Warmuster #2 Advanced Siege Feedback/Discussion

[Bel]

Please post here your comments

[marell le fou]

It seems at least partialy detined to me

I had enjoyed the first one because the subjects where more "new ideas" than "refunds of old ideas". There were new armies, in coherence with the Warhammer world... Propositions for figs, etc.

Issue 2 is more a new work on existing rules. And I think the siege rules where playable as they had been published. I don't say your new rules are useless, there are some good ideas (flyers roles). But i don't think it was really necessary.

So finaly i didn't enjoy much reading this one.

Good points :
- Lots of text and not only a long gallery of figs.
- Serious work.

[Bel]

And I think the siege rules where playable as they had been published. I don't say your new rules are useless, there are some good ideas (flyers roles). But i don't think it was really necessary.

Ahhh. There were a LOT of holes and ambiguous situations in published version (just remember it was published 10 years ago). We (mostly Gerald) tried to structurise the rules and specify some points, basing on works of WRM veterans and aiming to avoid common confusion that happens usually when playing siege.

[azrael71]

I love it, but I would say that
The old rules were flaky at best.
I bought a very large castle a few years back to play siege games.
We played 2 games and the rules were that vague that the castle has sat in the garage ever since.
Now it will see a return.

We need to support the community based publications, because basically, that is all we have.
If you have ideas for an upcoming issue let Bel or Lex know.

[Carrington]

I was very happy with these rules as well.  I always had a problem figuring out where the siege rules started and ended in the published magazine, so it's great seeing them collated and revised.

[marell le fou]

I seem to be the only one satisfied by minor adaptation of the ancient rules. 

And yes we have to support this publication. This mean to criticise it too...

It's difficult to propose a very good subject for a next issue... For forums and sites do that all days. In fact, i would say an official fan site with downloadable articles would be a better idea than a publication. For publications like Warmuster are frequently repetitions of existing articles or thread on the net.

[Lex]

Gathering material in one place (and streamlining it) still has its place.

For Warmuster #3 we aim to focus on Scenery and Scenarios,and there is a scenarion competition that has a requirement of NOT being a rehash of already published material. So start writing, and maybe you get in line for the prizes...

[marell le fou]

Yep, i have read it and i could be interested for I like redacting my own scenarios. But my poor level in English will make a competition difficult

Gathering material in one place (and streamlining it) still has its place.

I'm ok with that... Gathering material. But I don't think a publication is the right way to do it.  Just because it's a sum of articles already published here and there on the net. And as there are few warmaster sites, it's repetition for a part.

I think a fan website well constructed, with downloadable stuff like the rules you created would be a better idea to help warmaster cause.

About that, i checked recently the www.warmaster.co.uk site, which is quoted on the old warmaster magazines as THE web site for warmaster. It happen to be actualy for sale. I discussed the point with the owner and i answered me they had plans for that (haha) but where eventualy ok to sell it. Well, ok, the price is high (295£ if i remember well), but it could be interesting anyway.

[Lex]

Yep, i have read it and i could be interested for I like redacting my own scenarios. But my poor level in English will make a competition difficult

Should not be a problem, Warmuster readaction will do all theup-englischin needed (most of our stuff is looked at 4or 5 times too).

[Lex]

Gathering material in one place (and streamlining it) still has its place.

I'm ok with that... Gathering material. But I don't think a publication is the right way to do it.  Just because it's a sum of articles already published here and there on the net. And as there are few warmaster sites, it's repetition for a part.

I think a fan website well constructed, with downloadable stuff like the rules you created would be a better idea to help warmaster cause.

Uhhh   that is what we are already doing with minimal effort and cost on the Warmuster site !!!

That said, the Google webstuff can very easily be connected to a " regular"  site, so that would definitly be a possibility

[spiritusXmachina]

So finaly i didn't enjoy much reading this one.

Good points :
- Lots of text and not only a long gallery of figs.
- Serious work.

Sorry, you did'nt like it. I hope that the next Warmuster Issue is more to your taste.

When I began to play Siege games based upon the Rulebook rules about 6-7 years ago it became obvious very fast that there are a lot of unclear areas in the rules (to say the least). How to play attacks at/in towers? What to do with combat on different levels (after battering a wall-section)? How to deal with combat from rampart to rampart? How should magic be resolved. The way walls and buildings were to be destroyed was not satisfactory at all for me. To be honest imo the original siege rules were just a sketch.

Some issues were improved by David Simpson's "Into the breach" Warmag articles (I appreciated those very much) - but still a lot of topics were unclear (or not satisfying). So I began to playtest and develop some additional ideas - then playtested again and so on (this process took about four years). To be honest my priority was not to publish my own rules I just did it out of interest (and for the fortress I scratchbuilt ;-)).

Still when the Warmuster-Editors discovered my work and asked me to publish it on Warmuster #2 I was happy to accept the challenge and went over the rules again with a lot of help by other motivated Warmaster players (thanx again). And I really was surprised about the amount of extra stuff that was put in (had I known your tricks, vincent, it would'nt have taken me 4 months to scratchbuild my own fortress... ;-)).

Of course those rules are only for dedicated Siege gamers - only those would have discovered the holes in the original rules and only those might discover other new (I hope minor) holes in Warmuster #2 (tell me if you encounter them). But I totally understand that players not so fond of Sieges do not like this one too much (still, there are a lot of nice photos, some scenarios and a lot of interesting modelling/scratchbuilding ideas that could attract others too).

Concerning E-Magazines: Of course I can imagine that those rules could have been published as file download at an Internet-site too (in fact the predecessor of those Siege rules was indeed published like that).
But one thing I know for sure. A simple file would never have reached this level of quality (and I clearly don't mean my part). I'm talking about the layout, the heap of photos and - very important - the amount of proofreading that was done. Not to forget the attention a Magazine gets in comparison to a download-file.

So a big thumbs up for editing the Warmuster-Magazine (thanks Bel and Lex). And I am curious what's cooking in the pot for Warmuster 3.

Greetings,
Gerald

[pw]

I liked the issue in that it compiled (and improved) material that's spread over several locations although I can see Marell's point too and I think that he's right that criticism of the kind offered is genuine support if it can be turned into constructive and forward-moving ideas.


If I think about what I'd like from an ideal WM magazine it'd involve the following (and I know that many of these are impossible but perhaps they give something to aim at?):

Photographs of brilliantly painted models along with painting guides.

Modelling guides.

Detailed battle reports played by competent (tournament?) players. Using perhaps the Battle Chronicler program along with photos of the actual battle, tactical commentary etc. Think of the older WD battle reports (i.e. from about 5 years ago) when they used to invite GT winners to play and explain their choices.

Product reviews with photos. In particular of terrain as the online photos are generally hard to find and rarely place this alongside WM miniatures.
Tournament write-ups.

Competitions with prizes.

New scenarios. I think of the fan-created rules these are likely to be the most popular.

High production values. The standard of GW's photography is very high and it's what I expect from a 'real' magazine. Perhaps impossible but highly desirable. I think that the closer to GW's official WM material this looks the better (the WM Skirmish mod document is the kind of level and style I'd aim for).

Campaign rules. Again, I'd be happy to read fan created campaign rules.

Contributions from/interviews with GW staff responsible for the game.

New official rules. I'm vaguely interested in fan-created rules but much prefer the type above that don't actually modify the core rules.

New miniatures from GW (again, a total pipe dream).



If this publication is about reviving WM then I think it's a step in the right direction but ultimately it isn't enough on its own. Perhaps more tournament gaming is the way forward? Up until a couple of years ago I was very involved with the thriving BB community which is largely driven by the tournament scene, the very busy TBB, now TFF, forum, and is well-supported by the NAF and their rather entertaining world-ranking system. Having said that, BB is probably better suited to tournament play and has always had a fairly strong following. The Epic Armageddon scene has recently become more lively and that seems to be partly due to an increased focus on tournament play (although TacComms has always been a lot busier than this site). Maybe Marell is right about needing a WM site in its own right?

I'm rambling now. To return to the topic, I've liked both Warmuster magazines, and my favourite section has probably been the pictures of miniatures/models. This last issue is the one I'm most likely to use material from as it compiles and improves rules that were previously hard to pull together.

[Lex]

Ohhh      to make this VERY clear, critism, suggestions, whishlists are all VERY welcome. Marell does raise some valid points and we always evaluate the input we are gettin on the site and the publications !!

[pw]

As a follow-up to my above post, and having just revisited both Warmusters, it should be pretty obvious that quite a few of my suggestions are already in place. There are some extremely talented players/modellers taking part already and I'm very much inspired by what I see in the magazine and on this forum. What I really hope is that people beyond this forum are finding and reading the magazine. I guess a second set of thoughts on Warmuster might involve brainstorming how to publicise the magazine further. If this sort of discussion is desirable I'll be happy to join in.

In the meantime, I'll see if I can get an entry sorted for the competitions for next issue...

[azrael71]

I too appreciate constructive criticism.
As for the list of wants, these can be achieved. 
Hopefully one day we shall see the old archive files return to this site, but it always seems to be that something else crops up. 

As for republishing old articles, have you never read the two warmaster annuals then?

Anything of this nature (a fan driven product) normally falters as there is not enough QUALITY content available to make it work!
The only way to remedy this is for YOU to do something about it.
Write an article on painting/modelling etc., write a battle report, although I have an idea on this.

As for prizes, this enterprise is done for free out of peoples free time.
The fund for prizes does not exist and we have to ask how many people would actually pay for a download to fund a prize pool?

Advertising the article is a difficult one.
Magazines rarely get new people into the game, demo games do!
So the more people who see the game being played in the real world the better.
But if anyone has a facebook/twitter account put a link to the new mag on there (I have), put a link on your local gaming forum and then put it on any other gaming forum you go on.

Back to the battle report idea.
At the next 'big' tournament enlist people to take pics and record what went on, thereby supplying a source of reports for the coming months. Perhaps at the winter warmer if there is one. Or whatever you are holding in your locality (I know our polish and spanish friends have a very healthy warmaster scene).
I know when we play it disrupts the game considerably, so that is why I wirte very few (that and I can't write).

As for GW staff becoming involved, I doubt this will happen as most of those originally involved are either no longer with us or the company. I know Rick has some involvement in our little projects, but whether he would be prepared to comment in print is another matter.
It would be nice for an interview with Rick to appear on how he feels the game has evovlved over 10 years.
He is a really great guy and it is always a pleasure when he attends the winter warmer.
Nothing quite like playing against the author of the game we all hold in such high regard.

Just my thoughts.
Perhaps we could do with a sub area to discuss/post article ideas along with anyways we can think to promote the game further.

As epic & BB have been used as examples then I will continue.
BB had very little support for over 10 years and became a fan driven development with a very light touch from GW.
It went on to be THE biggest tournament GW have ever held (requiring extra rooms to be booked at nearby hotels to hold games in) dwarfing all 3 of the core games.
If we could do something similar with WM then we may yet see a resurgence in the game a perhaps (for me the ultimate goal) a release of new model ranges.

Just my thoughts.
Mick