Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: ogryn on 17 April 2012, 04:59:52 PM
-
Ok
There seems to be a cult around here pushing the awesomeness of 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
I started in that edition and have fond memories of it and See the value in it. BUT..... why play it?
If i remember correctly is very clunky and cumbersome to play? Sell me on playing it and joining this cult.
I have a friend who will jump in with his eyes closed if i even suggest we play this edition.
Do things get smoother as you learn more? Do you guys modify anything?
I know the army lists (and monsters) are the best part of that edition. What else.
Any tips?
And what sources will i need. I have rulebooks, seige book and armies book. Anything else useful?
(and i do not think it will take much convincing to push me into this cult........)
-
Come in the water's lovely!
For me its mainly about the minis, the memories, changing/bodging/making up new rules as you see fit, coming up with daft and completely imbalanced scenarios that play out as desperate last stands, daring raids, etc...
... like these
http://warhammerforadults.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/battle-report-its-fun-to-slay-at-wyemm.html
http://warhammerforadults.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/battle-report-shadow-of-koles-lorr-meet.html
http://nico-realmsofchaos.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/clash-of-evil.html
http://teasgettingcold.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/impasse-at-ortar-pass.html
http://teasgettingcold.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/keeping-wolf-from-door.html
These chaps have put it more eloquently than me :D -
http://realmofzhu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/oldhammer-contract.html
http://warhammerforadults.blogspot.co.uk/p/why-is-it-called-warhammer-for-adults.html
So now we're a cult do we get cool robes and stuff... >:D :D
-
Hmm, with the 1st and 3rd editions being the only ones I know nothing about this should be interesting, though I never actually played 2nd edition I've got the books somewhere handed down from my uncle and I always enjoyed reading them as a kid.
I didn't realise there was such interest in 3rd, recently I was thinking about asking friends if they wanted to have a go at playing some older editions (4-6th) but I'm happy to educate myself a little about 3rd too.
-
The charm about 3rd editionis the RPG like way it plays.
The gamemaster who can stirr things up a bit and such.
Plus the old figs were so full of character.
Play it ones and you'll get hooked, thrust me!
Nightmask
-
I just recently managed to pick a copy for 99p on eBay and it's probably the best bargain I've seen. I started playing around 4th but I must say that the 3rd Edition book is fab.
Yes the rules may be clunky but it has, as has already been mentioned, a more rpg like feel. The book is very similar in style to the RogueTrader rules and WFRP books.
Personally I like the 'old skool' ideas and playing lv15 Wizards and the warband-esque lists. I'm really looking forward in getting some models and a scenario together to play at the local club.
-
There are some people over my way who are doing forces for this edition.Must resist.
-
I have the book also and the reason I like the game is exactly what the others said, the RPG feel to it. Right now I got too many projects to even think of playong this..sadly. But I warmly recommend it
-
I would defenitly say that 8th ed is way more playable in a short amount of time, however it definitely misses the RPG vibe of 3rd ed. Pure Nostalgia also always helps a lot as well...
I won't be saying if 8th or 3rd edition is the best, both are doing a good job at what they are written for. I mainly play 8th since it's easier to find opponnent, but I would love to play 3rd if only because I notice that I start caring less and less about winning and more about the storyline :)
-
That is exactly the difference in my mind...3rd edition was about having fun, telling a
Story, and flexibility....4th edition on are about fast play and tournament style
Rules and regulations.
I also really appreciate that combat has more of the grinding feel to it in 3e... You don't start taking rout tests until you have lost more than 25% of your unit strength...this gave larger units some staying power. Also you don't have a unit being automatically destroyed if a
Pursuer catches up with it after a rout... You actually still have to
Cut down your enemy....free hack! There are a number of special formations you can employ that disappeared in later additions... Like Sheildwall. These add some interesting flavor to the game IMO.
The rules are a little more cumbersome....but when your playing for fun and telling a story who cares.
That's all ihave time to add now....more later.
Cheers,
Blue
-
I :-* :-* :-* everything about GW late eighties. Except the rules. When I do D&D I do it with the old rules but I have no such desire at all when it comes to Warhammer. I started minis on Rogue Trader and WFB 3e but when I get come down off my D&D high and get back to Citadel I'll be going entirely in a new direction rules wise. It's a lot of things that kill it for me but a points based system for starters. That's a deal-killer for me right there and pardon the synecdoche but "where it all went wrong."
IMHO. :)
-
I too think its slightly odd, as a lot of the points people say they like about 3rd are actually more true of 2nd, in particular the issue of openness and the rpg quality, so I guess it more depends on when you first fell in love with the hobby. I actually find 3rd a bit too restrictive, and it has an underlying formality that comes from the focus on manoeuvring armies according to a classical model, but that's just me :-)
It represents the point where the writers started to recognise the relevance of tournaments over casual play, and of army lists as a means of shaping a collection and driving sales. Ironically, a lot of people are quite offended by such notions today!
Having said that, I've been tempted to buy a load of Gripping Beast plastic Vikings and use the Norse list that was published in White Dwarf around that time, so if anyone in Notts wants to join in just give me a shout ;)
-
Having said that, I've been tempted to buy a load of Gripping Beast plastic Vikings and use the Norse list that was published in White Dwarf around that time, so if anyone in Notts wants to join in just give me a shout ;)
O If you have the time could make a copy/scan of that army list or any other you might have?
I only have the ones from the Armies book.
Nightmask
-
O If you have the time could make a copy/scan of that army list or any other you might have?
I only have the ones from the Armies book.
good question! Is it a list for 3rd or 2nd edition and in would you know in which WD it is? I'm actually also painting up some grpping beast plastics for the same reason, but was planning to use them as an allied force, as described in the 3rd ed armies book.
I :-* :-* :-* everything about GW late eighties. Except the rules. When I do D&D I do it with the old rules but I have no such desire at all when it comes to Warhammer. I started minis on Rogue Trader and WFB 3e
Funny that you mention rogue trader. I wanted to mention on my post as well that I have the same feeling with rogue trader and 2nd ed. compared to the current (5th?) edition as I have with current warhammer compared to 3rd ed. Only when we once went back to 2nd ed. 40k (due to nostalgic reasons) we only had to play a few games to find out that it was a great skirmish/story driven rule set, but not that playable with big armies...
-
Andy, I think it's a little odd too.
I can understand the nostalgic kick one may get out of it. The same reason I refuse to 'update' my Dwarf army for warhammer (mine are all puffy sleeves marauder miniatures).
Fair enough, however, coming into it with no experience of playing it myself sounds like hell!
I have the same thing with Flintloque, I really like the 1st ed rules, even if there are lots of gaps you had to fill in yourself, you had to have 3 people to play even the smallest game! I never used the pre-determined action rules, preferring the initiative rules in Orcs in the Hills Magazine.
That said, DRESDA is a fantastic set of Skirmish Fantasy rules... Mac wrote them with 3d simplistic roleplaying in mind...
-
Fair enough, however, coming into it with no experience of playing it myself sounds like hell!
Why? its no more confusing than any other set of rules. It leaves room for interpretation and the use of house rules...and encourages using a GM to guide things along and smooth out the bumps one may encounter. its a wonderful system.
And its really only restrictive if you use the Army book for lists...if you don't want to do that...than don't...I used to use them but as Ive gotten back into it I actually prefer the open ended unit creation...like if I want +2 shock elite goblins than I should be able to have them!
Cheers,
Blue
-
To me it is nostalgia, nothing wrong with that. A fair bit of useless chaff was removed from the rules when 4th came out and I have no problem playing that version or even 5th but it will admit that latter editions leave me cold.
I didn't always see it thus, I only really gave up 3rd as my first go to war hammer in early 2000s when a guy at my club convinced me to take the plunge with 5th. It was faster and more people played it. I played 3rd maybe once or twice a year since then but usually my heavily house ruled version, taking bits from other editions and other bits from my own experience. I played a game recently using near enough the original rules and it wasn't so clunky as I remembered.
Of course the other thing people like is the imagery of the books the adult themes and the humour, for all it's rules 3rd dosen't take itself seriously. None of these things are fixed to the rules but they did come along for the ride and so naturally to us 3rdies they are part of the appeal. That and the nostalgic joy of finally owning and painting all the minis we always wanted and the rule books we missed the first time round. It is not coincidence we are almost all mid to late 30's.
-
To me it is nostalgia, nothing wrong with that. A fair bit of useless chaff was removed from the rules when 4th came out and I have no problem playing that version or even 5th but it will admit that latter editions leave me cold.
I didn't always see it thus, I only really gave up 3rd as my first go to war hammer in early 2000s when a guy at my club convinced me to take the plunge with 5th. It was faster and more people played it. I played 3rd maybe once or twice a year since then but usually my heavily house ruled version, taking bits from other editions and other bits from my own experience. I played a game recently using near enough the original rules and it wasn't so clunky as I remembered.
Of course the other thing people like is the imagery of the books the adult themes and the humour, for all it's rules 3rd dosen't take itself seriously. None of these things are fixed to the rules but they did come along for the ride and so naturally to us 3rdies they are part of the appeal. That and the nostalgic joy of finally owning and painting all the minis we always wanted and the rule books we missed the first time round. It is not coincidence we are almost all mid to late 30's.
Well said. I second it!
Nightmask
-
I guess this whole oldhammer (http://realmofzhu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/oldhammer-contract.html) thing (Of which 3rd edition is the poster child) needs to be seen in the context of newhammer. For me, oldhammer is really representative of 1st, 2nd and 3rd, with 4th ed. onwards representing newhammer. The biggest distinction of the shift between old and newhammer would be the considerable simplication (note - I didn't say dumbing down - I get why rules are simplified) of the rules, and the good-for-business-but-bad-for-game-design approach of releasing separate army books for each race.
So lets start with Newhammer. I bought into 8th ed. I have the ruleset here, I bought the magic cards. In fact, one of the biggest things that I liked about it was the amount of inspiration it drew from 3rd. In hindsight, it wasn't a lot - but it was more than any other edition since 3rd. At least they looked at 3rd for some ideas.
I got excited like everyone else and off we all went and played some games. That's when I became aware of what to me felt wrong. Its been wrong with the previous editions as well, but it just hit home in 8th. It was the terrain generation thing. Its not the only thing that was wrong, but it was the thing that made me sit up and take notice:
I've seen tables where a small town house sits on a hill, flanked by a forest. Sounds normal? sure. But the forest eats children. And 50 paces away from the house is a dilapidated chaos temple. If you go and stand there when the moon is full, you will be possessed by a daemon and your head will explode. Just west of the temple is a river of light. Don't go too close to that, kids, it shoots lightning bolts. Fortunately, there is a bridge over the river, which is how you get to the dwarf brewery, which is surrounded by haunted walls. Here's my question - how cheap is the rent on the townhouse that some schmuck from the Empire actually lives there? What did the estate agent actually say that convinced Hans Von Bloodskullspikenstein (the village baker) that this was a good place to live? Is this really what the magical landscape of the old world looks like?
Fundamentally, the whole thing doesn't make sense. But that's okay, right, because I could just suggest that we forgo the terrain generation thing, and lay the scenery out in a mutually agreeable fashion, or get a 3rd party (with a brain) to set the scenery up so that it makes sense, right?
And that's where you slam into the Newhammer tournament mentality. I have never successfully convinced anyone 'just' to lay out the scenery. Players will not budge on this, because its not representative of tournaments. The table described above is tournament legal, so its okay - I don't know why there is a chaos temple in the guys back yard - there just is, so can we start playing already? This type of thinking carries on into other areas.
Here's another story: I like playing with painted figures, so I did the honourable thing - I only brought painted figures. In my case, they were high elves and I could only scrape 1000 points of them. I didn't have a wizard either (What - WTF? This is WFB8 man - gotta have a wizard!!), so I played without. What I thought was, I would challenge other players that they could bring whatever army they wanted (at any points size) and I would play a scenario where I had to defend a bridge or something. First question from my opponent - are you sure you can't make 2000 points? Second question - can I drop my army to 1000 points? - that way its fair.
The player completely missed the point of the thing. The fact that he and I knew I would be massacred by his army meant that this game was no longer a suitable tournament fitting challenge for him. Essentially, that is because he was practising for tournaments, and this was no longer a good practise game for him. In fact, all of my warhammer 8 (and 7th and most of 6th ed) games were all practise sessions for tournaments.
Its the difference between playing tennis because you like playing tennis and playing tennis so that you can be better at it, so that you can play in a better league at the club.
So, a long rant about newhammer and newhammer players. The rant was important, though, because it goes a long way to describing how the ruleset affects the players. Because the players are so hell bent on being tournament ready, they relinquish common sense, narrative and, in most cases, fun, so that they can win. And the point that I'm trying to get to is that the (tournament primed) ruleset encourages this.
Now lets talk about oldhammer (and mainly 3rd edition)
3rd ed is clunky. There are hundreds and hundreds of rules. its almost as if the designers just brain dumped every fantasy thing they could think of into the rules. Did you know that when a troll wears armour, it can't regenerate? There's a rule for that. Just in case, you see. That thing about beasts being afraid of fire in 8th ed? That's from 3rd ed, except it was wolves, specifically, that were afraid of fire. There is a spell just to open a door. Very handy for Hans when he's trying to get away from possessed ghosts around the brewery, if only it was available in his edition of Warhammer.
But - surprisingly, having all these rules is actually an enabler. Suddenly, players are thinking about all sorts of eventualities. They're not game changers, but they just add a little flavour. Also, the little rules add slight tactical nuances to the game.
In the game Blue and I played recently (http://warhammerforadults.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/battle-report-shadow-of-koles-lorr.html), Blue was stung by the fact that figures riding giant boars suffer a -1 penalty to their leadership, because they are so difficult to control. Blue's general was on a boar. He was immediately challenged with having a good leader vs. a mobile leader. Clunky? Yes. Flavoursome? Yes. Necessary? No.
Players are doing exactly what Erny described - every game. They apply house rules on the spot, they discuss, they change, they try to chase down the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law (just have a look at any warhammer forum for thoughts on the letter of the law...)
So the 3rd ed rulebooks (and especially the Realm of Chaos suppliments) have a very toolbox sort of feel to them. Here are lots and lots and lots of ideas, ostensibly presented as rules, but they're very much take-it-or-leave-it in their approach. You have to work together with your opponent in order to get through the game.
Newhammer can be treated in exactly the same way, but by having such streamlined rules, the potential for new ideas and cute in game idiosynchrasies (which are very real on the battlefield) is just not there, leaving unimaginative players with nothing other other unimaginative players, who collaborate with each other's (apostrophe challenge! Did I do it right?) lack of imagination by falling back into silly terrain generation tables and carefully prepared, but ultimately repeatable and predictable in-book scenarios.
In Newhammer's (8th ed this time) defense, they did add a section about having a Games Master and they even tried to show how a game might be different when using one. They also went further when showing that huge mega battle, where they didn't use points for the some parts of the armies described - or even units from the existing army books (Chaos knights on Juggernaughts of Khorne - that is, like, so illegal!).
Good luck at finding any Newhammer players that let you do that. I know they're out there, but they are few and far between.
...and if you do, I'll bet you're looking at an Oldhammer player anyway.
So maybe the best analogy I can throw at it is that its the difference between cheap Tesco cider and a fine whisky. Any schmuck can appreciate some cider in the park with his mates, but its only a mature taste that can appreciate the whisky.
-
"Hear Hear"
Especially the Whisky part ;)
Nightmask
-
I have third, but never read it (stuck in second) perhaps I should...
-
Of course the other thing people like is the imagery of the books the adult themes and the humour, for all it's rules 3rd dosen't take itself seriously. None of these things are fixed to the rules but they did come along for the ride and so naturally to us 3rdies they are part of the appeal. That and the nostalgic joy of finally owning and painting all the minis we always wanted and the rule books we missed the first time round. It is not coincidence we are almost all mid to late 30's.
Quite right, I also prefer the Old Old World (as in the WFRP) another book I am tying to get the minis from....
-
I am not an original 3rd edition player, BUT I am a big fan of the background. (I do like the miniatures but have decided to go for a slightly cheaper option). When I paint a figure or make terrain I am thinking of the background from the 3rd edition and 1st edition WFRP books. I won't go any deeper into my appreciation as I may get weird looks for my 'borrowed nostalgia'.
-
A very well made argument. I was with you until you said...
... And the point that I'm trying to get to is that the (tournament primed) ruleset encourages this.
It's really not 'tournament primed' (I was in the design meetings so I say that with certainty) The writers just want you to have fun, but you're spot on with the idea that many people treat the average game like a practise for a competitive event. There's certainly some cognitive dissonance going on there, and there are some quite complex, historical as well as cultural reasons for that.
Regards
-
A very well made argument. I was with you until you said...
It's really not 'tournament primed' (I was in the design meetings so I say that with certainty) The writers just want you to have fun, but you're spot on with the idea that many people treat the average game like a practise for a competitive event. There's certainly some cognitive dissonance going on there, and there are some quite complex, historical as well as cultural reasons for that.
Regards
Very good point by both of you. I can only fully agree that it is not the rules of the game but the players that have made it more a tournament game. Not so long ago I played an 8th ed. battle with a friend for which we used the "Slaves to Darkness" and "Storm of Chaos" books as background for putting our armies together and giving a multitude of mutations to our armies. As long as you care more for the story, then for winning the game, 8th ed is doing a very good job. Sadly, a lot of (tournament minded) players have a great difficulty changing their mind-set to this (been there, done that as well). The most interesting thing I do notice is that as soon as you reach a certain quality level of a player, they stop caring more about winning and start liking the story more. I often feel that it mostly are the people that don't seem to win games and hunt on the internet for the best combination to use on tournaments to give a lot of us the feeling that 8th is not a nice game. It's more the players that make the ambience, not the rules...
I actually do like 8th edition a lot for how easy it plays. The only part I don't care that much for is all the funky terrain, of which I'd rather maybe use one piece on a table as an objective instead of being standard... 3rd ed and WAB 2.0 on the other hand I like for their more complex nature. But I digress, let's just leave it here lol
-
Actually, Andy - I think you're right. That was a bit unfair on the designers (not just saying that 'cos you were there either). I suppose most of their demand comes from the tournament sector, but that's not necessarily how they designed the game. The problem most definitely is cultural. I just don't think GW does enough to change that. Again, thinking about that, I suppose there is no need - tournament thinking is good for business, but that's not the designers fault or problem. And at least they tried to include some narrative in there with that big battle at the back and the games mastered game described.
Considering specific things that make 3rd a great system, I have to add these two things:
The Reserves phase - this is a 2nd movement phase at the end of a player turn, which was replaced by the march move in Newhammer. I think this was a game changer, because to me it removed 'reactive' movement - a chance for a player to redress his ranks and prepare his side for the opponents turn. The march move puts the speed element in it, but only allows for 'predictive' movement - leaving the player no chance to prepare if the round didn't go according to plan. To me, this restricts manoeuvring - why would anyone deploy two units behind each other if they know they can't get the 1st one out of the way if necessary? In most of my 8th ed games, the formation an army is deployed in is the formation it stays in, which is sometimes a bit limiting.
The magic phase - Magic is dramatically different in Oldhammer. Firstly, a wizard can only cast one spell a turn. So half hour long magic phases are not nearly as common as in Newhammer. Secondly, there is a reward for bringing senior wizards - they get access to different spells. In newhammer, the only reason to bring a senior wizard is to get access to more dice. A level 1 wizard is as dangerous as a level 4 wizard once the spell gets off, which just seems such a wasted opportunity. Also, there are much more tactical spells available in 3rd. Its not about deleting units (although that is possible) with powerful fireballs and suchlike (vortex of chaos, anyone? wind of death?), but using poisonous clouds and illusions and wind blasts to change the shape of events tactically, leading the wizard to become a supporting unit, as opposed to a game winner.
Anyway, my two cents...
-
So far as I recall, the reason the Reserves phase was rolled up into a march move was simply that most players made a double move for convenience sake, to the point this just became the standard way many people did it. You're right in that it makes the game less reactive.
On the magic, you just gave me a horrifying thought - can you imagine 2nd/3rd ed style Elementals being summoned and then breaking down into smaller versions of themselves in the modern game? I'd love that personally, but that's just me ;)
-
My enjoyment of 2nd/3rd edition WFB probably isn't nostalgia because I only first looked at the rules last Spring. Prior to that I'd only ever played Rogue Trader and various spinoffs such as Necromunda. I'm a fan of WFRP though.
The only fantasy mass-battle game I'd played prior was Fantasy Rules!... which was great fun, but mostly I've played skirmish games (IMO Rogue Trader is a skirmish game). So WFB 2/3 was mostlykinda a new thing... but I've really been enjoying it. A LOT.
I like how much personality you can put into your forces and battles... how much story gets in there. How it drives away the sorts of people who flock with the 'tournament' mindset. I love the endorsement of the DIY approach to the games (as mentioned this is even stronger in 2nd).
The painting and modeling has been a challenge because I'm not used to putting a big cohesive force on the table... so I'm still missing a good number of rabble troops... such as chaos thugs and skeletons and zombies. But the cool thing is that the rules seem fine with mixing in various factions that wouldn't be allowed to fraternize in later editions. So my Chaos forces can have a Skaven contingent and my Bretonnian army will have undead allies. I can stat up and use just about any fantasy miniature I've acquired over the years.
My only real 'issue' with it is that it's a bit more of a time investment to get people together to set up a game than something like Confrontation or Song Of Blades And Heroes... getting (at least) 2 people who can spend an afternoon (the SAME afternoon) together has always been a trick... but we've managed it for years with RPGs so it's not impossible.
-
But the cool thing is that the rules seem fine with mixing in various factions that wouldn't be allowed to fraternize in later editions. So my Chaos forces can have a Skaven contingent and my Bretonnian army will have undead allies. I can stat up and use just about any fantasy miniature I've acquired over the years.
Funnily enough, that sort of madness is right back with the recent Storm of Magic supplement - it draws very heavily on the old idea of taking allies and monstrous/ethereal hosts etc and combining stuff in all sorts of ways. Again, not appropriate for competitive gaming at all, but the sort of game I personally love.
-
I think people need to keep in mind that GW is a business. Not only a business...a public company. And therefore it is "only" beholden to its share holders & ever increasing profit targets.
That's what inevitably (and regretfully i might add) happens to most hobby business ventures. They either evolve from an original idea with heaps of character into a dumbed down, glossy version of is former self so that it appeals to a larger audience. That's what the masses want and it makes GW a lot of money. Or they start out as the previous example, but aren't "good" enough (in public interest/content or both) to generate an income stream that they desire.
And the former is what happened at GW, the crew who brought us old school RT, WFB, ROC, Armies, Siege....they decided somewhere along the line that what they had created wasn't earning them enough money, hence going public. And for some in the business i feel that they saw what they had made was nothing more than a vehicle for wealth creation. Those that thought otherwise left the company.
But in saying this, i think we need to remember that its just a game, old school rule books are still with us and if we want to play the old rules we still can. GW can't erase the old system so just play what you like.
My two cents.
-
I think my take is that the older the rule book the slower the game and the more extra things you need to roll for / consider in your games and the less models you can use without going insane.
Try chucking a hallucination grenade (or whatever it was called) at a unit of guardsmen... or keep track of your mad boyz. lol
But still I think the old GW rules are good fun but horribly sluggishly slow game play often.
-
Yeah, force size being equal the older editions are slower to play... but for some folks, like me, that is a decent trade-off for the extras they bring.
I like rules with atmosphere/character/story and it takes a while to collect the miniatures/paint them/make terrain/set up a table... so I don't much mind savoring the game for a while longer after all that work.
If I want a faster game I'll play a small skirmish game like Song Of Blades And Heroes.
-
Oh dear, I appear to have just bought a near-mint hardback copy of the third edition rules from the ebay. Time to start rebasing all my old citadel Undead methinks (and, erm, actually painting them too)...
-
It's a wonderful book, sure to fire your imagination.