PDA

View Full Version : Whats your opinion on a complete overhaul of warhammer made by players?



taurus-marstein
09-07-2015, 20:11
Now that age of sigmar has been released, many players have decided not to play it. Whether they decided to stay with 8th, try KoW, or some other choice, it is clear that the community is fractured.

So here's my question: would you be willing to try out a completely stand-alone ruleset for warhammer fantasy, written solely by players (as opposed to a corporation trying to make money)?

To be clear, this stand alone game would not simply be a bulleted list of rules modifications or a comp pack that limits selections or punishes unfair choices, but a complete ruleset to describe the main game along with army books to completely redefine how units work and how armies use synergy.

If you were to use a ruleset like this, you would not require any GW rulebook, army books, etc. It would be all inclusive and all new, while significant portions of the game would be similar to 8th, 7th, or other game systems.

Anyways, please vote above and leave constructive comments below. Thanks

taurus-marstein
09-07-2015, 21:30
Just to add:
I don't really need to play just 1 game with my miniatures. I'm fine with playing 7th, 8th, AoS, swedish, ETC, houserules, or whatever.

I don't think our community needs to just go with one thing, you don't need to just pick one ruleset and stick to it... There's so much to try and enjoy in all aspects of this hobby (tournament scene, garagehammer, fluff hammer, etc)

Shandor
09-07-2015, 21:33
I think its a waste of time. If i buy somethign new i want it working. If the Company whos selling the Game dont care about thier product and dont sell it as a working thing. Why should I care about the Product?

Even more.. lets say we get AoS working and playable. Who tells me that GW chance his mind again and Trash AoS because it doesnt sell and forbid Playing AoS in thier Shops? Like thed just did with the 8th edition?

taurus-marstein
09-07-2015, 23:32
First off, I will not defend GW. They should have hired smart intelligent players to write a ruleset and play test it and release it. But they didn't, they release a pile of untested garbage.

However, what I am talking about is a ruleset for players who maybe have 8,000+ points for multiple armies, who don't want to buy new models. They want a new game system, for free, that let's them plkay with all the models they have (and have the old ones not suck).

A corporation won't give you that system. It makes them no money. So that's why players could work towards filling that gap.

Personally, i'd try anything once. If it's not for you, then it's not for you. You weren't the one who spent months writing a ruleset, so it's no harm done.

I think that the only way veterans will have a fun game to play (that resembles warhammer) is for a community built, free version(s) are written and played by the current player base.

stroller
09-07-2015, 23:55
it is clear that the community is fractured.

Always has been.

So here's my question: would you be willing to try out a completely stand-alone ruleset for warhammer fantasy, written solely by players (as opposed to a corporation trying to make money)?

I voted no, because, in my experience, homemade rules tend to favour the writer's army, intentionally or otherwise. Secondly, since "the community" seemingly can't agree on anything (except "cut prices" perhaps), the chances of such a thing ever happening are (in my opinion) vanishingly small. Thirdly, there is a fun game called Warhammer Fantasy. Why re re reinvent the wheel?

Coldhatred
09-07-2015, 23:59
I would not try a community made rule set. No way. I'd give comp packs and small modifications a go however.

taurus-marstein
10-07-2015, 00:33
What if the "warhammer youtubers group" was involved?
Like theSustainableCenter, Vince venturella, OnceBitten, and those guys?

Shandor
10-07-2015, 00:43
What if the "warhammer youtubers group" was involved?
Like theSustainableCenter, Vince venturella, OnceBitten, and those guys?

I dont know them.
Really i dont dislike the Sigmarines. I kinda like the idea of Warscrolls. But i still think its a waste of time. And i kinda disagree to give GW any Money for AoS. I know the rules and scrolls are free. But the only reason to make AoS playable by a Comunity ruleset for me would be future adaption of new stuff. And new stuff would make peoples buy new stuff. GW should not be rewarded for AoS.
If i dont want to update with future releases i could just stay with Oldhammer.

I hope that was understandable. :)

Mawduce
10-07-2015, 00:51
Slightly modified rules as in, POINTS! Warhammer Fantasy was not designed to be without point values anymore. It's gone so far beyond things like "The Nameless" It isn't that kind of game anymore. To create this out of the ashes of its remains is like watching a phoenix die and see a diseased crow pop out. They asked people to come to an agreement before hand. I can see it going like this, "yea I have no idea how powerful this unit is compared to that unit, lets see how this goes?"

taurus-marstein
10-07-2015, 00:52
Well if there's a significant following for a community made ruleset, but only if there's no sigmarines (or any other new models included in it) then that works for me.

I don't think GW should be rewarded. For the purposes of the poll, assume that the community made ruleset will:
1) be nothing like AoS, include no new units, and be longer than 4 pages.
2) be strongly based on warhammer but with rules tweaks and new mechanics to make the game not just more effectively balanced but also make it fun and have its own interesting aspects.

Avian
10-07-2015, 09:46
Most of my friends sold their Warhammer armies, and with the release of AoS they're glad they sold their Warhammer armies. Realistically, unless there is an official Warhammer game my gaming group wants to play (and possibly tweak a bit), it's a no go.
:(

stroller
10-07-2015, 10:00
What if the "warhammer youtubers group" was involved?
Like theSustainableCenter, Vince venturella, OnceBitten, and those guys?

Who? With respect, they might be the best rulesetters in the world, but I've never heard of them, and *my* hobby is building painting and playing, not watching others play on youtube (tho I *will* watch painting guides). The main sticking points remain however: I see no chance of the "community" agreeing a common rule set.

HelloKitty
10-07-2015, 13:13
My freetime is very limited. Also - there's the whole community largely doesn't touch most games produced by professional companies - let alone homebrew rules.

Now my opinion of homebrew rules is that I love them. I just don't have time to playtest everyone's idea (and i know for the things that I do I get that same response in return so I understand it)

Also - when it comes to a community ruleset, as I said in the other thread about this very thing - getting the community to agree on a ruleset should result in the coordinator of that effort receiving a Nobel Prize.

Dark Elf
10-07-2015, 13:47
Why not try player made overhauls? Won't kill you to do so in one game... If it's bad you just don't continue playing in that system. You always have the official rules to fall back on.
Me and my mates started reworking some rules finally after months of talking about it. 2 mates had the time yesterday to playtest to see how many things (don't)work. They reported to the rest of us and now we're working to get around those issues. And we will repeat this process until we are satisfied with rule set.

Now what boggles me is people selling armies, like Avian's friends. I've heard many stories such as that. And that guy who set his army on fire is a new level of WTF. I don't get that part. What's their reasoning? "GW won't produce new rules, thus all previous rules are unusable"? They will discontinue armies? They will, so get what you need before they do? Also there are other companies that produce fine models, usable for WHFB... So basically every single "obstacle" is more or less solvable IF you're willing to solve it.

HelloKitty
10-07-2015, 13:53
Basic gamer psychology. No one (generally) wants to play a game that has no support regardless of the rules quality.

I do not know why this is, but in ways its comforting to know that that box of guys on the wall means the game is alive even if you never plan on buying them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Avian
10-07-2015, 13:59
Now what boggles me is people selling armies, like Avian's friends. I've heard many stories such as that.
Sorry if I wasn't completely clear. They sold their armies over a period of some time, mostly before this End Times business started, and not just recently. I guess it was a combination of not liking the game and not liking the company that made them, plus finding a different game system they're enjoying instead (WMH).

MiyamatoMusashi
10-07-2015, 14:31
Now my opinion of homebrew rules is that I love them. I just don't have time to playtest everyone's idea (and i know for the things that I do I get that same response in return so I understand it)

Same here. I'm all in favour of community-driven rules in theory, but in practice community-driven rules reflect only the interests of a very small handful of people, often just one person (the only way to get things done?); and the chances that they don't have strong game design skills, or do but don't have enough resources to playtest properly (across 10+ different armies), are just too high.

I only have limited time to play games, so I'd rather play with professionally-produced rules, simply because the odds seem better that the game will be playtested and well-balanced (AoS notwithstanding). If I get to play two games in a month, and one of them is a rubbish experience because I tried out a set of rules some guy wrote in his basement that turned out not to be very good, I've just wasted 50% of my hobby time for the month.

Creating rules within one gaming group? That can be made to work, because that gaming group can discuss what they like, and agree on a common goal. Playing rules from someone else's gaming group? Too much risk that their goals disagree with mine... I don't have time to take that risk.


Also - when it comes to a community ruleset, as I said in the other thread about this very thing - getting the community to agree on a ruleset should result in the coordinator of that effort receiving a Nobel Prize.

True. My "ideal" fantasy battle game would look something like a cross between WHFB 6th/7th, Bolt Action, SAGA and Hail Caesar. Other people's "ideal" fantasy battle game might simply be WHFB 8th with a few tweaks. Other people's ideal game (astonishingly) seems to be AoS, those poor deluded fools. We are all the same community. The chances of us all agreeing on the same "community" ruleset is vanishingly small.

Voss
10-07-2015, 14:40
Nope. Not practical, not happening (for a lot of the reasons already expressed) and wouldn't be worth it if it was. GW sank this ship, all that can be done is watch it go down.

Eventually someone will produce the next big thing and it will catch on.

T10
10-07-2015, 14:44
I have no faith in such a project.

So what's wrong with a community-made Warhammer? Well, GW had a vested interest in making a rules set that appealed to as many as possible. It certainly appealed to me. The ones that hated it has up to now been the most vocal about it, and I expect they will jump at the chance to influence a "open source" Warhammer ruleset to push their own agendas.

With all due respect, I am sure I could do a better job at making the "new Warhammer" than anyone else. Unfortunately, I am also sure I would be the only one who would like it.

-T10

taurus-marstein
10-07-2015, 16:14
First off:
Assume the ruleset is written by multiple players and is also playtested.

Assume the ruleset DOES NOT have the goal to be your "one and only game" and DOES NOT aim to be the best ruleset for the most people.

Personally, I think there are multiple camps of people in warhammer, and if you write a ruleset that 1 camp likes but the other don't, THATS FINE.

You could write a ruleset for competetive players that everyone else would hate.

You could write a ruleset for fluff players that everyone else would find too much work (why do I have to name my regiments?)

You could write a ruleset for the casual gamer that incorporates some fluff, some cheese, some tactics, but not too much of any one thing and maybe they'd like it, but competetive players would scream "No! You ruined it!".

So let's just assume that the ruleset in question was written with the intention of suiting your "group", whether you're a competetive player, fluff player, etc.

Tupinamba
10-07-2015, 16:17
If itd be done by people with enough critical mass behind them, like the guys that made the awesome fanbooks for Norse, Estalia etc., and with the same leve of quality, sure.

MiyamatoMusashi
10-07-2015, 16:52
With all due respect, I am sure I could do a better job at making the "new Warhammer" than anyone else. Unfortunately, I am also sure I would be the only one who would like it.

Pfft! MY "new Warhammer" would be MUCH better than yours!

Though I, also, would be the only one who would like it.

HelloKitty
10-07-2015, 16:57
I think the best bet is if you are a rules tinkerer to come up with a system for you. Sell it to your group. If you can do that, then post it on forums and see what others think. Let it build like that.

Shandor
10-07-2015, 17:06
Why not try player made overhauls? Won't kill you to do so in one game... If it's bad you just don't continue playing in that system. You always have the official rules to fall back on.
Me and my mates started reworking some rules finally after months of talking about it. 2 mates had the time yesterday to playtest to see how many things (don't)work. They reported to the rest of us and now we're working to get around those issues. And we will repeat this process until we are satisfied with rule set.

Now what boggles me is people selling armies, like Avian's friends. I've heard many stories such as that. And that guy who set his army on fire is a new level of WTF. I don't get that part. What's their reasoning? "GW won't produce new rules, thus all previous rules are unusable"? They will discontinue armies? They will, so get what you need before they do? Also there are other companies that produce fine models, usable for WHFB... So basically every single "obstacle" is more or less solvable IF you're willing to solve it.


I think about selling my armys too. I was playing in the Store 90% of my Games. Now it would be 2 times a month at the Hobby club.. not sure if i should just stop playing and sell them and do something else with my time.
Thats not an "OMFG AOS SUCKS I EBAY ALL!" amok thing... its just i have no real alternatives to play Games with the 8th Edition. I have some friends have the same Problem. We just dont have the room for a Huge Warhammer table at home.

taurus-marstein
10-07-2015, 17:53
Well I completely understand the idea that people might not have anywhere to play but in GW stores, but I think GW has made itself clear that they don't care about rules. They want to sell models. I hope that in most stores (if not now, then soon) we can play warhammer however we want to.

Thanks for the advice, I will definitely try selling the idea to people I know before I try getting it to catch on with other people.

I was trying to keep this out of this thread, but it might just be obvious with the way i'm replying....

I'm currently 25 pages into rewriting warhammer. I've spent about 12 hours on it so far.

If no one plays it, I really don't care. I just wanna build it. It's like building an army for me, even if I never use model X in a real game, I still like owning it and painting it and thinking about it.

I plan to work with as much of the community as possible, although realistically that means less than 10 people.


Anyways one more comment:
I believe that if I posted this thread 1 year ago (before ET and AoS) there would be drastically different results. Maybe only 20% of people would vote that they would try out player written rulesets... but then last year happened and I think it's changed all of us. A lot of fantasy veterans have finally hit our breaking point with GW. That's saying something, as many of us have been doing this for decades.

T10
10-07-2015, 17:56
You need more friends! :) with bigger homes!

-T10

dwarfhold13
10-07-2015, 18:00
I think the tournament scene will band together and really try to get something that is more or less unanimously decided on. How that that spreads and sticks, well that is left to be proven. I mentioned to a friend of mine who is involved in this that unless there is some sort of "governing body" over the matter, it will be lost. For mass rank and file battles, one easy move is to go to Kings of War. They are making it a point to welcome us vets in with open arms and I think they are doing it the right way. Regardless, it will be a challenge. The first time I was part of this was the update from 2nd ed 40k to 3rd. Yeah. That stuck around...

HelloKitty
10-07-2015, 18:07
I think the tournament scene will band together and really try to get something that is more or less unanimously decided on. How that that spreads and sticks, well that is left to be proven. I mentioned to a friend of mine who is involved in this that unless there is some sort of "governing body" over the matter, it will be lost. For mass rank and file battles, one easy move is to go to Kings of War. They are making it a point to welcome us vets in with open arms and I think they are doing it the right way. Regardless, it will be a challenge. The first time I was part of this was the update from 2nd ed 40k to 3rd. Yeah. That stuck around...

Yeah for any of this to work you'll need one of the big indy GT guys to come up wtih something. But then the other indy GT guys will have to go with it too. Or someone like mini wargaming that has a lot of social influence over gamers.

At the end of the day *any* ruleset will have its pros and cons, but gamers are psychology going to move towards something they see as more universal even if they only play the same five people their entire lives.

dwarfhold13
10-07-2015, 18:36
At the end of the day *any* ruleset will have its pros and cons, but gamers are psychology going to move towards something they see as more universal even if they only play the same five people their entire lives.

Of course. The hope and dream is that there is some sort of continued support. I still think something will happen, and perhaps it will just slow the disappearance down to the slowest it could possibly be. I'll be a fly on the wall until then.

Mateobard
10-07-2015, 18:49
At this point, I'm hungry for a complete break. A new company with a new world, the same sort of in depth customization and ranked up game play, new fluff and new heroes - something I can trust and get into.

logan054
10-07-2015, 18:55
I voted no, because, in my experience, homemade rules tend to favour the writer's army, intentionally or otherwise. Secondly, since "the community" seemingly can't agree on anything (except "cut prices" perhaps), the chances of such a thing ever happening are (in my opinion) vanishingly small. Thirdly, there is a fun game called Warhammer Fantasy. Why re re reinvent the wheel?

Are you trying to insist that GW written armies and rules are really any different? Haven't they had an Eldar player writing the Eldar army, that turned out well....

People will either have ago at trying to do something with the ruleset or they wont.

taurus-marstein
10-07-2015, 20:59
I also think any new ruleset could be used for any miniatures or any fluff you want. Heck, play kings of war armies against GW if you want. A brand new system could support this.

Also, don't you think a player written ruleset could receive more frequent updates and support than GW has given us.

Voss
10-07-2015, 22:13
First off:
Assume the ruleset is written by multiple players and is also playtested.
Haha. With multiple inputs, good luck getting a coherent set of rules to playtest. That one guy is going to get it done any day now, this guy doesn't want chaos to be part of the game any more, that one things chaos has been nerfed too much, and should be obviously overpowered because that's why they're winning in the background, Bob hates what anyone does with Orcs and Goblins, Steve wants to take out all the non-existent steampunk, Fred thinks models with bigger shoulder pads should get combat bonuses and on and on.


Assume the ruleset DOES NOT have the goal to be your "one and only game" and DOES NOT aim to be the best ruleset for the most people.
So, the premise of the project is that it is entirely worthless? Good luck selling people on working on that.


Personally, I think there are multiple camps of people in warhammer, and if you write a ruleset that 1 camp likes but the other don't, THATS FINE.
Yeah, there are... but the camps aren't competitive/casual/fluff. There is a Kinsey scale for that, with everyone falling in different places at different times. The real camps you have to worry about are the realists (who really want the game to be low magic and operate as if it were a Napoleonic historical wargame), fantasists (magic always wins) and people divided by their army or pet concept. Be it ogres in general or any type of monstrous infantry should always be better than other unit types.


You could write a ruleset for competetive players that everyone else would hate.
You could write a ruleset for fluff players that everyone else would find too much work (why do I have to name my regiments?)
You could write a ruleset for the casual gamer that incorporates some fluff, some cheese, some tactics, but not too much of any one thing and maybe they'd like it, but competetive players would scream "No! You ruined it!".
As on objective, this is pants on head nuts.


So let's just assume that the ruleset in question was written with the intention of suiting your "group", whether you're a competetive player, fluff player, etc.
My groups always have all of those. Having a ruleset that suits only one is beyond worthless.

Spiney Norman
10-07-2015, 23:08
Now that age of sigmar has been released, many players have decided not to play it. Whether they decided to stay with 8th, try KoW, or some other choice, it is clear that the community is fractured.

So here's my question: would you be willing to try out a completely stand-alone ruleset for warhammer fantasy, written solely by players (as opposed to a corporation trying to make money)?

To be clear, this stand alone game would not simply be a bulleted list of rules modifications or a comp pack that limits selections or punishes unfair choices, but a complete ruleset to describe the main game along with army books to completely redefine how units work and how armies use synergy.

If you were to use a ruleset like this, you would not require any GW rulebook, army books, etc. It would be all inclusive and all new, while significant portions of the game would be similar to 8th, 7th, or other game systems.

Anyways, please vote above and leave constructive comments below. Thanks

No, in my experience player-made rules sets are always biased in favour of the favoured armies of the author, some turn out to be even worse than the original game they are modifying. If I want to play warhammer I will just use 6th or 8th edition 'out of the box'.

The other downside is that opponents never agree on which rules need tweaking because of the strong competitive element within wfb, the only unbiased 3rd party with authority to determine the rules is the official rule book so the easiest solution is to defer to the rules as written in case of disagreement.

taurus-marstein
10-07-2015, 23:33
My point was that different players want different things.

Competitive tournament powergamers should honestly go play Warmachine. That's the game for you.

The super historical realists should go play Hail Caesar or other games actually based on history.

I see warhammer as a game to play with the intention of winning but not solely that. It's also a game to play to re-enact scenarios from the fluff. Tthats one thing End times did that I find interesting. The fluff advanced and that gave us all sorts of battles/campaigns to play.

I also think that if you are going to completely overhaul a game, you shouldn't just simply tweak a few things.

It's like going to a pizza place thinking "man, pizza is good but i'd much rather it have thicker crust. I'm gonna open my own pizza place and make the pizza I like".
Is that a waste of time? I don't think so. If no one is willing to alter things then we have no variety and everyone is eating Domino's pizza.

But altering the game with a complete overhaul is even more adventurous. Don't just make thicker crust, create topping combinations that no one's ever seen before. Try cooking the pizza differently. Try new combos of cheese. Invent the equivalent of a pizookie or a a whole new pizza creation.

It's not just about adding a little salt, it's about making the experience different and better.

eddyh59
11-07-2015, 00:00
I have been looking into alternate rule sets which allow mass battles with formations, preferably with the models I already own. So far my options have been Kings of War (Pro's - easy to learn and a local player base, Con's - a little abstract in play) and a free rule set No Quarter (https://noquarterwargames.wordpress.com/downloads/). This has appeal to me as it is a very complete rule set including rules for working out the stats and point costs for models/units. This means that my Empire , Skaven, undead etc armies can be just the way I envision them to be and be able to play anyone else's army in a balanced environment. There are even some generic lists available as a framework.
It isn't Warhammer but maybe that is a good thing.
My2c

taurus-marstein
11-07-2015, 00:16
Hey thanks for posting that, I will check it out.

I had thought of something like that. The idea that everyone gets to build their own army (my empire isn't the same as yours) is interesting. I see no problem with it.

Besides being able to create your own units it also allows us to realize: hey, your stuff isn't OP. I could have the exact same thing under a different name. The rules apply to us both the same.

This allows every player to get some extra flavor in their game.

I think i'm still gonna work on writing the army books too, but leave things extremely open ended.

Like an empire army unit entry might be:

State troops
(insert basic stats here)

Can be equipped with any of the following:
Halberd - X points
Spear - Y points
Shield - Z points
Light armor - A points
crossbow - B points
Handgun - C points

And so on.
This way you can have all the fluff you want. Doing some simple mathematical analysis can confirm the points costing in these scenarios (like figure out how much better a Halberd is to a spear) and that can ensure you don't get penalized for taking exactly what you want.

jet_palero
11-07-2015, 00:23
My opinion is that the mass variety of attempts to "fix" AoS is self defeating. You'll spend more time trying to agree how to play the game with people at the store than you will actually playing.

taurus-marstein
11-07-2015, 01:31
Which is why i'm not trying to fix AoS, screw that. It's an awful game... if you can even call it a game...

I think if we're talking about real games (like WFB) then that's worth the time.

frankelee
11-07-2015, 02:26
If they don't have experience/success writing game rules professionally, it's probably a colossal waste of time that most people will ignore. You may pretend your house rules will have a patina of legitimacy over top of them because GW replaced 8th with AoS, but nobody else will. And even if you were a capable and talented rulebook writer, what direction do you take the game in? There's a lot of options and a lot of different opinions, most people won't look at your direction as the direction they would have chosen.

forseer of fates
11-07-2015, 02:57
Anything warhammer that's not age of shitmar will have my vote!

Pink Horror
11-07-2015, 06:25
My point was that different players want different things.

Competitive tournament powergamers should honestly go play Warmachine. That's the game for you.

The super historical realists should go play Hail Caesar or other games actually based on history.

I see warhammer as a game to play with the intention of winning but not solely that. It's also a game to play to re-enact scenarios from the fluff. Tthats one thing End times did that I find interesting. The fluff advanced and that gave us all sorts of battles/campaigns to play.

I also think that if you are going to completely overhaul a game, you shouldn't just simply tweak a few things.

It's like going to a pizza place thinking "man, pizza is good but i'd much rather it have thicker crust. I'm gonna open my own pizza place and make the pizza I like".
Is that a waste of time? I don't think so. If no one is willing to alter things then we have no variety and everyone is eating Domino's pizza.

But altering the game with a complete overhaul is even more adventurous. Don't just make thicker crust, create topping combinations that no one's ever seen before. Try cooking the pizza differently. Try new combos of cheese. Invent the equivalent of a pizookie or a a whole new pizza creation.

It's not just about adding a little salt, it's about making the experience different and better.
If someone is capable of making a brand-new creative version of pizza, by himself or with some friends, he shouldn't call it an overhaul of Domino's. It should be his own pizza place with its own name and design.

taurus-marstein
11-07-2015, 17:22
And i'm not naming the game "warhammer overhaul version 1". I'm actually still working on a name...
Any suggestions?
Haha

Davidian
11-07-2015, 17:34
"Hammer of War - Ashes of the Old World".... v1.0


From the ashes of the end times, in broken realms where Kingdom is but a claim of the strong, endless war rages as (insert factions) vi for power, wealth, honor or the blessing of their dark masters .

slightly more dark and\or dystopia would be nice. (see empire in flames for example).

Drakkar du Chaos
11-07-2015, 18:07
In France we have BlackHammer : mix between 6th and 7th and it works like a charm. Its a credible alternative to 8th so tournaments are played with it. I wonder why english people never done the same.

Avian
11-07-2015, 18:10
Why is it called Blackhammer?

Davidian
11-07-2015, 18:13
6th7th hybrid sounds like my ideal .. was there ever an English version for us uneducated imperialistic mongs ??

Drakkar du Chaos
11-07-2015, 18:30
Why is it called Blackhammer?

I dunno.


6th7th hybrid sounds like my ideal .. was there ever an English version for us uneducated imperialistic mongs ??

There is not but it can be done faster than create a new system from nothing.
Rules, magic lores and armies are here :

http://associationbrumes.forums-actifs.com/t403-livre-de-regles-livres-d-armee

Davidian
11-07-2015, 18:38
#scurries off to learn French #

Drakkar du Chaos
11-07-2015, 20:12
#scurries off to learn French #

Maybe with Google Translate you can do most of the work.

DeathlessDraich
11-07-2015, 20:30
Anyways, please vote above and leave constructive comments below. Thanks



Why not try player made overhauls? Won't kill you to do so in one game... If it's bad you just don't continue playing in that system. You always have the official rules to fall back on.


No one (generally) wants to play a game that has no support regardless of the rules quality.



Same here. I'm all in favour of community-driven rules in theory,.



With all due respect, I am sure I could do a better job at making the "new Warhammer" than anyone else. -T10


.

:)Watched quietly as AOS unfolded. Read a few reactions and criticisms, valid and otherwise.

My advice to those who are willing to give AOS a try is ... wait, ... a solution (not a complete solution) is on its way.:)

taurus-marstein
11-07-2015, 20:34
I've heard of blackhammer before.

Can someone help me with something real fast: why do people love 6th and 7th so much?

People say its more tactically rewarding... is it because there's no steadfast or step up? And less ranks fight? And magic is less insane?

I hope warhammer can be tactical without making infantry useless (7th is called Cav-hammer right?).

itcamefromthedeep
12-07-2015, 04:39
Here's a quick rundown on the important differences between 6e/7e and 8e:

The problems 6e and 7e ran into were that most infantry weren't any good. They'd get charged by something hitty, not get to swing at all, then break and run away. You only needed things that were killy on the charge. 8e added in mechanics to help out infantry in a big way.

Step Up meant that infantry got to swing even if the first rank was killed. That was a welcome change, despite de-emphasizing Initiative.

Charging no longer meant that you went first, which emphasized Initiative and made high Movement less important (a win for infantry). Another welcome change.

Steadfast made larger units more desirable in relative terms because fighting a unit that was killier by frontage didn't mean your unit died. It emphsized units that had trouble killing things.

Steadfast wasn't removed by being flanked, so where in 6e and 7e being flanked was lethal for unit, it was no big deal for deathstar units in 6e. Without this rule, the deathstars of 8e couldn't happen. They'd get flanked and lose combat, then run away and get chased down.

Adding extra ranks of Attacks (a second rank for everyone and a third rank for hordes) made for a game where you really got things done not with combat resolution but by removing the opponent's models with Attacks.

It looks to me like the 8e super-spells were included as a kill-switch for deathstar units, intended to keep unit sizes from getting out of hand. It failed. In environments where deatstar units stopped working, it was because MSU armies would redirect charges and move the deathstar out of position so that it couldn't kill anything valuable. 8e super-spells didn't do their job. They were ultimately unnecessary.

---

If you want to take the best elements of 8th and add them to a 6e/7e game, I think it would go roughly as follows:

Leave in Steadfast, but say that if your unit has a higher rank bonus you're stubborn. Anything that gets rid of rank bonus gets rid of Steadfast. If you both have the max rank bonus of 3, then neither unit is Steadfast. If you get flanked, you're not Steadfast.

Keep Step up and striking at Initiative on the charge, but remove the additional ranks of Attacks (both the freebie second rank and the horde third rank).

Make magic into something that better reflects the background. You don't need the super-spells (or at least re-phrase them to cause normal wounds that you can take saves against). While an overhaul to the magic system would be really good, I don't think it's strictly necessary. Just make the spells follow the rules.

A home run Warhammer game would probably do something about redirecting charges (maybe have defender form up to attacker by default).

I think this stuff would bring down the "sweet spot" game size to something more like 6e and 7e.

---

I think the only way to get legitimacy behind a rules overhaul is to let people vote on mechanics. If you can get "democratic" (in the scariest of scare-quotes) support for how you're handling a mechanic then it might actually get traction.

Tidings
12-07-2015, 06:53
Really interested in translating this Blackhammer ruleset... Played some more AoS tonight with a number of house rules and I think I'd rather go back to 8th or something else. The trick will be getting everyone around me on the same page. Way to fracture the community GW...

itcamefromthedeep, I like the changes you proposed a lot. Seems like the best of two worlds.

-Tidings

de Selby
12-07-2015, 07:21
My experience with fan rules is that people are aggressively paranoid around them, imagining all sorts of nefarious motivations and demanding perfect balance. GW can release any old thing and people grumble a bit then just accept it. They must be hoping for the same this time. The weight carried by that 'official rules' stamp is extraordinary.


I'm currently 25 pages into rewriting warhammer. I've spent about 12 hours on it so far.

I rewrote Age of Sigmar to make it seem a bit more warhammery to me. See sig. I actually like the idea of a 4 page rule set, I just don't necessarily like GW's version. I think with some more ideas and playtesting you could make a fun, tactical 4 page game.

Seelenhaendler
12-07-2015, 11:32
Why is it called Blackhammer?

Probably because it is illegal! :D
At least I would not expect them to have GW's permission for all the official artwork and diagrams they use in their documents ;)



Can someone help me with something real fast: why do people love 6th and 7th so much?

People say its more tactically rewarding... is it because there's no steadfast or step up? And less ranks fight? And magic is less insane?

I hope warhammer can be tactical without making infantry useless (7th is called Cav-hammer right?).

Most people that prefer 6th/7th Ed do so because the movement phase was much more important. Maneuvering was key to winning, while in 8th usually composition of units (deathstars) and magic are much more important. In short, from my experience the luck factor and the list you bring to the table are much more important in 8th than in 6th/7th, where the inherent game mechanisms allowed you to deal with almost anything if you knew what you are doing.

Cavalry only turned into a problem during mid/late 7th ed when the powerlevel of cavalry units increased heavily (multiple attacks for example) but the problem always had been that cavalry was too cheap in comparison to infantry units.

So basically the ruleset was fine but the powercreep of the 7th ed army books broke the game.


Really interested in translating this Blackhammer ruleset... Played some more AoS tonight with a number of house rules and I think I'd rather go back to 8th or something else.


If you are open for something new, take a look at Warhammer CE (see my sig)!
It combines classic (6th/7th ed) Warhammer gameplay with some rule tweeks to fix the problems of that edition (e.g. cavalry, magic, psychology, etc.) and an innovative points system where the point costs correlate much better with the ingame effectiveness than in other rule sets, thus creating a better balance.

Miredorf
12-07-2015, 12:30
In my gaming group we've been developing our WH home version for 6 years now. The goal of the game always was to keep the spirit of warhammer while making it more tactical/strategical and with less random effects and also emphasizing creativy from the players, as we are very much into the hobby side of the game and have created a lot of conversions, new units, warmachines etc which are later on given rules like a goblin warmachine that hurled squigs instead of flying goblins, a steamroller pushed by a stone troll and many more.

The top priority in all these years (i think ive invested +2000 hours in this) has been balance, and that you could field any unit without cost/effectivity constraints. The downside is that the game is less begginer friendly as it got more tools to consider like formations, weapons, terrain and a big array of army entries on each book.

The project started as reaction to HEs ASF. Nowadays we have 22 armybooks (all the armies we own in our gaming group) which include some self made proyects such as night goblins, Estalia, chaos dwarves or Norse in addition to all the classical WH armies. Chaos warriors is divided in 5 factions plus beastmen (6 books).

The rulebook is divided in 3 rulesets: The basic rules, a siege ruleset, and a deep map based campaign ruleset.

The material is obviously only for private use as it includes a lot of artwork both from GW and the community and also only in Spanish. Ive thought sometimes about translating it but im the person who maintains the whole system and trust me when i say that keeping updated and ''errata free'' 22 armybooks and a 100 pages total of rules between the basic rules, campaign and siege is very very time consuming and never really intended for this to reach anywhere other than our circle.

To summarize: Im all for home rulesets because sadly i think it is the only option GW has left to those of us who love the warhammer world overall but like a more tactical wargame.

Davidian
12-07-2015, 12:44
WHFB living rule book found here.
Get amongst it!

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans

Dark Elf
12-07-2015, 15:46
If you want to take the best elements of 8th and add them to a 6e/7e game, I think it would go roughly as follows:

Leave in Steadfast, but say that if your unit has a higher rank bonus you're stubborn. Anything that gets rid of rank bonus gets rid of Steadfast. If you both have the max rank bonus of 3, then neither unit is Steadfast. If you get flanked, you're not Steadfast.

Keep Step up and striking at Initiative on the charge, but remove the additional ranks of Attacks (both the freebie second rank and the horde third rank).

Make magic into something that better reflects the background. You don't need the super-spells (or at least re-phrase them to cause normal wounds that you can take saves against). While an overhaul to the magic system would be really good, I don't think it's strictly necessary. Just make the spells follow the rules.

A home run Warhammer game would probably do something about redirecting charges (maybe have defender form up to attacker by default).

I think this stuff would bring down the "sweet spot" game size to something more like 6e and 7e.


We did most of the things you mention and this happened:

I hope warhammer can be tactical without making infantry useless (7th is called Cav-hammer right?).


Since we got rather drunk after the games, we decided to resolve the issue later on. Though we will probably re-introduce that freebie additional rank for infantry only. If that doesn't work out it's nerfing cavalry time. Though how are we going to do that is beyond me



People say its more tactically rewarding... is it because there's no steadfast or step up? And less ranks fight? And magic is less insane?

It is much, much more tactically rewarding. In 8th you basically throw infantry blocks head on and hope you roll good. Here movement and maneuvering is the key. Through the whole game you build your position for striking and then you reap rewards if you did it well. Or gather corpses of your warriors if you did it wrong :D



My advice to those who are willing to give AOS a try is ... wait, ... a solution (not a complete solution) is on its way.:)
Lol no. Ty but no. I've lost all faith in that thing being a game. Ever.

itcamefromthedeep
12-07-2015, 15:52
Though we will probably re-introduce that freebie additional rank for infantry only. If that doesn't work out it's nerfing cavalry time. Though how are we going to do that is beyond meIf you want to nerf cavalry remove the bonus to armor save.

Really, if you kill either the horse or the rider then the cavalry trooper isn't exactly a cavalry trooper any more. That armor save bonus also did a lot to contribute the worst armor-save related problems of 8e (those 1+ and 0+ re-rollable saves we all saw).

Herzlos
12-07-2015, 16:11
I don't know why you'd go to lengths to re-write warhammer in order to play it, why not put the effort into porting missing units into Kings Of War, or Warmaster or something that's already available and, well, good.

Davidian
12-07-2015, 17:10
I don't know why you'd go to lengths to re-write warhammer in order to play it, why not put the effort into porting missing units into Kings Of War, or Warmaster or something that's already available and, well, good.

Because it's a great games at its heart with rich stories. GW ruined it by using the rules as a train for model sales using flavours of.the month and overpowering new releases..... Would a strong core system and internal balance be such a bad thing? Then every single product in the line is a viable option...

HelloKitty
12-07-2015, 17:45
7th had its tactics but its battles didnt represent battles to me. When i picture a battle in real life i dont see armies being nothing but checkerboarded cav units or units dancing laterally insteadof charging head on. Thats why i quit 7th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

taurus-marstein
12-07-2015, 23:55
It's very interesting that there's a Spanish and a french overhaul of the main game.

I think what most players can agree on is that GW is not interested in writing rules that are tactical, balanced, and rewarding to creative players.

I love the idea of being able to make new units, I will make sure I incorporate that into what I do for the army books. Hopefully this means people can add all the extra fluff they want. Thhis could be like Dwarven bear riders, bretonnia foot knights, and other units that people were wishlisting for.

I mean if the points levels are balanced then you can take any unit you want, right?

Also I like the 2 ranks fight rule but I don't like the hordes extra rank rule. I'd rather you just gett to fight with every model in the front rank (in b2b or not) to reward hordes.

Does anyone else hate the base-to-base shenanigans? Like character walls, conga lines, etc. Where the whole base to base aspect gets really frustrating

Herzlos
13-07-2015, 08:37
Because it's a great games at its heart with rich stories. GW ruined it by using the rules as a train for model sales using flavours of.the month and overpowering new releases..... Would a strong core system and internal balance be such a bad thing? Then every single product in the line is a viable option...


You need to separate the rules mechanics from the fluff though. You can still use your Warhammer fluff whilst playing using the Kings Of War rules, for instance.

stegadonshepherd
13-07-2015, 08:46
I would at least try it.
The answer is simple. The guys at GW are not sigmarines, or some other type of superhuman demi-gods sent from the heavens to provide the best rulesets available.
They are regular guys who screw up like everyone else. I'd gladly try out any rule set, to see if it's playable, since some of the members of the warhammer community are without a doubt
capable of producing a good game system based on their experience with the game only.
If someone disagrees with that they are welcome to look to the rules for every warhammer edition so far including Age of Sigmar. Games are not perfect, but we still can have a good time with them.

Allen
13-07-2015, 09:47
Now that age of sigmar has been released, many players have decided not to play it. Whether they decided to stay with 8th, try KoW, or some other choice, it is clear that the community is fractured.

So here's my question: would you be willing to try out a completely stand-alone ruleset for warhammer fantasy, written solely by players (as opposed to a corporation trying to make money)?

To be clear, this stand alone game would not simply be a bulleted list of rules modifications or a comp pack that limits selections or punishes unfair choices, but a complete ruleset to describe the main game along with army books to completely redefine how units work and how armies use synergy.

If you were to use a ruleset like this, you would not require any GW rulebook, army books, etc. It would be all inclusive and all new, while significant portions of the game would be similar to 8th, 7th, or other game systems.

Anyways, please vote above and leave constructive comments below. Thanks

Wargaming is a social hobby. I voted the last option - I'm not going to use some kind of playermade WHFB 2.0 and pitch it to my gaming friends only because someone in the international community feel the need of a Linus' blanket to hold on. My wargaming circle (hell, EVERY wargaming circle worth of this name) already have house rules, custom-made lists and options, campaigns and so on that can be used in conjunction with official rules or even to modifiy/replace them. There's no need of a worldwide standard "unofficial WHFB new edition, made by players for players"...if that is what are you suggesting.

I was pretty sure WHFB (as any other wargame) was definitely NOT serious business, just a hobby. But the amount of disconcerting threads on this and many other forums seems to point out a different mindest. It's like reading a teenage fan forum of a boy band after the announcement of a breakup...by God, get a grip. WHFB (and by extension WH40K) are not "good" or "funny" wargames, at best they're mediocre ones. The world is full of far better alternatives.

T10
13-07-2015, 13:14
7th had its tactics but its battles didnt represent battles to me. When i picture a battle in real life i dont see armies being nothing but checkerboarded cav units or units dancing laterally insteadof charging head on. Thats why i quit 7th.


Heh. I quit 7th because of 8th. I have no other excuse.

-T10

HelloKitty
13-07-2015, 13:45
Oh when 8th was released, that was a very very good weekend for me. I came back to the hobby after not touching a model for over two years.

Noodle!
13-07-2015, 13:57
I don't know why you'd go to lengths to re-write warhammer in order to play it, why not put the effort into porting missing units into Kings Of War, or Warmaster or something that's already available and, well, good.

I think porting the missing units, with points costs et all is harder than to take the existing warhammer and modifying it. They're not reinventing it, they're using decades of experience to rewrite a system they're familiar with.
And in my opinion the fluff, which is one of the most important aspects to me, wouldn't feel "real" when mixing.

taurus-marstein
13-07-2015, 21:55
Well I'd like to reiterate that i'm not trying to win any popularity contests here. I am not saying "would you play a player-written ruleset exclusively, nothing elsse, forever, and every gaming group has to play it..."

That's not my goal.

My goal is to see how open people are to something i'm gonna do anyway: rewrite WFB. I'm not taking an opinion poll on every single rule change and picking the popular ones, no, i'm just doing my own thing.

If no one playss it, whatever. That's their decision.

But there should be alternatives to official rules for people who want to play a game similar to the one i've imagined in my head. That's my goal.

Also, I hope to leave as much room for fluff as possible (although I might not write it myself)

Urgat
13-07-2015, 22:48
I think what most players can agree on is that GW is not interested in writing rules that are tactical, balanced, and rewarding to creative players.

Tactical or balanced, probably not, but AoS is certainly aimed primarily at creative players.

As for the topic: bleh is what I think of it. Been over why in other topics already. If I stick to 8th ed, I'll keep playing it as is with the couple usual houserules, I don't need other people to tell me how WFB is supposed to be played. If we (my group) decide something should be adressed, we will do it ourselves.

RedKnightSpecial
13-07-2015, 23:33
Players are more important than rules. If there was a healthy group near me running player made rules, I would happily join. Not too likely, though.

Spell_of_Destruction
13-07-2015, 23:50
7th had its tactics but its battles didnt represent battles to me. When i picture a battle in real life i dont see armies being nothing but checkerboarded cav units or units dancing laterally insteadof charging head on. Thats why i quit 7th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


6th/7th was a fine system. Perhaps the best version of WHFB ever.

What ruined it was the dramatic ramping up of power levels in the latter half of 7th edition. Heavy cavalry and elite infantry were getting buffs across the board. What made 6th/7th great in the beginning was the placement of your battleline and the individual match ups that would take place. Decisive combats normally required you to use multiple units in tandem or to execute a flank charge. When GW started buffing units to super-elite status, much of the tactical thinking was removed as many units became very much 'point and click' (e.g. Chaos Knights, Swordmasters). Such units didn't require much tactical thinking - you just needed to get them into combat as quickly as possible.

I liked charged redirecting but it could be quite gamey.

For me, the best system would be 7th's core rules incorporating some elements of 8th to make large units of weak infantry viable.

If someone/some people took the time to write up a coherent and well tested version of the WHFB rules and put it online I'm sure players would use it.

taurus-marstein
14-07-2015, 01:03
That's what i'm working on.

I definitely want more of an early 7th ed type game, but the game shouldn't just be about tactics either. There still needs to be unit variety and units that are unique and have interesting abilities.

So what do people think of alternating activations?

If you don't know what it is, here's a brief explanation:
In warhammer, your turn is ONLY your turn. You move, you shoot, you charge, you cast spells, etc. Your opponent dispels, makes saves, and rolls for close combat.

That's the usual way, alternating activations is where every turn is both players turns, we take turns moving units, shooting, charging, etc. If you don't know wwhat I mean, go check out a description of the game "Bolt action".

Anyway I wanted to try building that into warhammer.

Malagor
14-07-2015, 01:09
No offense or anything but it's doubtful that your edition will ever get off the ground.
Seems everyone and their grandmother is doing their own fan-edition and this was even before AoS so I can imagine there being less people doing it now so the community will only get more fractured.

big squig
14-07-2015, 01:25
Same here. I'm all in favour of community-driven rules in theory, but in practice community-driven rules reflect only the interests of a very small handful of people, often just one person (the only way to get things done?); and the chances that they don't have strong game design skills, or do but don't have enough resources to playtest properly (across 10+ different armies), are just too high.

Well, to be fair, how is that any different than what GW does when they write games?

big squig
14-07-2015, 01:26
Because it's a great games at its heart with rich stories. GW ruined it by using the rules as a train for model sales using flavours of.the month and overpowering new releases..... Would a strong core system and internal balance be such a bad thing? Then every single product in the line is a viable option...

That's what I'm doing with KoW. I'm using my fantasy armies almost untouched. KoW has a setting, but it's really just a generic (insert fantasy here) setting. My games of KoW take place in the old world.

zoggin-eck
14-07-2015, 01:50
Anyway I wanted to try building that into warhammer.

Sure, why not? Plenty of similar games do it already, same with people already putting it into their WHFB-similar games. No Quarter is an example.

taurus-marstein
14-07-2015, 02:22
I don't see it as pointless that so many people are trying to do the same thing. I'll be glad to try other people's rulesets.

Anything will be better than AoS, tbh.

Why do you assume I want to "get it off the ground"?
I don't. I don't have any expectations that my ruleset will be the saving grace of fantasy or that it will become as popular as swedish or ETC. If that happened, that'd be cool, but I don't need such widespread acceptance to be happy with my creation.

I think there's a big power-vacuum right now because there's no longer going to be official GW rules for fantasy, so if I can steal 1% of the market with my rules then that'd be a victory for me.

I want to keep warhammer alive, and while I think just updating/rebalancing 8th is a noble venture, i'd rather create a new game that gives players a new experience.

Basically, it should be the same WFB experience that we all know and love but not just a re-run of old edition games. New tactics, new rules, new creativity and ideas.

If you don't like it, I don't blame you at all. I don't expect more than 5% of players would agree with me on many issues, and those players can go play one of the other house-rule games out there.

It's pretty weird trying to discuss something I havent even posted... I have 25 pages so far, it's a pretty rough draft but it's something.

Smooth Boy
14-07-2015, 03:12
I'd love for the community to take over like they did with Coreheim or Epic but I can't see it getting beyond the idea stage. I think I'll just buy a used copy of Ravening Hordes from eBay and use 6th edition. Honestly the best chance I think we have of having any modicum of uniformity is picking an edition and modifying the army books.

taurus-marstein
14-07-2015, 04:26
well I could see a lot of people wanting to play 6th ed with just some simple house rules for the new fancy 8th ed units (if you dont wanna play fantasy without the new models)

MiyamatoMusashi
14-07-2015, 08:51
Well, to be fair, how is that any different than what GW does when they write games?

In theory, somebody designing games for a living should at least be taking a rigorously professional approach, and there's a fair chance they may have already had to demonstrate their game design competence in order to get the job. They'll likely be working as part of a team comprised of similarly competent professionals, who will be skilled at both creating their own rules and analysing the rules of others, to come up with a stronger whole. And their very livelihood is staked on creating a good game that appeals to as many people as possible, meaning for example that they ought to be able to avoid the temptation to make their favoured faction better than the others.

In practice, it may not be very different at all*. Still, given the unavoidable fact of finite time, and a desire to spend that time wisely, it seems reasonable to spend that time with professionally published rule-sets, rather than rules produced by enthusiastic amateurs - as most amateur rules are crap (just like most of everything is crap). I'm not claiming the community can't do a better job than the professionals; we can probably think of some examples where amateur designers, or the community more widely, have come up with something excellent. Still, on the balance of probability, with limited time, the sensible choice seems to go with the professionals, until proven otherwise.

* - especially in the case of GW. With Dreadfleet and Assassinorum being their only attempts at genuinely new games, in what, a decade?, we should not be surprised that they seem to have lost the ability to develop good games. They're out of practice.

Miredorf
14-07-2015, 12:50
In theory, somebody designing games for a living should at least be taking a rigorously professional approach, and there's a fair chance they may have already had to demonstrate their game design competence in order to get the job. They'll likely be working as part of a team comprised of similarly competent professionals, who will be skilled at both creating their own rules and analysing the rules of others, to come up with a stronger whole. And their very livelihood is staked on creating a good game that appeals to as many people as possible, meaning for example that they ought to be able to avoid the temptation to make their favoured faction better than the others.

In practice, it may not be very different at all*. Still, given the unavoidable fact of finite time, and a desire to spend that time wisely, it seems reasonable to spend that time with professionally published rule-sets, rather than rules produced by enthusiastic amateurs - as most amateur rules are crap (just like most of everything is crap). I'm not claiming the community can't do a better job than the professionals; we can probably think of some examples where amateur designers, or the community more widely, have come up with something excellent. Still, on the balance of probability, with limited time, the sensible choice seems to go with the professionals, until proven otherwise.

* - especially in the case of GW. With Dreadfleet and Assassinorum being their only attempts at genuinely new games, in what, a decade?, we should not be surprised that they seem to have lost the ability to develop good games. They're out of practice.

For the above reasons i neither think any players ruleset will get very far, ever.

taurus-marstein
14-07-2015, 15:52
And what if players simply copy-past 8th edition or 7th edition and simply modify 5% of the game (to fix the major issues) and playtest it, you think that will get no where?

Would you consider swedish comp or ETC getting no where?

I respect your opinion, I just think that there's a large number of people out there who are no longer going to lookk to GW for rules, and those players need an alternative.

Hopefully they find one.

RedKnightSpecial
14-07-2015, 18:38
And what if players simply copy-past 8th edition or 7th edition and simply modify 5% of the game (to fix the major issues) and playtest it, you think that will get no where?

Would you consider swedish comp or ETC getting no where?

I respect your opinion, I just think that there's a large number of people out there who are no longer going to lookk to GW for rules, and those players need an alternative.

Hopefully they find one.

Kings of War is the natural choice, I think/hope.

Voss
14-07-2015, 18:54
Kings of War is the natural choice, I think/hope.

I doubt it, at least on this side of the pond. It feels like people are going to have to wait for the next big thing from someone new, and going up to the scale required is a serious challenge for companies.

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 19:19
Kings of War is not catching on here at all, and never has. I have first ed, and preordered 2nd but no interest in playing it other than curiousity.

Voss
14-07-2015, 19:31
Kings of War is not catching on here at all, and never has. I have first ed, and preordered 2nd but no interest in playing it other than curiousity.

Pretty much. Part of it is that LGS owners in the states still have trouble with mantic orders. Pre-AoS release I was chatting the LGS manager about what he's going to do in the face of AoS (which is apparently sell it at $25 off in the hopes of unloading it), and he admitted that Mantic is pretty rough to work with. Availability is iffy, customer service is mediocre to bad, and the store rep (who is an old GW rep) is... unhelpful, and just wants to push him into carrying a full wall of product regardless of whether it is selling. Mostly the LGS has started getting a Press Ganger involved to push more WM/H and started doing more to push Wrath of Kings and Darklands. What the ex-fantasy players are going to do is up in the air, but it isn't Mantic or GW.

Malagor
14-07-2015, 19:38
Kings of War is the natural choice, I think/hope.
Why Kings of War when you have Warthrone which seems like a natural evolution of 8e ?
So Kings of War is far from the natural choice.

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 19:40
We're in a similar situation except that PP and WM/H is not really supported here except for one store. About 1/3 of our fantasy base rage quit last week, 1/3 is on board with AoS and the other 1/3 could be on board but are stepping out for a bit because they are afraid that more people will rage quit.

The replacement is yet to be seen. There are guys trying to push SAGA but that also is a niche thing between 6-8 guys total and then there are those keeping 8th edition alive but it now being considered "dead" means that people are letting it go.

My guess is things will be a lot like in 2010 when 8th dropped. We had something similar happen. 1/3 of our guys rage quit and 1/3 of our guys waited and then came back a few months later, while a year down the line the guys that rage quit also slowly came back.

Time will tell.

taurus-marstein
14-07-2015, 19:55
How many writers did GW have writing the BRB for 8th ed? Or the army books?

Be honest, do you think they every platested or theory hammered anything?

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 20:04
They stated before at games days that they internally playtest, which is the ivory tower version of playtesting. Ivory tower version of playtesting is not the same as giving the ruleset to tournament gamers hell bent on squeezing every optimal point out of their roster.

taurus-marstein
14-07-2015, 21:05
I was also considering writing some sort of software program to analyze unit effectiveness.

Sheer combat skill can't be that hard, it's all the other stuff that gets complicated.

Ideally i'd give the rules to 50 tournament savvy players and see what cheese comes out of 100 games with it, then tweak it and repeat.

BattleofLund
14-07-2015, 21:51
Couldn't find my answer among your poll options: I'm slightly stunned and apathetic* right now, so 'eh what does it matter'. Signed 'Old and resigned'. :)


*ie, slightly stunned and apathetic regarding fantasy wargaming.

Thirdeye
14-07-2015, 22:57
That's what i'm working on… alternating activations…, I wanted to try building that into warhammer.

Yeah, I’m writing rules for unit activation for AOS. It just add a much needed tactical element to the game. It turns the mindless grind of pushing units forward and long boring intervals into a calculating action /reaction ebb and flow that involves both players to the maximum extent at all times.

I also plan on reworking the combat resolution system, from the tired old GW system of three roll with D6 to one of dice-type roll-offs like that used in Force on Force and Tomorrow Wars.

Why? Because I want something a bit… more. I like the idea of a fun, simple, skirmish game I can knock-out in a few hours with my friends. And I like needing only a handful of lovingly painted toy soldiers. AOS is that game. But I also want something more than GW wants to give. I want some depth, competition, tactical decision making, and I want a game that uses the best methods to achieve the highest player satisfaction possible with table-top gaming.

Humanoid
15-07-2015, 00:00
First of all ... Do it! ... regardless of what anybody says if you are having fun. For my comments, just remember that I have not played WFB, but have bought some WFB miniatures with the intent of playing WFB, and then decided not to play 8th edition WFB after travelling up some of the learning curve.

The concern that I have about "a completely stand-alone ruleset for warhammer fantasy" is the miniatures as some miniatures may no longer be available in the near future from GW, or the miniatures from GW may be too expensive for newbies. Your focus on "a ruleset for players who maybe have 8,000+ points for multiple armies, who don't want to buy new models" is planned obsolesence in my view. A game without newbies in its future is only feeding on the past, and bound to vanish eventually.

I think that your strategy should be to select those miniatures where alternatives are available from manufacturers in addition to GW. Perhaps just like Specialist Games, other manufactures will fill the void of miniatures which GW abandoned as demand occurs, and the rules for those miniatures can be added later.

Is there a core game in all of those WFB editions? Can you extract and write the rules for it? If players of different edition mindsets could agree on a core game, then they would probably play the core game if they could not find someone to play their edition.

If WFB is IGOUGO, then I do not see alternating activations as part of a core game. If any edition differs in phase sequence, then the easiest thing to do for a core game is to have the player deciding the sequence of activating units, and deciding the sequence of actions taken by the unit.

I am not interested in WFB nor a WFB variant. I would be interested in reading a core game if you (or anyone) wrote one.

When real life gives me much more leisure time than now, I will do one of the following for my miniatures of elves, dwarves, and orcs for my fantasy world:
- use a ruleset
- modify a rulest
- write a ruleset from scratch

So far with quick reads from free rulesets such as AoS, KoW and Warthrone, I will be writing one from scratch, but using any idea that I like from wherever found.

big squig
15-07-2015, 05:15
Here in my area quite a few of our fantasy guys at the LGS have simply jumped ship to KoW (a good solid 10 players or so now). The rest have moved on to either warmahores or malifaux or just quit. A couple are die hard AoS supporters but it looks grim.

Singaliel
15-07-2015, 05:20
Use formed units (per 8th edition) instead of models (AoS) for movement and strke away the Pile In rules and you have a workable, classical mass battles system. You could keep units with the Skrimish Special Rule in 8th edition playable as AoS as written. Easy changes to get back to a classical format.

What do you think of this:

217157

Just Tony
15-07-2015, 05:58
What I would play right now is 6th with the Power Dice and Insane Courage rules from 7th, the comp scoring of the Grand Tournament Comp packets back during 6th, and an agreed fix to the more broken books. I don't even think the community could get on the same page with the Chaos books let alone anything else that was off in that edition.

Wesser
15-07-2015, 06:40
ETC is in progress making whats basically Warhammer: 8

That's as good a consensus as any