Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: WHFB4
From: <ALOHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 1992 14:24:33 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Oct22.063027.3560@u.washington.edu>,
arrow@stein.u.washington.edu (Ken Martin) says:
>
>I picked it up.  It's $55 US, and not worth it unless you want the figs.
>
>The only rules that I feel are worth using are the new artillery rules,
>but if you've got the last several White Dwarfs, just use those rules.
>Every other section in there sucks, as far as I can tell.
>
>To give you the worst example, here's what they did to aerial movement:
>
>
Unfortunately, I will have to disagree with you on this one.  I have also
picked up the new one, and have had the opportunity to play it a couple
of times.  I particularly like the new aerial movement rules.  Let me
explain why.

I have been mostly playing skaven and undead armies.  Usually, my opponents
have been elves of some good flavor.  Now, you may know that undead can't
hit the broadside of a barn with any kind of missle weapon, with the
one exception of the catapult, which doesn't depend on bow skill, but
can't hit a flying creature (as per the old rules).  Skaven are also
severely limited in their missle fire, as they can't have bows, only
slings, and were limited to 6 jezzails in the whole army.  What my
opponent would almost invariably do is take a flying dragon.  He would
fly around at +20 level.  From there, he had no deductions to range for
breath weapons, spells, the rider's missle fire or spells, etc.  My poor
little guys on the ground got a -20" off their range, which meant
slings, warpfire teams, spells if the dragon was anywhere over 4" away,
and anything else I could think of were useless.  Why should the elf
player buy anything else?

Now, if he wants the dragon included, that's fine.  I have an opportunity
to fight back.  Obvious response: but it's not realistic!  My answer:
OK, maybe it's not, but I found I didn't really feel like playing, when
one dragon on the other side means the end of me.  I play for the chance
to give as well as receive, and if realism means that I will always lose,
then let's skip the realism.  Key word: Fantasy.

Another new rule in the game that also evens things up a bit when fighting
elves is the new turn sequence.  The sequence is as follows:  movement,
shooting, hth combat (both sides), magic (now also both sides).  That's
right, no reserve move.  Instead there is a "march" option where troops
away from the enemy may move double rate, if they forgo firing.  In the
above skaven vs. elves and undead vs. elves games, the elves would pick
some patch of woods, and hide inside.  On their turn, they would run out,
use their 5 BS to shoot up anyone within their (extended) range of 36",
and run back in the woods.  Now it's my turn.  Glory be, I can't see
any elves!  Guess I just gotta walk forward.  Then out come the
elven machine gunners again.  Not that these are bad tactics under the
rules, but again, it's an over-potent attack that is unavailable to us
lesser, if more numerous mortals.  Now, if someone can shoot at me, I can
at least have the chance to shoot back.  I am not complaining just because
I don't play elves, either.  If I played the elves, I wouldn't enjoy a
pushover game either.

Other aspects to the new game that I like:  in the magic phase, both
players cast magic, and each wizard can cast all his spells every turn.
This makes higher level wizards much more worth the high point cost, and
magic more a part of the game.  [I didn't like the old magic system too
much.  I got the "Part Water" spell a few too many times.]  I also like
the new chariot rules.  With the old rules, I had destroyed chariots
with as little as one bow hit, or one hth blow from a skaven.  Now
they are tougher and more manouverable.

Warhammer Magic is due out in England in about five days, according to
the mail order guys.  This is addition will hopefully be another
improvement.  And the game isn't any more expensive than the old one.
So, overall, I think it's an improvement.
>
>--Ken Martin
>arrow@u.washington.edu

This should get some talk going, eh, Ken?  :-]


Aaron L. Overton
alohc@cunyvm.edu