Warhammer 3e Demo Experiences -OR- How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bits

[C_M2008]

Finally got my copy on boxing day. Still pouring through the books as of now.

The rule bits are fairly dispersed through out the 4 books, they could probably all fit in 30-50 pages (I hope they reorganize them and do a players guide like that).

Poor rules organization is the only complaint I have so far, I'm running our First session on Friday (chargen hopefully won't end up eating the whole session) so I'll post a full review this up coming weekend after I've gotten a chance to run a session.

 

[Asmor]

Not available yet, but it's coming.

Not sure how I feel about the mix of dice. This page has a list of them. It seems like that should be enough for a lot of common checks, but in particular I'd liked it to have one more of each of misfortune and challenge dice. It seems like this pack is targeted squarely at players.

Also a bit pricey at $12 for twelve dice, but I guess that's not horrible since they're all custom dice and I'm sure FFG isn't expecting the volume of sales necessary to push the price down further.

Finally got my copy on boxing day. Still pouring through the books as of now.

The rule bits are fairly dispersed through out the 4 books, they could probably all fit in 30-50 pages (I hope they reorganize them and do a players guide like that).

Poor rules organization is the only complaint I have so far, I'm running our First session on Friday (chargen hopefully won't end up eating the whole session) so I'll post a full review this up coming weekend after I've gotten a chance to run a session.

Yeah, that's been my one major gripe with the game-- the rulebooks. They're poorly organized, it's difficult to find little rules you need quickly, no index, and all of the books are filled with editing errors.

 

[Mark Theurer]

I don't really think that everyone HAS to have a copy of the game. Sure, it would make most things easier if everyone had access to their own rulebooks and sets of dice but I would not say it's required. I'm starting our campaign (3-4 players plus me as GM) this weekend with me being the only one owning anything. I'll let you know how it goes.

Mark

The more abstract combat will certainly make PbP go a little bit smoother, and given how initiative works there will be a lot less of waiting around for player X's turn.

The difficulties are in handling the game specific randomizers (dice pool, critical wounds deck, miscast deck, etc.) and, of course, that each player would need their own copy of the $100 game.

That said, assuming you have a decent gaming community, I don't think you'll have too much trouble finding players. I've run a few one shots for friends and at gamedays, and everyone who's played showed some interest in contiuning the adventure in an ongoing campaign.

 

[Asmor]

I don't really think that everyone HAS to have a copy of the game. Sure, it would make most things easier if everyone had access to their own rulebooks and sets of dice but I would not say it's required. I'm starting our campaign (3-4 players plus me as GM) this weekend with me being the only one owning anything. I'll let you know how it goes.

Mark

The context of that conversation was an online game, which would indeed be a little difficult to pull off if not everyone had their own copy. It could probably be done, though.

 

[arscott]

Yeah, was specifically talking about online, where lack of access to action, talent, and career cards would be amazingly awkward.

In person, one box works out incredibly well for a GM and three players, and can still work nicely for four or more.

 

[DMfromdimensionX]

Yet all of those 'tons of dice and rules' fit on a single picture. Interesting trick

pretty much all of 3X boiled down to d20 plus mods. That would fit on one page too. Guess maybe systems have more to think about then what the first combat page says.

 

[Mark Theurer]

Sorry about that, my bad. Yes, for online everyone would need a lot more of what comes in the box for themselves.

Mark

The context of that conversation was an online game, which would indeed be a little difficult to pull off if not everyone had their own copy. It could probably be done, though.

 

[Wrathamon]

Finally got my copy on boxing day. Still pouring through the books as of now.

The rule bits are fairly dispersed through out the 4 books, they could probably all fit in 30-50 pages (I hope they reorganize them and do a players guide like that).

Poor rules organization is the only complaint I have so far, I'm running our First session on Friday (chargen hopefully won't end up eating the whole session) so I'll post a full review this up coming weekend after I've gotten a chance to run a session.

I will have to agree... too many rules spread out amongst a lot of fluff and explanations. It is very easy to "read" into rules and think it means more than it actually is... one being leaving an engagement as a "free" action. it sounds like an OA (AoO) but really you cant do it at all, and the fluff is just there to explain why you cant...

--

I'll just give my impressions in a long summary.


1. it's not a boardgame - You can play this game with out the bits with just pencil and paper. All you need are the fancy dice. (even then you can replace it with normal dice; you would just need a legend to explain what the numbers mean... which I dont think would be much fun)

2. There are some mechanics that are just difficult to get use to quickly and the rules as organized don't make it super easy.

• 
  Engagement and Ranges I thought this would be pretty straight-forward. But, my group really had a hard time with it. Almost like when they took facing out of D&D. It is completely abstract. You really dont need the standies but it helps if you really care about more than just what range you are in to your target, but where you are in relation to others.
  
  
  In D&Dish terms -
  
  

  • An Engagement pretty much means you are baseing the enemy and can attack them with a melee weapon.

  • Close is you can easily engage the enemy - you are a "move action" away.

  • Medium you need to spend some "Fatigue" to engage an enemy, but you can move into close range easily. Taking a Full action to charge or double move sorta example.

  • Long you are far away and probably either need to spend some time or fatigue getting in range or use long range attacks.
  The close and engagement stuff and how you move from one range to the next caused a bit of head scratching with my players, but really it was going so where is this guy compared to this guy?
  
  Questions where after i described a scene... the orc is at medium range on the stairs and the beastman is close to you... so how far away is the beastman from the orc? I would say medium... and they would have a hard time understanding that or visualizing it in their heads.
  
  Another was...
  
  
  "i attack the boar with Mighty blow"
  
  and I would go...
  
  "you havent engaged with the boar yet..."
  
  "But, i'm at Close range?"
  
  it got easier as the night progressed and after awhile some battles i didnt even use the markers.
  ​

• 
  The dice in combat weren't too hard to manage actually. The players (once they understood all the symbols) were able to get results fast. At times it felt like players wanted their own dice thou.
  
  It was in the non combat areas were "interpretation" was a bit harder for the players to understand. This was a boon and a bane for me... heh
  
  First, let me explain how dice work in non-combat encounters.
  
  
  
  I guess this is WFRP skill challenges (and I like it) you describe the situation and the players tell you what they want to do. You form a dice pool almost the same way you do in combat. Set the challenge level (how many purple dice) and see how many "good" dice the player gets based on their character (e.g. fortune dice based on their skill specialties) and how many extra "bad" dice based on what they are doing and any influencing effects that may be going on at the time (e.g misfortune dice because its raining).
  
  Player rolls and then let the interpretation begin... not really, but for the most part its easy to find out if the player succeeded or not. Same as combat, but how well or what side effects occur you look to the boons and banes, comets and chaos symbols. For the most part you could just ignore them and just say they are just like hammers and crossed swords or you can roleplay more into it.
  ​
  
  The bane of this for me was that players' expectations for a result based on the rolls might not be what I interpreted for the scene... and that caused a few "issues". I have a couple of non-roleplayer gamers and they didnt like the ambiguity of dice interpretation.
  
  The boon... Other players, really got into the "story-telling" aspect of it and so did I. I was able to describe the scene based on the dice and since it was random, they felt more connected to the events.

• 
  The Progress Tracks for me this was the hardest thing to use... I really dont know why. It seems pretty straight forward but in execution I felt like just using paper (i.e. my laptop)
  
  Fantasy Flight Games [News] - Tale Telling Tools
  
  This has a good explanation of how they work... really is just a DM aid to help keep track and give the player (if needed) a visual representation of progress.

• 
  Initative WOW did my players not work together here... (I like the mechanic for party tension... I think it was made for this!)
  
  The idea that if one character rolls high and one rolls low; the players dont go in a set order but can act independent of what they rolled, was like oil and water or Elves and Dwarves cohabitanting.
  
  In actuality, it probably would go over well with players that like to invest a lot of "teamwork" but for players that are more dare I say selfish... it came to "fine your rolled higher go first".
  
  I think with time they could get use to it but even when they accepted it, the time it took for them to figure out who goes first or acts started to slow down the game. I had to enforce time limits to keep the pacing.

• 
  henchmen - this isnt a new concept but the actual execution was hard for me to understand just by reading it.. only by playing it a few times did I get the idea of how it actually works. I would suggest before running a game, playtest combat by yourself

The main thing that I am still a bit unclear on is advancement - seems very different and losing things you had based on career switching (talents) I'm not sure how well it will go over with my players "if" we get that far.

there is more I could go over... but Im at work and need to leave... Sorry for the typos and grammar; need to leave before the Wife aggros!

I didnt even get to the parts I liked!

 

[C_M2008]

I didnt even get to the parts I liked!

Will there be a part 2 then?

 

[pogre]

I bought and we played a couple of sessions. I think the very reason a lot of people are going to LOVE this game are reasons I do not prefer it. It's a good game. The dice pools work. Most of the mechanics work well. The rulebooks take a bit to figure out, but they are usable. It is absolutely a rpg - I was ready for a Warhammer Quest type game and it is absolutely not.

So why am I selling my copy?

1. My players say they would rather play 2e. They do not feel this edition has really beat 2e. Purely a subjective judgment on their part.

2. If 2e WFRP was akin to 3e D&D, 3e WFRP is akin to 4e D&D. This should be a huge selling point for a lot of folks. I think 3e WFRP does powers, actions, etc. arguably better than 4e D&D. There certainly is some solid innovation in the rules.

3. We love miniatures and terrain. I certainly could houserule this stuff in. However, it hardly seems worth the effort given #1. I'm shocked GW OKed this version that explicitly eschews miniatures in favor of cardboard standups with reference rings built into them. BTW - I'm aware no grid and no minis is a HUGE plus for a lot of folks.

4. The bits were overwhelming. I personally was hoping for a simple learning curve. My group is an experienced one that has playtested dozens of systems - (we were playtesters for 4e D&D and WFRP 2e to give a couple of examples) - we still had to take a lot of time to figure things out. For a lot of the mechanics the fun payoff just was not there for us.

5. I think the stat blocks are counterintuitive, even for a veteran WFRPer for me. Yes, I could figure them out, but they were not handy or particularly short.

So, I think this is a solid game. Just not for us. I have all the 2e stuff and for our group the Pramas version of the game is the best one right now.

I think if you enjoy the innovations of D&D 4e this is probably the right WFRP choice for you.