Some questions before we dive in 3rd edition

[Basement Dweller]

Hello everyone,

After picking up a copy of 3rd edition and force lists book (whose name escapes me) a friend and I are going to try and dive into 3rd edition in a couple of weeks. We have the rules, the army lists, and the refernce document provided on this website. Is there anything else we should do/know before jumping in? We played a lot of Necromunda and Mordheim in the day and have played a variety of other GW and other games over the years, so hopefully we pick things up resonably quickly...maybe...

As well, we are likely going to play chaos vs Bretonian for our first skirmish, 1000 points. The idea being to have some forces that will allow us some variety to try out the rules. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Elton.

 

[Orlygg]

Come up with a strong narrative, name all your characters, create your own wacky rules and just get on with it. Warhammer armies lists are just suggestions. If you want a game where your undead defend a grave from 8 giant spiders then do it. Don't be restricted to a 1000 point bash, get creative and tell a story.

 

[Chico]

Yeah unlike the modern fantasy game 3rd isn't restrictive, just use what looks cool and just play like you would as a kid.

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Come up with a strong narrative.

Wholly concur.

That's not just a reason for the armies killing each other, but a scenario, with different objectives for each faction, off the top of my head:

The chaos force is looking for a powerful chaos artefact that bestows some great (random) mutation if spilled with the blood of a virgin. The artefact is located in a chapel, defended by a handful monks (who will only defend themselves within 6" of the chapel). Being a good, dutiful chaos warband, they've run out of virgins...

The Bretonnians are an honour-guard for a (virgin) princesss who is passing though the area on the way to a marriage, and unbeknownst to them, is secretly in love with a (non-virgin) peasant in cottage #3 who she will run off to elope with if she gets within 24" of the building, and then the couple will then attempt to run (full move per turn) off the board.

So victory points are given to the Brets if the princess survives (bonus points for getting the princess off the table on the right hand edge). Chaos get points for capturing the princess and killing her (bonus points for doing so in the chapel), and the Princess gets points for eloping (off the left hand edge) with her lover.

Use the point system to balance the forces - so if both sides are 1000pts or thereabouts, that's cool. but don't game the system to try and gain a combat advantage. Ignoring the points system entirely isn't a great idea for a first game, there's enough mayhem to deal with, without asymmetrical point allocation leading to a bloodbath.

If possible get a GM. That would be someone to invent the scenario, gives the players their objectives (the players should not know what the other sides objectives are), move the non-player forces (in this case the monks and the princess once she activates) and resolve any rule clarifications or disagreements.

If possible get some scenery.

 

[Mutantdale]

All sound advice above and I am now thinking of collecting a few brettonians for the scenario above....

3rd edition is all about the scenario and having fun.

MD

 

[Skarsnik]

Yeah unlike the modern fantasy game 3rd isn't restrictive

This attitude always confuses me. 3rd Ed. is my favourite version of Warhammer, but I can't see why it's so much harder to ditch the army lists and come up with cool scenarios in 8th edition (or 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd and 1st) than it is in 3rd. Almost all of my 8th edition games have been played like that and they have been great fun.

I'm sure there are reasons to dislike more modern versions of Warhammer, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

 

[Basement Dweller]

Thanks everyone...very appreciated. I am not worried about being competitive...if we get to roll some dice and have some laughs we will be good.

I do like the idea of the scenario...that way if the death and destruction is one sided, both sides can still attempt to win the game...

I will have to see if I have any virgins in my miniature collecion...maybe only more "experienced" ladies. I do enjoy the presented scenario where no one may win as the princess and the peasant run off into the sunset...

Maybe something a little simpler to start and just have the chaos invading a town and either rampaging in general (maybe getting points for de-virginizing houses as they go) or having to destroy the church. The Bretonians getting VPs for saving the church and each building saved. Just in case I can't find a virgin mini...

 

[Skarsnik]

Maybe something a little simpler to start and just have the chaos invading a town and either rampaging in general (maybe getting points for de-virginizing houses as they go) or having to destroy the church. The Bretonians getting VPs for saving the church and each building saved. Just in case I can't find a virgin mini...

This will be a perfect start, and after the game, you will start to get a feel for some of your character models, come up with names and background for the ones that did well/badly, and get a feel for where the next scenario will go.

Over time you will find that the background and scenarios begin to kind of write themselves, you just have to give things a helpful nudge in the right direction every so often.

 

[Chico]

Yeah unlike the modern fantasy game 3rd isn't restrictive

This attitude always confuses me. 3rd Ed. is my favourite version of Warhammer, but I can't see why it's so much harder to ditch the army lists and come up with cool scenarios in 8th edition (or 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd and 1st) than it is in 3rd. Almost all of my 8th edition games have been played like that and they have been great fun.

I'm sure there are reasons to dislike more modern versions of Warhammer, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

The main reason is that in 3rd a GM is quite common and more or less a excepted norm. Now a GM in 8th how common is that?, i haven't seen it happen and i have a very large gaming group which plays pretty much plays everything.

For the record though I don't hate 8th in fact i play it alot more then i do 3rd, but when we play 8th its tournament style.

Cheers
Chico

 

[Skarsnik]

Yeah unlike the modern fantasy game 3rd isn't restrictive

This attitude always confuses me. 3rd Ed. is my favourite version of Warhammer, but I can't see why it's so much harder to ditch the army lists and come up with cool scenarios in 8th edition (or 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd and 1st) than it is in 3rd. Almost all of my 8th edition games have been played like that and they have been great fun.

I'm sure there are reasons to dislike more modern versions of Warhammer, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

The main reason is that in 3rd a GM is quite common and more or less a excepted norm. Now a GM in 8th how common is that?, i haven't seen it happen and i have a very large gaming group which plays pretty much plays everything.

For the record though I don't hate 8th in fact i play it alot more then i do 3rd, but when we play 8th its tournament style.

Cheers
Chico

I'm sure both of these facts are true, but don't really answer the question.

If I used a GM in my 8th edition games, or played tournament style 3rd edition games, would that make one edition more restrictive than the other?

If 2 players choose to play within the restrictions of army lists and points values etc, then any system can be seen as restrictive, even 3rd edition (shock horror!!) If they choose not to, then those very same systems can be seen to be a great vehicle for narrative and character driven games.

We all love 3rd edition Warhammer, but I think we need to dispel this whole myth that any WFB rules written after 1990 are dumbed down/restrictive/for kids.

To misquote the gun toting nutjobs of the NRA; Rules dont restrict people. People restrict people.

Ok, rant over.

 

[Chico]

It does answer your question, its easier to throw away the restrictions of a army list in 3rd because of a GM. The GM controls pretty much everything from which forces used and the goals which needed to for lack of a better word win. On a sidenote I think it's quite liberating having a GM pick which forces are used and not having to worry about lists.

Hope you enjoyed your rant :p

- Chico

 

[Orlygg]

Restrictions are put in place far more by players than rulesets. I would say its the culture of oldhammer, supported by the freer nature of 3rd, that encourages imaginative play. Gamers interested in the period of the 80s aremore likely to be influenced to this style of play. But it is quite rightto state that it is up to the players how they play. Ignorance is also probably a factor, as people think that you have to play in a competitive style if you play GW games.

 

[weazil]

I think one of the best ways a new entrant to this style of play can 'break' their current tournament / 'balanced army' thinking is to set up a game where there is no doubt that one side will be slaughtered by the other. Let's explore:

Make a 1000pt Bretonnian army. Have the chaos player make up 400 pts of characters and then field every other figure he wants - not costed at all. Figures are simply wysiwyg for equipment purposes.

Now that both players are 'freed' from the business of trying to win, you'll find that you'll start doing something that automatically generates a narrative: perhaps (and most likely) the Bretonnian player decides to try and eliminate the chaos general or the chaos sorcerer or even just the chaos giant - we're all going to die anyway, so lets make it worth while...

Perhaps the Bretonnian player, having named and derived a storyline for his characters, simply doesn't want to do that again, so will do his level best just to get his characters off the table? Is your Bretonnian leader a coward or a hero? Perhaps he gets killed, leading the way for some lowly level 10 peasant to become an inspirational leader that defends a bridge against the chaos forces whilst the rest of the Bretonnian army attempts to escape?

Perhaps the chaos force, knowing it will win, will aim not just to rout the force, but rather, to actually kill every single model on the table?

All of that came from specifically un-balancing the forces. What about the other way around - we're so used to the trope of the massive chaos force hounding the poor beleaguered humans - what about a chaos force on the run from a massive Bretonnian army? Perhaps the chaos general is the coward, sacrificing his force so he can survive?

Just a thought.

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Yeah unlike the modern fantasy game 3rd isn't restrictive

This attitude always confuses me. 3rd Ed. is my favourite version of Warhammer, but I can't see why it's so much harder to ditch the army lists and come up with cool scenarios in 8th edition (or 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd and 1st) than it is in 3rd. Almost all of my 8th edition games have been played like that and they have been great fun.

I'm sure there are reasons to dislike more modern versions of Warhammer, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

The main reason is that in 3rd a GM is quite common and more or less a excepted norm. Now a GM in 8th how common is that?, i haven't seen it happen and i have a very large gaming group which plays pretty much plays everything.

For the record though I don't hate 8th in fact i play it alot more then i do 3rd, but when we play 8th its tournament style.

Cheers
Chico

I'm sure both of these facts are true, but don't really answer the question.

If I used a GM in my 8th edition games, or played tournament style 3rd edition games, would that make one edition more restrictive than the other?

If 2 players choose to play within the restrictions of army lists and points values etc, then any system can be seen as restrictive, even 3rd edition (shock horror!!) If they choose not to, then those very same systems can be seen to be a great vehicle for narrative and character driven games.

We all love 3rd edition Warhammer, but I think we need to dispel this whole myth that any WFB rules written after 1990 are dumbed down/restrictive/for kids.

To misquote the gun toting nutjobs of the NRA; Rules dont restrict people. People restrict people.

Ok, rant over.

The difference is in the intention of the writers. 1st / 2nd are written to be played in a certain way, the text itself encourages that kind of play, later editions encourage a different playstyle.

I agree, 3rd Ed. is restrictive in the army lists, and for that reason I don't like it. 2nd isn't restrictive at all. It allows you to create whatever you like and balance using points, and for that reason I like it more.

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Maybe something a little simpler to start and just have the chaos invading a town and either rampaging in general (maybe getting points for de-virginizing houses as they go) or having to destroy the church. The Bretonians getting VPs for saving the church and each building saved. Just in case I can't find a virgin mini...

Yep, that could work! Classic raid - burn the village!

 

[Basement Dweller]

Models are being painted in preparation for the raid...I will post some photos once I have my chaos horde ready to go.

How did demons work in 3rd? Only summoned? I was planning on leaving magic out for the first battle to not make too much to look up the first game...

 

[Orlygg]

Daemons are extremely powerful in 3rd. Greater daemons stats often 10 across the board. You have been warned!

 

[Grumdril]

I'd say you're right to leave magic out for the first game, or if not limit yourselves to level 5 or 10 wizards. Similarly it might be worth dropping mutations, although that might be heretical.

On the edition wars front, I'd say the key point is to have victory conditions, either via points or a GM. These should ideally run slightly at cross purposes to how you'd otherwise run the battle. Which is to say, if you totally wipe out your opponent you'd win, but if things are going slightly against you perhaps you have a secondary way to salvage something, and perhaps come back stronger next time.

It's striking to me that 2nd edition had both army lists and a campaign system in the rulebooks, and both 2nd and (to a lesser extent 3rd) had a number of published narrative battles, with heroes and regiments named, multiple players and victory conditions. Did any of that continue into 4th and beyond, or was it all just army books?

 

[Skarsnik]

It's striking to me that 2nd edition had both army lists and a campaign system in the rulebooks, and both 2nd and (to a lesser extent 3rd) had a number of published narrative battles, with heroes and regiments named, multiple players and victory conditions. Did any of that continue into 4th and beyond, or was it all just army books?

It did indeed, Grudge of Drong and Tears of Isha were published in the late 90s, so I guess 5th edition.

 

[ardyer]

It's striking to me that 2nd edition had both army lists and a campaign system in the rulebooks, and both 2nd and (to a lesser extent 3rd) had a number of published narrative battles, with heroes and regiments named, multiple players and victory conditions. Did any of that continue into 4th and beyond, or was it all just army books?

It did indeed, Grudge of Drong and Tears of Isha were published in the late 90s, so I guess 5th edition.

Grudge of Drong was 4th, as was the Orc one (Idol of Gork, maybe?). There was also an Undead one about 6 months before the Vampire Counts were officially separated from the Tomb Kings. Tears of Isha was 5th, as thats when they finally released the Dark Riders models. The Grudge of Drong was pretty good, had lots of characterful rules like drunk dwarfs and what not. Didn't buy any of the others though.