View Full Version : How good is warmaster?

03-04-2008, 09:09
Hi I play WFB and though I love it I have always looked over to Warmaster as well because I'd love to paint the small scale versions of my favourite units and would love to do a great war with thousands of troops. i would do th new legend battles but even then getting to over a thousand troops is hard and it doesn't need multiplayer. So before I make any decisons on expanding my realm of WFB how is the warmaster game, is it good, fun and tactiful like warhammer.

03-04-2008, 22:12
i think it is different
more command and control and less about combat resolutions

it also looks great to see your army on the table top

03-04-2008, 23:03
It feels more like commanding an army. Warhammer is good game, but has some pretty odd mechanics for unit movement and control.

03-04-2008, 23:23
I played it when it first came out and really enjoyed it.

Don't play it much now, It's rare to find an opponent.

04-04-2008, 09:00
Oh and where can I find the mini's and rules for it for I live in australia.

04-04-2008, 21:52
online order from GW or through your GW store locally?

05-04-2008, 00:12
Rules are a free download from the SG site.

07-05-2008, 19:21
I really enjoy the game. To me it feels more like you're controlling an army than WFB (and between the two I've dropped WFB in favor of WM). I've always felt that WFB is a line up, move forward, roll dice type system.

The armies are formula based (as far as I can tell) so the armies for the most part are balanced. There isn't as much "flavor" you could call it in WM espeically when compared to WFB.

My main reason for picking to stick with WM over WFB is the greater tactical/strategic levels I get from WM which I didn't see present in WFB.

Overall I'd say that WM focues on army positioning and manuvering more than WFB and I'd say WFB focuses more on army selection and variety. So if you like the variety offered in WFB don't expect to find that in WM.

The Baron
27-08-2008, 21:35
Not only are the miniatures some of the best GW have ever produced, the rules give a great feeling of leading an army in large operations rather than being the heroic combatant leader of a small force, your WM general should rarely get involved in close combat, but preferably be leading the battle from afar, and the loss of 3 regiments of halbardiers is but a small thing.

Having played numerous war games over the years not a GW, WM stiill provides me with the most fun and with the most strategically tricky decisions.

Plus the rulebook is free and an army or two is reasonably priced in comparison to the core games.

12-09-2008, 12:51
Yeah, I would agree most of the posts here.

It's a very intuitive game, to begin with. Most players are competent after a few games, but it's got that simplicity/complexity thing, like Go, where the game gets more interesting the more you play it, even though the rules seem simple.

I highly recommend starting with the Battle of Five Armies rules first. They're much more logically written and are essentialy Warmaster 2.0.