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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

I don't get why this is hard for counter-fans to understand - people who like the WHFB style like the experience to feel as much as possible like you're commanding an army, not playing a game. A unit taking casualties and losing models fits that desire, swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits does not.

I can understand that, but for me Warhammer never felt like commanding an army.

Individual model mechanics, strong heroes and some hints in the rulebook about immersion that 1 model represents a lot of soldiers never really felt right.

For me the game feels more like a small skirmish battle with 2 groups of soldiers clashing together, and never like I command an army
(specially if refered to historcal warfare, were the amount of casualties was less important the bigger the fight was and if armies clasehd it did not matter if single soldiers died)

for me, Kings of War feels more like fighting with armies than Warhammer ever did

GW had one game that tried simulated commanding an army. Warmaster is the only time they tried incorporating (fairly decently) the fog of war mechanics that plagued IRL commanders till radio was invented. So naturally the game died, largely because people hated that aspect of not having 100% god-like control of your army.

 Yodhrin wrote:

And those are not the same thing.

I don't get why this is hard for counter-fans to understand - people who like the WHFB style like the experience to feel as much as possible like you're commanding an army, not playing a game. A unit taking casualties and losing models fits that desire, swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits does not.

WFB was one of the only block games I've ever seen that had individual casualty removal. It is nearly unknown in any other system both historical and fantasy.

Again GW doesn't understand scale so their mass fantasy block game introduced elements of skirmish style casualty removal to complicate their system. Players also don't understand the scale they are playing at. Instead of viewing each block as units of 500/1000/10000 fighters or whatever as in most block systems they viewed each miniature on a 1 to 1 basis. That turned the 'large armies' they were supposedly playing with into little more than small scale skirmish forces using block formations.

Scale and not defining scale properly and using rules that fit the defined scale is an issue that dogs all of GWs 28mm systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:
GW had one game that tried simulated commanding an army. Warmaster is the only time they tried incorporating (fairly decently) the fog of war mechanics that plagued IRL commanders till radio was invented. So naturally the game died, largely because people hated that aspect of not having 100% god-like control of your army.

The first few editions of Epic also got scaling right. Imagine playing epic and removing tiny space marines from their multibases for casualty removal. Sounds mad but that is effectively what happened in WFB.

I dont understand how fiddling with individual miniatures helps to facilitate the experience of commanding an army, that sounds more like a skirmish game mechanic to me.

Also, Having a die or wound marker next to a unit is not exactly "swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits"

Again GW doesn't understand scale so their mass fantasy block game introduced elements of skirmish style casualty removal to complicate their system.

To my understanding, WFB evolved out of skirmish/RPG-like rules, and "gained weight" in models as editions grew, so they introduced army mechanics to a skirmish game, not the other way round.

I am personally fine with them using models like wounds, and even still having little wound markers for the units with multiple. We had to do that for old fantasy anyway.

And I think fantasy did fine at a representation of the rank combat. Even liked the scale it was at for it for the most part.
The issue mostly come down to rules, hero’s and lord a bit too heroic and take to much away from the units themselves far to often.

Cronch wrote:

Again GW doesn't understand scale so their mass fantasy block game introduced elements of skirmish style casualty removal to complicate their system.

To my understanding, WFB evolved out of skirmish/RPG-like rules, and "gained weight" in models as editions grew, so they introduced army mechanics to a skirmish game, not the other way round.

Reaper if I remember was the skirmish game for fantasy - it came out a year or two before WFB - which was always a mass battle system since its inception - only the number of miniatures needed for each block changed with editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

The issue mostly come down to rules, hero’s and lord a bit too heroic and take to much away from the units themselves far to often.

That is again a scaling issue. If the blocks represent a 1v1 miniature to fighter ratio character rules make good sense. If blocks represent any other ratio (which in a mass combat game they do) they make very little sense.

In other block games such leader characters might have no utility outside command and control (which is a vital part of gameplay) - see Hail Caesar or Black Powder for recent generation block game examples.

GW have spent decades stripping command and control and morale out of their games. This means there's little for characters to do but be powerful fighting units themselves. Their core function on the battlefield is redundant.

Out of curiosity why is your city not playing KoW, 9th age or Asoiaf?

Also a question for the most ardent Warhammer fantasy fans, would you be happy with Asoiaf style basing or does it have to be squares?

Thats a great question! I would love a whole topic dedicated to that to be honest.

9th Age is a fan system. Can't get people to touch fan systems. Not "official". Kings of War - no idea why we can't get that started. We've tried three times. WHFB - people come out of the woodwork.

Its a very very frustrating thing, but really as far as my city goes, people cannot be assed to play anything that is not GW for whatever reason that may be to them. Often times its the self dooming cycle of "i want to play a game with a lot of players, but kings of war only has a few players, so I won't play it even though if I did it would have more players".

The caveat has been Conquest. We have 9 players for that right now and we have another 9 or 10 waiting on the nords and dweghom or the full lineup to be released.

Potentially roughly 20 people. Our AOS crowd is 12-15, so Conquest having 20 people would be major.

Our WHFB crowd had 55 up until 2015 when it was killed, for reference.

Sunny Side Up wrote:Problem is that the classic R&F barrier of entry for 12-year olds randomly walking into a GW store getting told "go buy and paint 50 mono-pose spearman" is just not sustainable.

KoW avoids this in and by itself by not caring as much for the individual spearmen that make up that basic block, letting you design cinematic regiment bases and focus on the heroes, etc.. Other recent R&F games such as the CMON Game of Thrones one or the FFG one with the weird click-bases all had much more "spaced out" miniatures taking up more space on the bases.

Also, the basic premise of AoS (and 40K starters such as First Strike) allowing those super-new-to-the-hobby-people to just pick up a box of Orks/Elves/Whatever and a Hero and start throwing down is still viable for the "main game".


Selling a Warhammer Rank & File game not as a "this is a main-game-foundational-pillar-for-our-retail-business" but more along the line of Adeptus Titanicus or Necromunda or so, marketed almost exclusively to people already in the hobby and possibly with some airbrushing, contrast-paint, etc.. experience before going into such a hobby project is IMO an entirely different beast from the business perspective.

And even than, assuming some AoS miniatures might be usable for the new-old-Warhammer, perhaps the new Chaos Warriors, it's easy to see how those would take up maybe the space of 4 of the old Chaos Warriors with more varied, dynamic and "cinematic" poses, but less miniatures for the equivalent regimental base size.

They probably should have rules for really old-school mass-spearmen on 25mm squares, both for people that still have those old armies and perhaps as one flavour of new-old-Warhammer for people who really love that style, but I doubt it willl be necessary to play that style in the new R&F Warhammer nor will it be something the average GW store manager will have to worry about at all for 99.9% of their customers.

Battalion box sets.

Remember those? $90 US got you three core regiments and a war machine which typically booked in at somewhere beetween 600 and 700 points. That's IF you didn't decide to do a character model up from those kits. It wouldn't take much to get to the same level currently, and it would give fierce competition for GW's current rivals in the market.

I don't get why this is hard for counter-fans to understand - people who like the WHFB style like the experience to feel as much as possible like you're commanding an army, not playing a game. A unit taking casualties and losing models fits that desire, swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits does not.

Double emphasis this and exalted!! Thats exactly my primary issue with AOS. Its board gamey. It feels like playing a board game. It is not immersive to me at all or what I want, which is to feel like I'm commanding a fantasy army. Not min/maxing mortal wounds and forking out $800 more in models to summon so I can beat you because I have 4000 points to your 2000.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:
GW had one game that tried simulated commanding an army. Warmaster is the only time they tried incorporating (fairly decently) the fog of war mechanics that plagued IRL commanders till radio was invented. So naturally the game died, largely because people hated that aspect of not having 100% god-like control of your army.

Warmaster died for a couple reasons. The command phase you speak of was for sure one of them. The other was the scale. People didn't want to dick around with that tiny scale and didn't want to have to make special terrain just for warmaster when they already had a bunch of terrain for warhammer.

It was also not marketed well at all, and suffered the same fate as any game like kings of war in my area... "not enough people to play with, so not bothering". Especially when you have 40k running amuk where we have like 250 registered players, so you can get a game any day of the week practically any time of day. Warmaster had no official tournament scene either. People love them some professional tournament scenes. You have none of that, you will likely have a game on life support. All of those factors wrapped up into why it failed.

The command phase just being one of them, I'll point out that every week I am down at the shop there are 3-4 tables of 40k minimum playing, and there is always bitching about how the rules suck, but they play anyway. I think if warmaster had been marketed properly and supported with ESPN Ocho tournament endorsements, that it would have lasted a lot longer than it did.

Overall, I'm hoping they don't tinker too much with it.

The genuine changes needed to 8th aren't particularly large. And the base mechanics, including Static Combat Res (ranks, banner etc) are key to knowing how to win a game.

For instance. Someone mentioned earlier that shooty units felt a bit underwhelming. It's true few were properly killy. And it was often a struggle to inflict a Panic Test through 25% casualties.

But, their true use (so far as I'm concerned) was to trim off ranks here and there. For instance, a 25 strong unit, deployed 5x5 had an 'ablative' rank. It never fought, but it did maintain your Static Combat Res until it'd suffered 6 casualties.

Bowfire etc was the very dab for bagging said casualties - giving you combat units an easier time when the time came. Slot an additional five, and suddenly the hypothetical unit's combat prowess is severely hampered.

So I feel the game needs to retain that. And if you want to wipe stuff out at range, that's where your Magic Missiles and Artillery come in.

The main trick they need to get right? As others have said, it's scaling. They need to tackle the perception that a game, bare minimum, needs to be 2,000 points or more, and involved 100+ models that, ultimately, don't do anything in the game than look pretty before being removed. To take the following quote out of context (apologies to the poster)

A unit taking casualties and losing models fits that desire, swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits does not.

The rear ranks were essentially exactly that. Wound Counters, Markers and Doodads and Wotsits. At least in later incarnation.

Part of that could be changing up how a regiment can be deployed. Consider Napoleonic warfare. Three basic fomations. Line, Square and Column. Each had benefits and drawbacks, depending on the situation and what was attacking.

Something like that could easily be adapted into WHFB. And would make reforming your units an actual tactic, instead of something you did when you'd managed to stuff up your deployment.

Heck, tie it into characters and Initiative. If there's a Hero/Lord (non-Wizard*) in the regiment, you can issue reform orders, and do so.

No such Hero/Lord (non-Wizard), roll initiative before you can do it.

Having such a reform count as your unit's movement for the turn

This is of course just me throwing ideas out there - but it would add even more depth and challenge to getting properly good at the game.

I would rather prefer a remake of 6th/7th edition than 8th edition. Magic, random charge distances, pre-measuring, terrain not slowing down units etc. just sucked in 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Otherwise I am super hyped about a new edition of WHFB!
I played a lot of tournaments in 6th and 7th.

 kodos wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I don't get why this is hard for counter-fans to understand - people who like the WHFB style like the experience to feel as much as possible like you're commanding an army, not playing a game. A unit taking casualties and losing models fits that desire, swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits does not.

I can understand that, but for me Warhammer never felt like commanding an army.

Individual model mechanics, strong heroes and some hints in the rulebook about immersion that 1 model represents a lot of soldiers never really felt right.

For me the game feels more like a small skirmish battle with 2 groups of soldiers clashing together, and never like I command an army
(specially if refered to historcal warfare, were the amount of casualties was less important the bigger the fight was and if armies clasehd it did not matter if single soldiers died)

for me, Kings of War feels more like fighting with armies than Warhammer ever did

So the problem you have is a ludicrous self-imposed semantic one, gotcha.

Replace the word "army" with the phrase "several groups of soldiers fighting in formation".

The size of the forces has no bearing on whether or not it's a rank & flank game, and for the size of forces depicted in this particular rank & flank game individual casualty removal feels more "real" than littering the board with counters and markers and wound dice.

To me, Kings of War feels much less "real" because the scale of the models suggests the forces are of the same size as WHFB, but the gameplay mechanics treat them as if you're playing a ~6mm historical system. If I wanted that experience, I'd be playing a ~6mm historical system.

I would certainly hope they roll back the obscene unit sizes of the 8th edition.

And a reduction in the overpoweredness of magic would be grand too.

Mostly interested to see what new models we end up getting though. I'd be hyped for an empire release with model sculpting quality.

6th-7th edition is also my favourite. If only they could make cavalry a little less powerfull and infantry a little more usefull without the absurdity of 8th.
5th and herohammer was something I greatly dislike. I know Fantasy has always had a ton of very powerfull heroes but... I prefer an equilibrium between all parts of an army. Greenskins can't really play hero hammer. Your slow orcs die before hitting and goblins are goblins.

I have to agree that they need to review editions before releasing it.
The three things I felt help kill WHFB was..

The best units where the most expensive of a army. - Example, the witch elves box set at the time was one of the highest unit boxes they released and you needed multiples to make a strong unit.

Model count was crazy high - To get into the game you needed to drop hundreds of dollars and hope you selected a good force. But the next new shiny unit would be released and need to go back to the store.

GW started making every army the same - Not every army needs cavalry or a cannon type war machine, I liked how skaven had giant units that would run off at their first chance.

Don't get me wrong I am very happy with the announcement, but they need to consider what was the good and bad of the previous editions.
I am glad I held out and never converted bases..

 Genoside07 wrote:


GW started making every army the same - Not every army needs cavalry or a cannon type war machine, I liked how skaven had giant units that would run off at their first chance.

This is a good point. As much as I love the design of Demigrypth knights or things like that, they clearly made factions less charactefull.

At the same time, a Faction is more defined by what it doesn't has (Dwarfs without monsters or cavalry or magic) than by what they have (Nothing dwarfs had was unique to them). The problem is... you can't sustain a game keeping armies like that. Unless you release new armies all the time, and even then, you'll end up without design space for making armies with their unique feel. But you can't keep releasing new units and heroes for an army without making old units redundant or filling voids in the army line up.

The other problem is players HATE being negated options. Yeah maybe in this forum we are all happy with having less options because is better for the gameplay but go ask regular players (Not now of course, years ago, in 2012 for example). Everybody wanted things for their army they didn'd had. Dwarf goat cavalry, Vampire Counts or Chaos Warriors shooting, etc...

 Yodhrin wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I don't get why this is hard for counter-fans to understand - people who like the WHFB style like the experience to feel as much as possible like you're commanding an army, not playing a game. A unit taking casualties and losing models fits that desire, swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits does not.

I can understand that, but for me Warhammer never felt like commanding an army.

Individual model mechanics, strong heroes and some hints in the rulebook about immersion that 1 model represents a lot of soldiers never really felt right.

For me the game feels more like a small skirmish battle with 2 groups of soldiers clashing together, and never like I command an army
(specially if refered to historcal warfare, were the amount of casualties was less important the bigger the fight was and if armies clasehd it did not matter if single soldiers died)

for me, Kings of War feels more like fighting with armies than Warhammer ever did

So the problem you have is a ludicrous self-imposed semantic one, gotcha.

Replace the word "army" with the phrase "several groups of soldiers fighting in formation".

The size of the forces has no bearing on whether or not it's a rank & flank game, and for the size of forces depicted in this particular rank & flank game individual casualty removal feels more "real" than littering the board with counters and markers and wound dice.

To me, Kings of War feels much less "real" because the scale of the models suggests the forces are of the same size as WHFB, but the gameplay mechanics treat them as if you're playing a ~6mm historical system. If I wanted that experience, I'd be playing a ~6mm historical system.

Casualty removal is unknown in most rank and flank (block) games. What is been tracked by a 'casualty' marker is a mix of casualties and morale factors. In many Rn'F games 'casualties' can be gained back by a unit using the games morale system. Huge units of untrained fighters can have a low 'casualty' rating due to low morale. 'Casualties' then effect stuff like ability to charge or shoot effectively because it is in effect tracking morale rather then fighters lost.

Like I said above WFB is a block game that uses a skirmish mechanic for tracking casualties. In the main over the last few editions (not as bad as 40K) it dumbed down morale to nearly nothing - one of the major factors in any kind of Rn'F game.

What size are the forces in WFB? 1v1 ratio? If so it was always a skirmish game with formations like Saga.

It is in fact a mass combat block game where one miniature at 28mm could represent dozens if not hundreds of fighters. See historicals where this scaling is actually described at the start of most rule books as it is more important for recreating real historical battles.

Cronch wrote:
GW had one game that tried simulated commanding an army. Warmaster is the only time they tried incorporating (fairly decently) the fog of war mechanics that plagued IRL commanders till radio was invented. So naturally the game died, largely because people hated that aspect of not having 100% god-like control of your army.

It was a really good game, though. It evolved into the historical game Hail Caesar https://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/hail-caesar by Warlord Games. That game doesn't have an official Fantasy version or fantasy army lists, though some people have come up with their own.

It also heavily (I mean, very heavily) inspired the Blitzkrieg/FutureWar/etc. Commander series of games, not sure if they're still in publication but they were also very solid.

Cronch wrote:
It also heavily (I mean, very heavily) inspired the Blitzkrieg/FutureWar/etc. Commander series of games, not sure if they're still in publication but they were also very solid.

Not surprising. It was developed by top game design talent that had decades of experience and knew how to scale their games and how to simulate command and control and morale factors properly.

The main GW systems since they lost a lot of the named talent seem to be throwing stuff on top of old systems designed by these guys in a haphazard manner with no real design philosophy tying the whole lot together.

 Yodhrin wrote:

So the problem you have is a ludicrous self-imposed semantic one, gotcha.
Replace the word "army" with the phrase "several groups of soldiers fighting in formation".

If I want a game with "Armies" fighting each others, using a system with 50 models per side is not what I am looking for
It represents a Skirmish not a Battle

Just because the models moves in Blocks does not make it an Army

 Yodhrin wrote:

To me, Kings of War feels much less "real" because the scale of the models suggests the forces are of the same size as WHFB, but the gameplay mechanics treat them as if you're playing a ~6mm historical system. If I wanted that experience, I'd be playing a ~6mm historical system.

the number of the models suggest it be the same size as Warhammer was, but the look on the table (more blocks of Infanterie/Cavalry then single Heroes or Monsters) and the mechanics of the game make it feel more of an army

If 15 or 6mm is your preferred size for battles with armies, it is fine, but if searching for Rank&File Battles with Army sized forces, you will always get similar as KoW outside the main GW games (and the most similar non-GW game to Warhammer is SAGA)

We use circular bases and movement trays for playing 4th and 5th edition and it works just fine. You just use dice to mark number of wounds on the unit. If you want to change formation you grab a new tray. Even for wrap around and templates you just need to do a tiny bit of math to figure out how many attacks you would have. Once you have played a game or two it all becomes second nature and it actually is way faster than doodling around with individual models. So those that are worried about losing something or circlular bases with movement trays not work -- I encourage you to try it out because it works really really well.

The main benefit is then you can base for AoS but play with the same models for KoW or any of the old warhammer editions and also SAGA age of magic. Its a fantastic compromise.

I never understood the problem with square bases.
You do not have to move them individually. Instead you can have regiment trays and magnet bases.

 Astmeister wrote:
I never understood the problem with square bases.
You do not have to move them individually. Instead you can have regiment trays and magnet bases.

Magnetic flat bases with movement trays are almost a must with older armies. Absolute quality of life change

 Stevefamine wrote:
Magnetic flat bases with movement trays are almost a must with older armies. Absolute quality of life change

Yeah, definitely was a game-changer for me. I was rather upset, when I pulled my stuff out from storage a couple years ago, to discover the GF9 had quit making their magnetic bases. The price was reasonable to me and the ease of use was perfect for me.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

Cronch wrote:
GW had one game that tried simulated commanding an army. Warmaster is the only time they tried incorporating (fairly decently) the fog of war mechanics that plagued IRL commanders till radio was invented. So naturally the game died, largely because people hated that aspect of not having 100% god-like control of your army.

It was a really good game, though. It evolved into the historical game Hail Caesar https://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/hail-caesar by Warlord Games. That game doesn't have an official Fantasy version or fantasy army lists, though some people have come up with their own.

There's currently an updated fan version that's helping to bring some new life into the game: Warmaster Revolution. It includes some rules from Warmaster Ancients that help restrict some of the gamebreaking elements that were in the original version of the Fantasy rules, like units only getting orders three times in a turn, only a single round of pursuit allowed after the initial combat, and half moves for the first failed order given by a command unit.

I always felt KoW would've been more suitable at Warmaster scale, then the not removal of individual 'bases' wouldn't of been as bad

Agree, but it would not have been compatible with GW models, something players demanded a lot in the past

and after the other 15mm Fantasy game (Damonworld) failed because "no GW models possible" too much of a risk as well

overtyrant wrote:
I always felt KoW would've been more suitable at Warmaster scale, then the not removal of individual 'bases' wouldn't of been as bad

You would have the same complaint about every other Rn'F 28mm game in the market as well then.

Are smaller scales more suitable for Rn'F? Undoubtedly yes.

Do players care? No.

28mm provides the spectacle many players want.

Scale of miniatures is a complete non-issue in a Rn'F game in most cases. The block holds the stats. The scale decides the size of the block on the field. Hence 'block' games. Wargames have been played with painted blocks of wood decades before minis were thought of.

The big drawback to large scale rank and flank is the size of the board needed. The blocks are bigger so the ground scale increases as well. What works great on a 6x4 in 6mm needs three times that in 20/28mm - even then you are compressing the ground scale. It's less of an issue with fantasy/science fiction than with historicals.

I play American War of Independence at 28mm. Small scale stuff compared to Napoleonics or American Civil War and the table sizes are already getting out of hand. So hats off to the players who can play Rn'F at big scale. It takes some commitment.