cavalry and warmachines, and with the occational monster and bizarre fantastic element thrown in as a centrepiece. However, lately it seems everything needs to be too damn exotic, their stats too outlandish, and everything better than what was before. In short, Games Workshop can't understate worth ****.

In its current state, I feel there's no room for a guy with a shield and a spear, and that's a damn shame.

Master Jeridian
27-01-2010, 02:31
I'll echo the sentiment that the Army Books are at fault more than the Rulebook (compared to 40k where the Rulebook is to blame more than the Army Books).

Changes and better written Army Books will do a lot more for 7th Ed than re-writing the core rules.

That said, the question seems to be about the Rulebook. So:

1- Magic. I don't like magic, I'll be honest. But I understand why it's in the game, that's it's a considerable part of the background and rules, and that others really like it.
I don't like that I essentially have to take a Hero model with 2 scrolls (even with my Dwarfs) in every army I own (Empire, Dwarfs, VC) to 'shut down' my opponents magic.
The way the magic system is written (where opponents just try to outstack each other in Power/Dispel dice) is inherently flawed and doomed to a boring arm's race between those who want to stop Magic at all and those who want it the get through.

I'd prefer the middle ground, where some magic gets through, some doesn't. After all, they paid for it.
The magic system would need a complete overhaul for that, and I can't see a better system (nor how to bring it about without making all previous Army Books redundant).

2-Fear/Terror. I started with Empire, 3-4 Ranked Infantry blocks with detachments backed up by Cannon, some Knights, Crossbowmen- the Fear/Terror rules made me shelve my Empire. It was just way too easy for a Fear/Terror causer to just chase my army off the board.
Seeing Fear/Terror so dominant helped my building of my VC (the idea of zombies, skeletons, etc being the larger reason admittedly).

The 'auto-lose' mechanic just seemed so arbitrary and binary. It also never applied fairly. 15 Dwarfs probably costs the same as 30 Free Company, yet they are far more likely to run from zombies than the Free Company- despite their Ld 9 showing more resoluteness than Ld 7.

The Fear/Terror causing is a large component of why VC and Daemons are seen as so much more powerful than other armies. There is an argument that the Fear/Terror rules would be fine if only very, very few units had it- an Army Book fault. But I don't see this happening.

Much like the Scroll Caddy, my second forced choice when writing army lists for any of my armies is "Does it ignore Fear?", if it doesn't it's free points to my opponent who spams Fear/Terror causers.
If my main hitters in my army don't ignore Fear/Terror then there's no point bothering- which predictably limits my choices.

My Empire infantry force is now a token cheerleader unit, whilst the Knight Order and Templar Master (ItP) 'deathstar' unit do the work.

I understand Fear/Terror should have some effect on the Break Test, but not the win/lose it is now.
Modifiers to the Ld, forcing a re-roll of the first sucessful Ld test, or even roll Ld on 3D6 are alternatives I like- at least they factor in the Ld of the troops being scared.

3- Ranked infantry, I like them, I think they should represent the 'core' of a Fantasy army with at least 3-4 in a 2000pts army- and I sorely want a reason to take some.
This seems far more an Army List fault (where other units become so uber they spit on the Ranked Infantry SCR with sheer weight of attacks and maneouverability)- but a few extra bonuses for Ranked Infantry wouldn't hurt.

Or even the dreaded Ranked Infantry only to capture Objectives...


In short, the idea of a Tournament Army and a For Fun Army being two extremely different things is abhorent to me- Epic Armageddon has shown me that a sufficiently well-written ruleset can allow me to take one army that is both 'fun' and 'competitive'.
The idea that I need to buy the same race/army twice and take a guess at which version my opponent is gonna bring (to match competitive to competitive, etc) is a fail in my mind.

Commissar von Toussaint
27-01-2010, 03:17
Because I'm sure the company you've been supporting all of these years will get along just fine if all of a sudden no one bought their products. Couple this with the fact that you're basically calling for free revisions, or editions, to rulesets, and I think it's a bit crass. How do you expect them to profit?

It's called "standing behind your product."

I'd happily spend $200 on new miniatures and armies. That is, after all, what they should be trying to sell me.

Instead I'm offered the same game every four years. To my shame, I went ahead and bought it, twice for each system. No more.


The cost of playing Warhammer, in all its various forms, is something that became readily apparent to me after the initial excitement from making my first purchase from GW. I think that in the end, everyone who plays Warhammer comes to terms with the fact that it's an expensive hobby; not just in terms of obtaining updated rulesets, but also keeping your army, or armies, competative. Sure I can complain and moan about the price, but in the end it ultimately helps GW continue to put out the products I've come to enjoy. It's a small price to pay, in my eyes, for something that brings me entertainment and fun.

Send me some of your money. I have a budget - bills to pay, mouths to feed. At this point my choices are:

1. Pay $200-$300 every few years for yet another tragically-flawed and still-not-complete GW rules set, or
2. Get something else that will actually work - like a dishwasher or a half-dozen console games.

See, my old rule books still work. The type didn't magically disappear. All each edition seems to do is change what units people complain about. And they want me to pay more money for this? :eyebrows:

You know, I cut them some slack for 40k. It started as a lark, then a series of articles, then they took it semi-seriously and then they made it into a real game. Fine.

But WHFB has been not quite there for 30 years. Enough already.

Seriously, how long would you let an employee underperform and not quite get the job done?

Master Jeridian
27-01-2010, 03:25
From the customers standpoint (i.e. mine and yours) yes it's frustrating that GW makes changes for changes sake, that the editions are rarely radical improvements but tweaks of the same but...

...from a business point of view. You produce the 'perfect' Fantasy rulebook, your fanbase buys 1 copy, you then go out of business as no-one needs to buy another copy.
You produce imperfect copies, your fanbase buys, you produce the next imperfect version, your fanbase buys.

The key is finding the fine line between enticing your fanbase with refreshing 'improvements' and taking the **** by reprinting the same book.

4th to 5th 40k strayed too far into the latter for me, hence I no longer play it. Hopefully Fantasy 8th Ed won't.

Troah
27-01-2010, 03:35
Aside from my earlier comment, I also dislike how nearly every army has killing blow.

Stronginthearm
27-01-2010, 03:57
The 'auto-lose' mechanic just seemed so arbitrary and binary. It also never applied fairly. 15 Dwarfs probably costs the same as 30 Free Company, yet they are far more likely to run from zombies than the Free Company- despite their Ld 9 showing more resoluteness than Ld 7.

The Fear/Terror causing is a large component of why VC and Daemons are seen as so much more powerful than other armies. There is an argument that the Fear/Terror rules would be fine if only very, very few units had it- an Army Book fault. But I don't see this happening.

Much like the Scroll Caddy, my second forced choice when writing army lists for any of my armies is "Does it ignore Fear?", if it doesn't it's free points to my opponent who spams Fear/Terror causers.
If my main hitters in my army don't ignore Fear/Terror then there's no point bothering- which predictably limits my choices.

My Empire infantry force is now a token cheerleader unit, whilst the Knight Order and Templar Master (ItP) 'deathstar' unit do the work.

I understand Fear/Terror should have some effect on the Break Test, but not the win/lose it is now.
Modifiers to the Ld, forcing a re-roll of the first sucessful Ld test, or even roll Ld on 3D6 are alternatives I like- at least they factor in the Ld of the troops being scared.
.

I was thnking about that, it would allow the dwarves to still have an advantage if they changed so that fighitng fear is just a plus one to combat res and outnumbered fear is a plus 3, then just make terror the autobreak(seriously who doesnt widdle themselves at a dragon) since terror these days seems to be few and far between

Urgat
27-01-2010, 04:49
Any orc and gobbo player should be able to deal with this kind of thing, which is why they are so cheap.

Right, I wanna see you deal with 20" M flyers that can jump behind and above covers. Tell me your secret, in 15 years of playing gobs, I still haven't figured it out. As for not basing your tactics on fanatics, there's a world of a difference between merely using them, and having them rendered totally useless and a liability (I'm not going to comment on the "cheapness" of fanatics and the likes compared to the current armybooks...).
Anyway, you may argue all you want, the current rules give me reason, and I bet you all my fanatic models that the next set of rules will do the same :p So to keep that in topic, no, this aspect of warhammer (flyers landing in order for other troops to be able to do anything to them besides using ranged weapons) got my approval. Otherwise, you open the door to such comments as "why do flyers land anyway, if they see a unit coming, why don't they just take off in order to avoid being charged?" and the likes.

R-Love
27-01-2010, 05:52
And I wont even get into the price gouging that are their metal minis (their plastics are largely fine).

:D I burst out laughing at this. That's a good one. :D

Vermin-thing
27-01-2010, 06:09
I think by largely, Ronin_eX, ruled out the goldswords. :D

I don't like that movement in general is far to crippling, and that calvary outclasses infantry in every way. I also don't like that there's no cheep hero for the WoC army. Building a 1000 point tournament army is hard. :(

ChaosVC
27-01-2010, 07:47
You know, we are pretty much cows to GW, contend and happy with being milked out of our cash and only complain once in a while in a forum with a mooooo~~~Oooohh new pretty model!

Warp-Juicer
27-01-2010, 08:44
My friends who USED to play, don't anymore because they believe a lot of the flavor has left the game, and the rules have degraded to a retarded level.

From my perspective, a lot of people would become disinterested in the game because of the sheer number of W.A.A.C. players and people who try to win by rules manipulation, not by playing their list.


Ironically, some of those friends are the type of people I just mentioned.

Condottiere
27-01-2010, 10:01
No one really likes losing; if there's no guideline for a Fantasy game, I usually take along a list I'm confident has a really good chance of winning, which means it will have a number of hard elements.

Army composition limitations would need an agreed upon system that everyone has confidence in.

jayzerus
27-01-2010, 16:40
I firmly believe that the root of the problem lies in previous editions. What I mean by this is that people have played 4th, 5th, 6th edition, and they had specific rules that they liked. It is kind of an "in the old days" type of mentality.

For those of us that have started in 7th, and it is all we have known, don't necessarily have the same type of feelings that the veteran gamers have. I started playing a little over a year ago now, and have played enough games to consider myself a veteran gamer, however since this is all I've known, I can't honestly say that there is anything specific, other than a few of my opponents, that I don't like about this game.

Spinocus
27-01-2010, 20:03
Haven't been playing WHFB very long but my biggest beef is with the appalling lack of rules & codex updates between major edition releases. This single handedly contributes to the glaring imbalances between armies (i.e. power creep) and leads the more competitive gamers to pick up the latest & greatest 'I Win button' armies and rule at tournaments. The 'stop whining and learn to play' crowd comes across as arrogant and blind to the simple facts that certain armies consistently fair better in tournaments than others. Even the best OK or O&G general knows that, statistically speaking, an equally competent DoC, DE, VC or WoC general will beat him more often than not.

A few FAQs between BRB & Codex edition releases is simply unacceptable. I'm more of a computer gamer at heart and all game developers (particularly the most successful ones) make a point of debugging, balancing & updating their games periodically once they've been released. This process is critical to the success & longevity of online multiplayer games such as first person shooters, RTS & MMO's. Tabletop games like WH should take a page from the computer gaming playbook and put their products on a more timely update schedule. Would it really kill GW to make the necessary changes to a given army's codex long before the next edition is released?!? These books are cheaply made, I fail to see how releasing an updated edition along with an accompanying pdf to the online site is going to break the bank.

Beyond that I have a real beef with the inconsistency of the various codexes. GW needs to establish strict format guidelines for writing rulebooks (i.e. sub-sections dealing w/unit traits, special rules, etc.). The Skaven 7th Ed. book is riddled with holes thanks to lack of thorough testing and strict format guidelines.

Commissar von Toussaint
28-01-2010, 00:31
From the customers standpoint (i.e. mine and yours) yes it's frustrating that GW makes changes for changes sake, that the editions are rarely radical improvements but tweaks of the same but...

...from a business point of view. You produce the 'perfect' Fantasy rulebook, your fanbase buys 1 copy, you then go out of business as no-one needs to buy another copy.
You produce imperfect copies, your fanbase buys, you produce the next imperfect version, your fanbase buys.

The "fanbase" isn't fixed. It isn't a constant. It will grow and it will also shrink if you are not careful.

So what you do is build the best game possible, and get more and more people into it. Now this means that you can't post double-digit gains every year. At some point, the design "matures" and then you focus on sustaining and nurturing your core gamers.


The key is finding the fine line between enticing your fanbase with refreshing 'improvements' and taking the **** by reprinting the same book.

4th to 5th 40k strayed too far into the latter for me, hence I no longer play it. Hopefully Fantasy 8th Ed won't.

This is missing the point.

The goal should be to build the best possible product, not build some mediocre piece of crap that you can then sell periodic upgrade for. General Motors did this and where did it get them?

If GW had a solid, proven rules set that didn't have constant issues, they could focus on expanding the miniatures lines and people who burned out with each new edition could instead focus on expanding their lines or recruiting new opponents.

Instead, with each reissue, they lose a certain percentage of players. I don't honestly mind that this unit works better than that one. I just wish they'd make up their freaking minds about it.

Master Jeridian
28-01-2010, 02:25
The "fanbase" isn't fixed. It isn't a constant. It will grow and it will also shrink if you are not careful.

So what you do is build the best game possible, and get more and more people into it. Now this means that you can't post double-digit gains every year. At some point, the design "matures" and then you focus on sustaining and nurturing your core gamers.


Believe it or not, I'm with you, I shouted the same sentiments once. But then I looked at GW, the top of the wargaming industry, lasting more than 25 years...
I had to see why my (and your) noble ideal and utopian paradise hadn't come to pass and why despite Warseerites announcements GW is still the top and still going strong.

Your above quote, your immediate fail was admitting this design philosophy would see a downturn in profit....then why bother from a business point of view?
The idea that a wargame will naturally reach a Nirvana at which point GW can concentrate on their misunderstood Veterans has always been far more about Veteran dreaming than the world of cold business. It's almost as deluded as the idea a commercial business will shoot itself in the profits for the 'good of those who slagged it off'.

A new edition every few years guarantees a large number of people at least buying a new rulebook, it also allows a huge marketing drive with flashy slogans like 'Brand New' and 'Better Than Ever'. Why do you think Sofa shops are permanently on 'One-day Sales'?
This plan is indefinite.

Your plan assuming the 'perfect' rulebook has an ever decreasing return. Once you've produced all the 'perfect' Army Books, then what? Ever more obscure terrain/campaign booklets?
Your left only with models- and whilst they do actually provide most of the sales, they need rules* updates. People get bored, people want new things. People have short memories and are impulsive.
There are games out there that are near 'perfect' in what they aim to do, and are very fun to play- they stagnated (e.g. Epic), a lot of people don't want gameplay, they want shiny new toys- it's human nature.

*This is often countered with the belief that there's some 'invisible' majority who only collect models, but if that's true why bother with the elaborate 'game' trick?


This is missing the point.

The goal should be to build the best possible product, not build some mediocre piece of crap that you can then sell periodic upgrade for.

Nope, your 'point' and the 'point' a CEO of business wants are different. Every commerical business' point is to make money.

The current method of periodic sale of mediocre works exceptionally well.


If GW had a solid, proven rules set that didn't have constant issues, they could focus on expanding the miniatures lines and people who burned out with each new edition could instead focus on expanding their lines or recruiting new opponents.


It's a case of 'not broken, don't fix it', mixed with the fear that if they do make a radical improved ruleset- if they take that huge risk, it could blow up in their face. The current climate is not one where business takes huge risk- GW has always been conservative in view. Tiny steps.

The conflict could be that you and I want a solid, proven rules set- but little timmy wants new toys all the time, and he wants those toys to beat down little jimmy's toys that where released last month.
The key is, little timmy outnumbers us in number/purchases by orders of 10-1.


Instead, with each reissue, they lose a certain percentage of players. I don't honestly mind that this unit works better than that one. I just wish they'd make up their freaking minds about it.

Do you have the numbers to hand? I don't remember filling in a form with GW and signing out when I left?
This Warseer line that GW is 'two minutes to midnight' doom has been spoken for more than 2 decades...think about that, for 20+ years doomsayers have bleated of the refugee waves fleeing GW. Yet it's still here, it's still top dog.

None of this is to bitch at you, I agree with your sentiments- long live the wargame revolution and all that.
My point, if I had one, is that people have been saying what your saying for 20+ years- many of them still buy the product.
When dealing with commercial businesses, they are not your endearing uncle. If you do not like their product don't buy it, if you 'sort of in moderation' like their product (as I do Fantasy) then buy in moderation.

This is also not to tell people to shut up about what they don't like- it's reassuring to know people have similar grumbles to myself. But this is a wishlist, nothing more. If GW get some right, it's fluke not Warseer intervention.

Condottiere
28-01-2010, 08:26
GW is at an interesting size, they are too large to need to care about their long term customers, and unlike Hasbro, too small to create divisions that cater to each market segment.

Spiney Norman
28-01-2010, 11:06
Several things, firstly the ever escalating price, and secondly the army books for Daemons, Vampire Counts and Dark Elves, which stuck large sharp implements in the metagame

40K is more disappointing to me because GW's fixation with Space Marines has skewed the entire game, and they tend to periodically leave several non-marine armies in a state of crippling uncompetitive torpor for what seems like forever (currently Dark Eldar, Necrons and Daemon Hunters) because for some reason they need 5 codices just to cover the space marine army, and you guessed it, these 5 are the most frequently re-released codices in 40K...

Commissar von Toussaint
29-01-2010, 02:23
Believe it or not, I'm with you, I shouted the same sentiments once. But then I looked at GW, the top of the wargaming industry, lasting more than 25 years...
I had to see why my (and your) noble ideal and utopian paradise hadn't come to pass and why despite Warseerites announcements GW is still the top and still going strong.

Erm, sales are down. They keep raising prices, which keeps the money flowing, but in absolute terms, sales keep falling. So this "planned obsolence" thing is working about as well for them as it did for Chrysler and GM.

Now I'm one of those guys who practices what I preach. I abandoned WHFB and designed Conqueror. I know that this game can only succeed if it promises something BETTER than what is out there.

Maybe I'll go nowhere, or maybe I'll be like Toyota and hammer GW to its knees. Whatever.

The point is that I saw the writing on the wall when the new editions were announced, dumped my old books and ebay and gave up. And so did everyone I played with. No more sales.

Maybe my group is unique. But the big picture says otherwise. Indeed, GW should have had some of its best years thanks to re-launching (which means re-selling) all its games. And it's not doing so hot.

Anyhow, this thread is about what I don't like, and that's what I don't like. I've been priced out of the game, period. I can live with Reiksguard Foot becoming Greatswords, but I can't afford to pay $200 just to play the same game.

Brother Edwin
29-01-2010, 02:48
Right, I wanna see you deal with 20" M flyers that can jump behind and above covers. Tell me your secret, in 15 years of playing gobs, I still haven't figured it out. As for not basing your tactics on fanatics, there's a world of a difference between merely using them, and having them rendered totally useless and a liability (I'm not going to comment on the "cheapness" of fanatics and the likes compared to the current armybooks...).
Anyway, you may argue all you want, the current rules give me reason, and I bet you all my fanatic models that the next set of rules will do the same :p So to keep that in topic, no, this aspect of warhammer (flyers landing in order for other troops to be able to do anything to them besides using ranged weapons) got my approval. Otherwise, you open the door to such comments as "why do flyers land anyway, if they see a unit coming, why don't they just take off in order to avoid being charged?" and the likes.

I would shoot them with my 8 bolt throwers and 2 doom divers. Or charge them with my wyvern. Thats how I would do it. Someone else might have another idea I guess. TBH unless its a lord flyers shouldant bother ranked up units anyway.

WolfGuardChris
29-01-2010, 06:51
Wow, as a non-WFB player who was looking into starting sometime in the near future I can't really see myself doing so after reading this.

I think some of these posts might be pointless gripes but the sheer number of criticism makes me think their has got to be something wrong with this game.

I think the one that put me off the most is the complaint about the uselessness of infantry. The most interesting part of the game to me was having ranks of soldiers clashing into each other in pitched battle, like Braveheart or perhaps Lord of the Rings, which is what made me consider sharing time with my 40k Wolves.

Seems like more about small mounted units and godlike Independent Characters that run the show in WFB?

I like cool characters myself but what makes fantasy battles intersting to me is the infantry. They are what ultimately should win you the game.

Until I see what the next edition of the game brings I think I'll stick with 40k. Which is sad cause I think I'd really like the fluff and army building/painting aspect of Fantasy.

Vermin-thing
29-01-2010, 07:00
I really don't like GW's attitude towards other companies models. I know I wouldn't allow other restaurant's food in my restaurant, but I feel that it is a problematic thing because by not allowing other companies in there stores, they alienate a very large part of the gaming scene. For all intents, and purpose don't sell Mantic stuff in GW stores, but loosen the grip on what can go on the tables.

Why do I not just go to a gaming club? There isn't one within a reasonable distance, so what am I going to do with all my non GW stuff?

It would be great if I could use my really nice mantic skeletons for a Tomb King army. :(

ChaosVC
29-01-2010, 07:04
Wow, as a non-WFB player who was looking into starting sometime in the near future I can't really see myself doing so after reading this.

I think some of these posts might be pointless gripes but the sheer number of criticism makes me think their has got to be something wrong with this game.

I think the one that put me off the most is the complaint about the uselessness of infantry. The most interesting part of the game to me was having ranks of soldiers clashing into each other in pitched battle, like Braveheart or perhaps Lord of the Rings, which is what made me consider sharing time with my 40k Wolves.

Seems like more about small mounted units and godlike Independent Characters that run the show in WFB?

I like cool characters myself but what makes fantasy battles intersting to me is the infantry. They are what ultimately should win you the game.

Until I see what the next edition of the game brings I think I'll stick with 40k. Which is sad cause I think I'd really like the fluff and army building/painting aspect of Fantasy.

This is the funiest post I have ever read so far:rolleyes:

Vermin-thing
29-01-2010, 07:13
I think that if they shifted from points per model, to an amount for the command, and rest of the front rank, and then a small price for each point of rank bonus. Should a point of rank bonus cost 25 points for empire spearmen? More like ten points.

SirSnipes
29-01-2010, 07:21
i hate the emphasis on magic and how you HAVE to play with it or you lose, and i hate how lord based it is, its like whole armys are simply vessels for a lord and it anoys me, but we play with no lords and it is so much fun

ChaosVC
29-01-2010, 07:59
i hate the emphasis on magic and how you HAVE to play with it or you lose, and i hate how lord based it is, its like whole armys are simply vessels for a lord and it anoys me, but we play with no lords and it is so much fun

Erh...which army are you playing that the entire army depends on the lord to win the game??? As far as I am concern after 10 years of experience in warhammer, even the most broken daemon army can lose it's lord and still win you the game?

billytheid
29-01-2010, 08:10
WFB has gone through a parabolic curve insofar as army composition and tactics is concerned. Back in ye olde days(early 90's) when I started to play WFB it was all about the characters and what you gave them(Does anyone remember the Executioners Axe or the dreaded Black Gem of Gnar?). Then people started to get sick of watching two lords duke it out atop their awesome dragons and demanded a bit of tactical flexibility. This was back in the days when White Dwarf had a Q and A section and GW treated customers like fellow gamers not bovine witted cash cows.

So, the WFB game was made more tactical and as a result armies became more individualistic and characterful. The company entered a golden age and gamers rejoiced... then they pulled a Nero on us and went mad with cash inspired power... the game has become once again a lord driven affair dominated by calculators and cash. "Can you afford the super units? They are worth it because you'll win... there you go Timmy... we care about you're gaming experience*snigger*"

If you want a fantasy based tabletop game play Lord of the Rings(not War of the Ring)... it beats the living hell out of WFB and is probably the pinnacle of GW rules development.

ChaosVC
29-01-2010, 08:41
If you want a fantasy based tabletop game play Lord of the Rings(not War of the Ring)... it beats the living hell out of WFB and is probably the pinnacle of GW rules development.

A reliable source told me this is not true after a few games with LOTR.

billytheid
29-01-2010, 08:56
A reliable source told me this is not true after a few games with LOTR.

I would strongly suggest that you try it for yourself before forming solid judgments. I don't know that I'm a reliable source but I have been playing WFB for a while(15 years at least now... god I'm a nerd) and I feel that Lord of the Rings encapsulates the feel of fantasy/medieval combat and tactics far more effectively then WFB. The only downside is the number of books you need... so many books.

EDIT: you'll also need to play more then a few games to get to grips with the game, much like any unfamiliar system. Lord of the Rings is very, very different to WFB so it must be approached with that in mind. Too many people wanted it to be WFB with Gandalf.

vampires are cool!
29-01-2010, 09:02
Seconded Billy, Lotr is a fun, fast and fairly good game. However, if you want proper viceral mayhem try Wotr!

ChaosVC
29-01-2010, 09:23
Well to be honest I actually watched a few demo games in the GW shop(now gone) when LOTR first released. I can only say...its really not my cup of tea and it really feels like 40k with a fantasy setting, its a freaking dice off.

billytheid
29-01-2010, 09:32
Oh but the tension! Do I use my point of might now... maybe I should save it... They have a cave troll... what to do... AGH!

The fact that a great dice roll will not always save you is what makes it so interesting.

Condottiere
29-01-2010, 10:37
I think the one that put me off the most is the complaint about the uselessness of infantry. The most interesting part of the game to me was having ranks of soldiers clashing into each other in pitched battle, like Braveheart or perhaps Lord of the Rings, which is what made me consider sharing time with my 40k Wolves.
This depends on which infantry happens to be on the table and how the player is using them; it's not an accident you'll see masses of Elven infantry.

Urgat
29-01-2010, 14:39
I would shoot them with my 8 bolt throwers and 2 doom divers. Or charge them with my wyvern. Thats how I would do it. Someone else might have another idea I guess. TBH unless its a lord flyers shouldant bother ranked up units anyway.

Well 1) I don't run a gunline 2) I play with terrain and 3) my opponents know that hiding large targets behind buildings and the likes might make them, you know, like totally immune to 10 silly warmachines (and, optionnaly, 4), you need to get first turn, or that doesn't help at all >>)? But we're all crubs around here, we haven't got how to play right yet. Maybe in 60 or so years we'll do, and I'll get to decide to play a fun and efficient army like yours. But enough with that. I'm actually surprised this thread has not imploded yet, it's like perfect troll bait...

WolfGuardChris
29-01-2010, 16:46
This is the funiest post I have ever read so far:rolleyes:

Really? Which part?

I'd like to be told I'm mistaken if that's so cause from what I read in this thread it seems to be the case.

Daniel36
29-01-2010, 16:51
I personally dislike the focus on heroes, lords and special characters. Sure, they should be the centerpiece of the army, but I personally really like big armies, big fat blocks of infantry, and that just doesn't seem to work right with the current rules. That, or I just suck real bad, which is also true.

Skyros
29-01-2010, 17:41
A reliable source told me this is not true after a few games with LOTR.

Mmm, I've played a couple games of LOTR, so maybe I've missed some points, but it seemed, if anything, even more character driven than fantasy, and less reliance on formations and tactical movement.

Commissar von Toussaint
29-01-2010, 23:38
This depends on which infantry happens to be on the table and how the player is using them; it's not an accident you'll see masses of Elven infantry.

I haven't seen the new army list, so tell me: Do the elves still give every infantry unit a special rule?

Condottiere
30-01-2010, 07:59
I'm not sure that you could call them special rules, but from the High Elves, extra rank of spearmen, Swordmasters S5 A2 WS6, Phoenix Guard Ward 4+ Fear, White Lions S6 AS 3+ shooting; Dark Elves RxB 2x AP, spears very cheap, Witch Elves poison A2 frenzied, Corsairs, Shades, Black Guard ItP; Executioners KB, but might not be as efficient as the others.

Foxhound_808
30-01-2010, 12:02
thank you for the interesting replies everyone. very interesting discussion.

however, someone mentioned GW sales going down...I just heard that their profit margin is up 50%? can anyone confirm or deny this? I personally felt that 2009 was a banner year...they really got a lot of things right.

ps, re the lotr discussion...it is one of my favorite games. it was very well balanced and (rightly so) hero-oriented. It really capture the dramatic feel of the movies I felt.

Commissar von Toussaint
30-01-2010, 15:25
thank you for the interesting replies everyone. very interesting discussion.

however, someone mentioned GW sales going down...I just heard that their profit margin is up 50%? can anyone confirm or deny this? I personally felt that 2009 was a banner year...they really got a lot of things right.

Sales are down, but because their prices are so high (and they are cutting costs) they have been able to increase profits. It seems contradictory, but isn't.

It is, however, not a trend that can be sustained over the long run. There's lots more about this here. (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240674)

As to the elves, do Swordmasters still get to ignore the "goes last" with greatswords?

The proliferation of special rules - and the fact that some lists give EVERY unit one - is another thing I don't like.

Condottiere
30-01-2010, 15:47
ASF applies to every High Elf, even Sword Masters.

ChaosVC
30-01-2010, 16:36
Sales are down, but because their prices are so high (and they are cutting costs) they have been able to increase profits. It seems contradictory, but isn't.

It is, however, not a trend that can be sustained over the long run. There's lots more about this here. (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240674)

As to the elves, do Swordmasters still get to ignore the "goes last" with greatswords?

The proliferation of special rules - and the fact that some lists give EVERY unit one - is another thing I don't like.

Considering the fact that kids now a days find computers and internet multiplayers games easier to access, a WAY BETTER way to get eye candy with no effort required and easy to play, table top wargaming is definately already on the decline.

Now with the ridculous price tags place on their excellently produce models (no sarcasm honest, they are good but too pricy), how many kids these days can afford to play this game without having rich parents support. This game is already an adult game and the targeted customers are suppose to be adult but you can't help but feel that GW think otherwise considering their marketing strategies(spaz marlines chapter spamz).... how can their sales not drop if mature gamers decide to quit the hobby due to quite a number of their bad game design for both system, especially fantasy...

They are probably losing more old customer than they can attract more new generation Table Top wargammers who have rich parents. I mean, how many kids would rather ask for a xbox360 when given a choice between that and warhammer army collection with grey and silver models? How many kids has the ability to appreciate the quality in a set of well sculpted models, when they are told that it worth as much as a PSP, playstion3,Xbox360 or a computer?:skull:

Edit: And how many people in this forum kept trying to tell people that their gaming group is cool because they have awesome MATURE people?

Commissar von Toussaint
30-01-2010, 19:09
The video game threat is not new. I've got an Atari 2600 that's probably older than most people in this forum.

Indeed, despite the massive growth of computer gaming (and the rise of the internet and online play) GW really didn't hit its stride until the 1990s. That was when it became big and did the IPO and everything.

More on topic, I like the idea of a fantasy miniatures game and I think there will always be people who want to do something face-to-face.

Computers also lack the individual craft element - painting, assembling, converting - that miniatures brings.

All of which is to say a stronger, cleaner (less special rules) and more stable system is what I'd like.

tezdal
03-02-2010, 02:38
If you want a fantasy based tabletop game play Lord of the Rings(not War of the Ring)... it beats the living hell out of WFB and is probably the pinnacle of GW rules development.

Agreed, LOTR rules are great skirmish rules, but WOTR is an excellent engine for mass combat fantasy, some quirks but for me it's a great game to slam a few hundred miniature's down and play with.

Gwyddyon
03-02-2010, 03:11
The only real complaint I have with the current rules is how characters and unit champions work. I'd like to see them have much less of a Conan the Barbarian role in combat, dealing out 7 S6 attacks per round blah blah blah, and more of a role in terms of army morale other than just break/panic tests, which are only half of a true psychology system (the other half being things like whether or not your troops are motivated to march, etc.).

Skyros
03-02-2010, 16:02
The biggest problem with the core rules are the psychology rules. They are way out of hand. Fear is too strong, terror is too strong, panic is too strong.

The core magic system is not too strong.
The static combat res system is well thought out and would give blocks of infantry a chance against killy units.

Looking at individual army books, you run into characters that are ridiculous, magic lores/combos that are absurd, and 'deathstar' units that simply run wild over fully ranked infantry even from the front.

You also see deathstar skirmishers. Skirmishers are way too strong in fantasy - or rather, skirmishers that can pose a threat to ranked units in close combat. This is a problem with individual army books. Skirmishers are mostly immune to template weapons and directed missile fire, which leaves you magic to deal with them, and *some* armies have ways of easily neutralizing magic directed at your swarm of deadly skirmishers. They move fast and freely, and can charge in any direction. They can outmanuever blocks of infantry and hack them to pieces. There simply shouldn't be any skirmishers that good at combat. It doesn't matter if your skirmishers can't get a rank bonus if they are causing 10 wounds. It also doesn't matter how bad your skirmishers are if you can throw in several killy characters.

I think a skirmish unit that has a character join it should cease being a skirmishing unit, with a couple of exceptions.

W0lf 1990
03-02-2010, 16:57
What dont i like about this game?

The terrible balance between armybooks.

Nuff said.

Stronginthearm
04-02-2010, 02:09
And how many people in this forum kept trying to tell people that their gaming group is cool because they have awesome MATURE people?

I'm pleased to say that my gaming group is blissfully imature :D(meaning that when we argue about the rules after 5 minutes both sides have completely forgotten about it)

Poseidal
04-02-2010, 14:44
You also see deathstar skirmishers. Skirmishers are way too strong in fantasy - or rather, skirmishers that can pose a threat to ranked units in close combat. This is a problem with individual army books. Skirmishers are mostly immune to template weapons and directed missile fire, which leaves you magic to deal with them, and *some* armies have ways of easily neutralizing magic directed at your swarm of deadly skirmishers. They move fast and freely, and can charge in any direction. They can outmanuever blocks of infantry and hack them to pieces. There simply shouldn't be any skirmishers that good at combat. It doesn't matter if your skirmishers can't get a rank bonus if they are causing 10 wounds. It also doesn't matter how bad your skirmishers are if you can throw in several killy characters.

I'm wondering, is this Skirmishers in general, or a particular type of Skirmisher who can take good melee and ranged weapons?

Stronginthearm
04-02-2010, 14:58
I think he means one paticular (shade) skirmisher, while I havent been hit with one of those personally I can see the problem, I think that the premise of both great melee and great shooting on a unit with that much mobility is a problem

But then again so are alot of things, life goes on

Poseidal
04-02-2010, 15:01
I thought as much, but one unit is causing the problem; is there a huge problem with Wood Elf Wardancers (combat skirmishers) or Skink Skirmishers (shooting skirmishers)?

Would it really be wise to make all skirmishers take a hit?

Stronginthearm
04-02-2010, 15:20
Same thing with magic, when the big magic armies (VC DE daemons) came out people starting (or in some cases continued) screaming about reducing magic, in the insanely long time ago when Bretonnians were nasty there were complaints about cav and high saves plus ward, things don't really change that much

ashc
04-02-2010, 15:28
Look at the front page of this forum, and check out all the change threads running. Pretty much people think its those things.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
04-02-2010, 15:34
Agreed, LOTR rules are great skirmish rules, but WOTR is an excellent engine for mass combat fantasy, some quirks but for me it's a great game to slam a few hundred miniature's down and play with.

So, LotR is skirmish and WotR has actual formations and units then? Is this correct? If so, I may have to look into it. GW's best wargame though IMO is Warmaster. Now if they weren't so difficult to paint.

Maoriboy007
04-02-2010, 23:57
I hate that warhammer seems to be fleehammer these days. No one seems to fight these days its, "I'm angled on a ## degree angle so you'll chase me in this direction so I can obviously flank you with (said uber unit) etc":(
Then I get flack because the only constructive thing I can do is sit back and raise. :angel:
Fix skirmishers dammit ;)

Chiron
05-02-2010, 00:05
Biggest bone of contention for me is the increasing amount of ITP and Fear causers causing a lot of the psychology rules to be null and void apart from stuff like Frenzy and Hatred.

Some of the characteristics are hardly used such as Initative and Ld as a result.

That and army wide rules making up for problems with core concepts, combats should be in Initative order, charging doubling Initative. That takes care of ASF and makes Elves quick and deadly vs stuff like zombies as they should be. Weapons need more variation, for example Halberds preventing charge bonuses from cavalry to the front, Spears triple initative vs charging cavalry to the front making stuff other than HW&S valid again.

So yes, more psychology, maybe then Orc players wouldnt be so upset by animosity, better weapons choices and finally increase each time a caster fails to cast up the casting value by 1, that should knock some of the wind out of deamons and VC

And finally, ward saves cancelled by magic on Deamons

Brother Edwin
22-03-2010, 03:17
Well 1) I don't run a gunline 2) I play with terrain and 3) my opponents know that hiding large targets behind buildings and the likes might make them, you know, like totally immune to 10 silly warmachines (and, optionnaly, 4), you need to get first turn, or that doesn't help at all >>)? But we're all crubs around here, we haven't got how to play right yet. Maybe in 60 or so years we'll do, and I'll get to decide to play a fun and efficient army like yours. But enough with that. I'm actually surprised this thread has not imploded yet, it's like perfect troll bait...

If it hides behind terrain it wont be doing anything.

Tarliyn
22-03-2010, 03:43
I think it is silly when people say the rules aren't cutting edged? What the f does that even mean?

On a unit by unit basis GW is leagues cheaper than warmachine hordes. All of their units are priced the same as goldswords/bestigors.

The jacks and casters usually end up being priced around the same as monsters and characters.

Don't get me wrong I play both games and enjoy both games but to say GW rules are somehow outdated and models are overpriced is pretty absurd. Their largest competition (PP) are in no way better in either regard:

roll 2 (or 3) add my ws and compare to your defense doesn't seem progressive at all either.

and their prices are basically the same.

Stronginthearm
22-03-2010, 05:08
I just spent the last 30 minutes trying gracefully to exit a conversation about the differences between Blood Angels and Dark Angels,

for all your faults Thank you Warhammer for not having Space Marines

Dantès
22-03-2010, 05:46
for all your faults Thank you Warhammer for not having Space Marines

Sigmar is a primarch.

*ducks*

Condottiere
22-03-2010, 07:53
And in that sense, Chaos Warriors qualify for this setting's Marines.

Fobster
22-03-2010, 08:16
That core units of infantry are a liability.

Stronginthearm
22-03-2010, 21:35
And in that sense, Chaos Warriors qualify for this setting's Marines.

Ok they have heavy armor and pwn everything but nobobdy cares that there are 15 thousand different types and goes to the effort to build rules and backround for each,


*and chucks something at Dantes

brendel
22-03-2010, 21:46
Love the game, my group treats the game more as a treat to play, we all have familys and jobs so when we get to play we make the most of it, working on the kids now trying to get them all interested.

logan054
23-03-2010, 00:23
The one part i really dislike about warhammer is the magic phase, its biggest flaw i think is having powerdice based on the amount of wizards on the table which is just incentive to use magic heavy armies (i do miss the old winds of magic). The sad thing about this is you are forced into buying wizards even if you dont want to be agressive with the phase just to be in a shoot of a enjoyable game. I cant happily play a game of warhammer without using archers and cannons so why should it be any different with magic?

The other problem like others have said is the army books, half the time it dosnt even feel like they were play tested before sent out to print, its either that or they just weak armies to apease people complaining about x army being broken.

Loki73
23-03-2010, 01:11
Magic phase......

not enough core in armies to make a fun fight usually....

pretty much one army book is so-so the other is really auwsome....

it comes on square bases....

ChaosVC
23-03-2010, 02:53
Balance between armies book is bad because whoever decide who to write a book is not doing a very good in making such decisions, ie asking philly kelly to write fantasy books when his expertise is in 40k, he wrote a powerfull but mainly boring WOC book and a very dull beastman book. Then you have people like matt ward who can't even make decent balance books....DOC and O&G anyone... worst of all, he is writing/or have written 8th ed... Can't wait to see what he did... can he redeem himself or create a whole new Warhammer 41k?

Kevlar
23-03-2010, 02:57
The main problem with warhammer is the buisness model. Games workshop makes money selling minatures, not rules. So they adapt their rules for new army books in a way to maximize selling miniatures. They will undercost (points wise) relatively obscure units and give them great special rules, while in turn taking staple units and making them utter crap so that people who had very viable armies are forced to rebuy the whole thing.

The worst example was the splintering of Army Books. Undead was split into Vampires and Tomb Kings which left most people with only half an army. Hordes of Chaos was split three ways into demons, beasts, and mortals, really screwing over old Chaos players. All this wasn't done to make the game more enjoyable. It was done to sell more minatures.