Matt Thrower
United Kingdom
Bath
Somerset
-
With us all being geeks I suspect that most of us are as familiar with Warhammer as we are with Monopoly. It's hard to avoid a behemoth like Games Workshop if you're interested in the gaming hobby nowadays and if, like me, you grew up with hobby gaming then you'll remember the old-fashioned incarnation of GW as a major player in the hobby back in the 80's and 90's.
I don't feel Warhammer is terribly well liked by the majority of 'geek users. There's lots of reasons I can think of for this. It's publishing company doesn't have a great customer service reputation. It attracts a lot of kids who, let's be honest, are far too young to be playing a game of such complexity. It eats up your time and money as you slave away painting miniatures - time you could be spending playing games.
None of the reasons listed above include it being a bad game.
I'm a former Warhammer addict who's now moved on to being more interested in boardgames. What finally turned me off Warhammer was one of the designers posting on a forum in apparent amazement that anyone would play Warhammer for it's value as a game rather than as a modelling exercise. Why didn't we go play boardgames instead, he wondered? And so that's exactly what I did. But I still play Warhammer from time to time. And I figured it might be interesting to look at it as a game, rather than as a hobby as a whole.
Warhammer in a Nutshell
Warhammer is an I-go-you-go style tabletop miniatures game which is played (usually) for six turns before toting up victory points. In each turn, each player runs through a number of phases.
The first phase is movement. The players move and manoeuvre units. Block units can only really move forward, wheel or reform whereas lighter units such as as skirmishers and fast cavalry have much more freedom. Since unit facing and manoeuvre is vitally important in Warhammer this has the effect of making such units much more powerful than their puny combat stats would suggest. There's also a visual guessing game in the movement phase whereby you need to try and figure out whether an enemy is within "charge range" of one of your units so you can close for combat and gain the advantage of striking first.
Then comes missile fire. This is decided by a dice for each model firing to hit, a dice for each hit to see if it wounds and then any wounded model gets an armour saving throw. There is also warmachine fire which works on a similar guess principle to the charge range with the addition of random scatter.
Next is magic. Each wizard can attempt to cast a spell by throwing dice, trying to score equal or higher to the spell difficulty. The number of dice that can be used is dependent on the wizard level, but players need to beware as any two of the dice used coming up a '1' causes a dangerous miscast. The spell victim can attempt to dispel a successful spell by throwing higher than the spells eventual casting value on dice taken from a dispel pool.
Then it's melee combat. The sequence of dice rolls is the same as missile fire. What's different about melee combat is that in each phase, both sides fight so effectively there are twice as many chances to inflict (ot take) damage from melee as there is from missiles. This makes melee combat a much more effective way of eliminating troops than missile fire.
There is then a bookkeeping phase where we decide which units which have lost combat ( a complex calculation based not only on damage caused and inflicted but involving unit standards, unit size, flank and rear attacks and other factors). Those that have take a two-dice roll against their Leadership stat, minus the factor they lost combat by. If they fail, they flee and are usually either run down by pursuing troops or are carried too far from the battle to make much of an impact.
Warhammer - the Game of Lucky Dice
A common complaint levelled against Warhammer by other gamers - and even by players of the game - is that it's too random. Almost every phase of the game involves dice rolls. Any Warhammer player has lost at least one game, and probably many more, thanks almost entirely to bad dice. So it's a complaint that's got to stick, right?
Hang on. Take a quick look at the Warhammer tournament circuit. You'll see the same names come up in winning positions over and over again. If you play regularly at a club, as I have done, you'll quickly learn that some players have a much better win ratio than others. If Warhammer is so random how come some players seem to exhibit a much higher skill level than others - is it all down to lucky dice?
Of course not. There's lots of skill to Warhammer. It's all about exploiting the manoeuvre phase to get as many flank and rear charges in against enemy units as possible. There's also significant elements of planning ahead, predicting (or trying to funnel) opponents moves and bluffing. Some people are just better at this than others. I'll probably be crucified for saying this but the planning and prediction elements of Warhammer are not unlike those of chess, with the immense difference that in Warhammer you never need to try and think more than six moves ahead.
Nor are the dice quite as decisive as some would have you believe. In missile, magic and melee there are an awful lot of dice flying around and as any student of statistics will tell you the more dice you throw the more likely they are to conform to the predicted average. So this is something you can take into account when planning your moves and your combats - you try and predict which unit is most likely to win given average dice. And more often than not, you're right. There are also a lot of non-random factors to combat - who charged first, who has the most ranks, who's got a flank or rear attack - which are usually the decisive factors in determining who wins.
So what you ask? The decisive part of the game is seeing who runs away and that's done on a measly two dice. Well okay, so it is. But as another player once pointed out to me the skill in Warhammer is trying to ensure that your opponent has to take as many of those high-risk, highly random two dice rolls as possible, while you try and minimise the number you take yourself.
The major problem with the core rules is that they're very good at throwing up situations that they've not been designed to cover. Fortunately Warhammer players worldwide produced a number of FAQs to solve the worst of these problems when it because obvious GW wasn't going to bother.
So I think, overall, that Warhammer succeeds as a rules set. There's random factors but that just adds drama. At it's core there's a clever set of rules that very much rewards experience and skilful play. What's more it has a few things over a boardgame - it looks fantastic, it has fun range guessing mechanisms that aren't possible on a board and it has a range of potential permutations which is almost limitless thanks to use of a measuring tape rather than squares or hexes to determine movement.
So why did I cut down on my Warhammer playing?
Warhammer and the Scales of Justice
Warhammer has a rich and detailed background which has been in development for over a decade. It matters little that most of the individual components were ripped off from other sources (Beastmen = Broo, anyone?) the end result is a unique and surprisingly coherent whole. This background has lead to a variety of different armies being available for the game, each one described in it's own army book and each of which breaks the games' core rules in one or more ways in order to make it unique and interesting to play.
And there, in essence, is the problem. Warhammer is complex, as I've described. It has many permutations, as I've described. It has a wide variety of races to play, each of which adds to the complexity and to the available permutations, as described. The end result, sadly, is a game which is completely impossible to balance.
A lot of Warhammer players will protest that a skilled player can win with any army and this may be so, but at the same time very few players would disagree that some armies are more powerful than others and some builds are more powerful than others. Some people like to take a weaker army as a challenge but that's not for everyone. The result is that you see more and more cookie cutter examples of how to play an army. In my last tournament I played six games, four of them were against Lizardman armies and all four of those armies were virtually identical. This robs the game of much of its richness, variety and charm.
To make matters worse the army books, for flavour reasons, give some armies more access to the fast, manoeuvrable troops like flyers and skirmishers than they do to others. The manoeuvre phase of Warhammer is so important that being outnumbered in this department can seriously compromise your chance of playing a competitive game. The same imbalance can be seen in access to heavy cavalry which, as a mix of a hard-hitting but fairly manoeuvrable unit is also very important. So further imbalance is produced.
Games Workshop don't really care much about all of this. As far as they and as far as I can tell the majority of Warhammer players are more interested in the modelling aspect of Warhammer than the gaming aspect. You can see this in their response to suggested improvements. On various Warhammer forums fans of the game who (by sheer critical mass) end up playing a lot more games than playtesters ever will gather and suggest ways in which the imbalances can be corrected. Surprisingly frequently a consensus is rapidly reached as to a plausible fix and a few brave souls try it in a game to see if it works, and it usually does. Games Workshop almost always ignores these suggestions completely indicating it's disinterest in fixing the gaming aspects of its products.
Conclusion
Warhammer has a great core rules set. But sheer numbers of army books create a situation of imbalanced play which is virtually impossible to recover. That may be the reason why many Warhammer veterans (me included) hark back to the days of 3rd Edition when there were no army books and the core rules took center stage.
One approach to enjoying Warhammer without the imbalance the army books provide is to play Warhammer Ancients, a historical variant in which there is much less difference between the armies available and far, far, fewer exceptions to the core rules. I tend to find this game a little dry for my tastes and the faux-historical approach which can see Norman forces facing the armies of ancient Egypt annoys me more than a little.
I think the solution is to cut back on the number of armies. Play in a small group, restrict yourself to the choice of a favoured nation each and you can have a blast. If you're only painting one army, the modelling aspect of the hobby can appear fun rather than onerous. Give it a try once in a while - you might be surprised.
-
Steve M
United States
Lubbock
Texas
-
Good review.
I've always found it really odd that people don't just play their "favorite" race and instead use one that wins. Obviously I know why--there are some very competitive people out there who have to win. But spending that amount of time painting and that amount of money buying a race that you're really not all that fond of thematically is bizarre to me. Nevermind the fact that your uber race could be rebalanced in the next edition which leaves you stranded with an army you aren't thrilled with.
-
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
-
I think for the most part you are right. GW doesn't care about the rules, they care about selling miniatures. Their entire marketing structure is aimed at players who have been playing less than a year anyways, so they don't really care much about what experienced players think of their rules.
Fixing army lists isn't in their best interests because by the time everyone figures out a list is broken, sales for the miniatures for that line have already passed their peak. They can safely ignore it until it's time to do an update in five years as it won't effect sales.
Ignoring for a moment that everything they do is marketing driven, one of the biggest issues with their core rules is that it is d6 based. If they were to switch to d10 it would allow for a much wider array of options.
They also need a far better method of playtesting to prevent the army imbalances. I've seen how they playtest, and as someone who has done professional QA, I have to say that their process stinks.
-
Jason Fulton
United States
Westmont
Illinois
-
I dont like it because of the company that makes it
Also, GW has squandered support for some of the best games they have ever made because they dont pull money from the mommy and daddies of 14 year olds anymore.
I am talking about EPIC, NECROMUNDA, SPACE HULK, MORDHEIM, etc etc. The only games that the company makes that are any good.
I am not sure how the new WHFB rules will play out, but 40K is in a mess of a state right now and unless they hire competent writers and playtesters instead of accountants and bookies, this company will continue to get little respect from me or my circle of gaming friends.
Oh and dont forget you need three moderators and a council of elders to interpret the rules because they are so vague and poorly written. I have never seen two games played the same. (I love seeing out riders argue with each other.) Including thier own battle reports
Meanwhile Rackham, FFG, Mongoose and Privateer Press are kicking the crap out of all their products. And oh yeah, Wargods is better than this game I want to add
-
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
-
The new core rules are decent, 90% of the changes are made to clarify or fix the areas where there were always problems in the last edition. As the orignal poster pointed out, it's really the army books where the big problems occur, and we'll have to wait and see how they turn out.
-
Jason Fulton
United States
Westmont
Illinois
-
I will add one thing and that is that they are FINALLY now just coming around to releasing affordable starter sets. I mean, their marketing team is only about only 2 years behind everyone else now instead of 5 so thats good news
-
Jason Fulton
United States
Westmont
Illinois
-
It hasn't disappeared no but look at the support. Its on the Specialist games site which has had its relevancy reduced time and time again, including cancellation of its magazine to make room for the big "3" in the promotional catalog that White Dwarf has become.
The fact is they lost big on LOTR and still have to promote it hugely to save face with it. Meanwhile attempts they make at skirmish rules and other fantasy systems are getting crushed by competitors like Crocodile Games and Rackham. Not too mention GW's insistence that they are too cool to go to things like GenCon and instead bank all their trust on 8 hours of Games Day, which is one of the biggest rip off gaming conventions in the country.
Just read the press release from the President a few weeks ago. The company is hurting and are now forced to turn Customer Friendly again.
-
Matt Hoskins
United States
OKC
Oklahoma
-
BattleZone wrote: It hasn't disappeared no but look at the support. Its on the Specialist games site which has had its relevancy reduced time and time again, including cancellation of its magazine to make room for the big "3" in the promotional catalog that White Dwarf has become.
The fact is they lost big on LOTR and still have to promote it hugely to save face with it. Meanwhile attempts they make at skirmish rules and other fantasy systems are getting crushed by competitors like Crocodile Games and Rackham. Not too mention GW's insistence that they are too cool to go to things like GenCon and instead bank all their trust on 8 hours of Games Day, which is one of the biggest rip off gaming conventions in the country.
Just read the press release from the President a few weeks ago. The company is hurting and are now forced to turn Customer Friendly again.
GW isn't too cool to attend GenCon. Just a few short years ago GW was a mainstay at GenCon. GW's choice to not attend GC was a business decision ( probably not a wise one, but they made it just the same.)
GW doesn't make decisions to save face. GW promotes LOTR because of contractual obligations with Newline Cinema and the Tolkien estate.
While game companies like Rackham are doing better now than they were a year ago it has more to do with the improved quality of their products than a shift in market share. Confrontation 3rd Ed. was the product that really needed to hit the shelves to grow Rachkham sales.
I doubt Crocodile is 'kicking the crap' out of anything. Based on distribution sales numbers WGOE is one of the slowest moving miniatures lines in the sales channel. Crocodile continues to exist because their modest sales are enough to support the 3-5 people they have on staff.
When did GW 'lose big' on LOTR? If GW is taking it in the shorts on LOTR then how can it afford to resculpt the miniature range and release the models in plastic ( which is an order of magnitude more expensive than producing metal miniatures?)
-
Matt Hoskins
United States
OKC
Oklahoma
-
garysax wrote: Good review.
I've always found it really odd that people don't just play their "favorite" race and instead use one that wins. Obviously I know why--there are some very competitive people out there who have to win. But spending that amount of time painting and that amount of money buying a race that you're really not all that fond of thematically is bizarre to me. Nevermind the fact that your uber race could be rebalanced in the next edition which leaves you stranded with an army you aren't thrilled with.
I think the split on playing to win and playing your favorite army depends on the culture of the local gaming crowd.
Looking at the SF Bay Area as an example there are pockets of very competetive players who build armies only to win. While there are pockets of players who build armies because they like Dwarves, or they like Chaos etc. These groups tend not to mix and they tend not to get along.
There are some players (The Ld 10 group in Oakland) who are very competetive, very good sports and very good at painting and modelling. WFB is a very skill-driven game. A good player with a balanced army (of any race) can school an average player with a 'cheese' army.
-
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
-
matthewjhoskins wrote:
When did GW 'lose big' on LOTR? If GW is taking it in the shorts on LOTR then how can it afford to resculpt the miniature range and release the models in plastic ( which is an order of magnitude more expensive than producing metal miniatures?)
I agree with most of what you said, but just check out GW's coporate statements. They lost big on LOTR and they say so, although they phrase it in investor friendly terms.
It was big in the UK, but it tanked in the US which is, for better or worse, their biggest market now. Even in the UK sales dropped off dramatically after the last movie was released
GW is losing sales. Whether it is losing market share is hard to tell, but Flames of War and Warmachine are biting into their market in my area.
Even those who still play get 90% of their product off of ebay instead of buying new, and that's probably GW's biggest problem. By focusing solely on new players and killing the internet discounters in the US, they have almost completely lost the veteran player market as a source of income, and that's now starting to show on their bottom line.
-
Jason Jullie
United States
Richardson
Texas
-
BattleZone wrote:
Also, GW has squandered support for some of the best games they have ever made because they dont pull money from the mommy and daddies of 14 year olds anymore.
I'm not sure where this is coming from. GW has set up some great support for games that have been out of print for years. Sure, the specialist site doesn't recieve the ammount of content that the big three do, but that's because it's support for games that are really out of print.
I'm an avid Blood Bowl player and am completly happy that they still tweak the rules and bring new content out FOR FREE. You can download new editions of the rule book with rules for new races at NO COST. Compare that with any other board game. Very few games that I am aware of recieve "offical" content 15 years after they were produced (and really made money).
I think GW has been rather impressive in it's support for all of the games its put out. The mountains of content added for Necromunda and Mordheim dwarf anything even the best board game companies have supplied "post-sale".
Plus, the support isn't required. It's just a bonus. I could very easily continue to play Blood Bowl for the next 50 years without any support from GW. The fact that they do support it is simply icing.
BattleZone wrote:
I am talking about EPIC, NECROMUNDA, SPACE HULK, MORDHEIM, etc etc. The only games that the company makes that are any good.
I am not sure how the new WHFB rules will play out, but 40K is in a mess of a state right now and unless they hire competent writers and playtesters instead of accountants and bookies, this company will continue to get little respect from me or my circle of gaming friends.
Oh and dont forget you need three moderators and a council of elders to interpret the rules because they are so vague and poorly written. I have never seen two games played the same.
Concerning rules problems, I have yet to come across anything in my latest games of 40k that have slowed down play. Everyone once in awhile we consult the book, but that is to be expected when you are dealing with so many rules. However, we by no means require a "council of elders to interpret the rules". We seem to manage just fine by ourselves.
I imagine that the gaming group has a lot to do with it. I play with "vetern gamers" (read: older guys). I can easily see younger players rules lawyering this game into the ground, but that can be done with any miniatures game.
Bottom line, while you may "never have seen two games played the same", I have seen everyone of my games for the last year or so be played by the same rules.
BattleZone wrote:
Meanwhile Rackham, FFG, Mongoose and Privateer Press are kicking the crap out of all their products. And oh yeah, Wargods is better than this game I want to add
Well, saying "wargods" is better than WFB is a matter of opinion. Personally, I find it to be pretty lame. But there is no point in arguing taste. As far as those other companies "kicking the crap" out of GW, I guess it's possible. I won't pretend like I have access to finacial records of the compaines in question.
However, I don't think that any of those compaines have produced any where near the same level of "overall Product" that GW has. I love FFG, but their "runebound" universe is paper thin in comparison to the Warhammer one. The ammount of depth to the Warhammer and Warhammer 40k universes blow any of the above mentioned games out of the water.
-
Scott S
United States
Illinois
-
Dignan wrote:
Well, saying "wargods" is better than WFB is a matter of opinion. Personally, I find it to be pretty lame. But there is no point in arguing taste. As far as those other companies "kicking the crap" out of GW, I guess it's possible. I won't pretend like I have access to finacial records of the compaines in question.
However, I don't think that any of those compaines have produced any where near the same level of "overall Product" that GW has. I love FFG, but their "runebound" universe is paper thin in comparison to the Warhammer one. The ammount of depth to the Warhammer and Warhammer 40k universes blow any of the above mentioned games out of the water.
Well as all things are of course relative..I give kudos to any game system that sees play thru to an objective beyond the six turn blitz GW uses so frequently where players can make extremely horrendous tactical manuevers that would decimate their armies should there be a seventh turn.
GW's background and history is certainly elaborite and they have in fact created a colorful world..but that does not create a good game to play. They are historically imbalanced toward the army flavor of the month and highy geared toward miniature sales...not playability.
I was a GW fanboy for a bit...then I grew out of it.
-
Scott S
United States
Illinois
-
Dignan wrote:
Well, saying "wargods" is better than WFB is a matter of opinion. Personally, I find it to be pretty lame. But there is no point in arguing taste. As far as those other companies "kicking the crap" out of GW, I guess it's possible. I won't pretend like I have access to finacial records of the compaines in question.
However, I don't think that any of those compaines have produced any where near the same level of "overall Product" that GW has. I love FFG, but their "runebound" universe is paper thin in comparison to the Warhammer one. The ammount of depth to the Warhammer and Warhammer 40k universes blow any of the above mentioned games out of the water.
Well as all things are of course relative..I give kudos to any game system that sees play thru to an objective beyond the six turn blitz GW uses so frequently where players can make extremely horrendous tactical manuevers that would decimate their armies should there be a seventh turn.
GW's background and history is certainly elaborite and they have in fact created a colorful world..but that does not create a good game to play. They are historically imbalanced toward the army flavor of the month and highy geared toward miniature sales...not playability.
I was a GW fanboy for a bit...then I grew out of it.
-
Jason Jullie
United States
Richardson
Texas
-
Ancient wrote:
Well as all things are of course relative..I give kudos to any game system that sees play thru to an objective beyond the six turn blitz GW uses so frequently where players can make extremely horrendous tactical manuevers that would decimate their armies should there be a seventh turn.
Well, the aim of Warhammer (esp 40k) is definately not realism as it applies to warfare on earth. I can understand the point about making moves that would destroy you IF there was a 7th turn. However, I see many board games where the same is true. Many resource gathering games see players cash in (what would be) their furture gains in order to scrap enough resources together to get the victory points for the last round.
Ever see a game of Risk 2210 played? The last player on the last round goes all out in an effort to get territories before the game ends. If there was a year 6 he would be copletely wiped off the board. But, it's simply the nature of the game and I still enjoy playing it.
Also, most of the scenerios that I've played under the latest set of 40k rules have a random game length to help with this problem
Ancient wrote:
GW's background and history is certainly elaborite and they have in fact created a colorful world..but that does not create a good game to play. They are historically imbalanced toward the army flavor of the month and highy geared toward miniature sales...not playability.
Codex creep was a HUGE issue with the last edition of 40k. To some extent it has been avoided with this latest edition. Several of the most recent troops created have actually had rather average stats and don't seem overpowered to generate sales (ex. I have yet to buy vespids and sniper drones - two brand new units - for my Tau simply because I don't think they are that good). I hope that this trend continues, but there will always be balance issues with a game of this complexity.
Ancient wrote: I was a GW fanboy for a bit...then I grew out of it.
While that quote isn't quite a "flame", it is exceedingly passive aggressive. Imply that I am a GW fanboy and that I haven't "[grown] out of it". Calling someone a "fanboy" on a forum always seems like a lame attempt to discredit thier point of view. By calling me a fanboy you appear to be casting my views as "the opion of a madman fanatical to GW".
To be honest, I'm not terribly into Warhammer or 40k as much as I once was. I only recently started playing again after a 3 year break. I have spent very little on GW products over the past few years simply because my armies are complete for the most part. While I don't consider myself a "fanboy", I do still enjoy the games for what they are, a silly dicefest with some cool looking minitures. And that's all I'm looking for on a Saturday afternoon.
P.S. If took your fanboy comment completely wrong, then I apologise. It's so hard to read the subtext on a message board.
-
Jack Wraith
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Wow. Lot of ground to cover and I only skimmed over many of the replies.
I'm a GW gamer. I own 5 40K armies (soon to be six, trading one to get elements of two more... weird, but that's Imperial allies for ya), one Fantasy army (after trading away two others), 5 Battlefleet Gothic fleets, 2 Epic armies, 2 Mordheim warbands, and one Necromunda gang. Suffice it to say: I'm hooked.
Now, I'm not a GW defender vis-a-vis their sales/marketing tactics. The utter ignorance of the US market in Nottingham is astounding and their alienation of many independent and web stores over the past couple years has been a prime example of leaving the gun in the holster while firing. The latest statement from the CEO ("People don't buy our models because of the games. They buy them to have large collections of models.") has been so universally reviled on the Web that rumor says it caused some ripples in the studio, where there is currently a large amount of turbulence.
A couple notes on responses:
40K is in as good a shape now, rules-wise, as it has ever been. 4th Ed is a nice mix of the simplicity of 3rd Ed. with some of the complexity of 2nd Ed. If you haven't tried it in a while, you should. It's become quite a fun game.
Fantasy was in need of an update and is getting one in about 3 weeks. Most Fantasy players are looking forward to the greater coherency of the new rules while still being able to use their 6th Ed army books (something GW accomplished with 40K's update last year, as well.) As for 'codex creep', whoever posted that GW makes sales by making the latest codex the strongest isn't really familiar with the games as a whole. The last two armies produced for Fantasy were Ogre Kingdoms and Wood Elves, neither of them threatening to dominate tournies any time soon. The Orcs and Goblins book comes out in October and, given the leaks now present on the Web, is actually being toned down in some areas.
Battlefleet Gothic and Epic are two of the best games I've ever played, minis or not. There's an enormous amount of subtle complexity and strategy in each of them that I think many Eurogamers would actually enjoy, even if they are subject to the randomness of dice.
Specialist Games has done as much as they could with what resources have been allotted to them. Jervis has now moved back to the main studio, so things are a bit grim. But if you check the fora on the SG site, you'll find players communities willing and able to push the games forward and produce new (playtested!) material on a regular basis. Taking Epic as an example: the studio produced armies are IG, Orks, and Marines. All the rest are being done in coordination with fans/players.
As for GW games being based on the randomness of dice... What can you say? Some people like that, some don't. As noted by a couple people, most wargamers put up with randomness by attempting to minimize it through strategy and tactics. But removing it from games entirely is sometimes a very questionable approach, IMO. Having recently tested a game that used a 'diceless' combat system, I can tell you it became boring quite quickly because it was evident who would win in combats and in the game about 3 turns in.
Finally, you certainly can't take away from the background that GW has produced. But I find it interesting that so many people harangue GW for their rules gaffes and problems, yet see no problem with playing boardgames with house rules. GW's studio actually encourages house ruling things that your group/community doesn't like. I've done it and it works well. It means that some of our group won't end up playing any tournaments, but how many games on this site are played in tournaments, anyway? (the classics, like Go and Chess: M:TG; couple other CCGs; any others?) People have to consider what a monolithic effort it is to create games that have player factions that are drastically different from each other, but still balanced.
Again, no apologies for GW's marketing and pricing approach (uh, guys, if you charge the US audience 20% more for Terminators, it takes two clicks of a mouse to see that Canadian stores have them cheaper. Hello?) but I think the games they've produced are solid in the end.
-
Jason Fulton
United States
Westmont
Illinois
-
Thanks Jack that was a great response. While I admit no love loss for GW, I must say that your response was dead on with what is wrong with the company at the moment.
Maybe it needs a leadership shake up? Who knows. But the presidential letter sent out a few weeks ago had me cracking up
I dont normally exihibit so much venom on the boards, but I cant stand GW and their products anymore, and I think this comes from being in their "camp" for so long, since I was 15 years old until my now upper 30's. I have just seen the company run into the ground. When I opened my eyes I found that there are indeed better companies out there making better games and that GW was not my only choice anymore, which I think they hoodwink a lot of their fanboys into believing.
Dignan wrote:
Plus, the support isn't required. It's just a bonus. I could very easily continue to play Blood Bowl for the next 50 years without any support from GW. The fact that they do support it is simply icing.
 You get such crappy support that when you experience it with real companies you dont know what to expect. SUPPORT IS NOT OPTIONAL, and the good companies know this. That is why Privateer Press responds to missing bits, why Rackham answers you directly, and why I dont have to pay to get parts replaced ala GW. Rulebooks are properly edited, not shoved off to some PDF on a message board in the armpit of the internet.
Local Bunker employees are a joke and dont even know half their companies own rules. I once asked a question in the bunker to a so called red shirt expert, and he gave me an answer that was later contradicted by the other half of the crew working there.
Events in battle bunkers are a crazy mess, ill prepared and poorly planned and usually amount to gads of 10 year olds "whaaaaging". Compare this to the more organized Privateer Press program and you see a company that actually cares how its events go over, not collecting a cover charge. This has also added to my disdain. I looked to the Battle Bunkers to be a hobby center, and instead all we got was a daycare and a lack of love for the hobby.
Of course my experiences are local and in the Chicago, midwest area, but I call em like I see em. Anyway we can all agree to disagree, but I think that even loyal GW fans are starting to thaw out from the deep freeze trance they have been under the past few years. Now as for WHFB coming around, lets hope the new rules fix the power gaming of magic and missile armies.
Oh yes and thats not to say I am not noticing issues in Warmachine with the expansions and two shot killing warcasters. No game is perfect. Even Confrontation was a freaking mess before 3rd edition. But that is what makes the hobby good I guess is choice
-
Jack Wraith
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
I agree. GW's events are in a sorry state right now and their customer service (in that respect and others) still leaves a lot to be desired. Several people in our GW group have been looking at Warmachine for a while and may pick it up to toss in a game here or there. The cool thing about GW, of course, is that you can play a whole campaign (as I'm doing right now) at three levels of play (BFG, Epic, 40K) and still play your same faction. It's pretty cool in that respect but that's what you get from lasting for 25 years. Here's hoping they can make it another 10 without imploding from poor management.
The 7th Ed rules sound very positive for Fantasy, especially in the magic phase, as casters are now limited to using their own generated dice and the standard army pool of two. So, no more level 1 and 2s running around serving solely as magic batteries. They've also made the Miscast table much more ferocious so that people should actually fear rolling those double 1s. A couple mild changes to charges and so forth are rumored to rein in (heh) the point-and-click Brettonians, too, but we'll see how that works out.
Oops. Forgot. I have a Blood Bowl team, too. I just don't play very often. I'm sick. Very sick...
-
Don Schoemaker
United States
Belleville
Illinois
-
A few points from someone who has drifted in/out of the GW game sphere over the last 20 years.
Thoughts on GW's demise because of their marketing (or lack thereof) have been around since the first time I bought a blister back in the 80's. The very first store I ever bought a fig in was having a sale because they thought GW was tanking. Yet 20+ years later, they are still here.
Yea, its expensive. They charge like crazy for their models. But if you don't like it then buy your figs at another company and play with their rules if you want. Sure you can't play in Rouge Trader Tourney's or in the Grand's they put on... but /shrug. If it means that much to you buy UNPAINTED on e-bay. Watch for a deal and snag it. I've spent THOUSANDS of hours painting, modding, making terrain... so whatever I've spent (and it would probably shock the wife) I've easily gotten my money back on my investment. And, if I absolutely HAD to I could sell my armies for one hell of a profit.
It's more than a ruleset, its a hobby. What I mean by that is that GW sells its world, you buy unpainted figs, work on them yourself and make up YOUR army. Sure you can pay someone or play the grey horde, but your really missing out on part of what they are marketing if that's what you do. I agree with the earlier comment, hard core GW gamers take GREAT pride in the whole "made it up myself" on the paint job and composition of forces. It doesn't matter if its not a masterpeice, the fact that you did it is what counts IMHO.
I also disagree that its just a dicefest. With the changes over the years its far more than that. Sure, dice play a role, but if your a bad planner or don't understand flanking or manuvering your going to lose. Of course this comes from a guy who plays armies he wants to paint... not to just kick someone around the room.
GW is/has done some stupid stuff, but its not like the big three missing out that mileage was going to be important in vehicle sales... (any consumer alive in the '70s figured this one out decades ago) and thier competitors are just as guilty of the sins discussed here. Privateer started with a cool idea involving JACKS, then made their game an infantry heavy game. (I like the game... its just an example so no flames please). Prices for Rackham minis are outrageous... and some of PP's models are $40+, yea they are both awesome... but holy cow... one fig?
It looks like GW's fantasy starter box is going to run $45. Two of those will net you BOTH a reasonable dwarf army and a goblin army. Or swap one race with a friend and go at it for $45. You never have to buy anything again if you don't want. But your just fooling yourself if you like the game and you think that's all you'll ever spend.
These days I'm more into GW's specialist games Inquisitor / Warmaster / Warmaster ancients / Warhammer Historical stuff right now. Sure they don't give those games a lot of support, but at least the systems are well done and there are a heck of a lot of folks on private boards and yahoo groups discussing/improving them. If your looking for a gaming group to play with GW has a pretty good following throughout the United States. (Second and still growing strong is probably Privateer.)
I'm glad their is competition for GW. Thier quality of figures is WAY up from what was out there years ago. Maybe they will be more responsive to customers and stop orphaning systems. (Hey, a guy can hope can't he?) But I freely admit I'm hooked by their universal systems approach ... if you know FB, Warmaster and Mordheim you can pretty much play any of it on the fantasy/historical side very quickly and with minimal time spent reading rules. After 30 years of gaming I'm tired of trying to keep entirely new systems straight for this game, or that game. (And the Warcaster gimmicks in PP drive me bonkers sometimes). So its nice to play Mordheim and then switch to Legends of the Old West on the same day and feel very comfortable with both.
As a final comment, if you don't like what GW does at their shows (which I don't)or the cost of them, then check out the Independent Tournament scene. For Fantasy those guys put on quite a few impressive tourney's (Arkansas' "Hillbilly" tourney had 150 people) throughout the country that are a lot more laid back and MUCH cheaper than the GD's. And, you can use other company's figs at many of them as long as you are clear what they represent.
Not a perfect company by any means, but certainly one that has had very, very long legs for the last 30 years and is not in imminent danger of collapse.
-
Benny Bosmans
Belgium
Mechelen
Antwerp
-
So the question is: what's wrong with Warhammer.
And what's (again) being discussed?
The marketing, the company, the cost of the miniatures.
But as an avid historical wargamer I have to say that under influence of my son and his friends I was introduced to it's rules and armies and... I am impressed. The rulebook covers everything and is far more complete than alomst 99% of all other miniature rules (historical or not).
Also I am surprised that the writer of this article couldn't even manage to round up the sequence of play of Warhammer. For instance the Magic phase is BEFORE the shooting phase, so the writer of this "critical" article didn't even play the game recently, which is why I sometimes HATE this boardgamegeek website.
The most ridiculous statements are often being made by some who only played half a game. Beautiful wargames like Guns of August or Rise and Decline of the Third Reich come to mind.
Everyone his opinion of course. Warhammer is a game with a very commercial marketing, but hey... at least you can still play with the miniatures after many years, which can NOT be said of the CCG craze we have known in the last decade.
As for the rules and the army books, I keep saying I am impressed as a veteran historical wargamer at the age of 51.
In this age of dull Euro games and 2 years cycle expansion CCG's I hope this company will hold out against hollow ghosts like these Pirates card games, Mage Knights and other Wings of War duds.
-
mrbass
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
-
matthewjhoskins wrote:
When did GW 'lose big' on LOTR? If GW is taking it in the shorts on LOTR then how can it afford to resculpt the miniature range and release the models in plastic ( which is an order of magnitude more expensive than producing metal miniatures?)
So they're coming out with a LOTR plastic minatures game? Where's the annoucement I couldn't find anything on gamesworkshops website.
-
Julian Gollop
United Kingdom
Essex
Essex
-
After playing boardgames for 30ish years I have finally started playing Warhammer in the last couple of months. Why? Because here in Sofia (Bulgaria) there really isn't a lot of choice! (in fact, it's a choice between MtG and Warhammer at the club I am playing at). However, before commenting on Warhammer specifically, I have some interesting history with GW. I first came across their boardgames in the early 80s, but I didn't get to play them at school (the other kids wouldn't let me!). I was particularly intrigued by a game called warlock, which became an inspiration for one of my own board games (in a negatice sense - I didn't like the fact that Warlock had no map or manoeuvring). I eventually made this game into a computer game called 'Chaos' (on the speccy). Ironically 'Chaos' was actually published by GW back in 1984, because I was working with a company that produced a computer adaptation of their boardgame 'Apocalypse'. Now, GW didn't have much sucess with 'Chaos' or their other computer games at that time, because they only relied on their own shops to sell them. I was particularly dumfounded at the time - I couln't believe how stupid they were not to sell through the big distributors! However, whereas this strategy failed for their computer games it did succeed in building their niche in the miniatures market. It seems to me that this has been GWs basic strategy ever since - invest in stores, build a presence in an area, sell just your own stuff, and create a whole customer base of kids who knew nothing else than Warhammer/wh40k. By the time warhammer 40k was becoming very popular it didn't really appeal to me because I thought that many boardgames were just plain better as games. I also thought the minitiare designs were a bit childish, cartoonish, cliched, and just plain silly. Getting back to the present - after a career spanning 23 years in computer games design - I have to say that Warhammer FB is actually, well, not bad at all. I really can see the whole appeal of it. It is quite a skilful game, and I have had my ass handed to me on a plate by a couple of good players quite a few times. It seems so quaint and dated in many ways. I do find some things a bit strange and/or annoying - in particular the crucially important dice roll for fleeing, which can determine whether a whole unit lives or dies. It just seems weird that you set up an army with hundreds of models, most of which never actually get to fight, or even move very much, before they run off the table (well, I am playing Skaven!). It all just seems a bit inefficient. As for GW - I think it is great they are getting some serious competition at last. Rackham's miniatures are mostly way better than anything GW produces, and Warmachine/Hordes seems like a great game. But still, I feel quite attached to my little army of rats - the army book is great, and they are fun to play. I even enjoy painting the minis (so far, at least). It's just that when I am in the middle of a battle I feel like I have been sucked into a time warp taking me back 20 years. As for the future of Warhammer, it seems like GW are trying to suck the living breath out of their remaining loyal fans. I suspect the customer base for WFB in particular is just growing older and older. I sincerely hope GW show some more maturity as well - but I guess they are also stuck in a timewarp.
-
-
For those of you who enjoy the modelling/painting, which, I confess, can be very enjoyable - in short stints - by all means stick with Warhammer.
However, for those of you who are more interested in playing...
Battleground: Fantasy Battle (think Warhammer with cards).
£25 will get you BOTH the starter and reinforcement decks, allowing you to field 14,000pts. The battle system is brilliant and transforms a dice-fest like Warhammer into something that, for want of a better term, is pure genius. Utilises a command points and order system meaning that you can't man-manage every unit and have to think a lot more about set-up and tactics than Warhammer will ever ask of you.
I guarentee that anyone who enjoys Warhammer will, upon playing Battleground, never go back to it except for the painting/modelling!
-
Nathan Firth
Australia
Yarraville
Victoria
-
I can say I found that whole tread very interesting reading (yes I am slow reading these things sooo long after they were posted!). I got into the hobby via Rogue Trader and WFB and then went on to play a number of other games GW put out in the late 80s and early 90s. Personally I thought GW lost the plot around 92-93 when they dumbed down the rules for games like WFB. It seemed to follow a giagantic readers poll in White Dwarf which showed that many gamers were aged 10-14 and that group found that the current games offered by GW were too complex and required too many miniatures. I can see why GW acted on this (they are a company out to earn as much cash as they can) but it put me off. I think the real shame has been what GW has done with their minis - you get much less bang for your buck these days and whilst some of the minis are still excellent the actual range of minis has decreased markedly. Compare the number of minis in the citadel catalogues of the mid to late 80s to what is put out now. Luckily for me ebay has enabled me to buy a heap of oop minis that I couldn't afford back then
Ultimately the change in GWs focus had a drastic impact on games like WFB.
-
Guido Kreeuseler
Netherlands
-
I started collecting in the last years of 4th edition (empire) and continued to 6th edition when other things became more important.
I can't say I foung GW a nasty bunch in the late nineties, there was still a rather friendly tone in their mono-culture magazine, and if you were into the battle games, White Dwarf was a very inspirational product.
5th edition I remember best. Yes, it was Hero Hammer galore most of the times, but at the core stood a solid game, and the designers themselves encouraged setting additional limitations. The campaign rules included for 5th edition were actually quite awesome, and gave due justification for the inclusion of powerful stuff.
the worst of 5th edition were Chaos (own extra special magic phase in addition to the normal magic phase) and the magic system having some unbalanced spells. the magic system in itself was quite funny, albeit cumbersome.
At the current rate of new editions, I bet they will release new versions monthly from 2013 onwards.
6th edition was in my opinion the pinnacle of warhammer, it finally was how it was meant to be... untill GW screwed up with the army books and decided to fix it with yet another edition, rather than streamlining the current supplements... beats me why they think a new customer base needs a new edition, good Board Games do not need that, why should warhammer?
-
Emilio Pelagatti
Italy
Parma
Parma
-
My answer to the problem about unbalancing armies is that:
With my friends we compile some armies (Usually with background, like "Elven city who was attacked by surprise"-->More point on pickersman and archer, no dragon atc) , then we random choose from the one we all compiled, then we play with the one which was randomly selected.
This way you have to play with what you have, adding the drama of invasion (war are not fair), and do the BEST with what you have.
I find the tournament not fun at all, you can find people who found trick like put stubborn unit in single column with ultramegahero in the front (you can't make that run away, and if you don't have any other unit you can't kill them all), or just make all the same armies.
Don't know if my english is good enought, but I hope it was useful to discussion 
-
|
|
