Dave's Attempt at a Warhammer Article:
Playing Styles
In this article what I want to do is to try to illustrate the different
approaches people have to playing warhammer. There are different ways
of playing which require different attitudes towards the game, and I'd like
to try to demonstrate the attitudes you need to play the different styles.
With a bit of luck, this might expand the bounds of the Warhammer
games we play; there is nothing like a bit of variety. Obviously, my
experience is a little limited, but I think it is adequate for the points I
want to make.
Enough of the into-ramble. Straight to the point then: I can see two main
ways of playing warhammer. Given that I believe I'm making this
catagorization for the first time, I'll take it on myself to name them: the
Challenge Game and the Conventional Style. Of course these are not the
only styles, but certainly in our own group they are the most popular
styles played.
The Challenge Game:
WHAT is the makeup of a warhammer army? There is a fair chance that
it doesn't consist of serried ranks of infantry, masses of support troops,
then smaller numbers of elite troops and war-machines. There is are two
good reason for this; such an army will probably loose when pitted
against an army consisting of elite troops and high powered
characters,and such an army costs a lot of money and takes a bloody
long time to paint. This has led to the rise of the Challenge Game, fought
between elite forces and powerful characters. It is silly to think of this as
a clash between fantasy armies representing the forces of nations or even
small baronies; its not. It makes much more sense to think of games
between high powered 'armies' as a Challenge between two very
powerful individuals and their personal henchmen, body guards and
men-at-arms. Such characters would be tactically smart and have to
make the most powerful force possible with a fairly small budget (be this
a monetary budget or a necromantic power budget...) Seen in this
context, the Challenge Game actually makes sense. There is no doubt
that a clash of titans can be very entertaining. Two units collide for the
climatic combat, and you can smell the tension as both players (and
spectators) know the game rests on a handfull of dice-rolls. I might also
mention that a general mounted on a large monster makes a very
impressive site. Of course, the game can often end in a whimper as one
sides general, mage and elite unit are routed off the table by a total
power card...oh well.
Army Selection:
So what constitutes a Challenge game? From the point of view of what's
in the force, it will usually be dominated by one or two powerfull
characters.
Generals easily have 200pts of magic items; everyone has a fourth level
mage (or fifth if allowed) who is often well equipped; powerful special
characters are common. Usually the regiments will be drawn from the
elite forces, who usually provide the best value-for-points. The
characters (when not mounted on a monster) are included with the most
powerful unit to make an almost unstoppable killing machine; almost
unstoppable, because the one thing which can stand up to a force like
this is, of course, the opponents equivalent! The rest of the army usually
consists Mainly of relatively cheap, quirky models and items like Bad
Moon Banner equiped goblins, Black Gem armed champions, Volley
Guns or Bolt Throwers, Hearts of Woe etc. These are things with some
special ability (eg ignore armour save) which can be very dangerous in
the right situation (eg against Chaos knights).
Ethos:
But a Challenge game is defined by more than just what's in the army.
Speaking broadly, the Challenge game is characterised by an 'anything
goes' attitude; if the rules allow it, go for it!! A Dark Elf General with the
Sword of Teclis, a dwarf with the Crown of Sorcery - it doesn't matter if
it doesn't fit with the established "feel" of the armies. If it helps you to
win, do it!! Ten Repeater Bolt Throwers or five Volley Guns in a 2000
point army are quite acceptable if you have them (no guarantee that
anyone will play you, of course).
Strategy:
In a Challenge game, selection is the most critical aspect of strategy.
That Frostblade won't do much good against a magical 1+ armour save;
you need a Deathsword. But against a general with a Black Amulet, a
Deathsword could kill your own general; something that does multiple
wounds would be better. To generalize, there are four main ways to
defeat the opponents power unit and characters: kill 'em, break 'em,
scare 'em or fry 'em. You must decide what your opponent will try to
do, and choose troops and items to defend agains it; equally, you must
decide what defenses you opponent will have, and then either choose to
use another method to fight them or else have enough power to
overcome the defenses. Some examples: there's no point trying to blast
an enemy general with Bright Magic if he has a Talisman of Obsidian;
you can't break dwarven Slayer kings or scare frenzied Savage Orc
Warlords. All said, there is actually not much you can't kill if you have a
big enough sword. And some of those Citadel minatures come with
VERY big swords....
Magic:
I actually don't have much to say on this topic here, but I thought I'd
better include it for completeness. The only real point is that both sides
will include a wizard of the highest allowable level; if you don't, you get
fried (normally). There are also a lot of increasingly cheap magic
item/spell cards available, but these don't seem to get used much in
2000pt games. I might also note that I don't know what effect all the
new Chronicles of War cards will have on Warhammer Magic. See
section on magic below for more on that.
The Conventional Style
NOT everyone fights a Challenge style game - nearly everone, maybe,
but not everyone. Some people play games with ranks of normal infantry
led by normal champions or heros, generals with under 100pts of magic
items and no magical banners. And both side do the same. "What is this
concept?!" you ask. Well, read on to find out about the Conventional
Style.
Army Selection:
What makes a Conventional Style army. Well, the first thing you'll notice
is it might just classify as an army. Infantry and cavalry replace griffons
and dragons. Generals might have 100 pts of magic items as about the
maximum, in our games we often have fourth level mages but they are
not usually "armed-up", and there's lots and lots of models. Characters
are there to lead and support units, but they shouldn't dominate the
game; they should be (at most) similar power to the units. And thats the
other thing - there might not be heaps of rag-tag troops (although in some
armies like Orcs and Goblins or Skaven there might be) but even in elite
armies like elves there will be several similar-power combat units. These
may only be led by a champion, and certainly they would be no match
for a Challenge style unit, but in a Conventional game they become
useful and dangerous. This is simply because there are other units of
about the same power to fight, and enough of them that it actually makes
a difference to VP counts. In a Challenge game you can kill all the
sundry units, but it won't matter a jot if you loose the main fight.
Ethos:
Conventional style is more than a way of army selection; its a state of
mind. Does that sound profound or what? But its true; you can't lay
down a set of selection restrictions and house rules and then say: "Right.
Follow these and you will be playing a Conventional Game". Jervis
Johnson is trying to do this for the Warhammer Tournament, but it won't
work. To play a conventional game, both players have to have the
Conventional Style attitude. They wont take anything which upsets the
game balence, even if upsets it in their own favour. The game is fought
mainly with regiments, and excess (like multitudes of Repeater Bolt
Throwers) are definitely out. Special characters rarely make an
appearence, as these usually have special abilities which take their power
beyond the Conventional Style. Did I mention Nagash? In short, the aim
is to have a good fight and a good laugh, NOT to win.
With a Conventional Style army, selection is not critical. Nearly any
troops can be put to good use, even if its just decoy or harrassment.
Magic item selection shouldn't matter very much; if it does you probably
aren't playing true Conventional Style. Items and allies are taken to fit
with the accepted feel of the army, and no-one will bring anything too
powerful. Some measure of self restraint is necessary; what the rules say
you can have and what you can take and keep to Conventional style are
not the same, but as there are no rules to restrict you so you have to
restrict yourself. For example, in my conventional games using Empire
forces the Steam Tank usually stays on the shelf, one Volley Gun is all I
ever want, the High Elves who come along to help me every game never
borrow a Repeater Bolt Thrower and the Supreme Patriarch always
stays in the box, regardless of how many Treemen my opponent might
have.
To summerize, the Conventional Style army should be largely composed
of conventional troops. For example, with Empire this means spearmen,
swordsmen, and archers rather than Flagellants, ogres and Outriders. I
DON'T mean by this that these special and elite troops should be left out
of the Conventional game; in fact they will probably be a vital
component in any army. What I DO mean is that these should be treated
as special and elite, instead of being the norm as they are in a Challenge
game.
Strategy and Tactics:
Now to my favorite aspect of the Conventional Game; strategy and
tactics. Unlike a Challenge Game where selection is the most important
aspect, in a Conventional Game setup must be about the most important
part. Your army will probably contain a variety of troop types, and so
will your opponents. The trick is of course to set up your units opposite
enemy units you think they can beat. For example: you don't want to
place wardances against heavily armoured knights, but a treeman will do
the job very well. Similarly, a unit of halberdiers might be able to break
the treeman, or at least occupy him for a while, but wardances will
slaughter the halberdiers. I think you get the idea.
Beyond setup, movement and timing are critical. You have to manouver
troops to get into position to charge, shoot, flank or just plain avoid other
units. This is the crux of the Conventional Style strategy; the aim is not
to achieve victory by having the most potent combination of magical
weapons, nor to achieve victory by having troops and characters which
are better value-for-points than your opponent. The aim is to manouver
your troops so that they can engage the enemy on their own terms.
Charge with knights, defend with spearmen; in a Challenge Style game
the specialities of the different troop types are usually overshadowed by
the power of the characters in the units. Time your attacks so that you
can attack in the flanks the next round; in a Conventional game the panic
test and +1 to combat resolution actually mean something. See if you can
get that unit of light cavalry behind the enemy lines, rather than just
dumping a wyvery down on the war-machines. Setup and overall plan
must include provision for lines of fire for missile troops and
war-machines, and the positioning of the general and battle standard
should be to maximize the use of their leadership rather than to maximize
the damage they can do in combat.
Magic:
One thing which I haven't mentioned yet is magic (of the wizard rather
than item variety). To be honest, I haven't quite worked out how to best
fit magic into the Conventional style game. But I have lots of ideas, some
of which I'll share in the hope that they might spark inspiration in another
player.
Firstly, powerful wizards don't really belong in a Conventional game. A
powerful wizard can be more dangerous than a powerful general,
especially if a higher level that all other wizards in the game. That said, I
must add that powerful wizards usually cancel each other out, and they
don't eclipse everything else in the process (except lower level wizards,
of course). The main effect is often simply to use up lots of points and
reduce the army size! Playing with lower level wizards does help to a
degree, in that you have less spell customization (and more troops to use
with the saved points), yet even low level mages can domainte. The
problem comes in part from the Warhammer magic rules; a Flamestorm
summoned by a level one wizard is every bit as destructive as one
summoned by a wizard lord. You'd be amazed how much damage a
Light Mage Champion can do given a free run; I was. In fact, if you play
with level restrictions but spend the same number of points on wizards,
you can actually make magic more powerful. This is because you get
more spell cards, and can cast more effectively; how many times have
you had to throw in power cards because your level four mage has no
appropriate spells?
In a Conventional game magic should be used to assist the rest of the
army; reduce numbers, stop units from moving in to attack flanks,
protect from war-machines etc. Its not there to blast entire units (or
armies) out of existence; this is what you do in a Chalenge game. The
number of defensive spells is actually quite limited (I reckon we should
make a few up), but some of the offensive spells are very deadly.
Admittedly, in a Conventional game powerful offensive spells can loose
some of their edge, because there isn't the concentration of points that
there is in a Challenge game. Even so, a few suggestions if you find that
magic has too great an effect; take out the Total Power card, take out
the power three spells, play with magic level limits and mage number
limits or take a few power cards out of the deck to increase the
proportion of dispels.
Magic Ethos:
All that said, there is another way to play magic in a Conventional game.
This is a concept I like but have never devised a set of rules to enable
me to play. The idea is that wizards fight wizards in magical duels across
the battlefield. The victor then has a free reign to attack the units in the
opponents army. I don't mean by this a character-on-character challenge,
like in hand-to-hand combat, although I suppose you could do it that
way. Actually....another time! What I mean is that, given the Rebound
card, Destroy Spell Scrolls and cards and the plethora of items which
came in Chronicles of War which VERY strongly discourage casting
spells at other mages, the wizards seem to have very little choice but to
play defensive or else vent thier anger on enemy units. If instead the
wizards concentrated on each other for a while it might leave the rest of
the army able to get on with life for a bit, and perhaps have some effect
on the game. There is no need to provide inducements to kill enemy
wizards; the advantages of having the only or highest level wizard are
pretty obvious.
In the above scenario you have three or four wizards on either side, with
levels appropriate for the size of the army. Hopefully they will have a
variety of spells; Empire is the perfect example. They have to try to
eliminate other wizards, while at the same time help the units in the army
and try to inflict casualties on the enemy. I suspect the key points are to
keep the number of power cards down below the number of useable
spells, and to make wizards targetable. Then, as a player you have to
compromise between slaying other mages, which will give you an
advantage in the long-term, and attacking other units or defending your
own. Do you have your Celestial wizard Lightning Bolt the enemy
sorceress leading the spearmen or should you get your Light mage to the
entrap the horsemen who are attacking your cannon? Or use the power
cards to defend your general from those bloody Wardances? If you keep
the winds of magic low, or increase the proportion of dispels, then this
idea shouldn't really increase the influence of magic on the game. What I
think it will do is introduce more decisions and more excitement than
having a single level four wizard who each round will usually be
restricted by range, power cards numbers, lines of sight and enemy
defenses to a choice of one or two spells; a mage who can only effect
one corner of the battlefield and only fight other wizards if he has a Total
Power card. Perhaps I've been hanging out with Brettonial Quest
Knights too long, but surely it makes more sense for wizards to be able
to fight each other than forcing then to always target the most defensless
units in the opposing army?
Conclusion:
THAT's pretty much all I have to say, and I suspect it's a lot more than
you actually wanted to read. I had wanted to include ideas on other
styles (a Classical Style fought with only one magic item, custom-made,
per side; a Wizardry Style fought almost entirely with mages), but I
haven't played these styles yet. Not to mention that there are a multitude
of shades-of-grey between the Challenge and Conventional style. But
there are two last points I want to make.
Firstly, many gamers (drawn from a non-existent survey of our group,
WD comments and a quick squiz at the Net) seem to think that there is a
"correct" or "best" Warhammer style. Some people consider that, for
example, powerful special characters should be left out of games, while
other gamers use them every game and wonder how anyone can play
otherwise! I don't believe there is a "correct" style; the style to play
should be determined by personal preference and how you feel at the
time. In short, gamers should play the style they enjoy.
The second point I have to make is this: I have outlined two styles of
Warhammer, the two I have seen played the most. The Challenge style
and the Conventional style are both valid, but they are NOT
COMPATIBLE; I don't believe you can have one player Challenge style
and the other Conventional. This is not because the Conventional style
player will usually loose (although he propbably will), but because the
etho's (ethii?) of the styles and attitudes of the players will clash. One
player will think the other unreasonable and the other probably consider
his opponent rather inept. From my own experience, you get the most
enjoyment when both people are playing the same game.
GoHome