"warhammer fantasy battles dissapointment" Topic

Today our group had a game of WHFB 8th ed. Some of our group are 40K players whilst others including me are historical players. Since we heard the system of the Old World has been scrapped by GW, it naturally perked our old school tendencies to then start collecting that stuff. I along with others were disappointed in these rules and feel they didn't meet with the decades old masterpiece that many feel is the "Old World" of Warhammer. Can this be the game system that has been around for 30 plus years, seems odd? I wonder if there is anyone out there who likes the Warhammer Fantasy genre but plays with other rules that offer a bit more streamlined and plausible play with a focus on the historical side of this with limited magic and monsters. I hear Kings of War is held in good regard? Other systems? Oldhammer 3rd ed seems to be talked about in this light but at the same time is self-admitedly even more complex I hear/am told.

Armies of Arcana was created to be an improved WHFB. DIY design section. Loads of army list including Greeks and Romans. No codex books ever needed. Outstanding set of mass battle fantasy rules.

AoA is an improved first cousin of Warhammer. If you are fine with the basic design principles of Warhammer but think the rules could have been written better and cleaned up, then AoA is worth looking at.

Kings of War is a simplified evolution of Warhammer--much is streamlined in how combat and spells are done, and combat results are not individual figure casualty removal, but unit losses acting as negative modifiers with morale tests. KoW is probably too simplistic and bland for many, but it is a clean system for those who just want to push their painted figures around for two hours then get a beer.

I use One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas. I added some fantasy troop types and have had a blast ever since. Age of Sigmar reignited my love of the Old World and I have started buying GW models weekly. I took my old ones out of the closet, dusted them off and began rebasing for OHW. I now have several 28mm Warhammer armies and have set a goal to have one for each Old World faction. Since I am keeping my armies smaller this has freed up plenty of minis to still play Age of Sigmar which I like the game but am not too big on their setting yet.

Here is my skaven army that I recently rebased for One Hour-Hammer. Yes it still needs flocking and there are a few more units I want to add.

OHW Orc Army in progress.

Here are the first units for my 10mm Warmaster Chaos Army.

Wow, thank you I love Neil Thomas, people think his rules are too simple, no, just brilliant and sophisticated. Hard to master especially his ancient set! I wonder if you could give some pointers on how you've created troop types and stats for them?

Also, how can Age of Sigmar ignite love of Old World? I have not read those books as they seem without story line and depth and taking place in weird crossover universe akin to 40K and space marines? I am interested to know if perhaps all the haters of AOS could have got it wrong.

I think much of the Age of Sigmar hate is more about the change away from being Warhammer Fantasy Battles than a critique of AoS as a system in and of itself. Other than a few goofy special unit rules, the AoS system is a pretty decent single-figure skirmish/large skirmish system. Its flaw is that it is not a mass battles system, like the one it replaces.

The think is that sixth or seventh edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle were decent. I liked sixth a bit better but seventh did tone down Fear quite a bit.

Eighth was a disaster. Some people love it and it did make some good changes but it complicated the turn sequence a great deal and shifted the focus of the game to deathstar mega units while losing much of the tactical depth the game had previously.

Eighth is where I got off. Now if you want a game dominated by monsters and giant units of super powered troops where spending more money is the best way to ensure a win eighth might be for you. To each his own and all that.

AoS simply rekindled my interest in Warhammer. As I said I am not fond of the new setting just yet but I really like what they have done rules wise.

For my One Hour Hammer I wrote up rough drafts for each army faction. Assigned similar stats for the role a unit plays based on his OHW counterpart. Then added things like magic and a few special rules.

Would you like me to post a link to the army books/mods I write once I am done?

That would be Great Brigadier General, I love NT, but am curious as to why not use his medieval rules. They are a little more sophisticated in my view. I also am glad that GW simplified the system totally and drastically and no more points, etc. No offense meant, but this will wipe out tournament players mindsets which needed wiping out. It has been the thing holding back this genre of gaming for ages, trying to play the rules and use layers of modifiers and special rules to get pre set mathematical advantages and then play only or mostly to win that is.

Sixth edition also had problems, as did all of these sets I'm now finding out from talking to other people who have played various editions in past.

Game on Saturday was Empire vs. Wood Evles
Game Summary:
Setup of game went okay and wood elf player suggested that empire side put in tower or something to defend. Empire player agreed as it was chance to use another terrain piece.
Game starts, and empire army has to cover 24 inches to get to grips with elves. This will take 6 turns. Game is only six turns…wood elf player backs up two inches per turn just in range to shoot longbows and fires at empire for a few turns and then decides to use tower he suggested be setup against empire which is something allowed in rules(elves to use terrain against opponent).
Empire player got disgusted at turn 4 after seeing no chance to inflict a casualty and no combat and silly situation and went home with his army in disgust.

This was a real disappointment.

I do use the medieval rules and the ancients, dark ages and pike rules too to give the units needed. Example Empire Pistoliers come from the pike rules. But also let me state I am writing for my own gaming pleasure. I am almost finished with the Skaven module. I will post a drop box link tomorrow and add to the AMW yahoo group files too.

Thanks for your help on this, great stuff

Thanks for reminding me about armies of arcana . One of the best ,if not the best alternative to WFB.

The Skaven Module Ver 1 is done and can be seen here: link

8th Edition was overall the worst edition of WFB and eventually lead to its demise (ironically it had some of the best archery rules but terrible close combat rules).

The basic warhammer system has never been that elegant. From a game design perspective Hordes of the Things is vastly superior (esp if you want historical flavor) but for various odd reasons the system is too generic for a full flavored fantasy setting and due to the influence of some "old timers" we have had trouble getting the author to expand the system.

AoA is worth a look; Kings of War is a bit simple for my tastes but worth a try.

Many of the warhammer knockoffs just repeat its mistakes; bout time for a really good army level fantasy system.

TomT

HoTT rewritten to be more than merely a variant of DBA, expanding the troop types a bit and greatly expanding the magic system, could be a big hit. I think Phil, Sue, et al., are missing a great opportunity by not having a HoTT 3.0 companion book published to match with the new 3.0 book.

Check out Mayhem. It's completely customizable and the Armies of Mayhem BattleScribe files features lists with unique unit builds and army special rules that work really well with the Warhammer universe.

You can see some great battle reports ‌here to get an idea of how the system plays.

I prefer Warhammer 6th. If played thematically rather than win at all costs, it gives a good game. AoA is good but, for myself and my group, felt more like a dark age scrum rather than a fantasy battle. Funnily enough, I eagerly await Dragon Rampant, the fantasy version of Lion Rampant…

Mayhem seems after first read to be more grand tactical maybe?

After playing sixth again, I think it works for what it intends, but leaves me wanting some different sort of feel. I just think it's very much missing some things about how real armies would function in terms of occupying space and movement. For example, archers deploy in single rank and then take up tons of space on the field which is all out of proportion to the table. There is really no command rules. The continuous break/panic tests seem anachronistic and very lethal if someone breaks and gets overrun. Movment is too slow compared to the power of shooting and missile fire depletes units too quickly before they can get to grips. Cavalry with warhorses gets two attacks against solid infantry and can then easily break through. I could go on and on. In 3rd, at least there is the interesting reserves rule and push backs and continued combat but 3rd seems a bit complex and some things in it are dated. I've not played 8th but a friend said infantry is too powerful and terrain becomes weird also too many powerful monsters.
Take note: when reading Empire at War, each battle is discussed as being a result of the tactics and generalship and deployment of troops. This is what WFB should attempt to emulate, battles that play out like written accounts of "real" battles in Empire at War which is a brilliant book by the way.

Mayhem seems after first read to be more grand tactical maybe?

Depending on the miniature scale and army size, it could be played at the grand tactical level. There are definitely elements of command and control and resource management that could make it seem to lean that way on first read. If you look at some of the battle reports in the links above though, I think you'll find that most of those games are at what I would consider to be mass battle level [depending on your definition of course!].