"More than 300 cards keep you in the game, no need to look up skills or abilities"

You will however need to be able to sort through the cards to find the skill or ability that your looking up, is this not worse than flicking to the correct chapter in a book?

MILLANDSON said:

We're complaining about the $100 price tag because people who don't give a **** about WFRP are unlikely to risk purchasing a game they may or may not enjoy, especially with the economy being what it is. Even current fans are unable to take a peek before buying because the product is being distributed in a boxed set, which means shrink wrap. It's to no one's benefit for this game to fail....

It's also worth mentioning that we have no idea who large those four books are going to be. If anything, the description given makes it sound as if they will have a fairly narrow focus, which means a small page count. Furthermore, we should keep in mind that Black Industries published all of their books in hardback early on, even the small ones. Frankly, I don't think there's a chance in hell the contents of that box will contain four full-sized rulebooks, but we'll see.

I imagine that the 300 includes duplicates and that each character will have a "hand" of probably no more than 10.

If that isn't the case, then round these parts it's called "Salesman BS"

Lupinorc said:

I tend to disagree. We can reasonably speak and debate about an artwork and its either implicit or explicit meaning(s). Note that this is not implying a moral judgment (good or bad) but just to understand creative process and its application in a given context.

If we can speak only in terms of 'I like' or 'I don't like' about an art we could be also incapable to think about ourselves and our society or in other words why we like or don't like something. Thus culture studies and art history

Just looking at these two pictures can tell us a lot about gaming in 1980s and gaming in 2000s.

A gigantic, humongous disappointment for me personally. I am not referring to the use of 'hero' in connection with WFRP. I mean the new game is totally about merchandising and productisation (is that a word in English?), not to mention the feared 'dumbing down'. I mean look at it, the basic set costs 100 dollars, apparently you can buy expansion sets to cater for more players, you need 'special' dice which you can't get anywhere else (and which you can't use for anything else). The basic set appears to be full of these new shiny things (aka 'crap') that FFG excels at in their board games, cards, counters and other gimmicks. And you don't need to learn the game, it's all on templates and cards! You don't even have know numbers, because the dice use nice little symbols. It's all gonna be so easy to learn, fast-paced and quick, and well... so dumbed down.

Ok, we don't know a lot about at this stage, and the game might actually be very good at what it sets out to do, but that is not what I want from WFRP. But wait, FFG doesn't give a toss about their loyal and old customers, because they want the 'new' customer, who's well, not that interested in roleplaying to begin with. I guess it makes sense to abandon the old customers (a known quantity), and try to reach the new (unknown) ones? Because, hey WOC is doing it so they must be out there. It's like rats leaving the sinking ship.

Cat that Walked by Himself said:

Cat that Walked by Himself said:

No, looking at these two pictures can tell us a lot about fantasy artwork in the 1980s and fantasy artwork in the 2000s.

Or, looking at these two pictures we can infer a lot about gaming in the 1980s and gaming in the 2000s.

DagobahDave said that the two pieces of cover art "evoked the same sense of adventure" in him. An incredibly subjective statement which by it's nature cannot be incorrect.

You appeared to try to tell him he was incorrect by describing the contents of both pieces, during which description you made a couple of subjective assumptions, for example "who look like a group of ne’er-do-wells that are going to ‘adventure’ in order to alleviate their financial woes" and "pyromaniac wizard slaughtering some invisible foes? It seems that they are in the middle of the almost super-heroic slugfest"

Granted the second quote is probably the most likely interpretation of that particular piece, but if someone else thought otherwise who are we to tell them they are wrong

If I have misinterpreted your post I do apologise!

Such are the woes of forum based debate

Cat that Walked by Himself said:

I hadn't even looked closely at the V3 cover, and I wrote that I didn't expect V3 starting characters to be doing what's depicted on it, or even what's depicted on the V1 cover. I can see why you went down that road, but I didn't mean to compare the V3 cover to the V1 cover. It's the V3 content that's matching the V1 cover's vibe for me.

I don't expect you to have had the same reaction to the V1 cover that I did all those years ago. I also don't expect you to understand how I can get that same vibe by looking closely at WFRP3's contents.

Of course I didn't wait for 20 years to play the game I wanted. I've played the hell out of V1 and V2 and have at times recreated that first buzz of excitement. But I've always had to do some pushing and pulling of the WFRP game systems before I could find that perfect mix. WFRP3 looks good to me not because of the cover but because this system already makes sense to me and is agreeable, and because everything I've seen so far evokes the same sense of excitement that I felt when I picked up V1.

But, as you can see we are debating an artwork and its relation to the content it is supposed to represent and going really far beyond ‘I like’ and ‘I don’t like’.

Of course, when we are debating anything, let alone art and RPGs, we are bound to be subjective and insofar in a forum debate that is limited by its media you are bound to be misunderstood or better said you are more likely not to speak clearly.

Of course, subjectivity has its limits also. For example we can probably say with some degree of certainty that Chaos warrior in full plate is more dangerous then an orc

Back to the topic at hand, I really think that we can infer a lot about gaming in 1980s and 2000s by comparing these two pieces. Not that one is better or worse but different.

My thesis, for Dave, would be that v1 allowed you to play out a scene from v1 cover. In that way relation between content of the v1 and the illustration on its covers was organic, so to speak. In other words, he didn’t have to wait for 20 years to play it out.

What we have on v3 cover is something that is, obvious disclaimer – in my opinion, going up to eleven.

Instead of rugged woodsman on a stairway holding the orcs - we get the heavy punching out with another heavy. Instead of the low-key wizard reading a scroll we got flaming hands of death and so on and on…

I am not saying that is bad or better said worse but different then what we had in v1.

We don’t know or can not infer relation between v3 cover and contents.

We’ll have to wait and see, but if it is accurate it definitely portrays different game then the one we have started with in the 80s.

Oh yes most assuredly, waiting with bated (or is it baited?) breath, well, those of us who haven't washed our hands of the new edition yet!

Just one thing though, if the box art accurately portrays the games we will have (if indeed any box art can) then it might not portray a very different game to everyone, DagobahDave (sorry to keep dragging your name into my points good sir!) is a prime example. Despite the intrinsic differences in the style and content of the two pieces (granted he is referring to the entire product with regard to ver3, or at least the parts we have been shown!) the games are in essence the same to him. They evoke the same feelings, the same senses and the same excitment (do correct me if I am wrong D.D.) but for others, like yourself, and me if I'm honest, the two games are very different.

To me the changes in character sheets, the dice we will be rolling and the addition of skill and action cards have changed the game a little too much for me to be comfortable with at the moment. FFG have changed the very way we will interact with and as our characters, seemingly putting a lot more importance on the rolling of the previously mentioned dice and who knows what else!

The difference between v1 and v2 was very slight in comparison, the statlines, character sheets, skills, spells and way of playing were all very similar. They were still fundamently the same.

Now many could argue that V3 is fundamently the same game too. But then I could argue that WFB and WFRP V2 are fundamently the same too. There are the same races, same countries, same dramatis personae, same gritty perilous world, the artwork depicts the same world, the background material is essentially the same (though one continues after the Storm of Chaos the other picks and chooses when it wants to acknowledge the Storm), hell you even roll dice for a lot of the same characteristics! But I am sure you would all agree they are indeed very different games and a fan of one may not be a fan of the other, possibly just for the simple reason they don't like idea of one, or they don't like the way it looks "six sided dice? Bleh!" (not my view! I love WFB woohoo!)

V3 if I'm being honest does look like it could be a great game, looks like it could well be a lot of fun. I've played a fair few FFG games of different categories and have enjoyed them all so I know that a great fun game is not beyond them. But so far it does not look like it will replace V2 for me and isn't that what a new version of something should do? To me they seem like very different games, I'd go so far and say very different types of games. Perhaps if WFRP V2 was continuing as the only "warhammer roleplay" game and this new version was "Warhammer Adventure" or something like that it would be better or at least better received. But then again, any game where you take on the persona of somebody or something else can be called a roleplay game so maybe that is a poor comment to make.

While we are talking about the differing artwork though, particularly the new box art, we need to keep in mind that box art is nothing more than advertising and that it is certainly no coincidence that it shows remarkable similarity to the recent videogames, especially Warhammer Online. So perhaps the big difference in art presentation can be attributed to something other that game content.

I for one feel that any and all advertising should be taken with a healthy dose of salt, anyone looking for an example of advertising not quite being representitive of game content, I direct your attention to Evony and it's assorted online banners.

Lupinorc said:

I might be alone on this, but I just don't understand the comments being made that the box art doesn't look like Warhammer. The first thought I had upon spotting it was that it bore a remarkable similarity to the Adrian Smith art found within WFB. Granted, I can't tell from an online picture how much grit is found on the characters' faces, but it's certainly dark and looks like Warhammer to me.

The art looks like Warhammer, it just doesn't look like the kind of thing people have come to expect from WFRP. That's the difference.

Sythorn said:

Really wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Alas I grow weary, untill people have had a chance to play/see a game being played all points are hearsay and conjecture (including my own!) I'm going to wait and try and see/play a demo game somewhere and hope it's a game I want to play.

Untill then I won't be forking that much cash ($100 plus shipping to UK puts it way out of my price range) buying a game that I know nothing tangible about.

As a side point, FFG, surely better ways to market and release this game must have been discussed?