Warmaster Revolution General thread

[empireaddict]

@Lex, depending on dates, I think you would get some British interest.  The last weekend in Bergen-op-Zoom was excellent!  Thank you again for organising it.

[Rowlybot]

*snip*
It was also frustrating to keep on track with the point, who has still a advantage from the still existing combat of the „old round“ and who has how much points against whom, when he joins the still existing fight later on.

It was also not „nice“, to realize, the winning unit has no „punch“, when they advanced in a different unit later on. (Missing Attack - Bonus)

In General: Exposed groups of attackers get killed. They have nearly no chance, to make a „good point“.

*snip 2*
I still remember the games, where a unit of Dragon-Ogres smashed a whole brigade of my opponent. I was lucky, my opponent was nearly crying. But, this was possible with the rulesetting of Warmaster. It´s impossible with these rules…

Snip 1 - I think that's the point. To make it so that an unsupported unit can't rampage across the table. They should get bogged down, they should get exhausted.
Snip 2 - Personally, that's the exact reason why the rules need to change. We've all had the ridiculous luck of the heavy cavalry smashing aside everything in it's path - but frankly, where's the skill in rolling a few lucky orders and then a few lucky attacks and saves?

Just my opinions on your observations. I have the opposite experience where I feel these changes are needed and better reflect a battle of the scale that Warmaster is supposed to convey.

[Heiko]

*snip*
It was also frustrating to keep on track with the point, who has still a advantage from the still existing combat of the „old round“ and who has how much points against whom, when he joins the still existing fight later on.

It was also not „nice“, to realize, the winning unit has no „punch“, when they advanced in a different unit later on. (Missing Attack - Bonus)

In General: Exposed groups of attackers get killed. They have nearly no chance, to make a „good point“.

*snip 2*
I still remember the games, where a unit of Dragon-Ogres smashed a whole brigade of my opponent. I was lucky, my opponent was nearly crying. But, this was possible with the rulesetting of Warmaster. It´s impossible with these rules…

Snip 1 - I think that's the point. To make it so that an unsupported unit can't rampage across the table. They should get bogged down, they should get exhausted.
Snip 2 - Personally, that's the exact reason why the rules need to change. We've all had the ridiculous luck of the heavy cavalry smashing aside everything in it's path - but frankly, where's the skill in rolling a few lucky orders and then a few lucky attacks and saves?

Just my opinions on your observations. I have the opposite experience where I feel these changes are needed and better reflect a battle of the scale that Warmaster is supposed to convey.

Hey Rowlybot (and others so far...)

Thanks for your response on my thoughts about WMR. We will do more games with the new rulesetting - we have to, if THIS is the future of Warmaster....

So many gamers stated their good experiences with the new setting - can they all be "wrong" ? Probably our first experiences were just "first experiences" and nothing we could work on. When someone plays since many years with the same rules, itś probably everytime a problem to accept a needfull change.

To be continued.....

Greetings from Frisia / North Germany - close to the Northern Sey....


Heiko

@ Lex : Can 't wait for a date for a meeting at Bergen op Zoom 

[empireaddict]

@Heiko, I support what Rowlybot says.  I have enjoyed WM more since the arrival of WMR.  More skill, less luck.  More all-arms, less max heavy cavalry cheese.  But not as detailed/complex as WMA.  If WMA = sailing boats and WM = power boats, then WMR = fast rowing boats?  Yes, making note of results when the combat pauses is hard, but I use scatter dice to show the direction of pursuit/retreat.  I would say stick with it and perhaps reduce the size of the game at the start?

[Heiko]

@Heiko, I support what Rowlybot says.  I have enjoyed WM more since the arrival of WMR.  More skill, less luck.  More all-arms, less max heavy cavalry cheese.  But not as detailed/complex as WMA.  If WMA = sailing boats and WM = power boats, then WMR = fast rowing boats?  Yes, making note of results when the combat pauses is hard, but I use scatter dice to show the direction of pursuit/retreat.  I would say stick with it and perhaps reduce the size of the game at the start?

@ empireaddict, that´s a good advice. We´ve had a 2.000 points game at the start with WMR. The next "short scenarios" we will do will have just 1200 points. I guess, it makes a difference and give us less chances to become frustrated..... 

[cjbennett22]

It has been a long time for this thread, but don't hate that I am bringing it back.  Earlier in the thread I stated that I had my strong doubts on the 2 round maximum but have since played maybe 10 games with those rules.  I have also made up my "Retreat", "Advance", and "Charge" markers (everything else is pursuing).  I am now absolutely and utterly sold on the combat rules for this game.

Such a fun change to the strategy, the 1-2 punches of reinforcing an engaged unit, the absolute grind of the combat.  Starting your turn with troops already in combat and wanting to get them help adds so much more stress and anxiety within the gameplay.  It is honestly so much more fun to play, to me.

So again, thank you everyone that had a hand in updating these rules!

[Aldhick]

Thanx CJ, glad to hear that. You took your part in it too :-)