Any Love for Herohammer?

Galadrin

Member
I've been thinking of the different eras of Warhammer... Urhammer (1e), Oldhammer (2e and 3e), Herohammer (4e and 5e) and Newhammer (everything else). I noticed that people rarely bring up Herohammer. The same can be said for 1e, but 4th/5th in the 1990's was a breakout period for Warhammer and Games Workshop—sales increased dramatically, Warhammer entered new markets (perhaps most importantly North America), new production techniques brought boxed expansions with cards and templates as well as big box starter sets, Games Workshop expanded into new formats like boardgames and many new players were introduced to the wargaming hobby through Warhammer and 40k 2nd Edition. Technically speaking, there should be a lot of gamers that first cut their teeth on Herohammer. Yet this silent majority remains quiet...

Certainly Herohammer gets some flak. The common criticism—that heroes and magic were "too powerful"—is well known enough to become a predictable and uninteresting truism. Yet, everyone played and loved the game during that era as well—something we can see in the expansion of Warhammer sales and the growth of the community in this period. The strength of the tournament scene even suggest that, in some practical ways at least, the fear of overpowered characters didn't stop most tournament-goers from showing up to organized events in droves.

So, pushing past the fog of forgetfulness and apathy, what did Herohammer do well? If you were one of those who joined the hobby in the 90's, how did 4th/5th capture your imagination?
 
We arent all silent ;)

http://funkywenisrodeo.blogspot.com.au/ ... f.html?m=1

Personally I'm of the opinion that the rulesets matter a lot less than the people using them and the fun that is had in proportion. 4th/5th are simpler games than their earlier incarnations which meant it was more accessible to a wider, and younger audience of gamers, of which I was one. Heroquest was the springboard into the hobby for me, but it wasn't the rules per se as I hardly got to play it - it was the models and the flights of imagination they represented, and which they still represent. The guys I play against, CvB, Archaeopteryx, don't seem too fussed about the rules either, they just want to have fun, and fun we have in spades :)

The reality of Herohammer is that it does need a little help from 'sensible' adults to rein in some of the more ludicrous elements such as overpowered items and bad, bad combos - a cap of 50pts for items and few or no special characters brings it back to earth a bit, but at the end of the day I do like seeing heroic characters being heroic and Herohammer delivers :grin: just watch out for Bloodthirsters...
 

Snickit

Member
I'm certainly not quiet about 4th, I love it, admittedly with toned down characters now.

In fact, at BOYL2015 my self and my friend played two games of 4th (reports on my blog) and next year I plan on running "The Battke for Maugthrond Pass" scenario from the boxed set and am contemplating running a campaign with the 5th edition campaign rules.

I think the real issue is that a lot of people view 4th as being a simpler and therefore inferior game, which in my opinion is snobbishness. It's a rules set that works well for a fast paced game in my opinion.

I also think some view 4th as the "sell out" edition so frown upon it.
 
What Crooks said, Heroquest was my introduction too- barely played it, and despite wanting to I never played 4th/5th WHFB back then but that was my era...I lived it through White Dwarf.

I'm very fond of the 90's/red period in both FB and 40K.

At the end of the day though, I'll play 7th or AOS or whatever as long as I get to use my beloved tin soldiers and we have fun.
 

treps

Member
As the others said the most important thing is having a good time with friends and any game can do the job with the right people, but I do not agree with the snobbishness accusation, I did play 4th and 5th a lot at the time but there was something missing/different as 4th/5th is really a completely different game than 2nd/3rd, there are a lot of differences, for examples :
- No reserve : replaced by march move
- simplify maneuvering on the battlefield
- no push back (and fleeing units managed differently)
- new war machines rules (with new dices)
- no dice other than D6
- New % rules to build the armies
- apparition of an army book per faction (but the list of standard miniatures and monsters is covered in the books), with special characters
- No GM, and the rule of use a D6 if you disagree on a rule
- The beginning of promoting tourneys in White Dwarf as a new way to play with the straight battles without any scenarios or narrative
- to hit table shifted by 1 (in 4th you needed a 3 when it was a 4 in 3rd...) with some other changes (no more hits on 2, and 5 became the higher unmodified needed to hit
- magic system as a game in the game
- ...

I don't say that 4/5th is not a good game, but, the changes are so important that it loose a lot of what makes 2nd/3rd interesting at first, at least to me. I am not crying as they oversimplified the game nor I am stating that the game is unbalanced or totally biased if you do use the super special characters as I don't care for this, but you have to admit that they just made a different one and I can really understand that people do prefer to play 2nd/3rd without being snobbish at all.
 

Erny

Member
Thats actually a pretty short list Treps. Mainly of stuff that isn't that different.

- No reserve : replaced by march move

Not a huge differnence. Most people combined their reserve move into their full move anyway.

- simplify maneuvering on the battlefield

Again, who actually followed the full rules for maneuvering. Lifes to short for all that and the end result usually resembles what you end up with if you just fudge it

- no push back (and fleeing units managed differently)

This is a fairly large change but I struggle to see what is lost, the same result is reached quicker in 4th is all.

- new war machines rules (with new dices)

These really needed changing, Warmachines in 3rd rule the table.

- no dice other than D6

Is this bad? Other dice were only used very rarely.

- New % rules to build the armies

This is in warhammer armies too. With maximums and minimums on top.

- apparition of an army book per faction (but the list of standard miniatures and monsters is covered in the books), with special characters

There is the white book like Armies. The biggest problem is they obscure the points system for elite troops but this is easy to work out. Don't restrict yourself to the army books if you don't want to.

- No GM, and the rule of use a D6 if you disagree on a rule

It doesn't say you can't have a GM or roll a d6 which has always been there. We certainly did it in 3rd. With out a GM.

- The beginning of promoting tourneys in White Dwarf as a new way to play with the straight battles without any scenarios or narrative

This was part of third too. The whole point of Warhammer Armies was for tourney play with daverts in the back for the warhammer register for tourney play.

- to hit table shifted by 1 (in 4th you needed a 3 when it was a 4 in 3rd...) with some other changes (no more hits on 2, and 5 became the higher unmodified needed to hit

A positive step as far as I'm concerned. Things happen quicker but are really just the same.

- magic system as a game in the game
Sometimes I like this magic system better than 3rd sometimes the other way round. Its easy to bolt either type onto either game.
I hate 4ths treatment of Orc magic but notihing using dark magic doesn't solve.


In all I think my perfect bodge hammer is 3.7 or to put it another way, 4th borrowing some of the troop types and formations from 3rd. Maybe the magic depending upon how I feel. I don't see a massive difference in the two editions.
 

Snickit

Member
treps":3tyo032a said:
As the others said the most important thing is having a good time with friends and any game can do the job with the right people, but I do not agree with the snobbishness accusation, I did play 4th and 5th a lot at the time but there was something missing/different as 4th/5th is really a completely different game than 2nd/3rd, there are a lot of differences, for examples :
- No reserve : replaced by march move
- simplify maneuvering on the battlefield
- no push back (and fleeing units managed differently)
- new war machines rules (with new dices)
- no dice other than D6
- New % rules to build the armies
- apparition of an army book per faction (but the list of standard miniatures and monsters is covered in the books), with special characters
- No GM, and the rule of use a D6 if you disagree on a rule
- The beginning of promoting tourneys in White Dwarf as a new way to play with the straight battles without any scenarios or narrative
- to hit table shifted by 1 (in 4th you needed a 3 when it was a 4 in 3rd...) with some other changes (no more hits on 2, and 5 became the higher unmodified needed to hit
- magic system as a game in the game
- ...

I don't say that 4/5th is not a good game, but, the changes are so important that it loose a lot of what makes 2nd/3rd interesting at first, at least to me. I am not crying as they oversimplified the game nor I am stating that the game is unbalanced or totally biased if you do use the super special characters as I don't care for this, but you have to admit that they just made a different one and I can really understand that people do prefer to play 2nd/3rd without being snobbish at all.

For you the simplification takes away from the game that is 2nd/3rd, I can agree with that. My "Snobbish" comment is aimed at those that deride 4th because of it. What you type above is pointing out differences, not deriding so my "snobbish" comment does not apply to you.

At BOYL2015 Orlygg said 4th turned him off. I asked why, he said the general feel of it, then he confessed to have never played it. That's Oldhammer snobbishness (sorry James, but it it). Don't dismiss it without trying it first, you never know, you may actually like it.

There ARE Oldhammerers out there that look down their noses at it and to me that's just rude. It's a viable rules set that's oodles of fun to play that a large chunk of people DO like, so don't try to make us feel inferior for liking it. If I have a large amount of time to play then yes, 3rd is great, but if I want a quick game then 4th it is, what's wrong with that?

Oh and for the record, Orlygg was not rude to me, he's a very nice chap, he seemed like he could be persuaded to give it a go. I'm referring to those that dismiss it out of hand. I honestly have no issue with people who try it and say they prefer 3rd (or any other incarnation), I have an issue with people who are rude and dismissive about it, as though it doesn't belong under the Oldhammer banner. For me Oldhammer is about bringing people in, not shutting them out in the cold because you don't like the rules set they like.
 

Blue in VT

Moderator
I guess I land somewhere between Erny and Treps on this one....I find the changes that Treps points out to be quite significant...reserve move is quite different than March move...there is much more tactical flexibility in reserve move. In 4th I really detest that a unit that is followed up is instantly destroyed...this bothers me to no end...when I played it (yes I have the box set to prove it) we frequently had a hero push back a large unit of grunts and suddenly destroy them all...terrible...the free hack and pursuit rules in 3rd are so much better IMO. Etc etc.

That said I agree that the war machine rules in 4th are better....and I may even be persuaded to try the modified "to hit" table particularly after a recent game where my unit was charged both fore and aft by orcs and then all three units spent the next 4 rounds never landing a hit on each other! As to magic I think I prefer restrained 3rd ed magic to the card based 4th ed system...

So what does all this blathering mean....I certainly don't look down my nose at anyone playing 4th...more power to you...I do however look down my nose at the company that made it. I think that's the real difference....it went from being a gamers game...to a money making board Games+ aimed at younger folks. From a corporate point of view it was a good move....just not one some of Us Old timers approved of.

Btw Warhammer in my part of North America was already well established by the release of 4th ed....in fact I had been playing it with many different people for more than 5 years by that time. It may have expanded the market yet further but it was already very popular in my neck of the woods (southern Ohio)

Cheers,

Blue
 

Asslessman

Member
I came into the hobby with 3rd but barely played it at the time (it never was released in France) so 3rd was more a graphic inspiration for me than anything (I also started 40k with the late RT additions that made it look like a proto 2nd ed).
That said I got back to playing the older versions afterwards (and having played most editions apart from 5th) which means getting back on 3rd meant to get this very slow perception of combats (with pushbacks and those "to hit" charts) and I do prefer them for simple reasons : most rules can be find in a book or 2 and there's not a lot of "special" rules. I just tire when every unit has its own personnal special rule because it gives more focus to the game mechanic and less to the narrative part.
My ideal is therefore a mix of 3 and 4 as well for the very same reasons as Erny.

For RT I think it'd just be a matter of putting all the rules in the right order ^^

Oh and apart from the rules I think the whole aesthetic of those edition play alot in our appreciation. MY vision of warhammer is the blanchesque approach you find in 2nd and 3rd (counting WHFRP too) more than the red YMCA of herohammer but that's just personnal taste, some will argue that the only true WH id Tony Ackland's for instance.
 

Snickit

Member
I agree, somewhere between the two is right for me too, I'm just closer to 4th because it's quicker, and here's the decider for most Oldhammers as to which edition is their favourite, it's a lot more nostalgic for me.

It's what Erny and I played the most of growing up and, from a formative point of view, it was what I escaped to when someone VERY close to me passed away, so it will always be an emotive thing for me and will always be close to my heart. Without sounding mushy, it helped get me through a very tough time.

So, basically, I'm biased........................................
 

zoggin-eck

Member
It's my worst-kept secret that I love 90's WHFB. I've been playing 5th edition lately, having finally rounded up everything I need (and wanted years ago). I'm a nutter for anything 4th, 5th WHFB, 2nd 40k (OK, and anything before and after) and GW games and magazines in general from the time. The same goes for some other companies from the same period.

I sometimes wonder if there are lots of people quietly, happily playing away 4th and 5th edition in their sheds/living rooms/whatever, just not making as much of a fuss as people playing earlier editions. That was pretty much my situation with 90's Epic. It reminds me of the forum posters for modern games who base a game's popularity entirely on who plays which game in a shop, as if nobody plays at home with friends or family. I simply refuse to accept that every single player from those years moved on to 6th and above exclusively or dropped off entirely. Perhaps it's the usual "Hey, look at the old miniatures I painted years ago that I still use!" followed by "that's not old!" replies scaring them off? :) 8-)

I do think that some people forget that it's OK to love both, or even all WHFB or miniatures in general. My enjoyment of 4th onward doesn't stop me from enjoying everyone's "Oldhammer" posts here or elsewhere online or dragging out an 80's White Dwarf after flicking through a 90's one (Lady Zog and I went over one of the Fantasy Miniatures books the other night, drooling over old lead and plastic dinosaurs with me then reading a FFG Rogue Trader RPG book that same night).
 

Snickit

Member
zoggin-eck":2slkeo2h said:
It's my worst-kept secret that I love 90's WHFB. I've been playing 5th edition lately, having finally rounded up everything I need (and wanted years ago). I'm a nutter for anything 4th, 5th WHFB, 2nd 40k (OK, and anything before and after) and GW games and magazines in general from the time. The same goes for some other companies from the same period.

I sometimes wonder if there are lots of people quietly, happily playing away 4th and 5th edition in their sheds/living rooms/whatever, just not making as much of a fuss as people playing earlier editions. That was pretty much my situation with 90's Epic. It reminds me of the forum posters for modern games who base a game's popularity entirely on who plays which game in a shop, as if nobody plays at home with friends or family. I simply refuse to accept that every single player from those years moved on to 6th and above exclusively or dropped off entirely. Perhaps it's the usual "Hey, look at the old miniatures I painted years ago that I still use!" followed by "that's not old!" replies scaring them off? :) 8-)

I do think that some people forget that it's OK to love both, or even all WHFB or miniatures in general. My enjoyment of 4th onward doesn't stop me from enjoying everyone's "Oldhammer" posts here or elsewhere online or dragging out an 80's White Dwarf after flicking through a 90's one (Lady Zog and I went over one of the Fantasy Miniatures books the other night, drooling over old lead and plastic dinosaurs with me then reading a FFG Rogue Trader RPG book that same night).

Nods in agreement.
 

zoggin-eck

Member
Gotta say though, I really feel that to me 6th and 8th are pretty far apart both rules, imagery and "vague feel".

Also, I always smile when people point out they like 4th because it's quick(er) or simple(or simpler). It's really only a quick game compared to 3rd. It's still a massively clunky, old-fashioned and slow game compared to most modern games (That, and my games of 4th and 5th never seem to go that quickly! Particularly if there a few of the special-rule heavy units and lots of magic involved. :)) Then again, I'm one of those people happy to play a game, watch a movie, read a book etc. for hours providing I enjoy it enough to keep interested. I became obsessed with finding a tighter, quicker set of rules for a long time. With some games I felt it was over too fast, as if I had spent so much time setting up and planning for it to be over just like that. Playing multiple games is of course an option but for a ranked-up fantasy game I am happy to play a longer game or even pause halfway and continue later.

Blue in VT":3d49ebdl said:
In 4th I really detest that a unit that is followed up is instantly destroyed...this bothers me to no end...when I played it (yes I have the box set to prove it) we frequently had a hero push back a large unit of grunts and suddenly destroy them all...terrible...the free hack and pursuit rules in 3rd are so much better IMO.

Funnily enough, while I really like the 4th onward flee-caught rules and the "too bad, they shouldn't have fled in the first place" attitude, I can't stand when games that take it further. Ever played Mantic's Kings of War? If not, your head might explode... When a unit loses combat or has morale reduced it is simply removed rather than fleeing or anything else. I get why, and perhaps it works better in other games, but not in this example. (Is saying KoW or Mantic swearing on this forum? I did spit after saying it, honest*)

(You just reminded me, I've thought a couple of times that I wouldn't mind adding reserve moves to 5th. It seems to be a rule that people either liked or were glad to see it go but rarely try it in newer games.)

* I am kidding, nobody defend Mantic please. :)
 

Snickit

Member
I'm certainly not saying quicker than 6th or 7th, or even 8th, all of them are quicker than 4th and 5th, I'm saying quicker than 3rd.

I love 6th and 7th is just a tweek like 5th was to 4th.

Can I also say I love 3rd too (never played 2nd or 1st so can't comment)

For the record, 8th is good but the horde thing got on my nerves, I'm a Skaven player for Christ sake, that's our trick!
 

zoggin-eck

Member
Snickit":4rfsjp8x said:
I'm certainly not saying quicker than 6th or 7th, or even 8th, all of them are quicker than 4th and 5th, I'm saying quicker than 3rd.

I love 6th and 7th is just a tweek like 5th was to 4th.

Can I also say I love 3rd too (never played 2nd or 1st so can't comment)

For the record, 8th is good but the horde thing got on my nerves, I'm a Skaven player for Christ sake, that's our trick!

All good mate, just saying in general. It's a comment I've seen many times and it's still fun to see. Of course it can be quicker than 3rd. Same with how they "dumbed down" 3rd 40k as so many like to scream. It's still a big cumbersome game to someone new to the game, for instance, even if it is a simpler/quicker game to existing players. Same "wow, you actually read that whole rulebook just for a game?" reaction from people used to Pictionary or Monopoly. Game-length wise, one thing I'm finally doing is adding unit stats and shorthand special rules to my army lists to save time flipping through the books. I wish I made more of an effort years ago. At the very least, my O&G army book wouldn't be falling apart.

Anyway, back on topic. I'm planning a 5th edition game soon as an excuse to then pack up the table ready for some Necromunda as soon as we've painted enough models and terrain.
 

treps

Member
zoggin-eck":29jdyw28 said:
Ever played Mantic's Kings of War? If not, your head might explode... When a unit loses combat or has morale reduced it is simply removed rather than fleeing or anything else. I get why, and perhaps it works better in other games, but not in this example. (Is saying KoW or Mantic swearing on this forum? I did spit after saying it, honest*)
It's normal, KoW is not a real wargame, at first it's just an abstract game like chess and a pretext to sell Warhammer proxies. I don't know for the 2nd edition but that the impression the first gave me after 2 or 3 games...
 

Snickit

Member
I played a game of Necromunda at BOYL2015, was loads of fun, love the game, Erny recently started a campaign for all of us OGRE's but not sure if we'll get back to it anytime soon.

I've started to print sections of my army books from Scribed to store in a binder, so it's like the 3rd edition one tip shop army book with the rules and Army selection per race in one place, I'm pretty sure strictly speaking it's not 100% legit but I'm sure I'm not alone, nor do I doubt anyone would care now, they're over 20 years old and they're out of print.

I do like 5th but I'm not too hot on the spell cards and magic item cards because they don't have the same feel as the 4th edition ones that felt more plush, they're more like playing cards (who's being a snob now................. lol).

The changes they made between 4th to 5th though are more logical, such as the only casting spells in your own phase and the introduction of the Overkill rule.

Who am I to kid? I'll play any version, they're all good.
 

mbh

Member
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for 4th, but I had some terrible games back in the day due to abusive opponents. Obviously that can happen in every rule set.

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.
 

Erny

Member
Blue in VT":1v7zirma said:
I guess I land somewhere between Erny and Treps on this one....I find the changes that Treps points out to be quite significant...reserve move is quite different than March move...there is much more tactical flexibility in reserve move. In 4th I really detest that a unit that is followed up is instantly destroyed...this bothers me to no end...when I played it (yes I have the box set to prove it) we frequently had a hero push back a large unit of grunts and suddenly destroy them all...terrible...the free hack and pursuit rules in 3rd are so much better IMO. Etc etc.

In my rules you can either march move or hold your extra bit of movement to the reserve, no flexibility lost and as most reserve moves are just a second move that copuld be done as one it speeds the game up no end.

In 3rd a unit that outpaces it's persuers is likely to come back into the fight, far more often than not if the persuers catch them the free hacks mean they are dead in a turn or two. I thinkit just speeds the game up perhaps a compromise is if you are caught loose half your unit, if you are caught the following turn loose the rest. Actually I quite like that, gives cavalry a chance to escape after a bad roll on fleeing but not without considerable pain. It also means that persuaing cavalry get tied up for at least a couple of turns or you decide to let them go.
 
Back
Top