WL System Discussion (Split from Karkarions)

[Qwyksilver]

The Faction books that started off during 1.0 gave a ton of background history and reasons for why certain factions were where they are and who they warred against primarily. Additionally, if you can find the old Apocalypse boxed set, or any of the books in there, you will find a depth of history for a lot of Adon and specifically some of the armies in Savage North.

 

Again, this is not easy to come by material any longer, but it is worth looking for if background is something you crave.

 

There is some consistency within the various armies to make them internally cohesive, but worldwide, no there isn't. And I wouldn't expect it being based on differing nation-states and cultures.

 

Adon is a generic high fantasy land with notable characters in it's history. It's really not a whole heck of a lot different from Toril, Krynn, Middle Earth, etc. The only big difference is that those other high fantasy lands have had a ton more writing done about them to make them more individualized over the past decades. I would have loved to see the Factions expanded on with the splat books like the first 5.

 

Personally, I got into Warlord because I had bought a ton of minis for use in D&D, and then found out there were rules attached. Most of the armies I have bought are ones I can cross populate between RPG and tabletop use. For instance, I have very few Nefsokar models, except for a few I find interesting, but I have a ton of Necro, Mercs, Crusaders, Overlords and [Orcs, Elves & Dwarves] (both 2nd and Savage North). I have some Bloodstone and Darkreach because I can use them for RPG and love the style of them.

[MiniCannuck]

Actually, I recently purchased the Apocalypse boxed set (which is not the Warlord game system) as well as the faction books I could find from Warlord 1st edition. Like I said, there are some great little tidbits to be found which could really personalize the game setting.

 

However, the challenge I have is that the current version of the game (Warlord 2.0) doesn't use much of this information and there is no sense of a timeline or why people are where they are. I think that trying to compare it to Middle Earth or Krynn is not really fair. These other settings have had a lot more thought put into their creation and more time and energy dedicated to their evolution.

 

All of this is doable - it's just a question of whether it is worth getting done

[kristof65]

There is enough core potential in Warlord to be huge. Same with CAV2. The issue (note I said issue, and not problem) is that Reaper is not trying to be a games company. They are being a miniatures company. I think they would like to also be a games company, but have realized that it would require far too much investment in terms of time and energy that can and is being directed elsewhere with better returns.

 

At first, their whole handling of Warlord, CAV and Reich of the Dead bothered me. But in the last 2-3 years, I've seen a serious shift in the way Reaper treats it all. It really appears to me that they are very aware of all the mistakes they've made, and have backed off. It seems to me that they know they can't give the games the love and devotion THEY would like to, let alone what fans who are going to compare them to GW want.

 

Is it a bummer for players who want Warlord to expand? Yes. But it's better than constantly setting up fans for disappointment, which is way too common in this industry among companies. And then I consider the games that I enjoy and still play that haven't been published for years. And in that regard, it doesn't really matter. I know that Reaper's going to be around for awhile, so as long as they continue to sell the books and models for Warlord, so that new players can still get the stuff, then it's all good.

 

At my FLGS, we're going to be starting up a new gaming group next year, called the Neutron Gaming Guild. We're not going to be focusing on games that everyone plays - it's easy to find people to play Warmachine or 40k. We're going to be focusing on having good times playing a wide variety of games - ones that don't get a lot of exposure. The basic idea is that everyone has that favorite game they'd like to play but can't find opponents for. So the guild will be dedicated to letting everyone expose the other players to those games.

 

We're also going to be focusing on something you don't see a lot of in game stores these days - multi-player scenario driven minis games. Warlord is a much, much better fit for those type of games than a lot of other game systems, so it may very well become one of our go to games.

[joshuaslater]

Great post kristof.

[Shakandara]

kristof, I've come to much the same conclusion. Recognizing the hand that's been dealt (and exactly what can be accomplished with it) is important in understanding how Warlord got to where it is, and where it is likely to head in the future.

 

~v

[smokingwreckage]

I would like to hear more of Warlord as Multiplayer; there is far far too little of this in miniatures wargaming, a real lack. For a game like WL where a fan might feasibly own 3+ armies, assuming game time doesn't balloon, that kind of social game could really be fun.

[Heisler]

I have actually thought that a better "niche" for Warlord would be skirmish level games with some minor form of character advancement like Mordheim.

[ObsidianCrane]

Heisler I'm with you on that thought.

 

A skirmish based game that is also designed to expand to a rank and file army game would be great. One of the reasons I want the rules is to look at how easy this sort of thing would be to sort out.

 

I know from looking at the army lists over at reapergames.com that Warlord armies are a lot smaller than I expected, much closer to a skirmish level game than expected. Sure I can assemble a Orc & Goblin force with more than 40 models and similar sized Necropolis but most armies look to be in the 20-30 mini range. So this is a positive start.

 

I know much has been said of the "genericness" of the forces, as in they are "generic fantasy" I think that is part of the appeal - I buy a gnoll for warlord and I get one for DnD/Pathfinder as well. However I also see how the armies could be rearranged to make them more cohesive and evocative, perhaps we live in a world where this is possible now?

[herzogbrian]

I would like to hear more of Warlord as Multiplayer; there is far far too little of this in miniatures wargaming, a real lack. For a game like WL where a fan might feasibly own 3+ armies, assuming game time doesn't balloon, that kind of social game could really be fun.

 

 

Multiplayer is about all we play in NC. We still break down into 2 sides (good v evil or something like that). For initiative, we use numbered cards corresponding to the number of initiative cards the players on each side are entitled to. For example, dwarf player with 3 troops, elf with 4, and crusader with 7. So the good side has 7 cards in their deck. If a 1, 2, or 3 is drawn, then each player moves 1 troop, on a 4 only the elves and crusaders move a troop and on a 5, 6, or 7 only the crusaders move. Tacticians simply declare with the cards are active this turn.

 

For odd numbers of players we usually do 2x 750pts vs 1x 1500 pts; 3x 1000 pts vs 2x 1500 pts

 

Spy is the only thing that we have had issues with. If there are only a few in the game, we have the spy affect all players of one side (that way it is 'fair'/'sucks' for both sides equally). If there are a lot of spys like an Overlord list, then we may have spy only affect 1 of the opposing players, who would execute the spy much as the PVP game (a little more to keep track of but in a friendly game, no worries).

 

We also tend to play these games on a 6' x 8' table without a turn limit and everyone sets up at once

[Warwick]

We've played a lot of multiplayer in Tulsa. 3-4 players. Great games! We didn't change any rules. It works fine the way it is for that. It was such a new level of strategy trying to counter an opponent AND think about what your teammate was about to do.

[Shakandara]

Multiplayer battles work well as long as you are split into sides. 3+ person battles where everyone is in it for themselves invariably end up going one of two ways. Either a) two (or more) players get tangled up, while the last one comes in and mops up for the easy victory, or b) two (or more) players ally and destroy one opponent quickly, and they sort it out between themselves.

 

There are also some funky FA and datacard situations that arise even in allied battles (some card combinations do not exist in certain factions by design, very often due to the access to special rules via FAs, WAs, or faction-specific spells and gear) that can break the game.

 

OTOH, playing games along the lines that Brian describes (2v2, 2v1, etc), where there are definite sides and the point totals between the sides are the same, can be a lot of fun, especially if you can head off the interaction issues I mentioned above.

 

~v

[MiniCannuck]

We have played 2 on 2 as well as 3 on 3 games. We just made an activation deck up with all the cards in it and had normal activation. We also used the rule that figures can only affect their own models with spell/special abilities that benefit a model.

 

The only other rule we enforce is that the faction alignment must match for you to be on the same team (no evil/good alliances).

 

Pretty basic stuff.

[herzogbrian]

We tried doing a straight up initiative deck with each player having his own cards, but with 10+ troops per side, it could take FOREVER for a turn to complete. By allowing all players to move based on the initiative generated, it speeds things up and keeps everyone involved. As both sides can do this, things remain balanced and you can still gain the benefits from having many troops/initiative cards. They tend to be very fun games.

 

As for spells... Allies are NOT friends, so only Attack spells can be cast upon them AND must be cast successfully like any other spell.

 

Melee and Ranged attacks made by multiple troops on the same enemy troop STILL must obey the 'same phase' rule. This can lead to one allied troop not being able to do what they planned if coordination/communication is not maintained (ahhh...fog of war :)

[Qwyksilver]

We had a massive 6 vs 6 battle of BL a few years back at gen con or origins (cant remember) with each army fielding 1000 points. We used initiative for each side Black/Red cards and let the individual generals decide which of the 50+ troops would activate. We flipped two cards at a time to keep things moving. It was a blast.

 

Big multiplayer is very doable so long as points are even. We also used the Neutral armies to help balance out the numbers game too.

[psyberwolfe1]

Ok here it is: my Opus on the problems with Warlord. I'll put the immediate problems up front that are obvious and then get into the less obvious.

The dice type. d10's are horrible. I could go into the mathematical granularity and the statistical problems this die type represents, but the dice represents something bigger to the game. It is a barrier to entry. But don't take my word for it here are two treatises on dice written by the designer of "Dust Warfare" which are pretty illuminating about dice.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/11/designers-corner-mack-martin-on-game.html
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/11/designers-corner-in-defense-of-d6.html

Next initiative deck. This mechanic is bad. It is "advertised" as a way to deal with I-go-U-go and add variety. What it doesn't do is that. Occasionally someone gets stuff activated between their opponent's activations, but more often than not canny players have designed their armies to activate when they want. It took a handful of games before a former player realized I was specifically designing to go after all of his activations, and that there was no way to mitigate it. It would be better if the game got honest with itself and became I-go-U-go.

Damage Tracks just need to go away and be replaced by wounds. The tracks make the card appear overly complicated and unless reminded most people ignore the degrading model status, or it is just irrelevant because the model is killed outright.

Movement distance are too far. 456 models have a movement greater than or equal to 6. With movement spells/buffs we are in melee on turn one. This makes the game boring. Tactical movement is next to non-existent because I guarantee a turn 1 alpha strike.

Ranges are too far for spells and shooting. In the search for realism and game balance we try and strike a chord that makes sense, but either way something will suffer. Shooting isn't as much a problem in this edition but spell casting is.

Spellcasting is too powerful. Anyone who makes spellcasting a priority will employ a competent caster. The thing about spellcasting is that the spell effects in this system are too powerful. For Example: the Witch Queen can reliably cast Dominate on a Warlord class character. So I cast it and then use my free warlord to kill a bunch of my opponents stuff with no consequence to me. This is bad because my opponent has no way to mitigate against this. This is not fun for my opponent. Teleport is equally un-fun because a player can hide a powerful melee asset and get them in base without having to cross the field and no way to stop it.

Finally out of sequence activations, aka defensive shots/attacks. This rewards sloppy play because regardless of stupid tactical decisions players are rewarded for their bad choices or punished for bad dice rolls. (This also ensures that players have lots of Provoke models to mitigate against this, and must have models are bad.)

By no way is this exhaustive, and I may not have this all correct. Most of these criticisms aren't mine, but have been brought to me over time.