Why Warhammer is p***ing me off

[AgentP]

I czar'ed game night last night, and hung out.  I love coming to game night, and talking with folks and watching the games.  I enjoy everyone who plays Warhammer, all excellent people.  But honestly, I'm deriving less and less enjoyment from actually playing Warhammer.  Somethings about the game just make no sense to me.  Maybe I'm dumb (entirely possible), but I just don't "get" certain things.  Here is my list of grudges:

 

1. The rules are too complex, and not centrally contained.  In literally every single game at OFCC someone did something and I didn't question it, only to have someone later tell me "they can't do that because XYZ."  Then at least a couple times, someone later corrected that person saying, "No, actually it's ZYX"  I feel that every time I play the rules change and someone tells me that in fact how someone else played me last week was wrong, or there is a new FAQ, or they have the e-book so it's been updated, etc.  I suppose the only choice is to literally stop and read the book time and time again in each game, turning a 1 hour game into a three hour game.

 

2. Points levels.  Certain armies simply do not work at certain points levels, period.  And conversely, certain armies do not scale appropriately.  So some armies get stronger with more points, others wither.  Certain armies cannot function at low points, others dominate.  It's impossible to find a point level that balances across the spectrum.  And it makes it difficult to play low point "learner" games because in fact there are major game tactics that just don't work at lower point levels.

 

3. Steadfast.  This rule is asinine.  

 

4. Weapon skill.  Weapon skill is undervalued.  Strength and Toughness scale fully, meaning you can need 2's or 6's if the disparity is enough.  But weapon skill caps at a 3-5 spread, so WS10 vs WS1 still is just a 3-5 spread.  Thus, with high WS troops you're not really getting your money worth.

 

5. Likewise, STR and T are overvalued, particularly STR, as not only does it affect wound rolls, it affects armor.  A high STR model is always better than a high WS model.  

 

6.  Stupid charge rules.  For example, last night BroG charged some rats, they declared a flee, he elected to try and catch them.  On their flee roll they ended up fleeing through their own unit and ended up 1" popped behind.  BroG rolled more than high enough to catch them, but now that they were behind the other unit, rather than connect to the new unit, the rules required it be a failed charge.  Makes no sense, dumb rule.

 

7. Flank and rear charges and disruption.  First, see my thought on steadfast generally.  But the idea that you need not one, but TWO full ranks to disrupt on a flank charge is stupid.  I think a unit of chariots, or a block of knights, or a huge ass monster would be pretty disruptive.

 

8. The rules for unstable.  

 

9. Too many re-rolls, as was said in another thread.  

 

10. Idiotic misc rules.  I feel that the game doesn't encourage actually straight up combat, but the building and exploitation of tricks, like a wall of goblin heroes so that you can't attack rank and file, blocking things like a doom wheel by parking a model 1" of it's side so it cannot turn, having a lone character with a dragon bane gem hold up entire units, etc.  

 

11. Fast cav.  In a quasi-Napoleanic game like Warhammer, fast cav function too much like a round base unit from 40k, it can move anywhere, infinitely reform, face wherever, snake through obstacles, etc.  They break the rules too much.

 

12. Unit variety.  I feel that the rules of game inhibit, rather than encourage, model variety.  Characters on monsters are cannon bait, so they're off.  Smaller units can kill "chaff" but not much else.  (Good for chaff hunting, by the way, is gamer code for "only to be used on units in that dude's army who are as crappy as this unit.")  Smaller sized infinity units are useful if playing watchtower, but no one plays that scenario.  Etc.

 

So yeah, I'm pretty down on Warhammer lately.  I've played since 1988, both fantasy and 40k.  And right now, I'd have to say that 7th ed 40k is better than fantasy.  Heresy, I know.  But Maelstrom 40k missions are the most fun I've had pushing plastic dudes around a table in years, mostly because it throws list building and exploitative tricks out the window in favor of a rapidly changing dynamic where victory conditions ebb and flow and you are forced to play the scenario.

 

Just my rant of the day.  

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Well chances are 9th will have something very similar to Malstorm. Having different objectives and secret ones too will make for better game play. As for the point levels having different power levels I will totally agree with you, and some armies start off strong and stay strong from low to high.

 

I will say the rules can be confusing and when in doubt check it out has been what I've been doing. I have also been using some rules wrong for awhile and my opponent's didn't know it was wrong either till I reread the rule.

 

I know it is tough to hear but give it time, things are changing.

[generalripphook]

I agree about the rules thing. However I think part of that is just building a good gaming community and if you have a question ask others if they around. I mean I always forget rules but I also feel like Warhammer Fantasy is a very rules heavy game too, with lots of rules interaction, its almost like a math class. 

[MexicanNinja]

AgentP, I'd like to discuss some of your grudges which you have posted.

 

1) I don't think the rules are too complex but rather take some time ot fully grasp.  I spend time throughout my weeks rereading certain areas of the book to better understand the rules.  Not to just know the rules but how to use them to my advantage, how they effect certain aspects of the game, and to gain a better understanding of them.  There hasn't been any new FAQ or updates to any FAQ in a long time.  Again, I spend random moments throughout the week to read random MRB and army FAQ's.  I think it far less consuming compared to 40k.  We don't have all the supplement books that 40k has.  I often times just browse random webiste to read up on certain armies and learn about them that way.  I also have purchased army books for no other reason but to learn the rules for their models/units so I can have a basic understanding for them.  So, yes, I will agree that you just need to stop and read the book.   Then, write down some questions and either post them up here or wait for a game night and discuss them.  It's hard to understand a rule when you don't know the rule and your opponent is able to abuse (intentionally or non-intentionally) because they themselves don't understand the rule(s) in question.

 

2) That's just the nature of the beast.  Fear becomes better at low point levels and level 3-4 casters excell in the magic phase at low points levels.  2,400 and 2,500 point games are pretty balanced across the armies.  You are able to utilize all of your tools.  It's up to the list creator at this point, to ensure they take a tool for every situation.  This is the main reason why I make a list as an "all-comers" list and don't take specific units/models/items just for the game I am playing that night.

 

3) Steadfast, it's annoying but it makes sense.

 

4) I don't think WS is undervalued.  I will agree that I would take a higher T stat over any other stat all day long.  However, if the enemy is hitting me on 4's or 5's then I am generally going to take less wounds than if they are hitting me on 3's.  If someone only has 10 attacks and are hitting on 4's then on average that's only 5 hits and if they are hitting on 5's you may get hit 3 times.

 

5) Strength and Toughness are very crucial in picking your match-ups.  I'll toss a T4 or T5 model at S3 models in a lot of situations because I know I'm not taking very many wounds.  I have to strongly disagree with your statment about a high S always being better than a high WS.  If you have 5 S6 attacks but are only hitting on 4's or 5's, you are lossing hits which equate to less wounds.  If I need 3's to hit and 4's or 5's to wound, I should get more wounds through because I am scoring more hits.

 

6) I don't think the charge rule is that broken.  Again, this is knowing the rules.  If I declare a 'flee' as my reaction from a charge and I know I will most likely bounce through my unit then my opponent has to make a decision.  Hope I don't bounce through my unit or make a LD test to try a redirect.  You have this tool available to you with your skink units.  You also gain the double flee option.  Unit A delcares a charge against unit B.  Unit B flees and bounces through unit C.  Unit A redirects to unit C.  Unit C flees and bounces through unit B.  Well, unit A now has a failed charge and is set up for counter charges or the double flee reaction again.  These are choices you and your opponent both have.  Knowing this specific aspect of the charge phase is highly significant.  This is why we have the redirectors and other tools.  Unfortunately, undead doesnt' have the option for these tactics because they can only hold.

 

7) Again, I have to disagree with this.  In 7th edition, you would just toss a certain model into the flank and break the rank bonuses.  If I could disrupt ranks with some cavalry, think about how stupid my dark riders just became.  I would toss them into combat just for the sole purpose of disruption.  I will say though, that if you are able to disrupt ranks, you should break steadfast.

 

8) Unstable....meh

 

9) I've said what I've needed to say about re-rolls in the other thread.

 

10) The 1" parking has pretty much been nullifed in every event I've gone to because the organizers allow a virtual pivot to stop this dick move.  There are a ton of misc. rules; however, they all play roles for the game.  Why not allow a wall of goblin heroes in a unit of goblins?  Goblins are pretty much straight trash and the hero wall gives them a way to stand a chance.  I know, if I'm playing against a gobo army, that I don't care if I toss a unit of 10 models with a 4+ armour save into 100 night goblins because my wounds generated for CR will counter his static 4 and I don't care about him being steadfast because that low LD will fail in 2-3 rounds of combat.  Now, you add the hero wall into the equation and you have to spend a few rounds chewing through characters.  In all honesty, the characters usually end up giving you more VP than the gobo unit as well.  You also still have the option of not engaging it until it's a must.

 

11) Fast cavalry units are crazy.  They aren't broken though.  Very rarely do my dark riders do much with shooting.  They end up giving up VP and I have to sacrafice them at some point, during most games, to keep other key units alive.  When playing against fast cavalry, you just have to come to terms that unless your opponent wants you to engage them then in most cases you won't.  So, now you have to make the choice of shooting them, hit them with magic, or just ignore them until you don't have the option to ignore them any longer.

 

12) This is solely dependant on your opponents and your local meta.  I was talking with Fixxer last night after our game and I've noticed a deline in war machines lately (other than dwarfs).  If your locel meta is MSU armies then you will see armies fielding to combat MSU style armies and they will most likely struggle against horde style armies.  The same could be said for the reverse situation.  Again, this is why I make my army lists as an all-comers list.  As for the monsters, this is when knowing the rules comes into play.  Terrain becomes a very significant factor.  You have to know where and when to block LoS for cannonball placements.  The only place when true LoS doesn't effect cannons is when you are using the Masters FAQ.  I know that a cannon will have to do 4 wounds in order to bounce through my chariot and 5 wounds in order to bounce through my Hydra.  Heck, last night I spent 3 turns moving around cover to get my Dreadlord on his dragon into a charge position when I would have liked to just fly him straight at his flank but coudln't take the risk of him dying to a cannon shot.

 

I think it's just not knowing all the rules or how the rules may effect certain aspects of the game which has left those thoughts for you.  Just the difference between how you can utilize certain rules with your lizardmen army which your undead will never be able to use, will show you not only how to use them but how to combat them.  I have spent hours just rolling up random situations and rolling dice to see what certain outcomes could happen from different things.  All you can do is read the rules, get a firm grasp of them, apply them or see them applied in your games, and then adjust appropriately to better combat them the next time you face them.  Also, you can only prepare so much unitl the dice start rolling.  Once the dice start to roll, all statistics go out the window because we don't know how many 1's or 6's will be rolled.

[AgentP]

While I appreciate the lengthy response, I just can't be persuaded by a defense of a ruleset that talks about spending countless hours pouring over websites and youtube videos as the means to understand the game.  And ironically, I've viewed those same videos and sites, and they disagree about the rules!  Hell, even GW's own battle reports regularly get the rules wrong.  I feel that if you put 10 players in a room, you're highly likely to get 11 interpretations of a rule.  

[AgentP]

Maybe my gripe is that I want there to be a place for causal hobbyists in Warhammer, and it doesn't feel like there is.  A person should be able to buy and paint cool looking models that speak to them, and be able to use those at least somewhat viably.  But actually playing Warhamemr has nothing what-so-ever to do with what models you like, but building lists to suit "metas" and to defeat certain combos, and certain tricks in vogue, and that requires watching videos and reading websites to find out what the latest hard combo everyone will be fielding, etc.  The whole thing makes me think I should just move over to making model ships.

[JMGraham]

While I appreciate the lengthy response, I just can't be persuaded by a defense of a ruleset that talks about spending countless hours pouring over websites and youtube videos as the means to understand the game.  And ironically, I've viewed those same videos and sites, and they disagree about the rules!  Hell, even GW's own battle reports regularly get the rules wrong.  I feel that if you put 10 players in a room, you're highly likely to get 11 interpretations of a rule.  

 

Warhammer is no more, and is in many ways less, complex than just about any other miniature wargame with which I'm familiar. 

 

In regards to countless hours pouring over things ... we're geeks. That's what geeks do. We geek out on things. We spend time thinking about fluff, army lists, tactics, games, etc. Other types of geeks do the same thing with their hobbies. Just ask a sports-geek about their fantasy football picks. 

 

With all that said, I don't see anyone should have to spend their free time doing something they don't enjoy. It depends on the local group, but I see a lot of casual players enjoying the heck out of the hobby and the gamer in my area. The End times stuff seems custom-made for epic and awesome casual games.

 

I won't muse in detail on your specific points (most of which I disagree with), save to say that I agree steadfast is asinine. In some ways, it's cool, but I can't believe it doesn't get removed when you get flank or rear-charged. 

[Murphy'sLawyer]

I will say AgentP I was seriously worried about your list and had to focus on my biggest threats. I got lucky with a direct hit on the Foot which weakened the Chariots and those Vergahls? where still full strength and I feel would have wrecked my face with a combo charge with your character bus.

 

The game could have gone either way IMO.

[AgentP]

My book of grudges post isn't about our game, it's been building up for the last year for me.  My bitching is, in no way, a reflection on you or anyone else.  It's more a reflection on my own frustrations.  I think I just don't have the mind for this game.

[Brother Glacius]

Give Kings of War a try. The rules are much simpler.

[Guest]

I've got a similar issue/burning out feeling from 40k.

 

In regards to WHFB, I'm still annoyed that while GW keeps spreading out the fantasy concepts, the rules really suck for making battles like you'd see in a fantasy movie because their core medieval combat rules really suck or are non-existent.

 

I'm annoyed that:

 

-I can't field a unit of archers that fires arrows OVER my allied troops. This is done in every medieval movie..

 

-I can't field units with mixed weapons, like shields in front and archers in back. WHFB has like one merc unit that could do this, and nothing else.

 

-Only a single faction can use calvary formations, and no other army is even allowed to attempt anything other than blocks or skimishers.

 

-WHFB, and 40k for that matter, focus entirely on battles between EVEN forces. This is tactically a terrible plan. This forces every game into a battle of attrition, which is downright unfluffy for all factions in both games...

 

There are probably many others.

 

EDIT:

-Can't start with terrain. No walls of corpses, upturned wagons, or oil-drenched fields...

[JMGraham]

Some great ideas! My thoughts in red:

 

I've got a similar issue/burning out feeling from 40k.

 

In regards to WHFB, I'm still annoyed that while GW keeps spreading out the fantasy concepts, the rules really suck for making battles like you'd see in a fantasy movie because their core medieval combat rules really suck or are non-existent.

 

I'm annoyed that:

 

-I can't field a unit of archers that fires arrows OVER my allied troops. This is done in every medieval movie..

 

-I can't field units with mixed weapons, like shields in front and archers in back. WHFB has like one merc unit that could do this, and nothing else.

 

Yup. Or formations of pikes with great weapons.

 

-Only a single faction can use calvary formations, and no other army is even allowed to attempt anything other than blocks or skimishers.

 

Same with infantry formations. Being able to give up movement and take a Hedgehog formation, or being able to charge in a Boar's Snout would be rad.

 

-WHFB, and 40k for that matter, focus entirely on battles between EVEN forces. This is tactically a terrible plan. This forces every game into a battle of attrition, which is downright unfluffy for all factions in both games...

 

Admittedly, just about every other published scenario I;ve seen EXCEPT for the 6 in the BRB are asymmetrical in some way, with a designated attacker and defender.

 

There are probably many others.

 

EDIT:

-Can't start with terrain. No walls of corpses, upturned wagons, or oil-drenched fields...

 

Yes, yes, and yes again.

[MexicanNinja]

I've got a similar issue/burning out feeling from 40k.

 

In regards to WHFB, I'm still annoyed that while GW keeps spreading out the fantasy concepts, the rules really suck for making battles like you'd see in a fantasy movie because their core medieval combat rules really suck or are non-existent.

 

I'm annoyed that:

 

-I can't field a unit of archers that fires arrows OVER my allied troops. This is done in every medieval movie..

 

-I can't field units with mixed weapons, like shields in front and archers in back. WHFB has like one merc unit that could do this, and nothing else.

 

-Only a single faction can use calvary formations, and no other army is even allowed to attempt anything other than blocks or skimishers.

 

-WHFB, and 40k for that matter, focus entirely on battles between EVEN forces. This is tactically a terrible plan. This forces every game into a battle of attrition, which is downright unfluffy for all factions in both games...

 

There are probably many others.

 

EDIT:

-Can't start with terrain. No walls of corpses, upturned wagons, or oil-drenched fields...

 

Yeah, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with all of you examples/points.

 

1) You can shoot over your units.  In fact, you can shoot over enemy units.  You just incure a penalty to hit.  Now, this constitutes as a "hard cover" modifier and if you think outside of the box the modifier is due to not having a direct LoS to your target and therefore the arrows are hoping to hit, wound, and kill something, because it's more or less a blind fire.  You point your bow in the air, let the arrows fly, and hope you hit something which will penetrate the armour they're wearing.  So, in short, you can shoot over units.  Also, this isn't a medieval movie, it's Warhammer FANTASY battles.

 

2) You can field units who have ranged weapons and shields.  Not every model/unit may be able to take shields and shooting options but they are out there.  I have the option to field untis with repeater crossbows and shields.  So, if that's a unit someone wants to field then they can play that specific army to get that option.

 

3) Any cavalry unit can line up in the formation offered to Bretonnia.  Bretonnia has an army specific rule for the lance formation because that army is 90% knights and that formation makes them unique to other armies.  However, you can still take any unit of knights and rank them up 3 wide.  In fact, this is a great tactic for character delivery if you don't care about rank bonuses (which most cavalry units don't get once they lose a single knight to shooting and/or combat).  Again, you can line up in a "lance" formation with any cavalry unit.

 

4) I have no idea what you're talking about with your third comment.  Unless you're making a list to combat a specific army, you make a list that should be able to take on any army and the models/units you take can be totally fluffy.  I've seen tons of fluffly lists which are both competitive and take nothing away from the game.  You can even take it a step further and look at many army books and come up with themed lists.  Here are 3 examples:

                     

     a.  Witch Cult from the Dark Elves book

     b.  Warriors of Khorne list from the Warriors of Chaos book

     c.  Cavalry list from the Empire book

 

5) Why can't you have walls of corpses, upturned wagons, or oil-drenched fields?  There's a specific fence called a ghost fence and you could easily represent that with a wall made from the zombie sprue.  You could easily make a piece of terrain out of an upturned wagon.  As for the oil-drentched fields, you could make a battlefield with that in mind.  You could even come up with special rules for a scenario.  They could look like this:

 

     At the start of each player turn roll a d6 for each unit in the army.  On a roll of a 5+ arrows from the enemy force have ignited the oil on the ground and the target unit suffers D6 or 2D6 S3 hits from the fire.

 

The above example is just one of many for how you could do something like your oil-drenched fields.  However, why would you march your army over an oil-drenched field?

[generalripphook]

I think with most of these games the company gives us a rule set and some things in mind to think about fluff wise but the game shines when you go make your own scenareos to play it out. The most fun in flames of war I've had is playing custom scenareos for the battle of Kursk.

[AgentP]

I agree completely.  I think a huge problem with Warhammer is people not playing scenarios.  And even when you have scenarios, people get fixated on just killing.  

[JMGraham]

I agree completely.  I think a huge problem with Warhammer is people not playing scenarios.  And even when you have scenarios, people get fixated on just killing.  

 

Man, but this is really key to a fun wargame, in my mind. infinity nails it with objectives that typically have nothing to do with killing the enemy. Even 40k touches on it with the Relic and some of the other objective-based scenarios. I love it that the troops that die don't matter, so long as an objective is accomplished. 

 

I'll have to buckle down and give Kings of War a look-see sometime. The rules are still free online, right?

[ratrek]

Sometimes AgentP, a change is as good as a rest. You said you were enjoying 40k a lot lately. So why not shelve WHFB for a few months or until 9th launches or whenever and then come back to it? No sense playing what you don't enjoy.

[scottshoemaker]

I agree completely.  I think a huge problem with Warhammer is people not playing scenarios.  And even when you have scenarios, people get fixated on just killing.  

I'm only interested in playing scenarios and narratives with Fantasy.  I'm a big fan of the 3 game stretch with scenarios.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Well AgentP if you ever want to play a scenario game outside of the norm I am totally game. Heck I would love to play a comped list sometime to test out my Orcs.

 

Maybe even games that have terrain and environment conditions. How about a last stand game where an opponent holds up in a small fortified position. I've got some of the ebook downloads with champagne scenarios that can be very challenging.

[scottshoemaker]

Well AgentP if you ever want to play a scenario game outside of the norm I am totally game. Heck I would love to play a comped list sometime to test out my Orcs.

 

Maybe even games that have terrain and environment conditions. How about a last stand game where an opponent holds up in a small fortified position. I've got some of the ebook downloads with champagne scenarios that can be very challenging.

Do they have caviar dreams?  I'm not interested if they don't.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Do they have caviar dreams?  I'm not interested if they don't.

Stupid auto corrector. Must have misspelled it then we ended up with a good time instead. Though I am more of a beer man.

[Fixxer]

Its funny that this thread is posted after I played one of the  most enjoyable games Ive played in a really long time. Funny that both experiences happened under the same roof...

[dkieft]

I can agree with or accept most of agentp's list. Over the years I have burnt out and come back to Warhammer more times than I remember.

 

There are some serious logical flaws in rules I would love to see fixed. I think there is also a serious issue in scalability caused by using only d6 and a 10 point max stat with 3 being average...One pip difference is huge... I would love to have it based on d10 (other than having to go buy all the dice) leaving a 6+ for a straight chance and scale up 5+, 4+, 3+ etc... it gives far greater range of odds. This would allow a hobgoblin to be better than a goblin, but still not as good as a human for example.

 

Anyway, just one of my fundamental beefs... mostly I just like getting to gether to toss a pile of dice and have some beers with my friends... any game will do.

[Threejacks]

  Count me in for campaigns,linked games and published or unpublished custom scenarios..would love to get into some of that!.

 

 Had a great time at last years Planetary Empires and would love to see something similar for Fantasy.And these escalation leagues the club does are great with all the goofball scenario objectives and such lol..would be awesome to see 40k do something like this too!

 

 To me this is the casual side of the GW Warhammer games.Constantly changing abjectives and list building guidelines keeps the games fresh:)

[Krieger]

I agree with you 100% Agent P. Even the 40k part. Maelstrom is awesome!