Here's my idea for a warhammer "fix";
I'm assuming a competetive 1v1 game here
1. One player is a kind of gamemaster and sets things up. The gamemaster could be decided randomly if both players are interested, or players could take turns or roll off
2. The gamemaster creates 2 army lists. The army lists don't have to have an equal points value..
3. The gamemaster now chooses a scenario from the rulebook, or invents a scenario himself. This could be a scenario in the traditional sense (players have special objectives, like 1 guy running away to another side of the board and escaping with as many units as possible, or simply a scenario with a "house rule" "like disruption cancels steadfast in this scenario", the possibilities to create a fun game are endless)
- The gamemaster sets up terrain and says in which deployment zone each army will start
- The gamemaster's opponent chooses which army he'll control and players battle it out
Why am I suggesting this?
1. I don't like the process of analyzing & optimising army lists. To me it's like you're trying the find the mistakes in GW's army books and trying to exploit them. It also kills variation (if a unit type or size gets relegated to the bench), gives GW power over us (they make it good, we "have" to buy it), gives incentive to look things up online instead of trying to figure things out, and in some cases creates battles where some fun elements are missing
2. I love the hobby & fluff aspect of the game, but I don't want to sacrifice competition in order to have it
3. I would enjoy trying out things that are currently impossible, like terrain that extremely heavily favours one player or a neutral unit in the map that isn't even controlled by a player
4. Whatever miniatures people have painted, they can immediately use them. You are a dark elf player who wants to paint a unit of 10 saurus warriors? You can use them in a serious game
5. A system like this makes the game perfectly balanced; I think players will play more even, exciting games and less of those one-sided blowouts.
6. Minor advantage; if you have 2 armies you can invite someone to your home for a game and they don't even have to bring anything
Drawbacks I can think of
1. People would have to learn to play multiple armies; they might have more trouble with the rules. However, for me playing multiple armies would simply equal more fun.
2. The gamemaster and the other player wouldn't have equal chances to win; it would be like chess where starting as white is an advantage (but I think the current system where starting with army book x or buying GW product x gives you an advantage, is far worse)
3. One player has to feel comfortable with letting someone else play with his figures. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I'm wondering how many people out there can relate and how many feel completely differently. Would you be down to try this, or would you hate it? Please give me your input!