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.

niall78 wrote:

Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.

The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.

There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.

Dear GW,

Too little, too late
My friends have all cashed out, having sold off their WHFB armies (and in some cases the 40K Armies too) and are not only disinterested in returning, but found other gaming options.

As for me, I have kept what I did buy, but won’t be returning to a GW ruleset. Plenty of other companies to choose from who didn’t decide to burn their bridges first.

zreef wrote:

Luckily WHFB was not WYSIWG and the regular model sufficed just fine for both situations.

Eww. Might as well play with bottlecaps then.

 insaniak wrote:

niall78 wrote:

Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.

The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.

There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.

And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.

It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.

niall78 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

niall78 wrote:

Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.

The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.

There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.

And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.

It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.

It's amazing how you always seem to have an objection or characterisation that requires you to be the clever worldly-wise gamer and everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily either a moron or a GW HHHhhobbyist.

Has it genuinely never occurred to you that people simply disagree with your position? That they don't see anything that needs to be "handwaved away"?

My question is:

if one spear man represents 50 of his equivalents, Does one Karl Franz on Death Claw represent 50 Gryphon riding heroes?

niall78 wrote:

And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well.

It really didn't. It's a game. It used small units. Done.

It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this.

I suspect it's more that most players simply don't care that historical battles would have involved larger units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strombones wrote:
My question is:

if one spear man represents 50 of his equivalents, Does one Karl Franz on Death Claw represent 50 Gryphon riding heroes?

That's sort of where that whole concept falls apart. I think the intention is that characters nd other 'big' models would be singular, but that units are supposed to represent larger blocks of troops. All of which is needlessly convoluted... easier to just say that the 10 guys on the table are 10 guys and get on with it.

 Yodhrin wrote:

niall78 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

niall78 wrote:

Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.

The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.

There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.

And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.

It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.

It's amazing how you always seem to have an objection or characterisation that requires you to be the clever worldly-wise gamer and everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily either a moron or a GW HHHhhobbyist.

Has it genuinely never occurred to you that people simply disagree with your position? That they don't see anything that needs to be "handwaved away"?

It could be worse. I could be getting really emotional about the whole issue.

I'm just going on what GW have stated over the years. As a mass battle game WFB was not a 1 to 1 miniature to fighter ratio. How people want to view their own games is their own business and if it works for them fair play.

Each miniature represented multiple warriors in WHFB 3rd edition as well (still my favorite edition of the game).

Ditto for 5th, probably others as well.

This... does not bother me, but I started wargaming with Napoleonics - where that was very much the norm.

I think the exact same way with KoW, and did so with the old TSR Battle System to boot.

Battles are big, and minis cost money - so... each figure represents 10 men? Okay!

The Auld Grump

niall78 wrote:


I'm just going on what GW have stated over the years.

Except of course, in the places they stated it was just heroes and a small retinue, so was 1 to 1, and no handwaving that maybe 'secretly each model = X models, except the ones that don't.'

I think the fact that they relegated the explanation on scale to an appendix rather than something people were actually going to read suggests that it just wasn't meant to be that big a deal. It certainly doesn't make any practical difference to gameplay.

 insaniak wrote:
I think the fact that they relegated the explanation on scale to an appendix rather than something people were actually going to read suggests that it just wasn't meant to be that big a deal. It certainly doesn't make any practical difference to gameplay.

It wasn't in an appendix for 3rd ed - it was right near the front.

You remember how people went gaga for the reprint of the old Rogue Trader 40K? I would love to see a reprint of 3e WHFB. My old one is living in a three ring binder - the binding having long since given up the ghost.

For that matter McDeath....

The Auld Grump - it really wasn't that big a deal... then. As I mentioned, it was kind of the norm for wargames of the period.

I’ve never been able to make the ‘that bloke is actually fifty blokes’ concept work in my head. It causes too many questions in my brain (is that hedge fifty hedges?) and yoinks me out of the setting.

I think that’s why I don’t like playing with named characters either, I can never make peace with Nagash, supreme lord of the undead, marching to war with 30 dire wolves.

All the narratives to my battles are quite petty really, I can’t believe the fate of the universe hinges on a clash between 100 dudes!

Luke82 wrote:
I’ve never been able to make the ‘that bloke is actually fifty blokes’ concept work in my head. It causes too many questions in my brain (is that hedge fifty hedges?) and yoinks me out of the setting.

I think that’s why I don’t like playing with named characters either, I can never make peace with Nagash, supreme lord of the undead, marching to war with 30 dire wolves.

All the narratives to my battles are quite petty really, I can’t believe the fate of the universe hinges on a clash between 100 dudes!

I find it easier to rationise that one mini is 50 or whatever men as it explains the tiny amount of minis on the field and the same boards (even when they are much bigger than 6x4 feet.

Like I said above it could be because of more expose to historical Rn'F games where ground scale, figure to fighters ratio and the reasons these were chosen usually the second chapter after "- What is a wargame". It isn't as well explained in fantasy rules as it simply isn't as important. Not just WFB but KoW I think doesn't give solid numbers either. Just different experiences depending on what sides of the hobby you are involved with over the years.

niall78 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

niall78 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

niall78 wrote:

Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.

The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.

There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.

And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.

It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.

It's amazing how you always seem to have an objection or characterisation that requires you to be the clever worldly-wise gamer and everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily either a moron or a GW HHHhhobbyist.

Has it genuinely never occurred to you that people simply disagree with your position? That they don't see anything that needs to be "handwaved away"?

It could be worse. I could be getting really emotional about the whole issue.

Nah, just judgemental and smug. That's so much better.

I'm just going on what GW have stated over the years. As a mass battle game WFB was not a 1 to 1 miniature to fighter ratio. How people want to view their own games is their own business and if it works for them fair play.

You mean, you're going by what GW stated 25 years ago and have directly contradicted on several occasions.

According to Wikipedia; in the Battle of Hastings the Normans were 7000 to 12000 strong; in the Battle of Agincourt the English were 6000 to 9000 strong. To represent these battles it would not be feasible to have 1 to 1, especially at 28mm Heroic Scale - One can dream though.

I don't know why any of this matters.
The game is an abstraction at any rate (and that rate may vary from person to person).

 Argive wrote:

I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.

Not table top but games like Chess and Go, both of which have really simple rules, are incredibly hard to master.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arnizipal wrote:
I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.

For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders

I always hated the monster and rider being separate. Riding a horse gave you a better save and you couldn't be sniped, but for some reason riding a monster worked completely differently. Silly and arbitrary. Not to mention that you needed to have a separate model for the unmounted rider (and if you want hardcore WYSIWYG for the riderless mount as well) and usually no such thing was provided in the kit.

Something to do with that lone horse is not going to be killing anybody(ever seen horses go on deliberate killing spree following orders?) while lone dragon can mayhap? That was hardly silly and arbitary. Now having hero on top of it get dragon toughness and then some more now THAT is arbitary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Each miniature represented multiple warriors in WHFB 3rd edition as well (still my favorite edition of the game).

Ditto for 5th, probably others as well.

This... does not bother me, but I started wargaming with Napoleonics - where that was very much the norm.

I think the exact same way with KoW, and did so with the old TSR Battle System to boot.

Battles are big, and minis cost money - so... each figure represents 10 men? Okay!

The Auld Grump

In 5th at least it wasn't hard coded "this is how it is" and certainly not supported by actual mechanics. It was just random note in designer's commentary how you can see it if you want bigger battles. But that concept then breaks up completely by mechanics. Sorry but 1 model=100 guys would have to actually somehow show up in rules. As it was all immersion was broken if you went by that while maintained if you go 1=1

I would just drop the monster reaction rules, tbh.
It doesn't really add anything to the game and was just another random variable.

If you want monsters going berserk I'd rather have it replace the stupidity rule; if you fail the morale test, the monster immediately attempts to make a charge move towards the nearest enemy regiment.

Stupidity is another rule that won't be missed; did anyone seriously enjoy not being able to use a unit for a turn because of a bad roll? Again, it doesn't really add anything tactically, it was just annoying.

Fear and Terror were fine; they were debuffs that made monsters and undead actually dangerous. At least, in theory.

The 1 model = 10 / 100 soldiers system only works if you ignore monsters, lords and heroes.
If you consider those unit types it quickly falls apart.

CA tried being faithful to that sort of system, and it results in oddities. Like, a hero can basically tank a regiment by himself if he's well equipped and has enough levels. Regiments in TWWH are proper sized too, about 80-160 models, depending on regiment size settings and unit type.
If you tried doing that in the earlier games you just end up with a dead general, even with retinue.

Luke82 wrote:
I think that’s why I don’t like playing with named characters either, I can never make peace with Nagash, supreme lord of the undead, marching to war with 30 dire wolves. All the narratives to my battles are quite petty really, I can’t believe the fate of the universe hinges on a clash between 100 dudes!

I've always done the same. Never needed my battles to be world changing events and was always happier with the lesser clashes that go unrecorded, making my own ascendant heroes as I go.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I would just drop the monster reaction rules, tbh.
It doesn't really add anything to the game and was just another random variable.

If you want monsters going berserk I'd rather have it replace the stupidity rule; if you fail the morale test, the monster immediately attempts to make a charge move towards the nearest enemy regiment.

Stupidity is another rule that won't be missed; did anyone seriously enjoy not being able to use a unit for a turn because of a bad roll? Again, it doesn't really add anything tactically, it was just annoying.

I like those little things that are just there to add flavour.
I've seen many people complain about animosty over the years, but I like the idea that my greenskins have a chance to start fighting each other.
Sure it's annoying but it is characterful

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

The 1 model = 10 / 100 soldiers system only works if you ignore monsters, lords and heroes.
If you consider those unit types it quickly falls apart.

You could handwave it and say a character is actually not only the character itself but also his retainers and bodyguards.
So 1 dude is 10 dudes and 1 hero is 1 hero + 9 dudes.

 Arnizipal wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I would just drop the monster reaction rules, tbh.
It doesn't really add anything to the game and was just another random variable.

If you want monsters going berserk I'd rather have it replace the stupidity rule; if you fail the morale test, the monster immediately attempts to make a charge move towards the nearest enemy regiment.

Stupidity is another rule that won't be missed; did anyone seriously enjoy not being able to use a unit for a turn because of a bad roll? Again, it doesn't really add anything tactically, it was just annoying.

I like those little things that are just there to add flavour.
I've seen many people complain about animosty over the years, but I like the idea that my greenskins have a chance to start fighting each other.
Sure it's annoying but it is characterful

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

The 1 model = 10 / 100 soldiers system only works if you ignore monsters, lords and heroes.
If you consider those unit types it quickly falls apart.

You could handwave it and say a character is actually not only the character itself but also his retainers and bodyguards.
So 1 dude is 10 dudes and 1 hero is 1 hero + 9 dudes.

Animosity is a race specific rule, so it should stay. I have nothing against race / faction specific special rules, that's where the flavor should be coming from. Other rules like stupidity and monster reactions aren't that necessary.
I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?

Why not, he's the freaking Emperor.
If he takes to the field he should have the best, most expensive protection available

You know, I reckon they could go The Whole Hog with this.

Skirmish (warband level)

Border Patrol (up to 1,000 points with additional doodad rules)

Engagement (up to 2,500)

Battle Royale (2,500+).

Limit units available in the smaller scales somehow. Different rules. Let us play multiple styles of game using the one rule tome.

Derek H wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.

Not table top but games like Chess and Go, both of which have really simple rules, are incredibly hard to master.

I find that, in wargames also, the thickness of the rulebook tends to be inversely proportional to the depth of the play experience.

 Arnizipal wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?

Why not, he's the freaking Emperor.
If he takes to the field he should have the best, most expensive protection available

Fair enough. Griffins are consider to be prized mounts for Imperial Nobles.
I guess it would make sense for Karl Franz to have a personal retinue of Griffin Knights, handpicked from the best of the Reiksguard or Demigryph riders.
There would probably be just like, 10 or them or so. Or even fewer. Apparently a single Griffin rider can break an entire enemy regiment by itself.
I guess monsters in WHFB are super dangerous or something.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know, I reckon they could go The Whole Hog with this.

Skirmish (warband level)

Border Patrol (up to 1,000 points with additional doodad rules)

Engagement (up to 2,500)

Battle Royale (2,500+).

Limit units available in the smaller scales somehow. Different rules. Let us play multiple styles of game using the one rule tome.

They could go back to limiting the numbers of certain slots (or changing the percentages if they keep the percentage based system, e.g. a small scouting force will have proportionally more scouts/light cavalry than heavy infantry compared to a large army going to meet an enemy in the field) at different point levels. Might also be a good idea to expand the existing slots out.

Instead of Lords, Heroes, Core, Special, Rare you could have:
Lords
Heroes
Core (your base blocks of infantry)
Scouts (this is where stuff like skirmishers and light cavalry go)
War Machines (Cannons, Catapults etc. things which are mostly stationary and manned by crews)
Special (Elite infantry, heavy cavalry etc.)
Monsters (speaks for itself)
Rare (powerful magical devices like the Anvil of Doom or Cauldron of Blood, wonders of engineering like steam tanks etc.)

Then at say the <1000pts level there will be zero allowance for Rare (such devices are not brought to a battle of such small significance short of narrative scenarios), zero allowance for Lords (not worth the attention of those of such high rank), X allowance of Heroes, Y mandatory minimum of Core, Z allowance for Scouts, N allowance for War Machines, etc.

Balancing out all the limits will be tricky and require very good inter-army balance to account for differences in ability and availability of options within each slot (if using slots then taking massive units in the Special slot and minimum units in core could be abused, if using percentages then armies with weaker Core units are penalised by having to spend more of their points on them) but should be doable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Derek H wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.

Not table top but games like Chess and Go, both of which have really simple rules, are incredibly hard to master.

I find that, in wargames also, the thickness of the rulebook tends to be inversely proportional to the depth of the play experience.

Yup. Many designers seem to get complexity and depth mixed up and so think that adding a load of complex rules will increase the depth of choices available to the player.

Complexity should only be added when it adds more depth in the form of giving the player more meaningful choices they can make.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Arnizipal wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?

Why not, he's the freaking Emperor.
If he takes to the field he should have the best, most expensive protection available

Fair enough. Griffins are consider to be prized mounts for Imperial Nobles.
I guess it would make sense for Karl Franz to have a personal retinue of Griffin Knights, handpicked from the best of the Reiksguard or Demigryph riders.
There would probably be just like, 10 or them or so. Or even fewer. Apparently a single Griffin rider can break an entire enemy regiment by itself.
I guess monsters in WHFB are super dangerous or something.

And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.

That would be silly.





















It would be a 10 on 10 battle