French Warhammer review from Casus Belli #29 (1985)

Zhu Bajie

Baron
Been flipping through old French gaming magazines, and came across a review of Warhammer from 1985, so gave it a quick Google Translate and using my extremely limited French, here it is:

The pretty presentation - very flashy and commercial, conceals the organisational flaws of the rules. The books are not very clear and in spite of the precise chapter headings, it is easy to get lost while looking for a specific rule.

Magic: This is the strong point of the ruleset. Indeed the Battle Magic booklet offers many original spells, for the most part well adapted to the scale of the battle (despite some imprecision of time to cast, on the saving throws and the effects on the terrain). The magic is connected to five classes of magicians; necromancer, illusionist, witness, elementalist and mage. Casting a spell costs a certain number of points depending on the level and the effects of said spell; however, a caster is limited in the number of points he can spend.

Magic weapons are numerous and surprising, but sometimes their cost is too small compared to their power; for the same price it is possible to have a sword allowing its user to absorb the magic and to recover its power or a swordfish that gives you the possibility of having a chat with it!

Bestiary: Although there is a repetition from the Force and Fantasy, complement to the previous edition of Warhammer, which offered a wide variety of species subdivided into several parts (northern man, western man, wood elves, high elves elc ...) the bestiary nevertheless offers a wide choice of monsters whose description is quite detailed. In addition, the player can adjust the point-cost that each figure costs him by choosing his equipment. Once again we see imbalances in the monsters, at the level of the point-cost: a fire-breathing dragon costs the same price as a dragon that does not have this ability, in the same way a poison spitting chimera has the same point-cost as its sister devoid of that charming habit.

But suddenly I see a deep doubt in the haunted eyes of some readers, what is a point-cost? It is an almost indispensable element in all games with miniatures. Each model is allocated a number of points increasing with its power, so in Warhammer a goblin is worth 2.5 points while a dragon costs 682 points. These points added together give the point-cost of an army; thus according to the scenarios or the taste of the players, they can balance or unbalance their point-cost, that is to say have the same number of points in each army or a different number.

It turns out that in Warhammer the construction of point-costs is both tedious and fragile because of the disproportion between the cost of the Monsters and their power as well as the cost of the weapons and their effectiveness.

Scale: Warhammer (as it is not specified on the box) is a basic rule of 1 for 1, that is to say a model equals a man, which prevents it from considering massive battles. In addition, given this scale, the range of throwing weapons is very short, a bow only shoots 64 meters when in reality it should shoot at more than 150 meters, so lack of realism that is found in elsewhere at various points of the rule. The problem is also compounded if the ratio is increased, for example a figure for ten men.

Sequence: Let's observe any battlefield: are the armies advancing and firing one after the other? Certainly not, the armies advance and fire simultaneously, but Warhammer's sequences are not simultaneous! It must be seen that the game with miniatures allows and involves simultaneity which reinforces realism. We can cite a simple example of the inconsistency of this system: a sheltered unit can, on its movement, reveal itself, shoot, and return to hide without its victim being able to retaliate, since it was not his turn to shoot.

Movement: They are made in inches! When will the British adopt the metric system? Although all mass maneuvers are possible, 1/2 turn, 1/4 turn, pivot, skew forward, not all of them are reasonable in a 1 to 1 scale, and can be tedious when you have a lot of miniatures to move. The movement procedures are sometimes hopeless, the charge multiplies the movement by two, nothing less! In the frontage of a unit, four models can be added or withdrawn without penalty of movement or eight in which case the unit can no longer move, there is no half measure; What for ?

Combat: This is divided into melee and ranged combat but the resolution system is identical for both cases and just as incoherent and absurd. To hit the victim, roll as many D6s as there are fighting miniatures and make a required number; it is then necessary to see if the blows which have reached do damage (once again with D6) and finally the opponent makes a saving throw again with D6, in short, a very expensive system in D6 if one does not want to spend his time throwing dice! Moreover, this system is completely illogical since in one where one can either not touch anybody or eliminate all the models of the enemy, this process rests exclusively on luck and can only discourage the strategists.

The ranged weapons are so efficient that with a little luck the armies will not even fight on contact, for lack of combatants. There is still a lot that can be said about Warhammer's combat system, but listing it would be tedious.

Other rules: The morale rules are satisfactory. It is the leadership of the commander or unit which gives the base morale of that same unit, the weaker this leadership the more the troops are subject to rout. Some troops are exposed to other handicaps, such as stupidity for trolls, instability for the living dead, animosity of goblins for dwarves etc ... which could be fun if they weren't so fiddly.

To enhance the game, some interesting rules are offered: the flight system for flying creatures, heroes - often powerful - poison, campaign rules, etc.

Our Impression: Warhammer is a bastard ruleset which is neither satisfactory from the point of view of role-play nor a wargame, given its scale. The interesting and fun ideas do not fill the gaps of the rule in terms of pure wargaming. What you should expect from a miniatures wargame is above all a set of good, clear and logical simulation rules, and not an overflow of optional though entertaining rules. Could this new edition just have been created to sell Citadel Miniatures, as the illustrations and scenario may suggest?

"Bastard ruleset!" I like that. While the review is of the 2nd Edition, the majority of comments address things that stayed mostly throughout every edition of WFB, except Magic which went through substantial changes in 4th onwards. What do you think? A fair review?
 
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Methinks this was written by a historical wargamer with his head up an unfortunate orifice...
Some of his comments are fair enough, but others are just nit-picking in a way that makes it clear having fun was not the author's intention.
 
I was kinda lost ( maybe in my understanding ) in that he would like to play RTS game on table against someone while throwing one dice per regiment while moving it across the table with all other regiments. Good thing is that he didn't have to play with cannon that, according to him, fired cannon ball would end up in neighbour garden. Considering measurements, I hope that he used to inches hehe of course if he fancied any GW game in near future ( except those few ).

I did read comment somewhere that gamers didn't like to throw dice for every soldier that shoots or swings. I think it was one of the early illustrators, forgot his name. Style similar to Blanche to some point. He liked some kind of percentage system throwing one die for whole regiment. Since I don't have rules for Warhammer 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition rules so I don't know if that comment was toward one of editions or not.
 
Yes, written by a crusty old grognard batârd, for sure. One that's a proper bastard rather than a crossbreed or hybrid.
 
I'm not really familiar with WFB, so I have to extrapolate some from Rogue Trader, but I think they were close enough at origin to make that possible.

To my mind his analysis is pretty well spot on. The rules do feel like what we'd call a "kludge" in the US. They're too fidly to work well for large battles, but a tad abstract for role play. They really do feel like a hybrid somewhere between a historical wargame and fantasy role play. They work well enough for a skirmish, but even then they're clunky and inelegant. (The whole I go you go thing has annoyed me from day one.) That said, the fluff was great fun and the models were beautiful. And I was fourteen or fifteen in 1987 or '88 when I discovered this insanity, so I was a bit more forgiving of rules back then anyway.

As to the crusty grognard bit, I'd have to say the author was more likely a hybrid. The crusty grognards around here probably wouldn't have deigned to play such a game. And were they pure grognard they might well have missed the role-play heritage of the system. So I'll grant the crusty, but I don't think pure grognard heritage is likely. Anyway, just my two cents.

Tuppence for the Beakies! (Maybe I should add that to my signature line.)

But however you roll your dice, I figure good sportsmanship and the spirit of fun can fix even the most broken rules. Have fun and play what and how you will! (I'll play with.)
 
If I read correctly he implies that you can move and then fire and then reserve move back into cover. No sure that’s true? You can reserve move if you don’t fire. I thought that was the same in 2 and 3? Reserve move lost in 4th
 
symphonicpoet":1xc41l30 said:
They really do feel like a hybrid somewhere between a historical wargame and fantasy role play.

I personally think it's entirely what they were intended to be, and the reason why they're not a 'kludge', as such, as that would imply it was an accident of bad design. Clunky in places, absolutely, but the hybrid element is part of the design, IMO.
 
I think the Roleplay mention is a little misleading, and perhaps a feature of my editing. The whole article is about choosing a wargame to use as a mass-battle component of an ongoing RPG campaign, and is largely a comparison between TSRs AD&D Battlesystem and Warhammer. Warhammer loses, obviously, in this reviewers eyes.

It is clear the reviewer is looking for something more strictly simulationist in terms of purely wargaming, and as a role-player is probably the kind that tracks the number of arrows used, the exact encumbrance points, lighting fuel and all that. I'm not sure this is partiacually 'groggy', just a certain playstyle (which I think I detect as being generally popular at the time through a cursory glance at the 80s French RPG scene).

Sleepysod":100497hp said:
If I read correctly he implies that you can move and then fire and then reserve move back into cover. No sure that’s true? You can reserve move if you don’t fire. I thought that was the same in 2 and 3? Reserve move lost in 4th

Yes, the reviewer seems to have completely misunderstood reserve moves!

Interestingly the article does mention a couple of other games, including Richard and Ricks Reaper:

REAPER
It is a rule, widely practiced in Great Britain, in which it is supposed to simulate fantastic fights on a scale of 1 to 1, again a small scale. What was my surprise when I discovered that the authors of this rule were none other than R. Halliwell and R. Priestley, the very ones who spawned Warhammer a few years later.
Reaper as a rule of thumb is good, sufficiently realistic and consistent, much better at a 1 to 1 scale than Warhammer. It is a complicated rule at first glance but practicing with small units can make the game system understandable with very thorough procedures. Magic, just like in Warhammer, is very interesting and also allows you to create your own spells.
We may think that the authors wanted to make Warhammer a simpler and more playable rule, but they only made a rule system which is generally inconsistent, which is regrettable.
 
dieselmonkey":19yc1u87 said:
symphonicpoet":19yc1u87 said:
They really do feel like a hybrid somewhere between a historical wargame and fantasy role play.

I personally think it's entirely what they were intended to be, and the reason why they're not a 'kludge', as such, as that would imply it was an accident of bad design. Clunky in places, absolutely, but the hybrid element is part of the design, IMO.

Fair point. I think you're right and the hybrid of at least RT was by design. WFB may well be a bit less "in between" anyway.
 
twisted moon":3sb9iafa said:
dieselmonkey":3sb9iafa said:
I personally think it's entirely what they were intended to be

wfb1 even calls itself a mass combat fantasy roleplaying game.

Yes and the original edition of Dungeon & Dragons calls itself "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", but the majority of readers today would identify it as a roleplaying game. Similarly WFB1e is a wargame (in that it deals primarily with the movement and combat between units of troops organised in armies), and its sparse rules on character generation and advancement don't really make it an rpg.

It's interesting how the language shifts. The terminology we use today to describe games don't really match the way terms were used in the past. Anyone reading Tony Baths "Setting Up A Wargames Campaign" (1973) today would see it as an RPG supplement about fantasy world-building, but at the time it was definitely about wargaming. Similarly throughout the late 70s and early 80s FRP (fantasy role play) was called 'Fantasy Gaming' or 'Adventure Gaming' until the RPG label stuck in the early 80s.
 
Zhu Bajie":2jjvhtol said:
It's interesting how the language shifts. The terminology we use today to describe games don't really match the way terms were used in the past.

i agree with that, but do think that wfb1 was designed to allow dungeon bashing, which seemed to constitute a lot of roleplaying at the time (and perhaps still does), with each player controlling one miniature, whilst scaling to allow said characters to also lead units of regular troops in bigger battles.
 
Back
Top