Switch Theme:

Warhammer The Old World : Cathay trailer, page 128  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Right but WHFB can be "classic" and still have good rules. WHFB is the iconic GW wargaming product and it deserves a proper rule set that brings it inline with other historical wargames.

"Rank and Flank" is a game play style that belongs to more games than just WHFB. It is a theme of game design interaction that models a certain era/style of warfare in an interesting way.

The nostalgia factor is just sales and advertising. Time moves forward, things change, and experiences are not lived in reverse.

I don't want GW to sell me "what it feels like" to play WHFB in 1998. I want a strategic tabletop game set in an ethereal otherworldly, yet vaguely familiar setting. Which was actually a common theme in game design in the early 90s, and done well by many design studios. GW was one such design studio on that pulse back then.

It would be good to see a return and for them to learn from mistakes made and improve, as any good artists does.
   
Made in us
Snord






 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Right but WHFB can be "classic" and still have good rules.


The issue is that not everyone agrees on what qualities make rules "good."
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





 Albino Squirrel wrote:
 auticus wrote:
And were those games any fun at all?


Now you have found the entire reason for how I'm confused as to why people shovel money at GW over the last decade+.

We had a lot of player churn. Our average lifespan of players was about 18 months. After that they'd sell off and be done.

The hardcore competitive guys lasted longer, usually about 3-5 years. But then those guys were chasing the power monkey around the room and were never losing by virtue of playing another power player whose list destroyed theirs, because they were always running the optimal lists to begin with so it was more fun for them.


Admittedly, I was always only a pretty casual player more interested in a dramatic story than a competitive challenge. I never went to tournaments or anything and know nothing of that style of playing. But clearly there are different ways for people to have fun with these games. And different people can be looking for very different things from the game.


I dont even think this is about competitive players. I still don't know anybody, competitive or casual, that would buy a board game where the red token has a huge advantage over the other tokens simply because its red.
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain





SoCal

Miss Scarlet would.

   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 auticus wrote:
In my experience, this is the true draw for the Warhammer player: to smash face thanks to arbitrarily having the strongest rules; or to have games hinge on unequally distributed but devastating random mechanics


Also my experience. Also hear the same things.

Balanced games are "boring". The standard GW fan doesn't want balance in my experience. They want to chase the strongest army and crush people with it and have ultimate devastation / brutality with a single roll of the dice.

That was an eye opener for me when I did azyr comp for AOS years ago.


I think your idea of the standard GW fan is different to my idea of the standard GW fan.

Maybe that's the standard GW tournament player, but most people I knew back in the day didn't chase the imbalance.
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Right but WHFB can be "classic" and still have good rules.


The issue is that not everyone agrees on what qualities make rules "good."


I think lots of GW players don't even understand the concept of rules being able to be good or bad.

Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in si
Skillful Swordmaster





 lord_blackfang wrote:
I think lots of GW players don't even understand the concept of rules being able to be good or bad.

You owe me a cup of coffee and a new keyboard.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Maybe that's the standard GW tournament player, but most people I knew back in the day didn't chase the imbalance.
Eh, it isn't binary. Most don't chase it but they will prefer the stronger units in their chosen army to weaker ones, which is entirely understandable. As for players actively wanting imbalance, I haven't encountered one, even online.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 auticus wrote:

I dont even think this is about competitive players. I still don't know anybody, competitive or casual, that would buy a board game where the red token has a huge advantage over the other tokens simply because its red.


That's the thing ; Warhammer Battle wasn't a board game. Same for AoS : the point here is not necessarily about choosing red token because it's better than the other ones.

Which is why people advocating for balance above all don't understand those who say that's not important. They don't see that their interest is elsewhere.

Like the abused lists :you just don't need to play with them. Once you build lists from another perspective...games can actually be very different.

Last game in WB V8 I did was playing a full night goblin list against "normal dwarves" with two special characters. You may have predicted who would likely win...it ended in a tie with barely a few units on the table.

It was yet fun and unpredictable (like when my squigs killed the dwarf general completely by pure luck, before my own general and its unit of 100 night goblins lost the fight against 10 ironbreakers and failed its morale check - they were caught and destroyed while they ran away). Was it fair and balanced ? Well...not sure about that.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 10:59:38


 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





I wonder how much of the "chase the strongest meta" stuff comes from people not wanting their purchases to feel invalidated, especially as the game gets more expensive. Tabletop games aren't like video games where if a certain character is broken you just don't use it with your friends - you actually have to spend a good chunk of money (often as much if not more than the cost OF a video game) buying these things, then modelling and painting them.

In systems where there's much better internal and external balance it's a lot easier to just grab what you thinks cool. Compare that to GW-games where it's very much possible to buy an entire army that's as worthless even in casual games. Lil Timmy might start off buying what he thinks looks BADASS but it won't take people who play a lot, competitive or not, to start aligning their pricey purchases with what's actually going to let them have a decent game and not get rolled over.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 11:08:41


 
   
Made in us
Osprey Reader



York, PA USA

WFB 3rd edition needed the least number of fixes to make it very workable. It had less of the crazy monsters and magic was almost not worth taking.

My hope is that they draw heavily on this version. No break tests until a unit loses 25%, movement and reserve instead of marching, complex maneuvers to win the game, etc.

I will buy the rules and perhaps some new units. I will never buy anything that is AOS. I picked up 20 cavalry to use in my old armies and they look gigantic and will not rank up.

If they try to enlarge WFB minis to match that will be disappointing.

If you do not fail often you are not tackling big enough challenges. 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





kenofyork wrote:
WFB 3rd edition needed the least number of fixes to make it very workable. It had less of the crazy monsters and magic was almost not worth taking.

My hope is that they draw heavily on this version. No break tests until a unit loses 25%, movement and reserve instead of marching, complex maneuvers to win the game, etc.

I will buy the rules and perhaps some new units. I will never buy anything that is AOS. I picked up 20 cavalry to use in my old armies and they look gigantic and will not rank up.

If they try to enlarge WFB minis to match that will be disappointing.


I agree wholeheartedly, but the magic was, imho even crazier. Like, summoning 2d6 regiments of illusory soldiers, or a piece of terrain to hide a unit in, and it's all managed by a GM so your opponent will never know which soldiers are illusions or which barns have dragons in them? That's the stuff I live for, though.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




It had less of the crazy monsters and magic was almost not worth taking.

I don't know if...putting less fantasy in your fantasy game would be advisable? Game of Thrones wargame already exists
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 auticus wrote:
In my experience, this is the true draw for the Warhammer player: to smash face thanks to arbitrarily having the strongest rules; or to have games hinge on unequally distributed but devastating random mechanics


Also my experience. Also hear the same things.

Balanced games are "boring". The standard GW fan doesn't want balance in my experience. They want to chase the strongest army and crush people with it and have ultimate devastation / brutality with a single roll of the dice.

That was an eye opener for me when I did azyr comp for AOS years ago.


I think your idea of the standard GW fan is different to my idea of the standard GW fan.

Maybe that's the standard GW tournament player, but most people I knew back in the day didn't chase the imbalance.


We can only go off our experiences. Since starting in the 90s, this has been the predominant player that I've known and most of them would also call themselves casual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for players actively wanting imbalance, I haven't encountered one, even online.


There have been a few people even on this board that have said things like too much balance is boring and that the problem with older warhammer (6th ed ravening hordes) was that it was too boring beecause it was balance.

To me that indicates a desire for imbalance because balance is boring.

Also the #1 complaint levied against Azyr point system back in 2015-2016... it was too balanced and boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like the abused lists :you just don't need to play with them. Once you build lists from another perspective...games can actually be very different.


That requires a community that isn't building lists from the min/max perspective.

Otherwise you're just showing up with a for-fun list getting crushed to prove a point that you dont have to play those lists. I'd say 9 out of 10 players I've ever played with dont like to drag their stuff out to the store knowing they are going to be an enhancement talent to make their opponent look good (which is why they all build really strong lists and then when their faction is nerfed either quit or sell off and buy the newest broken faction)

So that takes me back to my question that I've had for years: if people wouldn't buy the board game where the red token is awesome because its red, where is the pull to a wargame where the "whatever is broken this year" army is busted and wins by virtue of showing up if you aren't optimizing as well? Especially considering how much time you sink into painting and hobbying and how much the stuff costs overall? And if the answer is "because the game isn't the primary reason we play" - then I'd have to ask why would it matter then if the game WAS balanced? For someone who is playing this not really caring as much about the game, I would think that they would be ok either way with either a balanced game or ... whatever word you want to use to describe GW games like 40k and AOS. But those same people that often claim the game is not the primary draw are also usually very vocal about fighting against balance being given more attention.

I'm new to my current area, and after spending 25 years in Louisville being told that it was just that region I can confirm the southwest is equally as competitive in what is being played down at the stores. If not more so. The guys are all super friendly and nice and I have enjoyed hanging out but I know if I want to throw down wargames with them they are bringing their nasty nasty lists and thats what is expected. You can of course choose to bring the gimp non optimized list and I dont think they'd say anything mean to you for it, but I also dont expect them to play down to that because stuff is expensive and most people aren't willing to go out and buy weaker models just to play weaker games with people if they dont have to.

Ravening Hordes 6th edition is my bar for what I want from a wargame balance-wise. Every faction was viable. There were strong and weak lists then, but you didn't have to worry about choosing the wrong $800 faction. You can still have diversity and flavor with balance. You just can't go "oh cool this faction does 5x the normal mortal wounds for the same point cost as this faction that doesn't have anything really going for them". I want a game where every faction is viable and not going to get piledriven off the table and I dont want a game where I have to buy and paint a new full collection every year just so that I can go down to the store and have a fun afternoon where I'm not getting destroyed or destroying my opponent because I or they chose the wrong faction.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 16:12:20


 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain





SoCal

The big issue I’ve seen with balance, or specifically chasing balance, was that it was a futile endeavor and a distraction from aspects of the game non-tournament players cared about. It was also always used to stifle any attempt at expanding the lore or miniatures range, always “first balance everything, then make _______”.

   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 auticus wrote:
 Albino Squirrel wrote:
 auticus wrote:
And were those games any fun at all?


Now you have found the entire reason for how I'm confused as to why people shovel money at GW over the last decade+.

We had a lot of player churn. Our average lifespan of players was about 18 months. After that they'd sell off and be done.

The hardcore competitive guys lasted longer, usually about 3-5 years. But then those guys were chasing the power monkey around the room and were never losing by virtue of playing another power player whose list destroyed theirs, because they were always running the optimal lists to begin with so it was more fun for them.


Admittedly, I was always only a pretty casual player more interested in a dramatic story than a competitive challenge. I never went to tournaments or anything and know nothing of that style of playing. But clearly there are different ways for people to have fun with these games. And different people can be looking for very different things from the game.


I dont even think this is about competitive players. I still don't know anybody, competitive or casual, that would buy a board game where the red token has a huge advantage over the other tokens simply because its red.
For those people the "game" is figuring out that the red piece is best and the gameplay is the filter whereby you see who has won.

The meta is the game for people like that.

It's what 40k and AOS have been fundamentally designed around. Finding buffs, strategems, command points, army bonuses, etc to create a winner. The game itself is a procedural list of commands and actions to determine who has already won.

The fun comes from the joy of crushing your opponents and discovering / creating that winning list. When players say "git good" they're not understanding the fundamental problem with this kind of game design. That problem being that victory isn't determined on the table top tactics, and that I'm being "punished" for bringing something i connect with rather than something that is "good", but that I might not like.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:27:43


 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





That seems like such an awful game though. Why can't we leave AOS to that game design and let those people enjoy that and let us also have a game decided not by excel-hammer or copy/paste super lists... but through gameplay on the table?

Especially since there is no figuring anything out for 99% of the playerbase.

Its a matter of logging into a forum or facebook group and asking "what smashes face" and just copying that or just watching tournament lists get posted and copying the winning lists.

The big issue I’ve seen with balance, or specifically chasing balance, was that it was a futile endeavor and a distraction from aspects of the game non-tournament players cared about. It was also always used to stifle any attempt at expanding the lore or miniatures range, always “first balance everything, then make _______”.


Be advised that I am the last thing from a tournament player. I am 100% narrative campaign driven. I just dont like games that have bad balance where there is no point in me playing the game because I also dont want to keep buying new armies every year to keep up, and I dont enjoy playing games where we already know who wins when the armies are deployed.

So I'm the last person in the world that is going to try to stifle lore or miniatures. I just want to make sure that the army I buy, paint and collect today isn't gimp and a dud tomorrow. Thats a whole lot of money I feel I flushed down the toilet when that happens.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:28:47


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The big issue I’ve seen with balance, or specifically chasing balance, was that it was a futile endeavor and a distraction from aspects of the game non-tournament players cared about. It was also always used to stifle any attempt at expanding the lore or miniatures range, always “first balance everything, then make _______”.


More like an endless road. Balance never stops, especially in the competitive world where you need to constantly change the metagame to keep things interesting - and not just playing the same lists ad nauseam.


 auticus wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like the abused lists :you just don't need to play with them. Once you build lists from another perspective...games can actually be very different.


That requires a community that isn't building lists from the min/max perspective.


No, you just have to talk about it with your game partners. If you met friendly people and ask if they'd like to play something differently, some may just agree.

That's what I did and it worked. And now we have a lot of fun !



Ravening Hordes 6th edition is my bar for what I want from a wargame balance-wise. Every faction was viable. There were strong and weak lists then, but you didn't have to worry about choosing the wrong $800 faction. You can still have diversity and flavor with balance. You just can't go "oh cool this faction does 5x the normal mortal wounds for the same point cost as this faction that doesn't have anything really going for them". I want a game where every faction is viable and not going to get piledriven off the table and I dont want a game where I have to buy and paint a new full collection every year just so that I can go down to the store and have a fun afternoon where I'm not getting destroyed or destroying my opponent because I or they chose the wrong faction.


You have an idealized vision of Ravening Hordes, honestly. I remember not all factions were that balanced with each others. It doesn't stop at having the same point values for the same type of units...it's also about internal balance and choice within the different factions.

What it did, though, was offering complete list of armies with very few / barebone special rules others than those you found in the core rules. It was very practical for sure.

Who knows, if the rumor of Old World core book with all the army lists inside is true, it may be something similar.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:30:56


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 auticus wrote:
That seems like such an awful game though. Why can't we leave AOS to that game design and let those people enjoy that and let us also have a game decided not by excel-hammer or copy/paste super lists... but through gameplay on the table?

Especially since there is no figuring anything out for 99% of the playerbase.

Its a matter of logging into a forum or facebook group and asking "what smashes face" and just copying that or just watching tournament lists get posted and copying the winning lists.

The big issue I’ve seen with balance, or specifically chasing balance, was that it was a futile endeavor and a distraction from aspects of the game non-tournament players cared about. It was also always used to stifle any attempt at expanding the lore or miniatures range, always “first balance everything, then make _______”.


Be advised that I am the last thing from a tournament player. I am 100% narrative campaign driven. I just dont like games that have bad balance where there is no point in me playing the game because I also dont want to keep buying new armies every year to keep up, and I dont enjoy playing games where we already know who wins when the armies are deployed.

So I'm the last person in the world that is going to try to stifle lore or miniatures. I just want to make sure that the army I buy, paint and collect today isn't gimp and a dud tomorrow. Thats a whole lot of money I feel I flushed down the toilet when that happens.
There are also ENTIRE games designed around this paradigm, the difference is typically that they aren't inherently competitive. That design philosophy works in Path of Exile where you're trying to find a cool new build to break the game, it's not cool when you're wrecking timmy's eldar just because he chose what he liked. The inherently competitive nature of being a wargame is what makes that interaction fail, rather than games being build around metas themselves. Players end up losing through no fault of their own because your power is inextricably tied to what your opponent chooses to bring.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:36:30


 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





You have an idealized vision of Ravening Hordes


From a balance point of view, when I compare Ravening Hordes 2000-2003 6th edition warhammer with:

5th edition warhammer
7th edition warhammer
8th edition warhammer
AOS any edition

It was the best balanced time period for GW games. It was a lot of fun because everyone at our table felt they had a chance. Its been a very very long time since everyone at the table felt like they had a chance without having to ask people to not break the game.

No, you just have to talk about it with your game partners. If you met friendly people and ask if they'd like to play something differently, some may just agree.


I hear thats pretty common in the EU. In the States its not that easy to pull off.

We have guys here that will tell you that their army is newb / casual friendly. What you find out later is they call it that because its only placing middle ranks in tournaments, so to them thats a friendly list.

But against a for fun list it still destroys them lol.

Everyone has their own ideas of what toning down is. I need the rules to be balanced instead of hoping for someone's good will because I liked the gimp army. That was my life from 2015-2019 until I got out of AOS because I loved slaves to darkness but their book was so god awful that I shelved that entire army permanently.

After I left AOS they got a new book and it has a decent build in it but that was 4-5 years of having one of the worst books that ever existed in the almost 40 years of warhammer/40k books existing.

Enough about balance though. I know most people dont care about it. For me thats going to be the #1 thing I'm watching for if I want to invest again in a GW game. I just recently purged 18 fully painted GW armies on my move to clean out space, and if I get back into a game again I dont want my investment to be invalidated and have models sitting in cases never used again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:48:07


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





When viability concerns necessitate tuning down a list or just dealing with a loss, one side ultimately does not get to play what it wants. In that instance you're just exchanging the person who has to take a list that they may not want to take. In those instances both sides CANNOT both get what they want and both play with what they want. It creates conflict.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:57:56


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 auticus wrote:
Enough about balance though. I know most people dont care about it.

No, most (if not all) do care about, and want, balance. But it isn't a binary of care-not care. It is a scale of how much. You know that.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 20:55:54


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





 Sledgehammer wrote:
When viability concerns necessitate tuning down a list or just dealing with a loss, one side ultimately does not get to play what it wants. In that instance you're just exchanging the person who has to take a list that they may not want to take. In those instances both sides CANNOT both get what they want and both play with what they want. It creates conflict.


Precisely. Its split up many a campaign and event i've been a part of over the past many years.

It is a scale of how much.


Care enough to be bothered. Care enough to not shovel money at the machine either way even if the game is grotesquely imbalanced (looking at you 40k and aos) To me that is "dont care about it".
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






See though, just because you can't have fun in the current balance state doesn't mean no one can. And again, you know that.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
See though, just because you can't have fun in the current balance state doesn't mean no one can. And again, you know that.
Yeah, it just means that one person gets to have fun and the other gets stomped. Thus creating an inherently antagonist paradigm whereby players that either build around power, or lucked into it, determine the steps you have to take to participate in the game. Either dictate to them what they should bring if you want a fair match, or be dictated to by the game itself via power.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 21:08:07


 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
See though, just because you can't have fun in the current balance state doesn't mean no one can. And again, you know that.


Right but my statement was "I know most people dont care about it." not "I know most people dont care about it and are playing it despite not having any fun with it".

Which is true. Most people dont care about it, or care enough about it to not continue to shovel money at GW. Because they have fun with the bad balance and dont care much about it.

I fully admit I cannot understand how that is possible, or how people enjoy a game where they sit down and one side already knows they are going to crush the other. Thats why I like to generate the discussion. To get a better understanding.

To date I still have not gotten close to understanding though. The usual "just play with people that dont break the game" seems to be #1 answer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 21:31:16


 
   
Made in us
Osprey Reader



York, PA USA

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

I fully admit I cannot understand how that is possible, or how people enjoy a game where they sit down and one side already knows they are going to crush the other. Thats why I like to generate the discussion. To get a better understanding.

To date I still have not gotten close to understanding though. The usual "just play with people that dont break the game" seems to be #1 answer.


This game as well as many others perform much better when a game master builds both armies and then 2 or more players command those forces.

I have run many games at local cons and they performed fantastic, with huge battles coming down to a few critical die rolls and epic heroic moments abounding. The reason is that I built the armies to be able to compete toe to toe, with no one side having overwhelming advantages.

The issue you are having attaining balance is that each player has purchased and built their own army. With no idea what they are going to be facing and with just the general plan to make it as powerful as possible.

We ran a tournament for Fantasy Rules! in which a buddy and me took 12 armies and players just walked up, randomly got an army and played. I think there is no better test of a player's skill than this.

To ask 12 players to build armies and then think they will be able to compete is a difficult challenge for sure.

If you do not want a game master try this- one player builds both armies and play 2 games switching sides and averaging victory scores. If there is time for only a single game one player builds both armies and sets up the battle and then the guest looks over the set up and chooses side.

It is really all in what you like. I tend to build a well-rounded, combined arms force. With missile, melee and cavalry troops supplemented with some artillery or magic. They mostly get crushed by the " one trick pony" armies. But let me know what trick I am facing and I have enough models to compensate.

If my combined arms force meets another combined arms force then things get tricky as we have to win on the table.

But the hobby is now much more than playing. It is buying, painting and organizing "your" army. I ran a demo game once with someone who refused to use my painted troops and instead used their own bare plastic models. Some of which were not even completely assembled. I was assisting in that demo so just let them do it the way they wanted. I think my help was in owning a pick up truck..................


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 00:02:02


If you do not fail often you are not tackling big enough challenges. 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





This game as well as many others perform much better when a game master builds both armies and then 2 or more players command those forces.


I've done that before and yeah you can definitely make that work a lot better. In fact, that was how wargames ran in the 80s and early to mid 90s.

Thats a very very hard sell now a days though.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Maybe that's the standard GW tournament player, but most people I knew back in the day didn't chase the imbalance.
Eh, it isn't binary. Most don't chase it but they will prefer the stronger units in their chosen army to weaker ones, which is entirely understandable. As for players actively wanting imbalance, I haven't encountered one, even online.


Yeah, it's not one or the other. I more meant most folk in my group didn't spend a lot of time maxing the potential of their army, instead favouring units they liked over units that were mathematically superior, and even if they did max out an army if the edition changed they mostly didn't try updating their army to stay "current". A common occurrence was people would buy, build and paint a regiment to find out after a couple of games that they sucked.

I was the odd one out in that I did enjoy playing around with the statistics to find out how my unit would do against a certain enemy unit, which inevitably leads you to figure out which units suck before you've bought them.

But in the end, I don't think we really know what a "standard" GW fan was, and by "standard" I mean whoever made them the most money.

WHFB was such a global game, all we can do is extrapolate from our local groups and what we see online, both of which are just small samplings of the broader WHFB community.

I've been impressed how many people of met outside of wargaming (through school or work) who when I go to their house they have a pile of WHFB models on top of their cupboard, the usual question being "oh, do you play Warhammer" and the response being "no, I just have a few models that I never got around to painting". It wouldn't surprise me if people like that made GW the most amount of money, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 auticus wrote:
This game as well as many others perform much better when a game master builds both armies and then 2 or more players command those forces.


I've done that before and yeah you can definitely make that work a lot better. In fact, that was how wargames ran in the 80s and early to mid 90s.

Thats a very very hard sell now a days though.


I wish the community was a bit more creative. It took a long time of playing the same handful of armies against each other that we had the idea of playing a game, then swapping armies and playing a 2nd game. After a while that led us to realise certain armies were just crap, and we started playing games with asymmetric points values.

This is back in the days of 5th edition.

If you only ever play PUGs then that's not an option.

It also shows the importance of a strong community, if you're struggling to even find a regular opponent then it makes it hard to try out things like that. As time went on most of my original gaming group dropped out, very few new additions to the group and before GW killed 8th most of my local community had moved to other games.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/31 05:03:42


 
   
Made in de
Emboldened Warlock






Soooo ... Cathay halfway confirmed as an army in TOW as they're now in TW:WH3 for real? https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/09/14/watch-grand-cathay-come-to-life-in-an-epic-collaboration-for-total-war-warhammer-iii/
Would make sense IMHO, branch out into different human armies that don't compete against the wacky AoS stuff on the market, while remaining 'compatible' with Chaos etc.

~~~ I Love The Power Glove. It's So Bad. ~~~ 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: