Saturday, 31 January 2015

A very old WFB 3rd edition article you may find interesting

I recently came across an interesting article on the Warhammer World Championship held in 1989 in a very old edition of GM magazine that I had back in the day (long story why I came across this which I don't need to replicate here!). What really caught my eye was the "gamey-ness" of the winning army. The winner (and this is no criticism of the winner BTW - one works within the rules as presented) played with a 7 cannon army! Now if one has played 3rd edition you will know how deadly cannon are. Personally I find the 3rd edition rules for cannon to be poorly written as there is no need to check for range which makes no sense - that did come later in White Dwarf 147 or thereabouts - it is in the rules for the new empire army that preceded 4th edition. I plan to try these amended rules out in the next month when my undead army will be ready to fight my Bretonnian forces.

One other thing to note is this - from what I can recall 3rd edition WFB competitions forbade the use of flying troops. These are the very thing that can negate war-machines such as cannon. I also seem to recall a limitation on wizards to second level magic - again a limitation that favours war-machine heavy armies. To me this is the antithesis of the oldhammer movement. Would love to hear your thoughts on this and I hope you enjoy the article (apologies for the size of the file - I want to make sure it is readable!).


  1. Interesting stuff.

    You're spot on about the gamey-ness. As you say that's a reflection of tournaments rather than the players, but the focus is entirely on the winning - and a good chunk of that seems to have been in the army selection (which army to field, never mind their composition) rather than the game itself. The reference to "arguing over every move" doesn't sound like my cup of tea either.

    It seems odd that they could switch armies entirely between the heats and the finals, but again the tournament rules are what set this up.

    Old, but not Oldhammer (and an interesting data point for Matthew's "where did it all go wrong" post recently -

  2. I guess it all comes down to one's view of what oldhammer is. personally my view is that it is playing a game that is fun which doesn't involve "gaming" of the rules. My day job is in tax law and that involves enough gaming of the law for me :( having said that if one organises a comp and these are the rules well those are the rules...). I did see Matthew's post and it is a good one. Well worth thinking about

  3. I see nothing wrong per se with blackpowder weapons being devastating - they generally were (thinking of the Portugesue in Africa for example).

    It's also interesting that the "World Warhammer Championships" were run by Osprey rather than GW and got coverage in GM, but absolutely none in White Dwarf.

  4. Great post - and that article is a great catch - I'm so glad you shared it.
    I found one line in the article truly remarkable: When describing one tournement game, it reads "Every turn, every move, every phase, every action was argued over."
    Urg. As Nathan said above, my idea of fun is not like that. If you enjoy that sort of procedural wrangling, sue your neighbour in Small Claims Court.