WFB Expansions: The Law of Diminishing Returns

[Wildeybeast]

So, I've just read through the first part of the Civil War expansion, and in my humble opinion, it should spell the end of 8th ed expansions. Here's my logic:
SoM - kinda cool, introduces a really interesting dynamic which plays up to the view that magic is OP and lets you use all those really cool new monsters in other armies which you have been looking for a way of working into your army.
Blood in the Badlands- a WD expansion, which by all accounts I've heard, is deeply unbalanced, but I haven't played it, so I'm open to people naysaying that view.
Civil war - an expansion which adds nothing at all to WFB. You have to select an extra 25% worth of points from your own army, but without he usual army restrictions and no magic items. So in other words, go nuts on your rare choices (hello army of Steam Tanks). You then roll on the civil war battle chart which basically gives every model in both armies a random rule (devastating charge, stubbon and so on). You then roll on the army specific table which does something random specific to your army. I can't see how this was worth Jervis' time. I don't feel it adds any extra level of tatical challenge, nor does it change the way WFB is played enough to make it worthwhile. The extra 25% from your own army is just a shameless excuse to get you to buy more stuff and of course you actually need to find someone playing the same army as you. My whole reaction to this is: meh. What's the point? I'm all for new rules in WD, but I just don't see the point in the steady stream of expansions that add less and less to the game, and I really feel that every via avenue has been covered. If you include mordheim and dreadfleet, we now have rules for skirmish, naval battles, siege, magic, monsters and same army battles (which you could do anyway). What else is there? I for one hope this sees an end to expansions and efforts are focused on army books.

So, am I completely out of touch? Is everyone else loving these expansions? What are your thoughts on WFB expansions?

[eldargal]

Well:

SoM: Brilliant, with the scrolls of binding and pacts it opens up so many theme armies and fun things that previously could only be done in a good grup with houserules. Something like a Vampire with undead core and Empire thralls for example, or a Hochland monster taming troupe with lots of beasties. This isn't even touching on the whole arcane fulcrum thing which makes for some really fun battles.

Blood in the Badlands: Staff campaign with rules and some extra siege rules. Honestly as interesting as it was the only rules my group is using the Siege rules, we have our own campaign rulesets. Really a supplement rather than an expansion in my opinion.

Civil War: I'm not familiar with it as some of my brothers have taken the WD to London with them an I'm not buying another copy until I've read it.:rolleyes: But really it just seems like an interesting mini-supplement rather than a proper expansion.

I'm with you on hoping this is an end to WFB expansions, for now. With SoM they have monsters and magic covered, BitB they have Siege covered, they don't need anything more for now.

[Wildeybeast]

I agree that SoM was a godd addition and made for cool new take on Warhammer. What are your thoughts on the siege rules in BitB then? My friends that have played games of it said they have been extremely one sided, what have been your experiences?

[Cherub]

That it is pretty fair. To survive as the attacker or defender you really need to tailor your army for it. You cant just throw your regular army into the mix and expect it to survive. Its a lot more balanced then the old rules for siege, at least that is my experience with it.

And its fun enough that I bought a fortress and have started painting it :)

[eldargal]

Cherub is right, you have to make your list with siege in mind. To be honest we never used the basic rules in BitB, we took them and made more race specifics bits and bobs and made a few other changes but on the whole we have found it all to be decently balanced.

[Wildeybeast]

I might have to give it ago then, especially as a mate of mine brought a fortress for it.

[Chronowraith]

I was really fairly impressed with both Storm of Magic and Blood in the Badlands to be honest.

Storm of Magic is great for those big games you just have to play at times and it lets every army include monsters, something that I know is greatly appreciated by armies which really don't have any monsters at present (Bretts, Empire, Dwarves). It can be a little over the top at times but it always makes for some great memories.

Blood in the Badlands did seem like an old-school WD compilation book, but to me it was still well worth the money. I've played in a dozen campaigns over the years and most of those end miserably when someone figures out how to exploit the hole in the rule set and honestly, my friends and I combed through these rules and didn't find any such glaring holes. So they are interesting, fun, and relatively easy to use. The Siege rules are also fairly easy to use and make for very interesting games. I agree with the others above that you really need to tailor a list for Siege. The first game I played we tried using standard lists and... it didn't go well... for either side.

Civil War I'm looking forward to, especially with a few of the rumors I've heard about it. That being said, I really want them to stop working on these expansions to the basic ruleset and come out with actual army books, as that is what WFB needs at the moment. So many army books are in need of an overhaul since 8th edition (Dwarves, Bretts, WEs, Empire, and I'd even argue skaven given their huge flipbook of errata I have to wade through).

[eldargal]

Ok so my brothers are back with the dratted WD so I've had a look over the Civil War rules.

The Basics:

You don't need to tailor armies for it, but you do take an exta 25% point allocation which is not limited by the usual army selection percentaged but you can't take magic items. After you have your armies ready and whatnot you roll for a standard pitched battle as per the BRB

When you have your scenario you roll 2D6 and consult the Civil War Battle Table, where you will get something like:

2. Annhilation: The only way this dispute will be resolved is by the complete destruction of the other side. Allunits in both armies are Unbreakable. Ignore the normal rules for Game Length and Victory Conditions. Instead the game lasts until one side is completely destroyed. The surviving side wins the battle.
Or

9. Bloody Fued: The two sides have been fueding for years. All units in both armies Hate all units in the other army.

Then you roll another 2D6 and consult an army specific chart in the WD, we currently have Vampire Counts, Beastmen, Ogre Kingdoms and Lizardmen with more to come in future issues. These charts grant special rules to certain units for example from the VC chart:

9. Lahmia Ascendent: Throughout Sylvania the royal sisterhood of the Lahmians reveals itself, striking at the heart of their rival Vampire's armies. All female Vampires in your armies gain the Quickblood and Beguile powers. Furthermore Pallid Handmaidens have +1 Strength.
It is really quite nifty.:) It will add a lot more flavour to themed battles and campaigns, and examples are given such as the HE/DE split, the period of Three Emperors in the Empire and so forth. As expansiosn go it is small and interesting, not worth its own book but a welcome addition to WD.

Oh and another thing to bear in mind with SoM, you don't need to worry about Arcan Fulcrums and Cataclysm spells and whatnot. Just have SoM games using scrolls of binding, or allow them in regular games (with opponents consent obviously). This is what we do in my group now, it is pretty much standard that we will either do the 25% thing or allow one or two scrolls up to a certain points value.

[Wildeybeast]

It is really quite nifty.:) It will add a lot more flavour to themed battles and campaigns, and examples are given such as the HE/DE split, the period of Three Emperors in the Empire and so forth. As expansiosn go it is small and interesting, not worth its own book but a welcome addition to WD.

But my view is, you could do that anyway. All this basically does is relax army selection rules and give you random special rules, something that any gaming group could have come up with in half an hour. I'm not saying they are bad, I just don't see why it was worth Jervis' time to sit down and actually write these things when anyone could have come up with them. There is no need to worry about balance, as both sides are picked from the same army book and have the same special rule, and the 25% unrestricted breaks the balance mechanic anyway. They give the example of building a Nuln artillery army, but if my gaming group wanted that to happen, we could have just done away with army restrictions for that game. Why did we need these rules? I'm probably being unduly harsh and I'm sure there are plenty of people who will like this, but it just seems like dragging on the expansion bandwagon for the sake of it without adding anything or real substance to the game.

[eldargal]

Of course you could, the problem is most people won't without GW holding their hand and telling them precisely how to do it. GW seem to be realising this so they are getting Jervis to write up these rules so people who can't seem to think for themselves will be able to have a bit more depth to their hobby.:) At the very least you can use the extra rules for inspiration for your own, as my group have doen building on BitB and Dreadfleet.

[Wildeybeast]

A fair point. I often forget GW's target audience is not me but the kids I teach!

[eldargal]

I wish it were just kids, plenty of adult gamers seem completely incapable of using house rules or making their own stuff.:(

[Wildeybeast]

Ah, the 'I painted them like that because they are blue on the box' brigade.

[eldargal]

Pretty much, yep. You shoudl have seen the reaction on Warseer once when I suggested someone houserule something. It's like I said 'hey why don't you interfere with a chicken sexually'.:rolleyes:

[Wildeybeast]

From my brief browses of Warseer, I assumed that was how people reacted to every post. That's why I like it on here, people have some creativity and imagination. My friend and I once came up with an RPG game using GW models and the core mechanics where we basically made up some cool conversions and then made rules. We'd play a game, then based on how the narrative worked out, add some new conversion to our characters and make up rules. It ended up getting rathe silly and unbalanced, but it was great for a while. I'd recommend people try making up their own rules adaptions every once in a while, rather than letting GW handhold you (hell even GW recommend trying out you own stuff).