8th Edition Warhammer a 3 Turn Game?

[metawarhammer]

I have played Warhammer Fantasy since 6th edition, and I think that 8th Edition is the best rules set over all so far.

However, my friends and I are noticing that our games are ending by turn 4 very often. Not that an entire army gets wiped out by turn 4, but as good, experienced players, we know when to throw in the towel and start over while there is still time for a rematch.

(Note:we are very laid back players, who know the fickleness of dice and how possible a comeback can be even when things go back. But when, say, a big White Lions block catches a toughness test vortex at its center, thats about 1/3 of the HE player's strength, and if it was holding a key point of the line/field position, it's likely the Elves are done for.)

This relates to an earlier post I made about I think the magic phase plays too deterministic a roll in the game, and how this can be seen by players opting for extra Power Dice generation any way they can. So check that out if you like: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...r-Dice-1-Strat People seem to have lots of good thoughts on the issue, and I am partly mollified.

But its not just magic. 1-3 rounds of fire from the right warmachines(s) into the right unit can do the same thing. Dwarf Grudge Throwers are particular nasty in this way, metagame wise, as they can re-roll scatter and artillery dice rolls...not to mention get extra strength!

Part of the problem then must be that people are inclined to take 1-2 key units too often. A host of things cause this to happen, and it varies from army to army, but one example would be an army that simply MUST have a BSB in the center of the army to protect from leadership tests, which then must have good gear to stay protected. At that point, with that much investment into something, one might as well optimize the unit+the BSB even more, which generally means more points, such as making the unit an elite one with a magic banner or some upgrade.

I want to re-emphasize that I really like the rules as they are. So much so I have started a blog just to organize my metagame thoughts. (not good when warhammer sneaks into my thoughts at work!) But I have been absent from forums for a while and am wondering if this is a trend other people are experiencing. I'm particularly interested to hear from vets who played in editions past, to gauge if this indeed is a unique development of 8th edition play.

[theunwantedbeing]

I have played Warhammer Fantasy since 6th edition, and I think that 8th Edition is the best rules set over all so far.

However, my friends and I are noticing that our games are ending by turn 4 very often. Not that an entire army gets wiped out by turn 4, but as good, experienced players, we know when to throw in the towel and start over while there is still time for a rematch.

Okay, I only read this far before replying.
A few words of advice

Play the whole 6 turns

Okay, now back to reading....I may edit this afterwards

Nope, play the whole 6 turns instead of just playing 3 turns and giving up.

[Nymie_the_Pooh]

I jumped into the game when it was changing from fifth to sixth. I have seen things turn around in the later turns more in this edition than the past two. You might be able to call the game accurately in turn five, but things still turn around even at that point. I'd never call it on turn three unless I was completely massacred for some reason. Magic and war machines have less of an effect as the game goes on for many armies where infantry is more likely to stick around to the end. War machines particularly lose effectiveness as one makes their way across the table.

Magic in this edition is Warhammer's version of blackjack. My goal on defense is not to stop all magic but to weather what comes while forcing my opponent to take chances until one of us can take out her caster. Depending on how well I can do this is how much her magic affects the last half of the game. It's tricky for both of us, but part of magic really is a game of who can bluff better in many cases.

[astornfleshlay]

I also agree with playing the full 6 turns. MANY a game I have thought was in the bag to just barely pull off a win/tie in the end. That's what I find really refreshing about 8th: the uncertainty

[Morkash]

Well, I find 8th edition to be more fast-paced as well. Most tournament games here have a time limit of 9 kiloseconds so chances are that you won't play 6 turns either, depending on how slow/fast you and your opponent are. I played against a fast Bretonnian where we had enough time for 2 beers after our match before the next one started, on the other hand I also had a game where time was over before as "soon" as he ended his third turn.

With step up, more effective magic and warmachines games often do not take the full 6 turns. That said, I agree with theunwantedbeing: there can be indeed some important moments in the later turns, I'd never give up before the very end. His mage could explode, a failed Lo,S! roll could kill a character, unexpected combat outcomes... it only adds to the beauty of the game that you can be sure, but not entirely certain that you will win this match!

[T10]

Part of the problem then must be that people are inclined to take 1-2 key units too often.

Agreed: the "step up" aspect of combat, supporting attacks, hordes, steadfast (even when aquired through the Stubborn special rule) and the Victory Points rules all serve to make big units incredibly appealing, and more often than not they are a sound tactical choice.

More units bring more diversity to the game, but unfortunately more diversity is not always tactically sound: where the models are similar in capability, the bigger unit always wins in a head-to-head fight, and can quite often get out on top even if it starts out being outmaneuvered.

However, as you pointed out, once two big units have gone at it with each other and one remains standing, or a big unit gets wiped out/decimated by a mega-damage spell, this represents such a huge blow that the losing player is all but out of the fight. He put all his eggs in the same basked, and now he's got no eggs! Makes sense to quit and start over, right?

In my opinion you might be doing yourself a disservice by calling it quits early. Sure, you get a second game in, but that's pretty much going to be a variation of the first, with the first player to break the enemy's main unit getting the win.

Now, I'm not going to tell you "that ain't warhammer", since it obviously is, but it strikes me as being a very simple form of the game, only slightly more advanced that each player taking a single unit, putting them in ase contact and rolling dice until one wins, then repeat. At least that's what I get from your post.

If you want to mix up the game a bit, try out some alternative army composition styles to break out of the big unit tread.

For example: use the normal army composition rules with the added restriction that no unit or character may cost more than 10% of the game size, exept for one character or unit that may cost up to 25%. Or whatever per-centages work for you.

[Urgat]

Okay, I only read this far before replying.
A few words of advice

Play the whole 6 turns

Okay, now back to reading....I may edit this afterwards

Nope, play the whole 6 turns instead of just playing 3 turns and giving up.

That again. If they want to play another game instead of wasting their time in the event that there's going to be a freak dice incident that'll turn the situation around, it's their right, no? Even if it does happen, you're so happy to win because in the last turn your opponent fluffed his dice or something? That's fine if you do, but don't go look down on people not sharing that opinion, I find it really insulting.

edit: might as well reply to the OP- Well I unfortunately haven't had many 8th ed games in lately, but it doesn't really happen to me, we didn't really get into the boring current metagme of the mega units discussed just above. Ah sure, they're certainly more efficient, but if neither player does it, well there's no problem in the first place. Anyway, we got large armies with many units, it really takes quite a few turns before the situation really looks set usually. Don't know about that 6 turns deal by the way, I don't play "6 turns", I play scenarios.

In my opinion you might be doing yourself a disservice by calling it quits early. Sure, you get a second game in, but that's pretty much going to be a variation of the first, with the first player to break the enemy's main unit getting the win.

Not necessarily if you roll for the scenarios.

For example: use the normal army composition rules with the added restriction that no unit or character may cost more than 10% of the game size, exept for one character or unit that may cost up to 25%. Or whatever per-centages work for you.

That's a nice idea we were discussing in some topic a while ago. Some people liked it, some people hated it, obviously.

[The bearded one]

It doesn't have to mean the game "might" turn around, and only with some freak of the dice. In the example a block of white lions caught a toughness test; while a shame a dozen or so white lions might die, that doesn't seem to be the end of the game. In my last game my block of 24 templeguard got hit with an IF withering (sigh, on 4 dice), that dropped their toughness down to 1 (sigh) just as they were staring down 30 dark elf crossbows (sigh) and 30 shades (sigh), while out of the 23 regenerationsaves I had to make for that shootingphase and the following combat phase I passed 0, absolutely friking 0 (sigh), and my slann was left with the TG champion, I still saw plenty of room for a half-decent magicphase to make enough difference for the rest of the army. We ran out of time, but it could easily have done enough to allow the rest of the army a decent chance. You don't always need silly luck to turn a game around and dozens upon dozens of games we played out for them to end up as a fairly small loss or a draw even if it looked like a cakewalk in the third turn.

[theunwantedbeing]

That's fine if you do, but don't go look down on people not sharing that opinion, I find it really insulting.

I find it very insulting and am extremely offended that you would say such a thing.

[Urgat]

TBO: I assume they stop when it's really clear, not when there's still some chance. If on the third turn I'm down to a dozen gobs in one unit and five wolf riders left while my opponent still got a horde of marauders, his chaos knights and his warriors (one of my last games), unless dice go spectacurlaly wrong, it's over. So I call it quit, we play another game and we have fun. Your example is not what I'd call a situation where one would quit, I assume the OP wouldn't either. Anyway we're going off topic, and even though I won't take the blame for that one, we should stop now, because that "quitting/not quitting" business always turns ugly.

I find it very insulting and am extremely offended that you would say such a thing.

Well don't do that, then. Not only you make that point, but you rub it in by repeating it, in case it wasn't clear. With bold letters and imperative mode and all. "Do it that way because you're wrong" is what you meant. What did you expect?

[The bearded one]

TBO: I assume they stop when it's really clear, not when there's still some chance. If on the third turn I'm down to a dozen gobs in one unit and five wolf riders left while my opponent still got a horde of marauders, his chaos knights and his warriors (one of my last games), unless dice go spectacurlaly wrong, it's over. So I call it quit, we play another game and we have fun. Your example is not what I'd call a situation where one would quit, I assume the OP wouldn't either. Anyway we're going off topic, and even though I won't take the blame for that one, we should stop now, because that "quitting/not quitting" business always turns ugly.

oh no, in your example it is spectacularly clear its time to stop, but the white lion example comes from the OPs post as an example of the high elves most likely being done for.

[belgarath97]

That again. If they want to play another game instead of wasting their time in the event that there's going to be a freak dice incident that'll turn the situation around, it's their right, no? Even if it does happen, you're so happy to win because in the last turn your opponent fluffed his dice or something? That's fine if you do, but don't go look down on people not sharing that opinion, I find it really insulting.

Have you never played a game that looked like you had no shot, and pulled out the win? I have. You might call that fluke dice, but that is part of the uncertainty. Sometimes the outcome is decided because you didn't give up. For example, I won a game not that long ago that I was losing for 5 turns, but my opponent got lax and let me back in the game. When I won numerous people who had been watching were completely surprised. Sometimes even if it looks bleak you should play the full 6. It will teach you to look for your chance to capitalize, or it will teach you to maintain your edge when it looks like you have it in the bag. Either way suggesting that they play out the full 6 is a legit suggestion. But you are right they don't have to.


To the OP:

I guess I have a problem with your assumption that by turn 3 you can tell the outcome of a game, on more then a very rare occasion. 8th edition IMHO is the most uncertain of editions, and as such those type of calls are harder to make. I also would make the same suggestion as others have, agree with your friends not to play with the elements of the game that are making you think the game is over by turn 3. Unless you are playing in a competitive environment (ie tournament) there is no reason you and your friends can't choose to play different from the meta.

[Urgat]

oh no, in your example it is spectacularly clear its time to stop, but the white lion example comes from the OPs post as an example of the high elves most likely being done for.

Yeah, I kind of imagined the rest of the army was crippled as well and that was the finishing touch, to be frank, I didn't consider it was just the White Lions. If it's as you say, of course, I agree with you at 100%. Not many games where I've ended up with more than a quarter of my army left, whether I won or lost.

Have you never played a game that looked like you had no shot, and pulled out the win? I have. You might call that fluke dice, but that is part of the uncertainty.

Of course I've played games like that, and I've won games where it was clear I should have lost. I didn't like the feeling, I had lost, I was outplayed, and I won because I got a lucky roll. Happens quite often, even, I'd say. I usually don't like winning like that, I feel zero achievement if I win even though I didn't deserve it, unless it was something totally improbable and therefore very funny. You''re never going to catch me say that other people shouldn't do it, I understand perfectly the reasons why one would want to keep playing till the end. But if two players feel like their game is going nowhere and decide to play another one, I just can't understand how anybody has the right to tell them "no, don't do that". Anyway, just to make it clear: we (we, I said. As in both party are in agreement) stop a game when it's clear, like the example I gave TBO. No "oh noes I lost my White Lions I give up" deal. "My armie's been grinded to the ground and the remnants minced while my opponent is pretty much intact" deal is what I'm talking about.

Oh btw, I'm quoting that again:

oh no, in your example it is spectacularly clear its time to stop

With goblins, it's often spectacularly clear when it's time to stop

[metawarhammer]

Agreed: If you want to mix up the game a bit, try out some alternative army composition styles to break out of the big unit tread.

My friends and I definitely aspire to this. In fact this has become my preferred Dwarf in that spirit: http://metawarhammer.wordpress.com/2...e-small-units/ I've found it's rather versatile and competitive, in addition to being unorthodox and replete with weaknesses.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Okay, I only read this far before replying.
A few words of advice

Play the whole 6 turns

Okay, now back to reading....I may edit this afterwards

Nope, play the whole 6 turns instead of just playing 3 turns and giving up.

It's not as though my friends and I have a policy that we quit if a unit gets wiped out by turn three. We talk it over over the next few rolls or whatever, and decide on a case by case basis. Sometimes we call it, sometimes we keep playing. It depends on mood as much as logic.

But that's not what this post is about.

I am looking for a sense of whether other people have noticed a trend of what I described.

[Sexiest_hero]

That what I just happened to be talking about with a few friends. What if the giants, gave up when they were sucking, or the new yourk knicks didn't come back out after halftime? We were playing Halo reach and after getting 20 points behind the the team dropped to 2 members. Every game from Magic to D&D to Gears of war, gamers have had an tendency, to quit when the going got rough. You owe it to yourself to finish a game till both parties agree.

[theunwantedbeing]

I am looking for a sense of whether other people have noticed a trend of what I described.

I've seen plenty of it.
8th certainly helped nurture this although with the earlier editions having a main unit persue/flee into terrain often put them out of the game completely and people would often just concede at this point or try to talk their way into ending the game and perhaps starting again.

VC players almost always immediately quit the second their general died for example.

[Pancakey]

Do you always play the same scenaraio? Same terrain? Same players? Same armies? Same builds? If no. Maybe thats the issue? Like others have mentioned the games final 3 turns are pretty neat.

I'm trying to imagine a game in your group ...

Turn 1 - we both move up and cast mega spells destroying 1/3 of the army.
Turn 2 - we both move up and cast mega spells destroying another 1/3 of the army
Turn 3 - charge dice "fluffed" (whatever that means) someone loses their bsb and we hug it out

Rematch anyone?

[Morpheus]

I have found that almost all my games have been decided in turn five or six. Almost all those games looked like they were done at turn three because of the masses of magic/shooting casualties. But often we would see things turn the other way.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Well, I find 8th edition to be more fast-paced as well. Most tournament games here have a time limit of 9 kiloseconds so chances are that you won't play 6 turns either, depending on how slow/fast you and your opponent are. I played against a fast Bretonnian where we had enough time for 2 beers after our match before the next one started, on the other hand I also had a game where time was over before as "soon" as he ended his third turn.

That's brilliant. I'm going to refer to all units of time as kiloseconds from now on. That's made my day.

Anyway.

Yes, I can see where the OP is coming from. This is more true of some scenarios than others. Meeting Engagement is sometimes major infantry combat on the first turn of the first player. Battle for the Pass can be a bit longer. The armies also have an impact - a gunline vs a combat army will add a turn of trudging over the board, so I'd expect turn 4 to be decisive. With two pure-combat armies things come to a head really quite quickly.

In general, I find that the decisive combats tend to happen turn 2 or 3. How many times have you played a game and after several hours of brutal and bloody combat with most of both armies engaged and, after finishing a turn, tried to figure out what turn it is and realise you've only finished turn 2 or 3?

Now that's not to say at all that every game is decided by turn 3, but I think it's reasonably fair to say that it happens more often than not. In fairness, turns 2 and 3 are also the bulk of the time spent playing too. If I get 6 turns in 9 kiloseconds, well, I find that the first three turns take about 5 or 6 kiloseconds, and I can usually get the turns 4-6 in within the last kilosecond or two, often "mop up". Some of the best and most exciting games last the whole 6 turns, with the final outcome in the balance, equally a game can be snatched from the jaws of defeat or victory in the last few turns - but I wouldn't say these are the most common outcomes of the game.

[Glen_Savet]

In my experience, the armies I play generally take until turn 5 or 6 to really get to the point where I can make the game deciding maneuver. Perhaps that's just my play style.