[Archive] Warhammer's losing its individuality?

Archive [Archive] Wargame News and Discussion
1

Hashut’s Blessing:

Is Warhammer losing its individuality? Is it becoming ancient 40k or slightly cartoony Middle-Earth?

The new Warhammer rules have been taken largely from War fo the Ring and 40,000. don;t get me wrong, it also has a few rules that aren;t and a few that are based on it’s original self, but the randomised charge distances (which seem to be able to get to huger amounts: a flyer could go 32" for example!), as are the upgrade effects of the command models (which I like the idea of, although the application in both could be done a little better, but WH more so). Combat has become largely 40k based, since you get “a bonus” for charging, but it’s not striking first any more, combat is ALWAYS done in initiative order, unless ASF is there. You can fight in two ranks (add in horde and spears and be a high elf and it gets up to 5!), which seems closely linked and related to 40k’s method of being within 2" makes you able to attack.

Then there are the models: a lot of odd things have been brought in, one of the weirdest (and, IMO, most ridiculous) was the “clockwork horse”, which looks like a Terminator-horse to me. Empire also received a static Space Marine Whirlwind for Heaven-knows what reason and the new daemon prince is clearly a cross between the armour of the metal 40k one and the flesh of the fantasy one.

On top of all of that, 8th edition seems to be a bigger money-grabbing attempt than I first realised. The new daemon prince model is obviously a lazy way of getting a new model: it’s literally cut the two existing ones up and glue them together, then mass-produce. The rules: the game is now designed for 3,000 points games to be the average, meaning more money has to be dropped in for an average sized army (then more money than before on additional options for making the army flexible in composition). The new composition rules means that people are more likely to take characters, specials and rares (a lot of which are metals), although that’s up to individuals (but the pressure is there because they will usually be stronger armies). Then, the biggest point of all, in GW’s own words (not quoted exactly, but the intent is still there), they didn;t think new rules were necessary at all: they have said that they were quite happy with where the rules were,b ut wanted to make a new ook that expanded and covered the whole WH world. My response to that is to do one of two things: EITHER make a book that has all of that stuff in/make Black Library novels canon/both/expand BL with such books OR make a new rulebook int he way that they ahve, but with the same rules. The rules ahd a few holes, which could be filled over time, but why fix that which isn’t broken (for the most part), especially if you like it!

Sorry all, but I had to rant and wondered if anybody agreed. P.S. The examples as above aren’t all of them, but I tend to forget a lot of my rants mid-rant, lol :smiley: I do admit that some changes are good, but largely (completely), it’s been unnecessary.

2

richard barby:

its a big stap at square base k to go with 40k

3

Rhazzouth:

Will be designed for 3000 points but I remind playing in 500 pts, no one can change my preferences, no.

4

Loki:

Warhammer has lost some of its individuality but i think this is to open it up to a wider audience, not sure how it is where you are but nearly all warhammer players are 18-19 + there are no younger kids that play the games, in my local store it always been seen as more of a an adult game where as 40k is a kids game, i personally like the look of the new rules i have my first game with them tonight so this may change but at the mo i think the change has been for the best.

5

AGPO:

I’d disagree on the ‘designed for larger games’ front. The thing I really like about the new system is that whatever points cost you’re going for, it’ll still resemble a proper fighting force. I remember back in the days of 6th ed with Hordes of Chaos when the standard 2,000pt army was chariots of Tzeentch - three chariots with mark of Tzeentch got your core out of the way, Then you took a lord and two exalteds with mark of Tzeentch, mounted them in the chariots, a Dark Emissary to get a second lvl 4 and a big ass unit of screamers and furies to take out the war machines. Likewise the double steam tank and 30 basic state troops 2,000-pointer with 7th ed empire. THese types of armies are no longer viable.

Where I think they are money spinning is making small units ineffective. For those of us without much cash the small elite army was the way to go. They no longer work. Big units of Goldswords and Bestigor are out of the price limit of average Joe. More money now really does buy you a better army.

As for the rule changes, it’s a new generation of writers. I don’t like everything (nerfing the charge bugs me a lot) but other than that there doesn’t seem to be much harm done. I think 40k has grown up a tad too, which is why it seems more similar. 3rd ed 40k was basically a list writing and dice rolling contest, nowadays you actually have to think tactically and manouvre

6

Baggronor:

Its true that a lot of input has come from 40k and LoTR, but LoTR’s was always somewhere GW tested other stuff out in anyway; personally I see nothing wrong with borrowing from 40k, its a GW game after all and has decent elements.

The random charge distance is quoted by many on other forums as being ‘silly’ or ‘undermining tactics’ but in real life you don’t know how far exactly your 30 guys will run, nor does one side charge in and gain some kind of magical uber bonus for doing so. It makes it more realistic and challenging, not less. I think the new rules are a bold step in the right direction; infantry is finally competitive, cavalry is in its rightful place and the game will be better for it imo.

they didn;t think new rules were necessary at all
Necessary to continue making money? No, of course not. They could leave the rules as they are and they would still sell figures and stuff. The game is better off with 8th though and I, for one, am happy to buy a new rulebook and learn a new system for it. Its fun :slight_smile:
On top of all of that, 8th edition seems to be a bigger money-grabbing attempt than I first realised. The new daemon prince model is obviously a lazy way of getting a new model
The models aspect of GW is as lazy and corporate as ever in many places. Chaos are the one place where they could really let the designers run riot; instead we get the usual hulking, muscly dudes with spikes and a big axe. Yawn. The old Chaos models and lore was so much more imaginative. As usual though, you could always buy from someone else.
The rules: the game is now designed for 3,000 points games to be the average, meaning more money has to be dropped in for an average sized army (then more money than before on additional options for making the army flexible in composition).
Yes, its a larger sized game, same way that 6th and 7th required more models than 5th. But be honest, most of us who have a decent-sized army either have 3000pts+ or intend to collect about that much anyway. You don’t even have to use their models either, there are much cheaper options if you don’t want to pay £2 each for plastics (I know I don’t lol, thats pricier than my metal figs for crying out loud). Is it all a cynical marketing ploy? Of course, to an extent. Its also a very good game. Have we seen the marketing ploys before? Many times. Will we fall for it again? Of course, to our usual extent :slight_smile: because we like the hobby. Some people spend their money on fast cars, designer clothes, extreme sports or backpacking; we spend it on toy soldiers, which are probably still cheaper than those (maybe;P). My mate was complaining about GW’s prices too, until I pointed out he spent a fiver a day on cigarettes…
My response to that is to do one of two things: EITHER make a book that has all of that stuff in/make Black Library novels canon/both/expand BL with such books OR make a new rulebook int he way that they ahve, but with the same rules. The rules ahd a few holes, which could be filled over time, but why fix that which isn’t broken (for the most part), especially if you like it!
BL only works because it isn’t canon imo; making it canon would be an unnecessary and limiting move, I think.

As to the rules themselves, they didn’t need an update, no. But if something can be improved, then imo it should be. 7th had a lot of problems, most of which have been addressed in 8th. 8th will have its issues, which will be addressed in 9th. What’s wrong with that? :slight_smile:

One thing that does irritate me is people who whine about the cost of the rulebook, saying ‘omg £45 for a book?’. I can only assume these people never buy books, as £45 for a 500 page hardback book is nothing unusual. Plus, there is always the small version.

7

cornixt:

Is it just me who thinks that the new rules and everything is much more like a progression from 5th edition rather than 7th? Most of the models are looking like throwbacks to 3rd/4th and the fluff seems to have stalled.

The game seems so fast now. Entire units that you spent hours making are gone in a single turn of combat. Deaths are so quick, a bit too quick IMO.

8

Thommy H:

To save me typing it, I agree with everything Baggronor said.

9

Grimstonefire:

If there was one thing that really bugged me about 7th ed was that the games took too long and had (imo) elements that slowed down the game for little practical benefit. So I’m glad about many of the changes to be honest.

Fighting and firing in 2 ranks was a definite improvement imo, but only if they adjust the cost of missile troops accordingly.

I’m not sure yet about a lot of the 40k elements they brought in to be honest. Fighting in initiative order does seem at face value to be a big game of rock/paper/scissors, where it’s very hard to plan if you don’t know exactly what you will be fighting. TLOS is open to horrendous abuse, and I’m going in fear of that…

The random charging I’m torn on, as I play Dwarfs. ;). I can see that the potential for dwarfs to out charge cavalry is a strange notion, and doesn’t really fit in with my idea of how combats should be fought.

Overall I’d say that warhammer has not lost it’s individuality at all, quite the opposite infact. It’s a more strange game compared to historical gaming than it ever was previously, just for different reasons now.

10

Hashut’s Blessing:

First off, I’ve done what my aim was: to provoke discussion :wink:

As I mentioned (or meant to), I was just pointing out a few things that I’d noticed and I don’t necessarily thinkt hat they are all bad (at the very least, in theory, even if not application).

AGPO: I agree completely that it’s an excellent way of trying to avoid that style of army, but it’s only of real benefit to tournaments because you can choose to not play against people with those lists in other scenarios (usually, although I admit not always). As you’ve said: more money spent on the army produces a generally better army, although that’s been the case for a while, I feel a bit like it is more so now.

Baggronor: I agree that it’s not too bad to take ideas from the other systems, but I feel that they have taken too many ideas and dropped too many of the WH system’s style. I like that the style of the games is slightly linked, but I’d rather that they were somewhat removed still. I doubt I’m explaining myself very well, but I see that there IS a very clear difference, it’s just smaller than I’d have liked (which is still smaller than it used to be). Regarding the charge distance, I thought that it was excellent in WotR and I thought it would be good here if done in a simialr style, although charge distances are far larger: a single D6+ double your movement would be a bit more realistic and also not span quite so much of the board. A Dwarf can march 6", but when he runs at the enemy he can suddenly more than double that distance? As I said, I like the idea, I just feel the the distance (and so the application) is perhaps too extreme: in fact, a more fair version would be D6+M" and 2D6+M" for M7+ models (or something akin to that) with fast cavalry and stuff getting re-rolls…

When I said that they thinkt he rules were unnecessary, I was referring to the most recent issue of White Dwarf, where it is specifically stated that they were quite content with the rules and the ONLY reason that they made a new book was to show off more of the Warhammer World (which I’m all for), but that only affects the non-rules sections. So, rather than fixing the broken rules, they brought in a lot of new ones (some good and some not so much): here, I also admit that it fixed some of the problems (such as composition), but others seem a little arbitrary, considering they thought the rules were good as were (I think it’s in the Standard Bearer section).

I know that I can buy the models elsewhere, but some people prefer GW models or want to go to tournaments and the like. Regardless of where models are bought, it still means buying more to fit the average size game (which I imagine most people would want to do). I think it’s a brilliant tactic that GW use and I don’t feel it is underhanded because it allows veterans to buy more stuff and have reason to and it does mean that people have more models, which we all enjoy having (unlike when a new necessary item comes out that we didn’t want, but are forced to get

11

Baggronor:

Lastly, about the price of the book: I wasn't complaining about that. It's expensive for a new set of rules, but as a 528 page, hardback, full colour, large book, it seems to be about right for price (and I've had more expensive textbooks: I found one cheap and it was still £90!).
Yep, I wasn't referring to you there, HB, just that I have encountered multiple people saying that the new book is too expensive (monosyllabic teenagers usually).
To then lose 21 (from a unit of 20), as happened in WD this month, in one turn makes you feel disheartened and a little bit like asking why you bothered to paint them or even bring them off the shelf/out of the cabinet/from the case.
In that case, I do not recommend a VCs army :) My painstakingly painted Zombies are generally removed in large handfuls...
I know what you mean about the casualty ratio being hiked up in 8th though, but its not all that far from what 5th used to be like; I remember Chaos Lords removing 10+ models on their own back in the day, so I don't think its as new as it seems.
12

Swissdictator:

Granted, I never played any of the Lord of the Ring variants GW has put out.

However it feels distinct enough from 40k that I really don’t see it blending that much. No more than the historicals, fantasy, 40k, etc blend with ‘base shared concepts’.

Spears, Halberds, Greatweapons all have much more usefulness attached now. Which really, in my eyes, adds to the fantasy flavor.

13

Firehammer:

Well, I completely disagree with your theory that Warhammer is losing its individuality. I will not respond to your off topic remarks on specific models you don’t like.

1.) Warhammer is the only big fantasy battle rule set in the market, as LOTR is skirmish, WOTR is small niche (with fractions and models I am not interested in) and Rackham Confrontation/Ragnarok has crippled itself beyond repair. Warhammer now manages to set the standard even higher with new fluffy gaming tools, more GW terrain (coming some time soon and compulsory in games), more rules supporting bigger games (hordes rule) and a strong emphasis on storytelling to take advantage of the gigantic background material that no other Fantasy game has. Integrating all that, it has no serious competitor on the market.

2.) The 2+ rows fighting is nothing at all like 40k. 40k are skirmishers. Warhammer now emphasises big blocks of infantry, as it should be for a Fantasy battle. It makes fights brutal and quick. Having more heroes is fine for heroic battles, so you can have fun with those heroes even in smaller games. And you only need as much points as your enemy. While rules have some goodies for big hordes, they are also balanced for smaller games.

3.) Some things definitely improved. Big thing is scenarios, esp the ones in the back of the book. I find those old battles (run into the middle and brawl to death) boring to be honest. Adding variety was long overdue. Making magic strong but dangerous is also a nice touch of making the game an unpredictable experience. Nerfing Daemons and VC and improving Dwarfs, Ogres and hordes was an essential side product.

More than ever, Warhammer is a Fantasy battle experience, deep, unpredictable and memorable. It is storytelling with models, the aspect I like most. Never again look at the list of your opponent and know before playing that you already lost (well, almost ;)).

14

richard barby:

real big units smashing in to each other is what warhammers all about the more of that the better

but im not a fan of true line of sight and some rules irk me a bit

15

Nazhur:

Very intersting topic. I don´t have much to add as Firehammer has said very much of what i think about it all. but it´s good to bring it all up and tlak about.

Also conrixt view of your time painting models and then removing them put also a big thing into me. Because I struggle with painting. I love warhammer fluff and gaming but the painting part is hard for me. And this could in the end make it even harder. But I will try to not make it stand it the way and instead try to still make it :slight_smile: