Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dull.

Mediocre.

Boring.

I get that about right? WFB is based on regimental combat. If you look at actual historical regimental combat, you'd see that most of the death happens during a rout, not during the sword vs. shield part of the battle. That being said, the way 6th WFB handled it was about right.

You remember that one dude from Macedonia, Alexander? Legendary commander, fought in the front line constantly. Never ONCE took a regiment on single handed. Expecting Aragorn to slay 500 Uruk-hai is about as immersion breaking as it gets. If you want that level of imbalance, the XBox is right over there ---------->

If you look at actual historical regimental combat

Which is very pertinent to a game with "fantasy" in it's name.If you want a game based on actual historical combat, historical gaming is right over there ------->
To make this even more funny, the thread isn't even about WFB, it was only mentioned as an example during the discussion

Also again with the strawman of "aragorn killing 500 orcs". Can you build the thing on statements in the thread at least, instead just your fantasy? Right now making absurd claims seems to be the only type of fantastical that you enjoy.

Cronch wrote:

If you look at actual historical regimental combat

Which is very pertinent to a game with "fantasy" in it's name.If you want a game based on actual historical combat, historical gaming is right over there ------->
To make this even more funny, the thread isn't even about WFB, it was only mentioned as an example during the discussion

Also again with the strawman of "aragorn killing 500 orcs". Can you build the thing on statements in the thread at least, instead just your fantasy? Right now making absurd claims seems to be the only type of fantastical that you enjoy.

What is also funny is that Gimli and Legolas both killed the equivalent of a WFB 8th edition Horde unit at Helms Deep (43 and 42, respectively)

Cronch wrote:

. A lone hero shouldn't be leaps and bounds better than their troops

So...he shouldn't be a hero then? That's kind of what heroes in fiction do, stand out from everyone else. Gilgamesh, Achilles, Roland, myriad other cultural heroes from our own myths and history, not to mention actual fantasy, they're all larger than life. Even if you take actual historical people, like Musashi or Simo Hayha, they all possessed skills that put them way ahead of their peers in terms of pure combat prowess. Then of course you have people who did inspire, like Alexander or Hannibal, who again, would be "too much" for the down to earth view on what heroes' role should be in game. What you, from my POV, want, is an army of mediocre soldiers led by mediocre officers, capable of nothing more than lukewarm encouragements. Anything more than that is "too much impact" on the blocks of mindless bodies duking it out.

What I want, honestly, is more realism than what AOS offers. What I want, honestly, is something that looks far less Steven Segal and more Conan The Barbarian as far as characters go.

Cronch wrote:No one so far seems to be talking about taking down entire armies on their own as their idea of heroic. It's just this strawman that people who want unrealistically weak characters decided to make to portray the other side as some sort of super-hero fans who want to field Superman and Thor on the tabletop.

Strawman? I think you need to reevaluate the meaning of that word. Also, the excessive and unrealistic lethality of characters in modern fantasy gaming is indeed a fact. Someone having a preference not your own doesn't reduce their points to "strawmen".

Cronch wrote:

If you look at actual historical regimental combat

Which is very pertinent to a game with "fantasy" in it's name.If you want a game based on actual historical combat, historical gaming is right over there ------->
To make this even more funny, the thread isn't even about WFB, it was only mentioned as an example during the discussion

Also again with the strawman of "aragorn killing 500 orcs". Can you build the thing on statements in the thread at least, instead just your fantasy? Right now making absurd claims seems to be the only type of fantastical that you enjoy.

Okay, since it uses WFB REPEATED in the OP as a benchmark, me using 6th as an example is par for the course. It's also why I'd play KOW well before I'd even stand next to a game of AOS.

If you'd like, since you've been establishing the condescending tone in your posts, I can put it a little less diplomatically. Game?

Actually, I'll give you one for free. "Aragorn killing 500 orcs" would be hyperbole, not a strawman. If you're going to distill the argument down to generic buzzword terms, at least use the RIGHT terms.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Cronch wrote:

If you look at actual historical regimental combat

Which is very pertinent to a game with "fantasy" in it's name.If you want a game based on actual historical combat, historical gaming is right over there ------->
To make this even more funny, the thread isn't even about WFB, it was only mentioned as an example during the discussion

Also again with the strawman of "aragorn killing 500 orcs". Can you build the thing on statements in the thread at least, instead just your fantasy? Right now making absurd claims seems to be the only type of fantastical that you enjoy.

What is also funny is that Gimli and Legolas both killed the equivalent of a WFB 8th edition Horde unit at Helms Deep (43 and 42, respectively)

Which is just as bad. Take Conan, literally ANY iteration of it. Was there any bit of fiction where he took on THAT many people at once? More often than not, it'd be 12 at most, and even then he'd be with someone when it happened. That right there feels about right.

As I recall with the battle of helm's deep, they weren't going toe to toe with the uruk hai in an open field either. There were a lot of bottle necks they were fighting from.

I don't mind the battle of helm's deep body count from its heroes because to me in that enviironment, that could have happened!

When I served in the army stationed in Korea there was a statue of an american soldier near the DMZ. That soldier held an axe. He was a medal of honor recipient who had by himself taken out 22 or so enemy soldiers on his own, cleared two machine gun nests, and had to resort to the axe because he ran out of ammunition in his pistol (a short range weapon).

I think in a game if I had bottlenecks set up where I could not flank heroes and had to feed my army to them, that them killiing the helms deep count would not make me flinch.

If it was a regular thing in an open field, I'd probably complain a little bit as that moves a bit too far for my liking and gets into the Dynasty Warriors feel.

I prefer games where the rank and file do most of the heavy lifting, with powerful characters serving as support/specialist elements. I don't really like the one hero running about wiping out whole battalions of infantry single handed.

since you've been establishing the condescending tone in your posts

Just matching the snobbery. Also, it could be both hyperbole and a strawman since one is a rhetorical figure and the other is a type of argument.

Anyway, while I find the claims that heroes in fiction never, ever killed multiple people and in fact were easily toppled over by regiments of children amusing, it's already going round in circles. I sincerely hope there's enough variety in wargames to get both the people who hate heroes and the ones who enjoy fantasy to have something to play in years to come and not run into each other.

How heroic should your fantasy be?

As heroic as the players want it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'd like a game where a block of trained soldiers with cold steel and courage are neither the be-all and end-all, nor are they just body-blocking cannon fodder for superheroes.

So 6th Ed, I guess. I like having the fantastic elements of steam tanks and dragons, so long as they complement rather than replace a rank-and-file combat game. Heroes that have a significant impact on combat are fine, heroes that single-handedly win against units and don't require rank-and-file for backup less so.

Just my $0.02.

I hate Herohammer, unless I’m doing a dungeon crawl sort of game. For WHFB and AoS style games, I like skirmish far more than rank-n-file. However, I do like fantastic elements - I wouldn’t play a human army and would rather dwarves, elves or even undead (I think, in the end Aztec Lizardmen riding dinosaurs is complete win).

I do wish that GW would put more support into Warhammer Quest style products.

Do you know, I actually like a combination of both. A bunch of grunts whacking each other. Imagine a unit of 50+ night goblins going up against 25+ empire halberdiers taking turns to clobber each other and then multiply the battleline with a few situations like that. Then imagine the conan types walking up and down and helping turn the tide of the combat with magic and skill. Don't like the heroes to be overwhelming but neither do I want them to be a side show. They should be part of the main event. One thing I really enjoyed about 4th/5th is the sheer amount of magic items and options available.