"Warmaster a good game?" Topic

What are opinions about Warmaster?

Ancient?
Medieval?
Fantasy?

I only have the Fantasy and LotR versions so far, but like both.

The only issue I have is the Bucket of Dice approach. I like the concepts, not the implementation

I've played worse. I'm not much for buckets of dice these days.

I think overall good reviews. Warmaster Ancients fixed the problem Fantasy has/had with cavalry. Rules must be good seeing that they've been "copied" by other rules sets.

We play both the fantasy(BO5A rules) & historical and like both. I like the numerous dice as my dice luck for single rolls seems to be terrible. With lots, things seem to even out. My only dislike with it(and BKC/FWC) is allowing a unit to move & /or fire more than twice). In the Fantasy set, some armies are more powerful than others, especially Chaos.

One of the best massed combat games ever! I recently got back into playing WM Fantasy with all the stuff I already had painted (Dwarves, Khemri, Empire), got back into painting 10mm as well and finished up a ton of stuff I've had sitting around for a decade or so. I even ran a big game of it up at Spring Fever in Raleigh this last April. Everybody enjoyed it a lot and at least two of the guys bought armies on eBay shortly afterwards.

I've never played WM Ancients or any of the other adaptations but they look fun as well. I'll probably do at least Ancients eventually…

thumbs up from his emminence

I really like the game. It plays reasonably fast and moves large armies around. As mentioned, buckets of dice drives some away (I prefer that approach myself). The command system is absolutely brilliant, the game is worth looking at from a mechanics standpoint if for nothing else except the command system.

I like it.

It one of the best system ever. I've played all four versions and I'll even do the gunpowered rules when they come out.

I play Warmaster and Bo5A, which is essentially the same, just set in the Hobbit milieu. I think the game is great fun, and allows for both good strategic planning and tactics, as well as the inevitable "oh carp" moment when it all goes to pieces. Seriously, a great game and highly recommended.

You will need lots of dice, and a good place to roll them. But I've never had a problem with the "bucket o' dice" approach in a game; it can be almost cathartic, even if you roll poorly overall.

The fantasy version is, as others have mentioned, the best mass combat game out there. I think the buckets of dice is great for evening out the luck and the whole concept is well thought out and well executed.

I tried fantasy WM when it came out with a couple of mates. All of us thought it was particularly dire.
Wild horses would not be enough to drag me back to try it again.

Oddly enough I quite like BKC ( the ww2 version ).

I love Warmaster Fantasy and have much regard for WA and other variants out there. What other rule set can one name that has inspired so many period variants?

Answer: none

"What other rule set can one name that has inspired so many period variants?"

DBA? There are even naval sets based on that system.

That being said and back on topic, although the fantasy set is OK for me, I really like Blitzkrieg Commander. Great set of rules!

"…Rules must be good seeing that they've been "copied" by other rules sets…"

Bad logic. It's just not "tweens and teens" that follow the "popular girls" (genric term) and do what "they" do. No matter how horridly they dress, no matter what they really think it tastes like, no matter how stupid it will seem 10 or 20 years later..people act as herd animals much of the time. Wargamers are no different.

By that logic we should never have left the Church of WRG rules…or using a single D6 with modifiers…or any other "new" idea that catches our AADD minds.

Gracias,

Glenn

The fantasy version found a place on my bookshelf and I bought the ancients version but havent played that yet…

Wasn't keen on the Fantasy version but the Ancients set is great, especially with the amendments found in the Armies and/or Medieval (the same general amendments are in each supplements to save you buying them both). The medieval specific rule changes I think could be applied across the board such as battles (groups of more than 4 units moving as one) especially.

I wasnt keen on the fantasy version due to the magic rules, but I love Warmaster Ancients. Ive yet to play Warmaster medieval, but it looks great too.

I also am a huge fan of Blitzkrieg Commander and Cold War commander, games heavily based on (and much improved) Warmaster.

The Fantasy version works cause its fantasy, the Ancients version has some serious 'gamey' issues with skirmishers (old argument that a few may jump down my throat for airing again)which are fixed by some serious 'gamey' mechanics…if you can get past that and couple of others then its a good system…that has inspired me to write my own 'in house' version of it…

On the whole my advice is to try it and you'll probably like it…8¬)
Rgds
Madan

I really liked the fantasy version, I need to dig that out again….

-Will

Are there changes being made in the historical Warmaster games? The Warstore has some volumes as being discontinued and sold out. The new Warhammer Historicals site has a sale, which I think is for remaining copies.

Are there updates coming, or are these gone?

andy

Love the buckets of dice approach. It keeps everyone involved.

it's awsome.

I've only played it four or five times, but it was always great fun.

Because of the improvments in the Ancients rules, we play Fantasy game using the Ancients rules (with the addition of the Magic rules).

& the Fantasy rules can be downloaded for free from the GW site.

I'm a big fan of the WM engine. It's a great mass combat system.

Depends on what you are looking for.

It's a great game. There are much better simulations out there if you are looking for accuracy and detail but for a fun afternoon game it can't be beat.

BKG and CWC are variants of Warmaster which give good games

I play the Ancients version in 6mm. It is a fun game,and in that scale,it has a very "Epic" feel,with a cast of thousands.

Played Ancients and enjoyed it but it never caught on in our club.

Future War Commander is the new Sci-Fi version and good fun. Apparently many Epic armies are finding a new lease of life under FWC.

Steve P

BKC Good, Ancients not so much. I think the command system works better for WWII, but mostly I just thought the Ancients balance wasn't right and troop selectios also didn't feel right. Don't say anthing negative on the yahoo group though……they are very sensitive……

I was on the Yahoo group for a while but any suggestion that some of the stats might be wrong (for example heavy cavalry being too powerful on the short edge) was met with instant outright hostility. No dissent was tolerated except from Rick Priestley himself who was open to discussion. Nice guy, shame about the rest of the group.
And as for historical accuracy, I've found WMA to give historical results. It might get there from a 'top down' approach rather than the detail driven rules some prefer but they are accurate. I've never played a game where I've thought 'that could never happen'.
I have a few issues with the stats for some troops and base all of my cavalry on the long edge, not just the 'shock', but this is all easily remedied using the optional basing allowed in the rules as well as the options for upgrading and downgrading troops in the original rulebook.

I am a hugh fan of warmaster for both Ancients and Fantasy and have plundered many warmaster concepts for games in other periods.

Played hundreds of games of Fantasy but now switched mainly to Ancients because the rules updates which came with Ancients improve game balance and fun.

One of the greatest things going for the rules is the fact that different armies have their own flavour and work in different ways. If played well, most armies can play a good game (and win) against most other armies.

We have recently dug out our Fantasy armies again and are playing a campaign but are using the Ancient Rules with magic added. Partly because they are better rules, partly becasue my brain is too small to hold the intricacies of such similar sets (but very different in the detail) in my head at the same time.

Matt

WMF was a good set of 'Dark age'/early medieval rules. WMA cleaned it up- the 'two rounds of combat then interupt' is a good move. WMM seems to pander too much to the whiners whose favourite super-heavies don't always win.

BKC et al are illogical messes, and all copies should be burnt.

I think WMF (and the ancient and variant, I haven't tried the medieval one though) is one of the best system out there. Its mechanics are simple, subtle and elegant. They allow many tactics, give the players the feeling of the fog of war and usually always make the game exciting and decided in the last round.

Some fantasy armies seem stronger than other, but I think because they are tailored after the usual fantasy stereotypes, so they have some streght of weaknesses that derive from their background. The best example of this are the Dwarves. The army is at a disadvantage in a battle on en open plain, but if they are defending their mountains they can be rock hard.

The bucket of dice factor is not THAT high, because very often you will need to roll the dice just for few stands at a time.
The dice system though reduces the need for charts and tables to almost nothing and evens out the wheight of luck. That leave the player to concentrate on the tactical management of the game.

My Euro tuppence, Vezio

P.S.: recently I won a game Chaos vs Empire at the last turn, only because a couple of units of Marauders managed to resist two charges of the Imperial Heavy cavalry… so much for the powerfull Heavy Cavalries…

Yes – and very underrated. I prefer it to Warhammer anyday.

I really like it. Especially the Ancients version. Games are also fast. The pain is in making the armies though. Small 500 point armies wont let you do much so you'll have to go higher to around 2000 to feel the system's pros.

That's right, although I think you get the best out of the system with 3000 pts fantasy, while with the ancient 1000 pts work ok

BKC is good.
Warmaster fantasy is bad.
The command control model is wrong.

Not played ancient or medieval but lines don't work in fantasy.
Did they fix the infinite combat thing?
When it came out, heavy cav could piclk on a weak-ish unit, smash it and then roll up all the way down a line in one turn.

Yeah, AONeill, it is different in Ancients. Units can only fight two rounds of combat in any single turn and only receive a maximum of three orders per turn.

It is funny how everybody sees things differently, a while ago I asked a review of BKC and some guys told me the command system, that works well in the fantasy setting, is just not right for WWII or modern times…

Anyway, in the fantasy if you win a combat and destroy your opponent you only have one and only one more charge move (full speed if you win in the first round, half if you win in the second or later), you can probably hit a flank of a formation badly, bur it is not by no means infinite combat. That also forces, or maybe encourages, you to deploy in a deep formation and makes it risky to move your brigades: if they move too forward they risk to remain sraded in front of the enemy with no support… I think it is a nice tactical problem to consider. This is actually what I like of the system, it gives you many options and it is up to you to interpret and solve. I guess most of the games are like that, you just have to get the hang of them… to me it is harder to grasp the WHFB tactics.

Also the combat fought to resolution and the extra charge move (I can't remember the name in the rules) allow some pretty legendary moments… of course they are legendary when you are on the winning side, otherwise they're just infamous (and we all tend to blame the rules or the dice then… even myself ;) )

Warmaster Ancients fixed the problem Fantasy has/had with cavalry.

What fix is that?

Warmaster Ancients fixed the problem Fantasy has/had with cavalry.

What fix is that?

In the WM Fantasy version, all cavalry are based on the short end which gives a lot of power with minimal frontage, thus allowing you to "slam" into an infantry unit, letting all 3 of your stands attack, but only 2 infantry stands to fight back.

In WMA, they now have 2 types of cavalry. -standard and -shock. Standard cav is based on the wide side like infantry, and Shock is on the short side.

In the WM Fantasy version, all cavalry are based on the short end which gives a lot of power with minimal frontage, thus allowing you to "slam" into an infantry unit, letting all 3 of your stands attack, but only 2 infantry stands to fight back.

In WMA, they now have 2 types of cavalry. -standard and -shock. Standard cav is based on the wide side like infantry, and Shock is on the short side.

This isn't a "fix" this is an intentional part of the rules. In fantasy movies and books, a single well-timed cavalry charge (with maybe a counter-charge) will win the battle. Nearly every setting has some determined charge by one or two units that devastates and rolls up the enemy line. WM intentionally models this.

WM Ancients adds skirmishers and reduces the power of cavalry precisely because in historical settings this ISN'T the dynamic. If I were creating a Warmaster mod for George RR Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire", at the moment I would lean towards using the ancients (well, actually medieval) rules. If I were running a Tolkien game, it would use the fantasy engine.

Incidentally, notice also how characters are important in each rule set, but for vastly different reasons. In both settings they are critical for command and control, but in WM Fantasy, characters are very important in their own right, rather than just as issuers of orders. Again, intentional.

The authors have repeatedly stated that both sets of rules are intentional and are very resistant to trying to "update" WM to include the new rules they themselves wrote for ancients. Both rules accomplish their goals, and it's impressive that a few little tweaks like that can result in such a big difference.

Haven't played Fantasy in a few yers- IIRC endless charges were our main issue.

I intend to try WMA in 28mm soon using one base= 1x WMA unit and see how it works out (divides the number of stands ad dice by 3 and so gets rid one one of my groups concerns- number of dice). I have always enjoyed the unpredictability of C&C in both versions

Craig

Warmaster Fantasy is a great game, and I don't even care for fantasy games all that much. Highly reccomend it.

Warmaster (Fantasy) is an excellent set of rules. I've been playing them on and off since they first came out.

The only quibble our group has with them is the dominance of cavalry on the battlefield. Often infantry units are sent cowering in the forests and hills or they face obliteration out in the open ground. This doesn't feel right to our tastes/interpretations of how we'd like to see a fantasy battle play itself out.

With this in mind we plan on using the designer's suggestion of reducing all cav armour values by 1 point to lessen their effectiveness.

Still a great game without any changes though. Next big project for me is to base my Parthians as stand ins for the Kislev army.

:)

In some ways a bit better than Warhammer but still a step behind the DB games.

The mass die rolling got old quick. It really slows down the game as a lot of time is expended rolling and sorting through dice. Faded with most groups that tried it.

TomT

I disagree that it is "a step behind the DB games." I think if it "fades" with a group, it is more likely because of the group's familiarity and "comfort" with the DBx games and their peculiarities than anything else.

Having come to both at pretty much the same time, I find Warmaster to be more realistic and more tactically sound than the DBx games I have played.

1.) There's less "fiddliness" in the movement and range rules (if the bulk of a unit is in an enemy's flank area in WM, you attack the flank. In DBx if even a millimeter of the rear of your base is in the enemy's front, you have to attack the front; I find that both fiddly and absurd).

2.) You don't have to consult convoluted lists of exceptions based on unit types to determine what happens in combat. Move the units, roll the dice, apply the results.

3.) One bad die roll won't screw you over. Tactics and strategy are more important than luck.

4.) The odds and rules favor you getting to move a reasonable part of your army, if not the whole thing, nor are you as equally likely to move only 1 unit as you are more, as is the case with the "dice for pips" aspect of DBx. Also, there's no situation where you know your opponent will only move 6 units/brigades at maximum. So you can reasonably plan a tactical situation, but must also expect anything from your opponent. IMHO, that requires better tactical thinking from both players.

5.) Greater unit variety is possible with the WM statline than with DBx. A cavalry stand for one army is not necessarily the equivalent of a cavalry stand of another army. They can vary in attack, or hit toughness, or armor, or possibly even a unique ability (which are still kept simple). At the same time, there's very little of the "+2 for being French" "+1 for being British" aspect that I noticed in DBx.

6.) Combat bonuses/penalties are in dice, not numbers. So a bonus means an extra die, not a higher roll result. This makes it possible for a comparatively weak unit to beat the odds and defeat (even destroy) a stronger enemy. It's rare in the game (as it is in history) but it does happen (as it does in history). There's rarely a situation where one side has no chance of beating his opponent, as can happen in DBx.

What I suspect is that "old hands" at DBx games have figured out the system and know what to do, and then attempt to play Warmaster in the same way that they play DBx, and the game doesn't follow their expectations— the old tactics based on DBx's rules structure don't work.

I will agree that WM is a "slower" game than DBA (not sure about the bigger DBx games). But that's really more a factor of the tactical broadness of WM vs. DBA's limitations on movement and action. If the most you can do is move 6 units once, then your turn is going to be short. Since WM has cascading moves and combat, a player's "turn" can be of a variable length. Also, combat can result in the non-moving player to engage in tactical movement outside of his "turn—" which I personally rather like. The tactical results of combat are immediate and are followed up immediately, opening new possibilities (and even perils). Do I pursue the retreating unit and risk exposing my flank in hopes of a powerful blow? Do I advance, stand, or fall back? Nice dilemmas open up because of the fluid action in WM that simply doesn't exist in DBx.

It's not that DBx is superior or inferior— it's that it's different from Warmaster. I like Warmaster better; if you've never done either, give it a try.