Warhammer Narrative scenarios: some playtesting

Here I will show a few examples how much a good dose of narrative elements, or even simple narrative scenario objectives, feed into a great atmosphere for a Warhammer game.
Simply by following the scenario rules, nothing more.

Flank Attack (6th Edition Rulebook)

Flank Attack is a common type of war scenario, where a contingent of of the attacker's force comes onto the table as reinforcements starting from turn 2 onwards (on a dice roll). In return, the defender benefits from being in a defensible position, with buildings, walls and possibly some sort of Arcane Architecture.
Furthermore, it provides a good opportunity to array those buildings and terrain pieces from your collection,  in the shape of a town, military station, or secluded temple (which happens rarely due to the random terrain rolls).
Highlights: you can really go to town on setting up a good-looking defensive location, with buildings, walls, etc, for a great cinematic feel. With these simple scenario rules, you can simulate any sort of attack on a non-fortified location such as a camp, shrine, temple or village.

Capture (6th Edition Rulebook)

Capture is another very common war scenario. Here opposing armies must take control of a terrain piece located in the center of the table. This can be a hill, a building, some piece of Arcane Architecture, or a village square.

This is possibly the most straightforward way to introduce a narrative in a Warhammer battle, by laying some interesting terrain in the table center, and generating a reason for the conflict between the armies.
Highlights: at its most basic, this can be a King of the Hill type game, and it is very competitively balanced. You can make it more interesting by putting a building as the objective, or better, a piece of Arcane Architecture (which throws round some sort of benefit for some of the units). At its most ambitious, you can use the Witchfate Tor or the Fortified Manor scenery, and battle to capture a multi-part building.

The Battle of Vallaya's Gate (The End Times: Nagash)

This battle takes place underground, with a Dwarven defender trying to protect a temple Gate.
The attacker bursts into the field through two tunnels at each corner of the table, on the side opposite the gate (here represented by two fortress gates, with fortress walls delimiting the perimeter of the cavern wall).

The dwarven defenders have pretty much the whole table to deploy their array of defenses, wholly bent in stopping the advance of the attackers onto the other table edge.
The attackers win by making units cross through the gate.
Highlights: the cinematic feel of armies marching through tunnels into a major opening into the Dwarven Underway is breathtaking. Stepping into the cavern immediately put the attackers under cannon fire, while they tried t get to the gate at the end of the table. We played the scenario as stated, with Undead vs Dwarves, but honestly it would feel much better if the attacker was Skaven or Goblins.

 

 

Sanctifying the Stone of Blood (Nemesis Crown Campaign)

Here both armies are vying for control of the sacred Stone of Blood, an impassable terrain piece in the center of the table (here represented by a cluster of Warpstone crystals). Unlike a normal Capture scenario, one army wishes to approach the Stone to anoint themselves and draw power (thus gaining Stubborn, or +1 power dice if a wizard) while the other wishes to destroy the Stone.
Highlights: The scenario fits well for Chaos-worshipping armies to draw power from the Stone, but one can also use the same rules for the Stone to be a relic of the Lady of the Lake, or an ancient dwarven Rune anvil, etc. The narrative of this scenario, in that the attacker is trying to destroy the Stone, fits very well into campaigns where special map locations harbour sacred shrines (such as this Stone).

 

 

Bursting Through the City Walls (The General's Compendium)

This is a complex Town Raid scenario, where the attacker has just burst through the outer wall of the defender's town.
The table is filled, in addition to other buildings, with a number of special 'Key' buildings that the defender can use to aid the defense: taverns that embolden the troops with their drink, a town square that reinforces their resolve, and waystations and barracks that 'generate' new troops at given intervals.
The attacker's job is to loot and set fire to as many buildings as he can, with 'Key' buildings worth more points. The defender scores extra points for enemy units eliminated, and for each 'Key' building intact at the end of the game.
Highlights: this is where you go all out in city-building with your terrain collection. Honestly we could have done more, in terms of little props, but we were pressed for time. It is interesting how this changes the dynamics of combat so much, where units need to be small enough to be maneuverable, and the attackers need to be quick to attack and set fire to the buildings that send off reinforcements to the defender. These "Key Buildings", such as Town squares, Temples, Barracks, really give considerable bonuses to the defender, or allow him to deploy more troops every other turn, giving the real feel that the place is mustering their defense against the attacker.

Invasion! (8th Edition Rulebook)

In this scenario the defender has 3 key areas that he must hold in order to win: a watchtower on a hill, a building and a walled trench.
The attacker advances slowly from the short table edge, but in endless hordes: any Core unit destroyed can come back in as reinforcements from the same table edge.
Highlights:  our terrain placement here was quite poor, as you can see in the picture. But here, because the defender is the one who sets up the whole terrain for the battle, you can put up walls and swamps and other sorts of defensive shenanigans wherever you like. If you have a gift for terrain-buildings, you can make trenches and earthen battlements (as the scenario actually encourages for it). In return, the attackers gets to hammer the defender with never-ending troops which he can sacrifice slowly to weather the defender's forces.

The Fallen City of Mattengard (Nemesis Crown Campaign)

This scenario requires quick-thinking, strategic deployment and a couple fast,  maneuverable units.
The table is cramped with several buildings and ruins, but one of them hides a Lost Book which the armies are looking for.
The armies must stall each other, because once the book is found, it's a scramble to get it off their table edge first!!
Highlights: another great city-battle, this one is less rules-heavy than 'Bursting Through the City Walls', and gives a much better feeling of medieval urban warfare in a torn-down settlement. It also puts interesting challenges to the armies, as speed and having many units become very important: our standard army lists and units turned out to be quite clunky and unwieldy to maneuver, although this is made easier by systematic occupation of buildings to move across the city.
In the end, the Daemon Skullcannon ended up finding the Mystic Book, and with its speed and high maneuverability, sped off the table just before being caught by a lone Vampire on foot.
Great stuff.

Blood Beneath the Branches (Nemesis Crown Campaign)

This is a Capture scenario but with split objectives:
D3+3 in total, which are in fact placed by the defender, each inside a terrain feature. The defender also can deploy anywhere on his half of the table, instead of only 12" from the edge.
Both armies' objective is to control the most objective areas (marked here with a warpstone crystal) by the end of the game.
Highlights: we had to improvise here with our capture markers, so cinematically it didn't look as visually stunning. The scenario kind of implies this takes place in a heavily forested area, although you can apply the rules to work for any environment: ours was more of a swampy-type location. But I think tactically this is a great mission, that works well with normal army lists (ie. not specifically tailored to a scenario). Within the context of a narrative campaign, you can allow rolls to find some sort of treasure for each objective held at the end of the battle (as that is the original intention of these objectives in the scenario).

The Best of "The 9th Age - Fantasy Battles"

Here I will list what I find to be the best rules innovations the ETC and Swedish Comp guys came up for the 9th Age ruleset.

The sharp eye of these rules experts has been scanning the Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition ruleset for any inconsistencies that led to lack of balance in the game.
The 9th Age - Fantasy Battles ruleset is their creation (now in Beta release stage), which has overhauled and tweaked several things to make the game flow better, fairer and consistent. They are also inviting people to join in the effort.

First of all, I have to say that I admire their effort and intent, as I myself have strived to do much of the same in this blog. The game rules (as they are) can be improved and kept being played. There is no need to give up an entire ruleset, and a game that we love simply because it is no longer supported: Mordheim and Warmaster are a good example of that.

I was very very skeptical at first, and there were rumours that they wished to overhaul too much in every armybook... doing away with certain units by simplifying things and so on... And the changing of the names, oh! the names!! Some people thought they were being too arrogant for making these decisions, and were screwing up any chance the ruleset had to gaining traction.
Truthfully, my first draft of this post (started a month ago) was indeed also a negative view.

So... there was huge outcry. And... they listened.
That is the best part of *responsible* community projects.
The wargaming community sometimes worries me that it is its own worst enemy: many people get easily frustrated and give up on great things for little reason, or invest too little of their time to really draw on what a ruleset can offer. And herd behaviour takes care of the rest, and things fall our of favour simply due to great numbers of people following "the general consensus".
The 9th Age, spearheaded by those who brought the ETC and Swedish Comp system for Warhammer Fantaasy Tournament play, is being responsibly driven. This much, after now reading the ruleset, I can now attest. And remaining bugs will be tweaked in the future, so nothing is set in stone, even now.
It takes a while to get used to, but then you start seeing the benefits. Yes, the name changes are corny, and barely passable as anything that could escape copyright infringement, but I'm a practical guy: I can call them whatever I want, I just want tools and rules I can work with. And they are including as many models and options people already have in it. If anything, The 9th Age offers more freedom to players than 8th, but also more balance.

*****************************************************************
Highlights
Here are some of the best rules innovations they have come up with. My praises go to them, wholeheartedly.

Fleeing 
Fleeing models that pass through enemy units or impassable terrain must take a Dangerous Terrain test that fails on a 1-3.

Aided Dispel
When a wizard attempts a dispel roll, each other friendly non-fleeing wizard may aid in the dispel. For each such aiding wizard, increase the dispelling wizard's modifier derived from his wizard level by +1, up to a maximum or wizard level of 4.

Miscasts
Miscasts now have a severity of the magical exploding hit (or other nasty effect) increase with the amount of power dice used. It's a slightly more clunky version (in my opinion) of my Rules Patch, but I think it works well and keeps the danger level of miscasts more under control (ie. u can still push through that 5-dicer, and the effect may still be mild).

Broken Concentration
A wizard that has Broken Concentration (that has failed a casting or dispel attempt) can still cast spells, but cannot add any bonuses (such as Wizard level, Aided Dispel, or bonuses granted by other effects) to casting or dispel attempts this Magic phase.

No More Foes
If a unit that was engaged in close combat with an enemy somehow finds itself no longer engaged with it when the Close Combat phase comes up (possibly because the enemy has been destroyed in the meantime), it can make a Combat Reform as thought it had won a round of close combat. If the unit had charged that turn, it can instead make an Overrun move.

Attack Allocation (no character walls)
Rank-and-file models engaged in close combat can always allocate attacks to rank-and-file models in the enemy unit they are engaged with, even if they are not in contact with such models.

Combat Reform and models in contact
At the end of each Combat Reform, you must have as many models from a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as you had before the reform. Character and champion models likewise must remain in contact with the same number of models, but they do not need to be the same models (and therefore, they may change position within the unit).

Cannons
Cannons now scatter the initial spot chosen by D6+1", but if a 'Hit' is rolled or they haven't moved, they are allowed to reduce the scatter by an amount equal to the crew's BS.
Then the cannonball hits the spot at full Strength (damaging any models), and rolls for bouncing. if it bounces further, any hits on models under the line are at half the Strength.

Combined Profiles
Chariots are now used with combined profiles when ridden by characters, just like Monstrous Mounts. This means that not only the highest value of each Characteristic and save between both parts of the model is used, the character receives the armor save from the chariot as well as any saves the chariot already has (including regeneration and ward saves).
Sadly, the current version's rules for Ridden Monsters are still hotly contested (see below).

Dangerous Terrain
Monstrous models roll two dice for Dangerous Terrain tests, and Monsters and Chariots roll four! For each '1' rolled, they take a wound with no armour save.

Bodyguard (character type)
This unit is Stubborn as long as it is joined by a character of the specified type.

Stubborn (Undead units)
Undead units that have the Stubborn special rule (not just steadfast) now halve the amount of wounds they receive from Unstable and death of the General. And yes, now there are several ways for undead units to gain Stubborn.

One of a Kind
This rule applies to some units, particularly very powerful, game-changing Rare units. They can only be taken once per army in normal army sizes, and Grand armies can take 2 (and it will scale up from then, I believe).
Great way to prevent those double Terrorgheists, Hell Pit Abominations, etc.

Buildings
Assaulting units, if they win a combat without the enemy breaking/being destroyed (and are not engaged with any other enemy), can choose to be nudged back 1" or staying engaged in the assault. However, if they assaulting unit loses a combat, it makes a Break test as usual and may flee.

Magic
This was seriously overhauled, but the core feel of 8th Edition magic definitely has been perfectly preserved.
Many (as I did) may flinch at how many spells were tweaked (or replaced) but remember! Spells and Magic have been the most overhauled items in Warhammer throughout the editions. And 8th edition was no exception: that's when all the ultra-bomb or ultra-buff/debuff spells were cranked up!
Power dice are now capped at max 5 per spell, but the highest casting costs have also been reduced (the highest is 19 I believe) in accordance to the power level of spells being brought down. So expect to see more power dice economy and more little spells being shot through.


*******************************
The Gripes (or "Please fix it soon!") (or "The rant")

Charges
The charger must still 'Close the Door' first, so absolute rediversion (ie. a tiny unit/model can divert and pull a huge unit out of alignment) is still very much a thing.
Oh I'm not alone in this: there is raging discussion on the 9th Age forum.
I have addressed this issue in the past in a previous 'Rules Patch'.
My stance, of course, is A) I prefer realism/simulation (oh those forbidden words!), B) that it interferes with my ability to plan strategies, because my instinctual expectations are that units should behave somewhat realistically (ie. as in a real battle), and when someone takes advantage of this, I find it very frustrating because it is only possible because the ruleset allows it. Those who defend the rule, and love redirection, mostly (maybe not all) have an attraction to this game that is based on its tactics, complexity and mental challenges (though not necessarily competitiveness). I don't as much: my main reason to love the game is the cinematic feel of battle, and tactical decisions derived from the point of view of a fantasy warfare general, not abstract game rules.
And that is where things grind to a halt, because both are valid reasons to love the game... but completely divergent when it comes to issues like this.
There is one good point though, which I'm not absolutely sure it is ultimately true, but bears very serious thinking:
"Because without diverters some armies wold lose 9/10 games. Regardless of the list or player skill. [...]"
Now, if this is true, my gut instinct is to think that then the game requires further fine-tuning to make sure this doesn't happen. However, I also harbor fears that this might be very very difficult to do, as it touches on how the the entire complexity of the moving parts of the game interacts with each other. And these are the guys who have had their finger on the pulse of overall game balance for years now. Are they simply biased because they are enjoy more tactical gamey rules, and think the effort not worth it? Or are they really aware of the scale of the problem?

Model Heights
I understand that for ease of play and limiting discussions, True Line of Sight can be seen as a hindrance. Models now have pre-set heights: Infantry & war beasts are small, Cavalry and Monstrous Beasts are Medium, Monsters are Large, etc.
While this does not bother me much, it is when these rules interact with scenery, and variable terrain elevation, that I find it aggravating: hills (or any partially obscuring terrain that still reveals half or more of the top part of a model) block line of sight. Line of Sight is based on whether the line can intersect the target model's base. I don't like infinitely high hills: I know they have been used a lot in the past to speed up gameplay, but... that subtracts Narrative from my game :(

***************************************
All in all, I will be jumping in and play with 9th Age, as it is closer to what I have been trying to get from 8th Ed than before. And it seems to be gaining traction online.
And hey, if you still have some gripes with it, nothing tells you that it won't be fixed in the future! Have hope!

Roll high and prosper.

Mordheim Roleplay part 2: a long awaited dice-rolling party

For those of you who read many months ago that I was "working" on a Roleplay adaptation of Mordheim, and then proceeded to show no progress or news on it for months on end, no one could blame you for thinking this was just wishful thinking of yet another enthusiastic but unproductive gamer fanboy/I-think-I-can-write-rules person.

Well, you are both right and wrong. Perfectionism holds me back from releasing things I've got written down for months, then I leave then still for ages before going back.
The Social Interaction rules for Mordheim Roleplay have been drafted since December 2014, but I haven't finished polishing everything, and other Warhammer/Mordheim projects have shifted my attention from it.
However, I've kept building on it, and realized that before I released the Social Interaction ruleset I actually needed to "convert" how Mordheim plays normally (single tabletop events spaced by post-game phases, strict warband restrictions) to an "adventuring party" system that can harbor a free-flowing story (includding exploration, stealth, searching, etc).
And this document itself sat on my hard drive for some 2-3 months before I finally formatted it and sent it out now.

So I am putting out this first part of the rules, which should get anyone going in running simple Roleplay sessions using the Mordheim system. I know I will. Mind you, everything is still experimental.

Mordheim Roleplay (click here for PDF) 
This will be a live version, which will be continuously updated with time.

I will now be polishing the Social Interaction rules and expanding on skill options that can feed into the Roleplay experience.
Note: at the time of writing, no Social Interaction rules are included, except those for simple Interrogation and Torture (adapted straight from the great 'Traces to Emprise' scenario from Border Town Burning). 
Eventually, The Social Interaction Ruleset will be an add-on, which will replace the Leadership characteristic with a set of Personality characteristics, which hopefully will inject some hilarity and narrative into roleplay sessions.

Rules Patch: Battle Standard v8.1

In Warhammer 8th Edition, the 'Hold Your Ground' rule granted by the Battle Standard, which in 7th Edition granted re-rolls to Break tests, changed to allow re-rolls to *ALL* kinds of Leadership tests. This had a tremendous stabilizing impact when coupled with the General's Inspiring Presence.

PROBLEM: This change led to an increase in the benefits of maintaining as many units as possible within "the bubble": units within range of both the General's Inspiring Presence and Hold Your Ground not only re-roll Break tests at high Ld, but also swift reform tests, Panic tests, Frenzy tests, Fear tests, etc etc. This makes it so that, for the vast majority of armies, there are few benefits for mobilizing units outside this big clump, and that lessened the diversity of strategies.
SOLUTION: the 'Hold Your Ground' rule grants units within 12" the ability to re-roll Break tests and Panic tests.

This change puts more visibility on how important it is to keep Frenzied units under control, does not make swift reforms a certainty, and certainly brings back Fear and Terror as offensive mechanics to look out for, even in the thick of the front-line.
Given the huge value that re-rolling Break tests already is, the necessity of the Battle Standard in itself does not decrease in the slightest, but opens up opportunities for other rules to be relevant and interact more with strategies.

Warhammer Fantasy Scenario Generator - 'Theaters of War': sneak peak

Finally, back to some actual narratives rules material!

This is a sneak peak (click here) of the Scenario/Mission generator for Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition that I have been working on, named 'Theaters of War - Warhammer Fantasy Battles Mission Generator'.

It takes several ideas from Gav Thorpe's great 'Scenario Generator' published for 6th edition, but simplifies them and uses a list of previously published scenarios (all by GW).
The full scenario list is still pending.
'Theaaters of War' is meant to be used with the 'Revised Terrain Generator' I have put together some time ago (which allows for different Environments).


Features:

• Support for one-off battles or ongoing campaign games;
• General's Leadership and the army's unit composition affects the advantage in dictating terms of engagement, then players roll-off against each other;
• Depending on the advantage gained, different types of scenarios are available: Capture, Pitched Battle, Raid, Ambush, Defensive Stand, etc;
• Winner of the roll-off can choose to play the role of attacker and use the scenario type rolled, or fall back and play a Defensive Stand scenario as a defender;
• The defender always gets to choose the Environment where the battle takes place (possibly earning the defender significant advantage if in their native environment), unless it is set in a map campaign game (this is meant to use the 'Revised Terrain Generator');
• Scenarios where one player is at an advantage automatically grant one of many 'Stratagems' to the other player (inspired by the Lords of Battle campaign rules in The End Times: Thanquol).
• Support for 'Contingents' of Mercenaries, Bound Monsters and Sorcerous Pacts (from Triumph & Treachery and Storm of Magic) allow a player to boost the army's size without changing the army list, for those scenarios that require unequal sized forces;
• Dozens of scenarios to choose from: fight across the river ford, raid the watchtower or the village, infiltrate the unsuspecting town, hold the line, secure the objectives, fight for control of the great tower or sacrifice yourself as the rearguard!

(images taken from 'The General's Compendium', all rights to their respective authors)

Discussion: is mass ranked combat the right format for the Warhammer Fantasy ruleset?

Controversial, I know.
In this post I will ramble about the pros and cons of the current (and gone before!) popular rulesets that we can use with our Warhammer miniatures, and how well they serve the format they attempt to recreate on the table. Its long, internet, brace yourselves. I slipped in a few pretty pictures just for you.
This has come in the wake of the (official) end of Warhammer 8th edition, where people have been discussing moving on to other systems. And engaging in that debate has made me realize why I like the Warhammer/Mordheim game engine, and exactly what are the things it excels at.

Lets start by presenting some of the current most accessible alternatives:

Warhammer: Age of Sigmar

- Good support for single-model skirmish or squad-based combat (smooth transition);
- Freeform movement system well adapted for units to explore intricate terrain (emphasis on model-by-model movement);
- Limited scalability (large number of models more difficult to manage)
- Very good simulationism in melee weapons characteristics (spears have extra reach) but very bad on artillery (hit too often, deal too little damage, friendly fire absent) and missile weapons (simplified rules grants shooting a lot of power and flexibility with few penalties). Very good also on monsters that become less capable as they take more wounds;

- Very simplified psychology, with casualties triggering a 'crumble test', units never break (they stand to the last);
- Less emphasis on simulationism in favour of gamist framework: ability to hit and wound dependent on attacker only, defense save (which is never very high) and Wounds count dependent on defender; unit activation in combat works in turns (across the whole table), not by unit initiative;

-------------------------------------------------

Kings of War

- Specifically designed for large ranked units, unit have fixed sizes whose stats increase with size;
- Simplified movement rules (pivoting, moving through units or obstacles) avoids most common problems of pathfinding with large units through terrain;
- More abstraction with simplified unit statistics, weapon characteristics much glossed over, units only attack on their own turn; 

- Still has some simulationist coherence: moving perturbs shooting, cannons have a single shot that misses often but deals heavy damage, etc. friendly fire is absent however;

- Very simplified psychology, with casualties triggering a break test
- Simplified unit damage system, disconnected from actual casualties(models dont need to be removed), which feeds into how easy it is to break a unit. Number of attacks a unit makes is independent from its damage suffered, unless it's wavering (semi-breaking).

-----------------------------------------------------

So we have two games that have emphasized rules simplification and abstraction, but have gone in opposite directions in format: AoS for squad-based combat, KoW for mass ranks. 

So what does Warhammer 8th give us?

Warhammer 8th Ed

-Well-detailed simulation of model statistics (WS, BS, Strength, Toughness, Initiative) and resolution of contests between models (To Hit, To Wound tables), model characteristics also determine attacking order;

- Good simulationism in different weapon and armor abilities, and in artillery behaviour (ballistas and cannonballs penetrating ranks, off-target shots and friendly fire);

- Cumbersome movement rules make terrain undesirable and maneuvering can be a chore;

- Well fleshed-out psychology, with fear, break and panic tests, as well as musician-coordinated reforming;
(EDIT)- Cinematic and narrative details: challenges in combat, Greenskin animosity, undead crumble when master dies, fleeing and panicking units trigger further panic and chaos, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------

So in summary, Warhammer 8th Ed tried to achieve what KoW is aiming for, but its rules are too detailed. It gives you all the grittyness of friendly fire, mishaps, crazy explosions and simulations weapon combat very well... (which I love). But its just too much to resolve fast enough for a game of that scale, sometimes.

Take a walk through memory lane and Rulebooks of editions past and you will actually read that a single physical rank and file model was meant to represent several tens of warriors... which would make the game not actually to scale...this explanation has since been discontinued to preserve verosimilitude and coherence, I believe...
In addition, there was a mass-ranked battle game by GW:

Warmaster.

Warmaster was meant to represent massive battles where the Character's powers were more tied to their ability to lead their troops better and prevent them from screwing their orders up. Most of the popular troops from Warhammer Fantasy were represented (so it still felt very Warhammer), in 10mm scale. Rules for movement ans shooting looked quite realistic, and still reminiscent of Warhammer.
You could field appreciable numbers of troops, and make for a much more realistic mass battle game.

Somehow, Warmaster didn't stick with the larger public (maybe because the larger 28mm miniatures just look better), although there are many die-hards out there for which it works beautifully (because it does!). However, we (the larger public) kept insisting on playing a mass ranked battle game with the Warhammer ruleset. Maybe at some point it had to give, and that point was now.
-------------------------------------


I do believe that going for a squad-based tactical combat (with optional increase in numbers for larger games) was indeed a good idea for 28mm miniatures, and Warhammer: Age of Sigmar. However, that same idea could have easily been applied to Warhammer 8th Edition (or a 9th edition incarnation, which people were expecting). And it had already been done back in 6-7th edition, with Warhammer: Warbands.

Warhammer Fantasy: Warbands

This could've been the trend-setter that might have saved and boosted the Warhammer Fantasy game. At its minimum, it was a simple add-on to the Core game that scaled down minimum models per unit. This allowed for faster games, with more complex "secret" scenario objectives.
At its best, the campaign system it came with, together with Hero Archetype abilities, allowed very easily to turn it into a Warhammer version of the Experience and Injuries system that Mordheim uses, injecting loads of narrative into the game (and possibly capturing the attention of more RPG-oriented players that would otherwise not have touched it).
It goes without saying that if this version of the game had been properly promoted by GW, the infamous "barrier of entry" to the hobby, of having to buy dozens of models to even play a small game, would have evaporated. They would've picked up many short-term customers (who would buy a couple boxes and lose interest), but also get many more hooked on the game (because once you are in, you want to keep buying more and more...).

But alas, it was not supported as an official Core game "mode" going on to 7th and 8th Edition (together with Warhammer: Skirmish), and newer players (in the last ~5 years) never heard of any of it. Definitely a missed opportunity.
Cue endless squabble over what is "proper" and "real" Warhammer, over the edition wars, and arguments between "small tactical units are better, its more strategic" and "we want massive ranked units, that's the beauty of the game". And I hazard a guess that it was that rift that tore players between editions and made so many people drop such a beloved game over the years. It tried to do too many things, and the ruleset, which at the point of 8th Edition had been honed to a robust machine with (mostly) clear rules, struggled to keep the game chugging along at a pace the majority of people enjoyed.
----------------------------------------------------------

Finally, it is not at all a stretch to imagine that you could apply the movement rules present in AoS straight onto the rules for Warbands, and thus marry two great concepts together. Without having to reinvent the wheel and coming up with the revamped AoS system.
That movement flexibility would've boosted the ease of play of the Warbands/Warhammer format, and used all the great simulationism of the Warhammer rules, but because it needs less models the game would flow faster (therefore mitigating the time-consuming, over-detail problem of very simulationist rulesets). Intricate scenery could be explored, and many acts of derring-do performed by the Heroes of the warband, placing all due attention and spotlight on those beautiful centerpiece models.

I am currently in the process of testing this, by playing Warhammer: Warbands with the Freeform Movement rules I put together recently (a Warhammer 8th Ed. version of AoS movement rules).

Stay tuned for playtesting reports.

'Freeform Movement' for 8th Ed (experimental rules)

About time I posted some content of actual use. I apologize for taking so long: there is a life on the other side of the screen, with obligations and responsibilities, and "things-needing-taken-care-of" in general.
As promised, here it is.

This is my rules variation for Movement in 8th Edition Warhammer Fantasy:
Freeform Movement in 8th Ed [experimental] (download)

It attempts to do away with the clunkyness typical of movement in 8th edition (with its emphasis on large units), and emulate some of the great rules design presented in AoS. In doing so, I hope to make it look more natural and intuitive, and thus enhance narrative immersion.

The rules are meant to substitute some of the movement rules presented (it is indicated when this occurs), but otherwise blend seamlessly with the rest of 8th Edition rules, to ensure minimum disruption.

Features

• Units have no set shape: models can distribute themselves in any way as long as their bases touch (unit coherency).
• Units can move anywhere towards their sides or front (a semicircle).
• Models in a unit must always be facing the same direction; after they move, their facing can be up to 90° to the left or right of their initial facing.
• Single model units can pivot on the spot when moving, and have a charge arc of 180° (instead of only a 90° wide front arc). The exception to these are single model chariots.
• When charging, if any model in a unit (even in the back ranks) has an enemy in its front arc, the unit can charge it.
• When charging, any and all models in a unit can move their entire charge distance, by the most direct route towards the target (this may disrupt their ranks, at the player's discretion). Closing the door and redirecting large units are things of the past.
• In Close Combat, models can perform a Pile In move when their initiative step comes up and before attacking: 3" towards the closest enemy model.
•  A unit can retreat from combat in the Compulsory Moves phase, and automatically try to rally

In our playtest games, the units moved much more naturally, were able to explore the nooks and crannies of the scenery, and it seemed to mesh so well together with the rest of the rules...

Hopefully I've ironed out the vast majority of the bugs, but feel free to try it and if possible give me feedback.

Enjoy!

PS: as a lead-in to my next post, I have to say that playing with these rules, and comparing it to Age of Sigmar, it made me ask a very strange question: is the Warhammer 8th Ed ruleset actually well-suited for a large mass-ranked battle game, or perhaps it performs better at a slightly lower level?