PDA

View Full Version : Hero Hammer and the definition of 'May'



Icarus81
29-08-2014, 23:51
This thread was closed, because people browbeat the creator into accepting their interpretation, but if the rules say you 'may' use this book - does may mean that you can do so without permission (e.g. you may play Empire) or does it mean you can choose to allow it or not?

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?399492-Hero-Hammer-is-Back!

N00B
30-08-2014, 00:14
Depends on if "you" is singular or plural. If it is plural implying a collective decision then no. If it is singular implying an individual decision then yes.

Icarus81
30-08-2014, 00:30
I don't have the book handy so I can't quote the precise text yet - is there anyone to assist?

Tae
30-08-2014, 00:51
This thread was closed, because people browbeat the creator into accepting their interpretation, but if the rules say you 'may' use this book - does may mean that you can do so without permission (e.g. you may play Empire) or does it mean you can choose to allow it or not?

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?399492-Hero-Hammer-is-Back!

The whole question of 'permission' is irrelevant. There are two types of WFB game (and any other table top war games for that matter): tournament and non-tournament.

Tournament games are governed by what the TO decides the rules are, so the only permission required is theirs, and they can do whatever they want regardless of what the rules may or may not say.

Non-tournament games are governed by the players playing - and that means both of them. So even if you 'may' use X, Y or Z that doesn't mean your opponent has to agree to it, they are free to say "actually I'd rather not play that, but thanks anyway" (or similar).

So what you 'May' or 'may not' do is more governed by your opponent than any publication, they merely provide a good starting point for discussion.

Icarus81
30-08-2014, 01:46
I completely agree, but the level of acceptance from the community is based on how 'official' rules seem to be part of regular warhammer. Its why you're less likely to see SoM scrolls or anything from T&T or SB.

So I guess the question would be - how likely are people to accept this as core rules (if deemed to be reasonably balanced)?

Rudra34
30-08-2014, 02:07
I'd assume fairly likely, as they can choose to use them or not from one game to the next. If you set up a game with a friend, or are going to a tournament, then both players are very likely going to know what kind of game they are playing.

You might randomly get into a pick-up game where one person is using the other rules, but other than that I don't you're going to be shocked by somebody's army composition.

So can you use these rules in a regular game of warhammer? Sure, why not? Are we going to see this becoming the norm in all tournaments and friendly settings? I highly doubt it.

Reiko321
30-08-2014, 02:31
I fully expect that tournaments will comp the end times book(s) as 'IN' or 'OUT' until there is a formal ruling from GW (it's ok to laugh a little).

Until then pickup games will be decided by the two people playing the game, and tournaments will have to make snap rulings if they don't deal with it upfront.

HelloKitty
30-08-2014, 03:04
I have always followed my own personal belief that you should find people you enjoy playing with and the rest falls into place. If you don't want to play against Nagash and someone insists on bringing him, simply don't play said person.

Events here are already going to be using the end of times books. So here it is offical. However, here is not everywhere so it will depend on your area.

Snake1311
30-08-2014, 05:49
I completely agree, but the level of acceptance from the community is based on how 'official' rules seem to be part of regular warhammer. Its why you're less likely to see SoM scrolls or anything from T&T or SB.

So I guess the question would be - how likely are people to accept this as core rules (if deemed to be reasonably balanced)?

I'd say very unlikely, as its clearly not core rules, being neither a Big Rulebook nor an Army Book.

Some tournaments will run it for lulz, as they currently do with binding scrolls and whatnot.

The only exception to the above seem to be Tamurkhan's Chaos Dwarf list, which seems to now be universally accepted as the 16th warhammer army all around the UK (and I think most of Europe). But I don't see this happening with the End Times to be honest, as it mostly just messes with the goalposts.

Spiney Norman
30-08-2014, 07:13
This thread was closed, because people browbeat the creator into accepting their interpretation, but if the rules say you 'may' use this book - does may mean that you can do so without permission (e.g. you may play Empire) or does it mean you can choose to allow it or not?

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?399492-Hero-Hammer-is-Back!

That is not why the thread was closed, it was closed because it was posted in the news and rumour section, contributing no news or rumours, only confirmation of a rumour that had been discussed previously on three incarnations of the wfb future rumour threads. It also contained an objectively false statement in the title ("herohammer is back").

As to your question, which I'm kind of reading as... "does 'may use these rules' allow you to foist them on your opponent unannounced and he/she have no say about whether you use them", well the 40k community has been grappling with this exact issue for the last couple of years, first with the escalation/stronghold assault expansions, and now with the rules for unbound armies.

The fact is that GW has been moving away from a game that you can just turn up and play with no questions asked and towards one that you have to engage in extended negotiation with your opponent before hand. While on the one hand that sounds mature and sensible and great for community-building, all it really achieved for 40k was to create an unpleasant argument and bad feeling between two players before they play as each one tries to argue themselves an advantage over their opponent

Its worth pointing out that both escalation and SH assault both got fully integrated into the 7th edition rules at the change and are now very much part of the core game. This actually made playing the game worse because there is now no sense in which you have to discuss using the more abusive parts of the game like superheavy vehicles with your opponent, you just have to be prepared for the possibility that you can (and probably will) end up playing against them.

The same could very well happen with the rule adaptions presented in the End times books when 9th edition rolls around.

GWs games are getting more and more difficult to play in a competitive 'gamer', spirit, 40k has already dropped off the cliff in that regard and there is a thread in the 40k general talking about exactly why the 'gamer' types have stopped playing the game. The sad fact is that warhammer is going that way too, and the 'pre-game argument' is now becoming more and more necessary.

For me, no, it don't think you can foist an expanded set of rules on someone who is unprepared for it, because I wouldn't want it done to me. Both players should be aware of the parameters of the game before hand and have the opportunity to decline to play if they don't like those parameters.

Blkc57
30-08-2014, 08:25
An honest question to people: why would someone not wish to play against a person using the Warhammer: Nagash book? Is it the fear of fighting the special characters? Is there a rule or unit that some find particularly broken? I only ask because the book at least in my area has re spurred interest in several players who use to run Tomb Kings but dislike their current army book, and now with the Undead Legion it makes their army a little more viable. If you would disallow certain aspect of the book, would many that are dismayed at playing against the Undead Legion still feel uneasy if a Tomb Kings player were to use the Undead Legion army rules but still only use units from the Tomb Kings line?

Urgat
30-08-2014, 08:58
I suspect it has mostly to do with the 50% lords rule. Some fear that it'll bring back Herohammer. My opinion is that current fighting lords and associated mounts/magic items are way too weak to unbalance the game (they're eons away from the characters we could get during 5th ed, the actual herohammer period). Others have argued that you can load up on wozard lords, but, well, the power dice generation sin't changing either, so that would be a stupid move, you won't cast more spells even if you can manage to fit two or three lvl4 in your army. Since the 25% core requirement is not gone, additional lords will just encroach on the special and rare choices, which are usually much more scary and/or useful in the 8th ed meta with steadfast and stepup.

Nubl0
30-08-2014, 10:12
Agreed, I plan on using this list for my Tomb Kings if I can anyway as it fixes some of the many stupid flaws with their book e.g. only healing constructs once per magic phase and no marching near the general. As explained above I doubt I'll ever use the 50% lords allowance anyway. I am sorely tempted to run nagash but don't feel like buying a load more undead to make use of his crazy undeath bonus. Might sound like im just using the book for more power and quite frankly I am, TK have been kicked around too long and this I feel brings them at least to the middle ground. Might give arkhan a go though. As for legion list as a whole? even with the combined rosters I still don't think it will severely challenge the really top tier books, only thing that looks slightly too powerful is nagash but even then cannons say hello mr giant base.

Lord Solar Plexus
30-08-2014, 10:32
An honest question to people: why would someone not wish to play against a person using the Warhammer: Nagash book? Is it the fear of fighting the special characters? Is there a rule or unit that some find particularly broken?

Several reasons: The focus on extremely powerful characters, for one. I think a Red Fury Vampire or Alarielle with +8 to casting or the unbreakable WoC DP have already crossed a line. Urgat is objectively wrong when he claims a DP has any problem with steadfast or step-up, especially when we recognize the strong trend away from large infantry blocks. It's just the tendency towards more Arena Fight elements that I personally dislike.

Secondly, the strengthening of magic. Six dicing, the Big Spells, the untacticalness of it is one of the major problems people have with this edition. So many have said they wish it was all toned down, and what do we get? An even stronger mage with even less limitations who can also fight as well or better than a fully tooled Chaos Lord! I find it extremely perplexing that so many people voiced their dislike for the excesses of the magic system and now everyone camps in front of GW stores to get the badass caster of the month...

Thirdly, current armies have been built with some limitations in mind. Even though they are not always well-executed, Vampires or WoC without WM are as much part of the game as sometimes of the fluff and feel. Do you remember the ********* about the DoC Skillcannon? Mixing and matching from several books is really the same story. I really don't mind TK having Vargheists or being able to march or whatnot but people will look for and easily find the most broken combos, and they're will inevitably be more of them. Of course we play with comp here, yet the point is that the need for that comp increases...which is once more not a trend I particularly like.

More so, large expensive centrepiece models might be nice to see once in a while yet games will tend to revolve much more about killing a single model. Kill Nagash with one volley and likely win, don't and probably lose. This whole approach is simply way to all-or-nothing for my taste.

Urgat
30-08-2014, 10:46
Might sound like im just using the book for more power and quite frankly I am, TK have been kicked around too long and this I feel brings them at least to the middle ground.

I don't think anybody will blame you. There's quite a few players who've gone through an edition with a crappy armybook (OnG, OK, DE to name but a few) and would understand perfectly.


Several reasons: The focus on extremely powerful characters, for one. I think a Red Fury Vampire or Alarielle with +8 to casting or the unbreakable WoC DP have already crossed a line. Urgat is objectively wrong when he claims a DP has any problem with steadfast or step-up, especially when we recognize the strong trend away from large infantry blocks.

How so? You can already take that DP, and if you take two, you have no army. Do you "objectively" (there's nothing objective in your comment by the way, it's as subjective as it can be) think you can win a game with two DP and 25% less in specials and rares?

Honestly, all your arguments are based on a very small selections of choices, and that I dismiss as I dismiss using slaves to show that steadfast is broken. Not everybody has a super DP or Alarielle. Yeah Nagash has crazy rules, he still has to cast his spells with a 2D6 PD, and get through dispelling and scrolls. It sounds like people think that Nagash will just autosummon armies every turn, that's just absurd.



Thirdly, current armies have been built with some limitations in mind. Even though they are not always well-executed, Vampires or WoC without WM are as much part of the game as sometimes of the fluff and feel. Do you remember the ********* about the DoC Skillcannon? Mixing and matching from several books is really the same story. I really don't mind TK having Vargheists or being able to march or whatnot but people will look for and easily find the most broken combos, and they're will inevitably be more of them. Of course we play with comp here, yet the point is that the need for that comp increases...which is once more not a trend I particularly like.

On second thought, ignore what I said, and I'll ignore what you said, I'm not talking about tourneys, I don't give a **** about them. I believe I would play a much more balanced End Times game with with friends than one w/o that 50% lord allowance against a tourney player.

yabbadabba
30-08-2014, 11:12
You can't do anything, and still play a game until finish, without "permission" from your opponent. That forms the foundation of the social contract between you and your opponent, without which there is no game. This is something that "gamers" have to understand - GW has placed the emphasis on defining the boundaries upon the players rather than producing a strait-jacket set of laws. That might be difficult for some to accept, and it might mean that some need to move on to other games, but it is more true to to the origins and philosophies of GWs products and design ethos. Its now down to the individual to craft the social environment within which they enjoy playing. Have GW got it right? No, but it is a step closer in the right direction.

N00B
30-08-2014, 12:31
The problem is in the turn up to play crowd, especially at low points. Your interpretation of the rules is traditional - you haven't even bought the book with the new rules in. Your 1.5k army has bee built safe in the knowledge that there are going to be know 500pt lords to face or similar.

On the other hand your opponent doesn't eve have a legal army list by your rules. You have been either railroaded in not playing with that guy or giving him a massive advantage right from the start.

Sure, if you talk and agree beforehand no problem but that isn't always possible.

Personally I tend to stick to 1.5k point game because I don't like playing against tooled up demon princes or 500pt special characters. It just isn't fun for me. If I had to drop this threshold to 750pts then not only would it be hard for me to find someone to play but it would probably ruin the game for me.

ShruikhanTK
30-08-2014, 13:23
Even if the rules allow it, you must be polite and ask your opponent if they would like to play using the supplements. It's just polite you know? Yea lets play a game of 2k points! then out of nowhere I whip out the Nagash model.

thesoundofmusica
30-08-2014, 15:04
Official, unofficial, permission....
You could never armbar me into a game I didnt want to play.

malisteen
30-08-2014, 15:33
The whole question of 'permission' is irrelevant. There are two types of WFB game (and any other table top war games for that matter): tournament and non-tournament.

Tournament games are governed by what the TO decides the rules are, so the only permission required is theirs, and they can do whatever they want regardless of what the rules may or may not say.

Non-tournament games are governed by the players playing - and that means both of them. So even if you 'may' use X, Y or Z that doesn't mean your opponent has to agree to it, they are free to say "actually I'd rather not play that, but thanks anyway" (or similar).

So what you 'May' or 'may not' do is more governed by your opponent than any publication, they merely provide a good starting point for discussion.

This. I consider all the Nagash stuff to be as valid as anything from any other warhammer rules source, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be available in formal contexts, or that opponents will agree to play against it in informal contexts.

Vazalaar
30-08-2014, 16:03
I suspect it has mostly to do with the 50% lords rule. Some fear that it'll bring back Herohammer. My opinion is that current fighting lords and associated mounts/magic items are way too weak to unbalance the game (they're eons away from the characters we could get during 5th ed, the actual herohammer period). Others have argued that you can load up on wozard lords, but, well, the power dice generation sin't changing either, so that would be a stupid move, you won't cast more spells even if you can manage to fit two or three lvl4 in your army. Since the 25% core requirement is not gone, additional lords will just encroach on the special and rare choices, which are usually much more scary and/or useful in the 8th ed meta with steadfast and stepup.

This.

Adding more level 4s will only result in more spell diversity and a possible lvl 4 back up. Your spells are limited by the Winds of Magic. What is the benefit of having 2x Lvl 4s when you only have 6 power dice?
Steadfast and combat resolution will bring down almost every combat character and they will mostly do it with units that cost less points.
The upping of Lords/Heroes allowance to 50% is not unbalancing. It just gives the player more options.

Saldiven
30-08-2014, 17:16
This thread was closed, because people browbeat the creator into accepting their interpretation, but if the rules say you 'may' use this book - does may mean that you can do so without permission (e.g. you may play Empire) or does it mean you can choose to allow it or not?

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?399492-Hero-Hammer-is-Back!

You can play whatever you want.

Your opponent can decide to not play you.

That's always been the case.

Spiney Norman
30-08-2014, 19:26
You can't do anything, and still play a game until finish, without "permission" from your opponent. That forms the foundation of the social contract between you and your opponent, without which there is no game. This is something that "gamers" have to understand - GW has placed the emphasis on defining the boundaries upon the players rather than producing a strait-jacket set of laws. That might be difficult for some to accept, and it might mean that some need to move on to other games, but it is more true to to the origins and philosophies of GWs products and design ethos. Its now down to the individual to craft the social environment within which they enjoy playing. Have GW got it right? No, but it is a step closer in the right direction.

I think we've clashed enough on the 40k forum over this issue to be aware of each other's positions, but I really think it is tragic that GW is abandoning its competitive gamer fan-base. It was already losing ground to games like Warmachine/hordes that cater equally as well for narrative and competitive gamers, and giving the finger to half (or in my local area, more like 75%) of its customer base is mystifyingly foolish.

I think what annoys me the most is the amount of sheer glee that some people are deriving from competitive gamers being frozen out of the hobby, because let's face it, warhammer has always catered perfectly well for the narrative approach whilst also being an acceptable game to play competitively.

It has always been far, far easier to suspend rules and restrictions you don't like that managing to agree on adding army building restrictions (that you're opponent invariably doesn't want) to the existing rules. They really need to have a rules set that just works to stop warhammer (and 40k for that matter) turning into some kind of uber-niche game that is hardly ever played by anyone. If they want to rescue their financial statement they need to appeal to more potential players, not fewer.

yabbadabba
30-08-2014, 20:38
I think we've clashed enough on the 40k forum over this issue to be aware of each other's positions, but I really think it is tragic that GW is abandoning its competitive gamer fan-base. It was already losing ground to games like Warmachine/hordes that cater equally as well for narrative and competitive gamers, and giving the finger to half (or in my local area, more like 75%) of its customer base is mystifyingly foolish.

I think what annoys me the most is the amount of sheer glee that some people are deriving from competitive gamers being frozen out of the hobby, because let's face it, warhammer has always catered perfectly well for the narrative approach whilst also being an acceptable game to play competitively.

It has always been far, far easier to suspend rules and restrictions you don't like that managing to agree on adding army building restrictions (that you're opponent invariably doesn't want) to the existing rules. They really need to have a rules set that just works to stop warhammer (and 40k for that matter) turning into some kind of uber-niche game that is hardly ever played by anyone. If they want to rescue their financial statement they need to appeal to more potential players, not fewer. That does not dismiss my point.

Spiney Norman
30-08-2014, 21:57
That does not dismiss my point.

What it comes down to is GW making it harder for a lot of people to enjoy their games,whatever perspective you are coming from, that is not a good thing.

yabbadabba
30-08-2014, 23:12
What it comes down to is GW making it harder for a lot of people to enjoy their games,whatever perspective you are coming from, that is not a good thing. I disagree, GW are not making it harder in terms of army selection; they are in terms of cost but that is not the discussion here. They might be forcing people to be more social and take control of their hobby, but why would that be a bad thing?

thesoundofmusica
31-08-2014, 02:05
@SpineyNorman

Claiming 75% of players in your area are tourney players is extremely silly. You have absolutely no way of knowing this or even make an educated guess. You dont know where groups of players are playing in basements or whatever. Unless of course you live in a really small closed community in which case the actual number of players we're talking about is too small to matter for anything.

I live in a small swedish town of 50000 and still after years and years of playing warhammer I hear of small (exclusive, thats how some roll) groups of people playing warhammer that were totally unknown to me.

I think you thinking that you know everyone in your vicinity who plays warhammer is either naive or delusional.

Spiney Norman
31-08-2014, 08:20
@SpineyNorman

Claiming 75% of players in your area are tourney players is extremely silly. You have absolutely no way of knowing this or even make an educated guess. You dont know where groups of players are playing in basements or whatever. Unless of course you live in a really small closed community in which case the actual number of players we're talking about is too small to matter for anything.

I live in a small swedish town of 50000 and still after years and years of playing warhammer I hear of small (exclusive, thats how some roll) groups of people playing warhammer that were totally unknown to me.

I think you thinking that you know everyone in your vicinity who plays warhammer is either naive or delusional.

Fairly obviously I'm talking about the local players that I interact with on a regular basis, I live in a small town of around 15,000 people, there is one gaming club in the town that has around 50-60 members.

I'm also not saying that 75% of players in my area are 'tournement players', though I think you're being somewhat unfair in your categorisation. I know plenty of players who attend tournements who are pleasant people to play against, even in the context of a Tournement game, I also know a lot of people who don't go to tournements and are highly competitive.

In my original post I didn't mention 'tournements' at all, mainly for the reason given above, what I was saying was, at least 75% of the players in my locale are very resistant to additional rules/restriction that will reduce their chances of winning, the published rules are viewed as the way the game should be played by the vast majority (probably 90%) of the players in my area, and any departure from them is viewed with great suspicion at the very least.

I did try the 'adding army building restrictions by discussing it with your opponent' idea when 40k started to go down hill and it was basically recieved like I was asking my opponent permission to cheat. I haven't played 40k in about 2 months because I just can't get the kind of game that will allow me to enjoy the experience, and fantasy seems to be circling the same plug hole.

yabbadabba
31-08-2014, 08:41
In my original post I didn't mention 'tournements' at all, mainly for the reason given above, what I was saying was, at least 75% of the players in my locale are very resistant to additional rules/restriction that will reduce their chances of winning, the published rules are viewed as the way the game should be played by the vast majority (probably 90%) of the players in my area, and any departure from them is viewed with great suspicion at the very least. So your own experience can now show you why for people like me, GW opening up the variety of choice is a good thing. The curse of "offcialdom" is far more restrictive than the inability to talk to your opponents about which variation you are going to use to play; the only difference between that and scenario selection is that at least with the latter it gives you the chance of rolling for it, and not having to discuss anything with your opponent at all.

I did try the 'adding army building restrictions by discussing it with your opponent' idea when 40k started to go down hill and it was basically recieved like I was asking my opponent permission to cheat. I haven't played 40k in about 2 months. Again, we have another example here of where its not the rules, its the people.

I am not saying GW are perfect, not by a long shot, or that they are even "alright", but I do get fed up with people blaming GW for their own personality issues - not including you in that Spiney ;)

HelloKitty
31-08-2014, 13:55
I am happy for the removal of "officialness". I prefer having people agree what type of game they want to play first because it opens up the options that you can see that you couldn't see before. Before expansions and the like were hardly ever seen because they weren't "tournament official". Now that concept has been removed.

Spiney Norman
31-08-2014, 19:10
I am happy for the removal of "officialness". I prefer having people agree what type of game they want to play first because it opens up the options that you can see that you couldn't see before. Before expansions and the like were hardly ever seen because they weren't "tournament official". Now that concept has been removed.

As I said, I've been there with 40k, pre-game 'conversations' just result in arguments that sour the atmosphere before you even start playing. Encouraging people to manoeuvre their opponent into an unfavourable position before you even start the game by arguing about army construction restrictions just doesn't work because anything I want to do that makes my list stronger (or my opponent thinks will make my list stronger) is just outright rejected.

So I want to use the use the undead legions list to run my tomb kings so I can add in my Lahmian vampire, some crypt ghouls and maybe a unit of Morghasts? Well that's an easy one, how about no because it means I can use the lore of undeath and it removes a ton of weaknesses that TK usually have to deal with (like crumble and not being able to march), clearly it is not in my opponent's interest to allow me to use it.

thesoundofmusica
31-08-2014, 21:02
But that was always the case Spiney. You can always choose not to play anyone, whatever GW says about it. What's wrong here isnt GW, its YOU guys.

HelloKitty
31-08-2014, 23:11
Yeah I have to say I've never had a problem with the pre game conversation. That's kind of how we've always done it for many years anyway which is what colors my own opinion.

Horus38
31-08-2014, 23:13
This thread was closed, because people browbeat the creator into accepting their interpretation...[/url]!

Probably because he was spewing it like it was the gospel truth.

If players are playing an "End Times Game" then use the optional rules presented in that book. It's as simple as that.
Also this poll is vague: are you saying that in a "normal" game someone can use these rules without asking their opponent?

Blkc57
01-09-2014, 05:50
Probably because he was spewing it like it was the gospel truth.

If players are playing an "End Times Game" then use the optional rules presented in that book. It's as simple as that.
Also this poll is vague: are you saying that in a "normal" game someone can use these rules without asking their opponent?

Not really clear what an End Times Game is. Having read the book its not anything like Storms of Magic or even Triumph and Treachery where its a drastically different game with entirely unique functions. Its basically just some new characters, additional units, a few rules addendum to two existing armies, and a guideline for altering the army roster point costs so you can bring these special characters in armies without having to field a 5000 point list. It doesn't actually change the way Warhammer Fantasy is played. I think the OP is trying to beat around the bush and just wants to ask: 1. Are people willing to play against armies built from the Nagash End Times book? 2. Are people willing to allow players to use characters from the book? 3. Are people willing to use the book's Army Roster distribution?

I'd accept 1 and 2 as I see nothing particularly broken about them, but not sure yet if I'd let number 3 in until I've seen whether or not it makes a very serious difference in the quality of the game.

underscore
01-09-2014, 11:07
But that was always the case Spiney. You can always choose not to play anyone, whatever GW says about it. What's wrong here isnt GW, its YOU guys.
In as much as GW don't want to appeal to a certain type of gamer any more. Back in the day they had a tighter army selection rules for competative play and I don't see why they can't have that still alongside the other sub-releases.

'Fault' is a bit odd as it's just people not liking the direction that a company is going... but it is GW that's changing and exculding them.

Montegue
01-09-2014, 12:42
But that was always the case Spiney. You can always choose not to play anyone, whatever GW says about it. What's wrong here isnt GW, its YOU guys.

That's not entirely true. If GW produces rules that kill the balance of their game or ruin what is a fundamental Good Thing about it, such that it negatively impacts people's fun, it is at least in part GWs fault.

thesoundofmusica
01-09-2014, 13:42
It takes a certain kind of people to have rules (official or not) limit them and still keep playing a game they dont enjoy. Official or not Warhammer has always been open to play whichever way you like... Or on the other side of the spectrum: no amount of waving "official" in my face could force me into a game I wouldnt enjoy. A certain kind of people...

Edit: Are we talking tournaments? TOs will make any rules they want, and scratch any they dislike official or not.

underscore
01-09-2014, 13:59
Yeah, I think we're talking across purposes, I'm talking about people who want to be able to turn up and have a solid game without much prep work/social contract nonsense. The other point was that, if GW continues to narrow their game to exclude these players then it can hardly be considered a good thing.

Horus38
01-09-2014, 14:23
Not really clear what an End Times Game is. Having read the book its not anything like Storms of Magic or even Triumph and Treachery where its a drastically different game with entirely unique functions. Its basically just some new characters, additional units, a few rules addendum to two existing armies, and a guideline for altering the army roster point costs so you can bring these special characters in armies without having to field a 5000 point list. It doesn't actually change the way Warhammer Fantasy is played. I think the OP is trying to beat around the bush and just wants to ask: 1. Are people willing to play against armies built from the Nagash End Times book? 2. Are people willing to allow players to use characters from the book? 3. Are people willing to use the book's Army Roster distribution?

I'd accept 1 and 2 as I see nothing particularly broken about them, but not sure yet if I'd let number 3 in until I've seen whether or not it makes a very serious difference in the quality of the game.

Ah, thanks for the clarification, and I'd agree with the points you make.