Any Love for Herohammer?

Snickit

Member
mbh":2n89jygp said:
one of the best things about hero hammer was how much easier it was to build a large army. As a broke ass kid, 4th edition screwiness helped me build a full Skaven army on a budget. 50% characters ftw.

Agreed, back in the day this was the way, mainly because Erny and I chose Hero's instead of Champions to lead units as we saw Champions as being a bit puny. Now It's Champions with hero's hardly getting a look in.

My only issue with Champions in 4th and onwards is that they have to armed the same as the unit, when most Campion mini's aren't armed the same. There aren't many spear wielding Skaven Champions! I'd like to see Champions being allowed to have different equipment (heavy armour with a shield slows them down so the unit would suffer as they'd have to move at the slower pace, it's your choice) or the two hand weapon combo that a lot of my favourite Champion mini's have.
 

Galadrin

Member
Thank you for that list treps (and the commentary by Erny and Blue). In my opinion, 4th/5th were a very different game than 3rd and the feel and experience of the game was very different in each. In general, 4th/5th (although there are differences between these two as well) was very much a high-stakes game, while 3rd edition felt more evenly paced out and more forgiving. Not only were fleeing units automatically destroyed if caught, units were constantly fleeing. Units that lost combat were three to four times more likely to flee from combat. (Hand to hand combat in general was very different, with boosts to hitting and damage, armour protection reduced, combat resolution counted against Leadership tests and the 25% casualty rule removed.) The new rule for Terror caused units to panic if they were within range. The death of the General would cause panic, as would a nearby friendly panicking unit! The critical moments of the game were always Leadership rolls, and they came at you fast and furious throughout the entire game. Many a game ended when one unit panicked and it caused a cascade of routing units in the battleline. You could even be winning and suddenly lose everything.

I can totally see how some people would be turned off by this, but in a strange way I really enjoyed it. Sure, it was often my Athel Loren host on the receiving end of a bad rout, but just the notion that you could be in dead last place and pull victory from defeat by forcing a leadership test on the enemy was exhilarating. Even when you lost, you lost dramatically, cinematically, heartbreakingly and epically.

I like to view 4th/5th as just another way to play with your Warhammer minis. It belongs on the shelf with 3rd edition and other editions. It is a very, very different kind of a game, without a doubt, but it is fun and silly in its own way.
 

Galadrin

Member
How would people feel about a Herohammer retro clone? Mechanically, it would stick to the 1996 version of the game, while avoiding IP as much as possible (you cannot actually copyright game mechanics, but you can copyright characters and names... go figure). Just a teaser:

 

treps

Member
Actually no one really tried to publish a retro clone of a GW game... So no one really knows how GW would react !

I have an almost ready 3rd edition retro clone, I believe that I do understand copyright laws pretty well but I'm still not sure of what to do of it :/
 

Galadrin

Member
Unfortunately, art is very much copyrighted and I can't see doing a real homage without that terrific art that inspired us in the first place... Art is definitely key, sadly.
 
I enjoyed 4th Edition a lot at the time. Magic system was my favourite part of the game. It all went to the jumble sale years ago though. I just have the 3rd edition rule books.
 

Skarsnik

Member
What's the point in a retro clone of 4th edition onwards? You can pick up the original rules and army books for next to nothing anyway.
 

zoggin-eck

Member
Galadrin, a 5th retroclone would interest me. Not really needed since I have what I need, but still cool.

Since I assume it would be directed to existing or past players, I'm not sure artwork is needed? I find a well laid out rulebook without art is more useful when actually playing.
 

Harry

Moderator
Norse (Chris) has just finished work on a retro clone ... I think it is 3rd edition? He is just checking with the original writers (Mr P et al). are OK with it before dropping it on the interwebz free to the world.
The point (as I understand it} is that once you produce a retro clone under an open gaming licence if anyone else wanted to write and make available a scenario like The grudge of Drong or McDeath pr indeed any other supplement you would be able to for the retro clone when you wouldn't for the original game.
So where as I could not publish a D&D module ... I could write and publish a module for a D&D Retro clone.
 

treps

Member
In fact anybody could publish (and sell) a supplement for a published game, the only real legal problem is claiming compatibility as using a copyrighted name or a trade mark without authorization of the owner is in theory not permitted and can be considered as brand parasitism.

The problem with GW is that they have (had) a tendency to sue even if it is pure bluff...
 

Harry

Moderator
treps":3h2g3k7i said:
In fact anybody could publish (and sell) a supplement for a published game, the only real legal problem is claiming compatibility as using a copyrighted name or a trade mark without authorization of the owner is in theory not permitted and can be considered as brand parasitism.
Ah, that's right ... this is exactly how Chris explained it.
 
I came into this hobby from AD&D and discovered Rogue Trader first, so my friend and I mostly played Rogue Trader. We lived abroad and had no local game store or GW to go to so we put all our eggs in the RT basket, so all we saw of WHFB was in the handful of White Dwarfs we had. I was introduced to 4th ed WHFB when I moved to another country. I was only in middle school but the different style of play was evident to me. Now, I had a lot of fun playing 4th ed but my friends and I got really frustrated with each other a lot and there were fits of throwing stuff and arguing over rules, and it just turned into a game of optimizing army lists and building super units.

From a rules standpoint 4th ed is great. I enjoyed the magic card system and flying high and how quickly we could play games, but coming from a RPG background I felt like I was painted into a corner. I still had my Rogue Trader rulebooks and we played a few games, but no one else had miniatures so we didn't do that very much. Even though the mechanics are almost identical, those games of Rogue Trader were way more fun. We were playing with the each other, and not against each other. None of the arguing and optimizing army lists. We also continued to play AD&D and Shadowrun because we enjoyed the role playing element. There is a lot more of that in 3rd ed than 4th ed.

So I guess it just boils down to what kind of game you prefer to play. When we played 4th ed it was fun, but there was no story to it. When my friends and I played Rogue Trader, it was all about the story. We spent a long bus ride on a field trip writing a story, taking turns writing a page. When we got back from the field trip we played the game out on the tabletop. I guess that's really the difference for me.
 

Galadrin

Member
zoggin-eck":2fylg9fy said:
Galadrin, a 5th retroclone would interest me. Not really needed since I have what I need, but still cool.

Since I assume it would be directed to existing or past players, I'm not sure artwork is needed? I find a well laid out rulebook without art is more useful when actually playing.

Hah, since I made that post, I am now thinking of something more along the lines of a 3.5. A base game of 3rd Edition, heavily cleaned up and organized, with elements of 4th/5th brought in (combat resolution penalty to break tests, 4e/5e war machines and magic, dice rolled pursuit and fleeing, percentage army construction, panic test from death of general etc.). It would be Herohammery but with the gritty blow-for-blow combat that 3e is known for (so while you could splurge kitting out the ultimate hero with crazy magic item combos, a unit of regular mooks would still last a few turns against him instead of being blown apart instantly). I'm very much open to suggestions, however!
 

treps

Member
Galadrin":3ceiuivu said:
zoggin-eck":3ceiuivu said:
Galadrin, a 5th retroclone would interest me. Not really needed since I have what I need, but still cool.

Since I assume it would be directed to existing or past players, I'm not sure artwork is needed? I find a well laid out rulebook without art is more useful when actually playing.

Hah, since I made that post, I am now thinking of something more along the lines of a 3.5. A base game of 3rd Edition, heavily cleaned up and organized, with elements of 4th/5th brought in (combat resolution penalty to break tests, 4e/5e war machines and magic, dice rolled pursuit and fleeing, percentage army construction, panic test from death of general etc.). It would be Herohammery but with the gritty blow-for-blow combat that 3e is known for (so while you could splurge kitting out the ultimate hero with crazy magic item combos, a unit of regular mooks would still last a few turns against him instead of being blown apart instantly). I'm very much open to suggestions, however!
FWIW, this is my personal opinion, no critics intended against anyone here !

Honestly, as much as I do believe that a pure retro-clone who would let anyone publish supplements of any edition would be a good idea, I do believe that it needs to adhere strictly to a published edition (with erratas).

An hybrid edition, taking parts from multiple edition and trying to make the best of them would be a new different game and would complicate things more than help, again, this is just my opinion.

What is needed are real retro clones of editions for which people would be interested to publish supplements as it would allow the owners of the original editions to use them without any change.
To be clear as English is not my native tongue : "BattleAxe" must be a retro clone of 4th and must be 100% compatible with 4th as it would allow people to publish supplements for "BattleAxe" 100% compatible with 4th... If "BattleAxe" is a mix of 3rd and 4th then neither players of 3rd nor 4th will use the supplements published for it.... (replace 4th or 3rd with any edition you like)
 

zoggin-eck

Member
I think worrying too much about publishing supplements/campaigns is getting ahead of ourselves? Can't we already do that, just make it a point to not mention Warhammer by name? (Like "compatible with the 'original edition' or 'latest edition' D&D modules). Then again, plenty of people do the same already, posting their scenario and campaign ideas here.

As for a hybrid set of rules, sounds interesting to me, but I already enjoy the different Warhammers we have. Same goes for the seventy-nine new fan editions of 8th!
 

treps

Member
zoggin-eck":qhf73ig6 said:
I think worrying too much about publishing supplements/campaigns is getting ahead of ourselves? Can't we already do that, just make it a point to not mention Warhammer by name? (Like "compatible with the 'original edition' or 'latest edition' D&D modules). Then again, plenty of people do the same already, posting their scenario and campaign ideas here.

As for a hybrid set of rules, sounds interesting to me, but I already enjoy the different Warhammers we have. Same goes for the seventy-nine new fan editions of 8th!
As long as it is made for free on forums and blogs there's no problems at all, but if someone wants to publish and sell something then the question is open on how to do it without having to fear for GW suing him... And, in this case a retro clone would be the solution.

Lets take an example : I make a campaign for Warhammer 3rd edition with maps, complete settings, cut out scenery, etc. and I would like to sell it on Wargames Vault or any other site. If i claim clearly that the campaign pack is compatible with Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd Edition then GW could sue me for using their brand without their authorization. My alternatives are the following ones, either I say that it is "compatible with the 3rd edition of the most popular British fantasy miniatures battle game" or something in the same vein, and that should be fine as I don't use any of their trademarks but it's a bit cryptic, or, in the case where there is a retro clone of Warhammer 3rd edition known to be 100% compatible (and available for free with a generous license such as the OGL) I just have to say that my product is compatible with this retro clone, everybody will know that it is intended to be played with the 3rd edition of WFB.
The last case is my favorite one and that's why I do believe that we need retro clones of existing editions !
 

Galadrin

Member
Well a retro clone does not need to be an exact replica of an old ruleset in order to furnish the minimum legal requirements for supplements to be published. It just has to be close enough that people can still design Warhammer modules and put the retroclone stamp on it. For instance, it matters very little which To-Hit chart you use, if all you care about is designing a legal proxy base ruleset in order to continue to publish (for example) WHFB 5th Edition scenario packs.

That said, one person's vision of a 3.5e will never be the same as anyone else's, so you are unlikely to meet everyones approval. The argument for a strict replication of an old edition is that everyone who is a fan of that edition would be happy. The counter argument is that good game design is never by committee, but rather by sticking to your original design vision and earning success based on the worth of your ability as a game designer.
 

treps

Member
In fact, if we want to be honest there is no real need for a retro-clone for any version as each of them are easily available on the second hand market for very good prices (and I don't even talk of the "free pdf market").

The only valid reason (pretext I would say) would be to provide a safe harbor for publishers looking to advertise the compatibility of the products they are selling without using any GW property, nothing more imho...
 
Skarsnik & Old Lead":3t1i79xu said:
What's the point in a retro clone of 4th edition onwards? You can pick up the original rules and army books for next to nothing anyway.


innit.

i like 4th ed. whilst i'd been painting and collecting miniatures for a couple of years i never got the 3rd ed rulebook, but when 4th ed came out i got it for christmas. so it was the one i played and enjoyed. it seems very cartoonish these days, compared to 3rd ed or the modern ones, but nevertheless, it feels right.
 

Galadrin

Member
In a dignified manner, please discuss the relative merits or faults of the following (completely non sequitur, unrelated to any said retro-clone) chart:

battleaxetohitchart_zpsr55tbhtq.png


You may consider yourself free to make the following assumptions: +1 to hit for charging, but no follow ups.
 
Back
Top