WHGW A brief review

[Arlequín]

Please bear in mind that I am not that familiar with either WW1 or the 40k rules, so I am basing my opinions and views purely on the GW ruleset itself.

The ruleset is of the standard we have come to expect from WHH, excellent and numerous illustrations and top notch figures and terrain. The shading of the pages is reminiscient of old weathered and watermarked paper. Information panels are done in the style of telegraph messages. All of the above 'feels' right for the period. 160 pages including the usual reference sheets and templates.

As mentioned in various sources, the rules are based on the 40k system, itself derived from the classic Warhammer rules themselves. However there are several rule additions that I consider period specific and lift this set above the accusation of '40k WW1'.

The rules hint that each figure is representative of around 3 actual men, while guns and MG's etc, can be taken as representing 1-2 real items. I can't see any reason why you couldn't play this as a 1:1 game, except that you would need to extend the weapon ranges to suit. The unit sizes in the army lists while representing platoons and companies, could easily represent section and platoons.

All of the typical rules you would expect are there. Troop quality differences are represented in the most part by single point shifts on one or more factors, depending what is being represented. While Lmg's are treated as 'automatic rifles' in effect and  Grenades, Mortars and Artillery use the usual blast radius templates. Hmg's on the other hand are the dominant weapon available and I feel are well handled. Hmg's and artillery are capable of pinning units, while units have the option of 'going to ground ' (a kind of voluntary 'pinning') to minimise losses.

Normal firing and fighting aside, the game revolves around a generic scenario system that requires differing types of deployment and the fulfilling of game objectives for the opposing players. Add to this differences in troop point allowances and special conditions and you have a wide range of possible scenarios to play.

The army lists are fairly straightforward and feature Britain, France and Germany both for 1914 & 1918. The core of each army is its infantry, which are the only compulsory troops (with the exception of the British Tank Company of 1918, and Cavalry units obviously). Support weapons and vehicles are limited in number at Brigade level and Divisional support elements are tied to the number of infantry companies used.

If I have one complaint, it is that the term 'Highlander' is used to represent those units in the British list that were 'elite' in comparison to the normal troops. However, they have to be called something and the lists do specify that they represent all of the 'Guards' and 'Fusilier' and similar type units, who displayed above average ability.
There is the odd terminological faux-pas here and there, i.e. British Cavalry 'Battalions', but these don't detract from the rules imo.

Instead of the usual characters flitting around the battlefield like orphans looking for a home, 'Officers' are incorporated into command groups at Company and Battalion level. Such groups may not be specifically targeted by weapons fire and only effect those troops forming part of their unit. Sub-units must be within a certain distance  of their command group to reap the benefits of them, but need not be.

Hopefully I've covered all you need to know about these rules. Anything more complex would need to be addressed by the authors or someone more conversant with the Warhammer system. I myself will be using them for the Spanish Civil War unchanged except for vehicle stats (under these rules the FT-17 is a fast tank in comparison to its WW1 peers!) and some minor period specific house rules.   

Not being a WW1 fan, I can't compare these rules with what else is out there for the period. If you like Warhammer style games, you'll love this one though.

[Plynkes]

Yes, that Highlander thing is slightly irksome. Why call that list "Highlander" only to write underneath in small letters "We don't actually mean Highlander, we mean something else" ?

That's silly, but as you say, doesn't really detract from the game.

I notice BS is handled differently to versions of 40k I'm familiar with. In the old days you had to cross-reference your BS on a table to find out what you needed to roll to hit. Nowadays your BS is your to-hit number. That seems much more sensible to me, and I don't know why they didn't do it like that sooner. Why add an extra stage of 'looking things up' that isn't needed? So that's an improvement.

[Arlequín]

Ah... I forgot that, well spotted. 

[RJ]

Thanks for the review, very informative.

Il be picking these rules up for sure

[PeteMurray]

Interesting review - the first real depthy one I've read.

I can't say that on the face of it, there's anything there in the rules that sounds particularly appealing. The great advantage of Warhammer is that it's sort of a lingua franca rules system, but there's plenty of other systems out there that have more cunning ways to play. Take T&T for instance, with its unit-card mechanic, which requires a greater element of planning, or "This Quar's War" (which while genre-specific could easily be adapted into the Great War) with its multiple-command-phase system. Will I pick it up for the pretty pictures? Probably.

[Arlequín]

Thanks for the review, very informative.

Il be picking these rules up for sure

Your welcome.

Without sounding arrogant or offensive.... I'm not concerned whether people like these rules or not, I'm a customer like anyone else. 

It is difficult when you are miles away from a decent game shop to browse stuff. In addition there are many rule sets that we never even see for many reasons. Had it not been for the positive comments of T&T I wouldn't have even known about them, let alone bought them. So my review is sort of payback for that.

I'd appreciate it and I'm sure many others would too, that if you have a new set of rules, or even an old set, that you particularly like or hate.... speak up! You may be saving a fellow forum member money on a rubbish product, or putting someone onto a good thing. What goes around comes around too.

Obviously you don't have to write a minutely detailed review, but just saying "these rules are no good" doesn't cut it either.

Semi-rant over 

[Torben]

Nowadays your BS is your to-hit number. That seems much more sensible to me, and I don't know why they didn't do it like that sooner.

They changed the BS system? Oh my, they're altering the core now! 

Fun and games aside, I believe that the BS X - 7 table was put there on two accounts; the first being that high numbers just look good, and lower numbers are bad. I think it was a deliberate design choice so that having a BS of 5 would be the next step from awesome. The second reason was that in the olden days you would have +1/-1 modifiers for, erh, everything. And I don't think that the authors liked modifiers for die rolls? But then again, in the olden days you used the d6 for everything, except all of the fun part; like rolling for armor penetration etc.

Now, with the highjack over with, I'd better return to the regular topic:

Thanks Jim, that's a pretty good review and definately shows off the core of the game (although you missed out on the BS = to hit number ) with a few highlights etc. Capitol, sir

As for reviewing rules; I'm all for it as long as the person do attempt to be objective about it - nothing worse than coming across hate-rants for games that might actually work pretty well, but has left someone or other scorned. Like Warzone and VOID, hehe.

[Plynkes]

I like the targeting priorities, and the fact they can be overridden by a command group with a successful leadership test.

Targeting priorities are something I always feel are a good idea in principle, but get forgotten about in the heat of battle. They require a bit more discipline and presence of mind than I have. Luckily, my rules-lawyery gaming pals are always only too happy to point out all my GMing mistakes, so we are usually okay on that score.

I like T&T's take on them, where some units are always bound by targeting priority, some never are, and the ones in the middle can roll to avoid being bound by it. Unfortunately that gives me much more stuff to forget in the middle of a fight. 

[Arlequín]

Interesting review - the first real depthy one I've read.

I can't say that on the face of it, there's anything there in the rules that sounds particularly appealing. The great advantage of Warhammer is that it's sort of a lingua franca rules system, but there's plenty of other systems out there that have more cunning ways to play. Take T&T for instance, with its unit-card mechanic, which requires a greater element of planning, or "This Quar's War" (which while genre-specific could easily be adapted into the Great War) with its multiple-command-phase system. Will I pick it up for the pretty pictures? Probably.

I agree with you, but it depends what sort of game you like of course. I like T&T too, but it's a different level of game entirely. I also like Blitzkreig/Cold War commander for Brigade level games, but your troops become 'faceless masses' at that level.

I've no doubt that there exists a set of WW1 rules out there that knocks GW into a hat, but how complex the system? I like the Warhammer games for their simplicity, but I wouldn't describe them as inherently realistic. As a Battalion level skirmish set they should work fine... anything bigger and the game would really bog down, go smaller and it lacks the detail necessary and present in most skirmish rules.

The T&T initiative and order system is great imo, but imagine trying that with a couple of battalions each made up of 3 companies of 3-4 platoons! I suppose you could put your unit cards along the centre of the table and have hidden deployment 

Far from saying these are the best rules ever... I was trying to show what you get for your £20. While yourself (and I for that matter) might buy something to look at the pretty pictures, others might be disappointed at yet another GW game. The fact that they are derived from 40k is not something WH seem to want to shout about (a bit like "yes it's a naked woman, but it's art though"), but I'd be gutted if I bought them expecting something else when I didn't like the system in the first place.

Everybody

I agree and thanks anyway guys, when I've come across this forum in the past, I've often thought how positive and relaxed people are here... the sort of guys I'd like to game with. You don't seem to get this feeling of warmth elsewhere.  Just imagine I said that with a deep male voice though......

[Plynkes]

I think you don't need such ranges of ability with an historical set. I can't see anyone ever needing a BS of 10 in a great war game, so in this case the simpler system is I think better.

As you say, modifiers have gone right out the window. There are no modifiers to hit due to cover. Instead you have a saving throw based on your cover status. I prefer this, as modifiers are things I always forget to add, or I go and get the maths wrong, only to announce a turn or so later "Um, actually you should have killed four more of those guys than I said. Sorry, lads"  (or just keep it to myself and hope nobody notices).

[Arlequín]

I think you don't need such ranges of ability with an historical set. I can't see anyone ever needing a BS of 10 in a great war game, so in this case the simpler system is I think better.

As you say, modifiers have gone right out the window. There are no modifiers to hit due to cover. Instead you have a saving throw based on your cover status. I prefer this, as modifiers are things I always forget to add, or I go and get the maths wrong, only to announce a turn or so later "Um, actually you should have killed four more of those guys than I said. Sorry, lads"  (or just keep it to myself and hope nobody notices).

More complicated rules drew the 'rule lawyers' out the woodwork too... you could lose a game through not memorising 'rule 6.m paragraph XXXIV' like your opponent, rather than being a bad tactician or just plain unlucky with your dice rolls. Personally I like to play the game rather than eke every advantage the rule set gives me.

Please don't think I'm bitter about starting my gaming life with WRG 6th Edition though 

[PeteMurray]

Jim, I actually prefer the smaller size of the T&T games. I like small. Small is good. Small lets you do more and different units, rather than buying your Nth squad of regular vanilla riflemen for an existing force to make it rules-ready, when by that point my attention has wandered and I really want to paint something else.

I really, really, really like the Blitzkrieg/Cold War Commander/Warmaster mechanic. For faceless army scale, it's fantastic. It has both tension and simplicity. There is nothing like having a unit fail to activate at the key moment, or having a run of good activations and sweeping the table before you.

I suppose if I were going to go to the battalion level, I'd just as soon drop out of the 28mm skirmish world and go to the unit command system world of 10mm. Horses for courses.

I'd really like to make jokes about Great War Wargear, though.

The Blue Max: This medallion is wrought from Prussian iron and gilded with rarest gold. The wearer may ignore any psychic attacks that would suggest he is insufficiently Teutonic.

Bolo Knife of Henry Johnson: This blade is infused with the manic energy of Harlem Jazz. Once per game the wielder may become frenzied, but only if he is out of ammo.

[meninobesta]

Jim, I actually prefer the smaller size of the T&T games. I like small. Small is good. Small lets you do more and different units, rather than buying your Nth squad of regular vanilla riflemen for an existing force to make it rules-ready, when by that point my attention has wandered and I really want to paint something else.

that's the main reason why I won't be playing this rules! if they've made a system like "legends of the.." for the old trench fight with shovels and grenades, then they would have a player!

[twrchtrwyth]

Thanks for your review.

[Arlequín]

All the stuff Pete said....

Scale is a toughie.... You can't beat 28mm imo, but as you say the last thing you want is to have loads of them. The time and extra effort that goes into them is lost in big battles. You may as well play in 10mm or 6mm, whatever. The smaller scales look better on masse, the battles look bigger altogether.

In an ideal world, I'd have 28mm for skirmish games, bigger battles in 15mm or perhaps 10mm, all in the same periods I like.

Skirmish gaming allows a certain degree of role-playing that has always attracted me, I like a story behind my units and some degree of personalisation. You lose that in big games.

Just for you;

Colonel Blimp's Swagger Stick While carrying his cane, Colonel Blimp is impervious to harm. Any hits on his command group never effect him, even when all the group has been hit, further casualties are removed from the nearest friendly unit, even if it is in cover or 'gone to ground'.

The Colonel will never take cover nor 'go to ground' and is oblivious to the the fact that he is both drawing enemy fire and causing additional casualties to his troops by standing tall and facing the hun like a man should.