What Fantasy Game to Play
- Thread starter Quinten
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
The problem I have with war throne is that it took out rules from war hammer 8th that added a lot of depth and added rules that just don't increase depth and strategy. The command system though cool fluff wise doesn't add depth and does tack on a ton of complexity.
What rules do you feel are missing that added depth to warhammer? most special rules are in the lists themselves rather than in the main rule book. From my conversations with Felix, his main aim has been to reduce the need to keep track of things like wounds. This is why characters all have high saves rather than a wound characteristic.I also believe a few things got missed out of the translastion with he said will be included in a FAQ soon (like shooting into combat). From what i read of kings of war, the point your making about warthrone seemed far more true with kings of warthrone. Not a big fan of simple for the sake of being simple.
Are you saying that rolling 3-4 dice when you want to charge or shoot and getting a minor bonus based on this is really all that complex? it's hardly a ton of complexity!
Are you saying that rolling 3-4 dice when you want to charge or shoot and getting a minor bonus based on this is really all that complex? it's hardly a ton of complexity!
To what? Mate, I never said Warthrone was lacking the things WHFB had. That was someone else. You're asking me to justify a comment that I didn't make.
I think Warthone has a needlessly complicated rules system. If it's lacking anything, it's lacking elegance and simplicity. Just like WHFB did.
I think Warthone has a needlessly complicated rules system. If it's lacking anything, it's lacking elegance and simplicity. Just like WHFB did.
When I play board games I occasionally miss rules. I'm sure all of us have missed a fear test in warhammer or not quite remembered to take that crucial dice roll in a board game. It seems unnecessary that I should have to roll a bunch of dice every time I want to perform an action (I realize that there are ways of getting around this but the fact remains that at least 40% of the actions I can do will require dice rolls with the possibility of 100% of the actions I perform requiring dice rolls). The formations in the game add some character to the game and just like the dice rolls are fluffy. However Warhammer Fantasy offered a much simpler approach that worked out to basically the same game effect. (Please do not argue semantics as to whether a deep formation should get to attack in more ranks or a wide one. I am evaluating rules purely on game effect not how fluffy the rules are). The combat resolution system (which actually did add a lot of depth and strategy to warhammer fantasy and one of the few things I miss when playing KoW) is removed from warthrone. I could go on but I think I have pointed out my perspective. This is not to say I completely dislike every rule they wrote, I'd probably play barring no alternative, but under inspection I simply do not believe it is well thought out game.
The developers, like any good developers, needed to weigh the cost benefit of each rule they add or take away to the bare bones system that most game start out as.
Does this rule add depth to the game?
Does this mechanic unnecessarily impeded gameplay?
Will this game function enhance the players experience?
Instead of asking coherent focused questions like these the rule sets lead me believe the developers only asked themselves if they thought the rule was 'cool', failing to realize that a cool rule isn't necessarily a good one.
I respect that you like the game and think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
The developers, like any good developers, needed to weigh the cost benefit of each rule they add or take away to the bare bones system that most game start out as.
Does this rule add depth to the game?
Does this mechanic unnecessarily impeded gameplay?
Will this game function enhance the players experience?
Instead of asking coherent focused questions like these the rule sets lead me believe the developers only asked themselves if they thought the rule was 'cool', failing to realize that a cool rule isn't necessarily a good one.
I respect that you like the game and think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
I 1000% agree with this. This is actually where I have most problems with a game and if we were all dead honest, none of the games (including Warhammer) have gotten this right. Warhammer 8th probably gets most of it right, KoW and AoS has parts of it right but not all of it. KoW and AoS are both quick to play. KoW has regiments and supports the play style Warhammer players like. AoS has the special rules (joke rules aside) and unit options and their interactions right. Warhammer Fantasy is most of it together but unnecessarily complicated in places and sometimes it gets some quirks and messes in its rules here and there (partly because its armies from multiple editions being stitched together).
This is what happens when you're looking at responses quickly while you're meant to be working lol. My mistake
Problem with kings of war, its simple for the sake of being simple. It isn't elegant, it's cut right to the bone (bit like GW's streamlining of operations
).I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here (again). Kings of War is not simple for the sake of being simple; if it were I'm sure they could cut down the rulebook a lot. Kings of War probably is the most elegant fantasy game system I have played. Add in a bit more options and flavour and it would be an ideal game.
Can't say I really agree with you any of that. It's certainly not as bad as AoS, but it has zero appeal.
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
Im sorry to bust all of yours bubble. But in the end it boils down to this:
A dicegame is inherently flawed. Rolling dice as the sole mean to actually decide the battle is never gonna be balanced.
Its a luckgame.
Best example in this is Risk. There isnt a simpler and more straightforward tactical dicegame than Risk and the only way to really win is be lucky with dicerolls. So is Warhammer and any other alternative. Theres tons of rules and fluff and tactics, and then it all goes to shit when your important battle is a dicefail.
We might as well just shoot dice without all the fluffy rules and tactics, the latter just add a chance to get back into the game or mitigate damage done by dicerolls.
A dicegame is inherently flawed. Rolling dice as the sole mean to actually decide the battle is never gonna be balanced.
Its a luckgame.
Best example in this is Risk. There isnt a simpler and more straightforward tactical dicegame than Risk and the only way to really win is be lucky with dicerolls. So is Warhammer and any other alternative. Theres tons of rules and fluff and tactics, and then it all goes to shit when your important battle is a dicefail.
We might as well just shoot dice without all the fluffy rules and tactics, the latter just add a chance to get back into the game or mitigate damage done by dicerolls.
I hate to burst your bubble of superiority but probability is actually a thing meaning that lots of games are not decided by luck but by good application of good tactics.
I'm very willing to give AoS a try. It seems like a much more free-form game for when a quick game suits best, but the rules it seems are very easily abused. They're so minimal it's hard to know what goes and what's not really cool. It depends on who is playing, I would imagine, and my experiences of AoS up until now haven't been the most enjoyable because of that. I was playing against lizardmen in one game and my opponent just spam-summoned three more units each turn. It just wan't fun.
Having said that, I think I'll probably stick to WHFB where possible, but I do think I prefer good old 6th edition. 8th is cool too, but there are a lot of cons.
I want to try Kings of War, as your description sounds pretty damn interesting. A more even footing in terms of armies and composition sounds like a good way to play as, like I said, 8th has too many tricks and foibles that make it rather unbalanced.
To chip in, @logan054 Interestingly, I've always suffered from very bad dice rolls. Curse of the undead or something like that.
Having said that, I think I'll probably stick to WHFB where possible, but I do think I prefer good old 6th edition. 8th is cool too, but there are a lot of cons.
I want to try Kings of War, as your description sounds pretty damn interesting. A more even footing in terms of armies and composition sounds like a good way to play as, like I said, 8th has too many tricks and foibles that make it rather unbalanced.
To chip in, @logan054 Interestingly, I've always suffered from very bad dice rolls. Curse of the undead or something like that.
Take a look at the rules for free here:
http://www.manticgames.com/free-rules.html
But note that there is some flavour missing. These are the 'sample' rules. Really, all that's missing are the magical artifacts, the scenarios, and some options from the army lists like Zombie Dragons, Undead Wyrms, etc. I expect these to be added to the free downloads section when the actual rulebook is up for sale (next week) and in the meantime the beta versions are available here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0HF2mSyvEWIlNH4oCtBeQ/htmlview#gid=1243412207
I have it from a reliable source that the final lists and the beta lists will be effectively identical, so there's no need to worry about converting something and then it not being in the final list.
The KoW crowd are extremely accepting of counts-as models, and allies are very often used so if you can find a unit profile to represent a model you might have, even if it comes from another army list and even if that unit profile is for something totally different, you can still use it with no complaints. For instance, my Necromancer on Mortis Engine will be used as Revenant King on an Undead Wyrm, because the stats mirror the model well enough. It flies, is decent in combat, is inspiring to nearby undead and provides magical support to them as well.
@logan054 if you wanted to write up your own, alternative opinion on warthrone, I'll post it quoting you. I can't really just see the positives but don't want these to be exceptionally biased reviews (one has to accept a bias but I don't want everyone coming out thinking the games I like are the best just because my reviews were exceptionally biased).
My OTHER vote is for Settlers of Catan and Zombies!! I always find that Zombies!!! needs more zombies than come with the game, so I can just use my GW and Mantic pieces for that now...
Settlers of Catan is a great game. I have every expansion and have house rules so I can play with all of them at once. It's time consuming to say the least.
I think that acceptance of such things is more or less a taught skill. I mean, with KoW (Especially now), it is an assumption that players may be coming from other game systems with models already to play, they just need to pretend they are a certain stat line. The only reason I would suspect any player for WHFB (Or now AoS) would have ever not been ok with "Counts-as" models would be because the community supports that notion. Like in 40k, it's a fairly accepted rule that WYSIWYG is mandatory. But all the same if you're playing a converted army and want to play them "As" some other army, Say playing Chaos with normal style Marines, most people wouldn't have issues, as long as things are clear.
All I'm saying is that the whole Counts-as issue is more of a constructed issue of the games and people who play them, rather than a serious flaw of the game. Except for back when GW still had physical locations everywhere and supported the "No conversions" policies. Although I guess that might still be an issue for people living in Europe, it's just not really a thing anymore here in the U.S.
Hey, on the topic of other games to play, has anyone heard of or played Wrath of Kings? It's a new-ish skirmish game by CMON (Cool Mini Or Not), which is obviously not a Warhammer replacement, but it does seem fairly interesting. It's also a game that is a full rules for free basis, so anyone could attempt to proxy it before ever buying the models. The models themselves are of quite high quality, as long as you like the aesthetics they have put into the game. I'm currently attempting to paint up two small armies, so I can try to convince friends/anyone up at the FLGS to give it a whirl.
You have Traders and Barbarians and the new Pirates expansions? How do you incorporate those with Cities and Knights or Seafarers? I have a hard enough time just getting people to play one expansion, much less all of them.
It is a bit of a write up but here we go. Lots of combonation rules are available online but I'll give you a quick synopsis of the stuff that isn't that I've house ruled. House rules:
1. Any settlement may be upgraded to a city. Any coastal settlement may be upgraded to a harbor settlement or a city.
2. The boats in the pirates expansion are refered to as cargo ships and cost 2 wood and 1 wool
3. Your wagon can travel along a straight line of connected ships
4. Don't play with any of the seafarers scenarios. However you can play with all of the traders and barbarian scenarios.
5. When barbarians land randomize between tiles
6. I think the rest is pretty much explained online or pretty self explanatory.
This is really off-topic. If you want to discuss settlers of catan further we should probably make a thread in the off-topic section
1. Any settlement may be upgraded to a city. Any coastal settlement may be upgraded to a harbor settlement or a city.
2. The boats in the pirates expansion are refered to as cargo ships and cost 2 wood and 1 wool
3. Your wagon can travel along a straight line of connected ships
4. Don't play with any of the seafarers scenarios. However you can play with all of the traders and barbarian scenarios.
5. When barbarians land randomize between tiles
6. I think the rest is pretty much explained online or pretty self explanatory.
This is really off-topic. If you want to discuss settlers of catan further we should probably make a thread in the off-topic section