I think it was a negative "reviewer" attempting to be unbiased but failing.

I thought they packed some components from Runebound or Descent into the massive box by mistake.

Much of the game’s core resembles the WFRP of old, but these changes make it more like one of FFG’s famously massive board games, but without the same high degree of accessibility.

The problem is WFRP is neither a true tabletop RPG, nor is it a board game; it’s something halfway in-between.

It felt as though new elements had been stapled on as an afterthought rather than truly integrated.

The problem the "reviewer" has, is that none of this is true if you read the rules and play the game and see how the components work with the game. It in no way feels like a boardgame when you play it, and none of the elements feel like they were "stapled on as an afterthought". The reason, at least for me, that I find things like this a bit offensive is that unfounded and biased reviews like this one are in the public eye. People who haven't played WFRP 3e, but are trying to get reviews or information no it to make up their minds, could Google and get this. They read it, and, not knowing it is completely inaccurate, think unfavorably about the game.

It would be one thing if the reviewer tried the game and had constructive personal criticism about certain elements not working for him. It's a whole different thing if he provides false information, whether deliberately or through ignorance.

you bring up the idea that the reviewer thinks it's a boardgame.

The boardgame arguement is going on over at the stun or strike boards. Where the forum description reads:

Wahammer 3rd edition....

"This is the forum for FFG's new boardgame/rpg-hybrid called WFRP. Never forget, the threads (no not the dice) tell the story...".

I couldn't help but call attention to the fact I didn't think it was a boardgame, neither do the designers. That however, hasn't gone over well with 2E fans overthere who seem to rally behind it being a boardgame.

I haven't bought the game yet but I probably will.

I don't mind negative reviews but for darn sake play the game first then review it. IFit really doesn't interest you enough to play it then don't review it either.

WFRP 3e is as much a boardgame as, say AD&D or WFRP v2 are miniatures games (assuming you use a grid and miniatures). The cards and tokens are merely tools to help play the game, much like miniatures and battlemap are used to play out combat. I can understand why, just looking at a pic or the contents of a box,you might think it was a boardgame hybrid. I did myself. However, if you read the rules, or any of the designer diaries, or (even better) play the game, you'll quickly and easily see that it is nothing like a boardgame and is still well and truly a RPG.

Of course, it makes a 'good' rallying point for people who don't want to like the new WFRP to claim it's some sort of boardgame hybrid rather than a 'true' RPG. They'd be wrong, but it does make for a sensationalist and easily displayed opposition (because it's based on appearance)

People know FFG makes some board games with lots of cards and counters and they see that this game also has cards and counters and make an associative leap that is not warranted. It's a fallacy of reasoning akin to saying, "A Mustang is a vehicle. It has tires, seats, a steering wheel, and a radio. An F-150 is a vehicle that also has tires, seats, a steering wheel and a radio. An F-150 is a type of truck. Both the Mustang and the F-150 are made by Ford; therefore, the Mustang must be a type of truck because they have so many elements in common." No, while they are both vehicles manufactured and sold by Ford, one is a car and the other is a truck, regardless of the fact that they share many common elements. Similarly, Chaos in the Old World and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay are both games produced by FFG. While they may have some elements in common like cards, counters, and dice, one is a board game and the other is a roleplay game. You can point out the similarities all day long, but that doesn't make WFRP a boardgame anymore than a Ford Mustang is a truck or truck-like.

We've been "trained" to think pencil/dice = RPG, while cards/counters = board game in our mental classification of games. However, all you have to do is play the game once to see that the conclusion leaped to by appearances is just plain wrong. For those that won't give it a chance due to it not fitting into their comfortable definition of what an RPG is, they will be missing out on a great game and I just feel sorry for them. It's those that are out there actively spreading disinformation about the game that raise my ire. Many people unfamiliar with the game will look and it and think, "It looks like a board game." Due to the sticker price, it's less likely to be an impulse buy and anyone curious enough to seek out reviews instead finds this false information, reaffirming their mis-conception of what the game is. We can only hope that enough of us write fact-based reviews to offset the ones like this that contain false info.

The simple fact of the matter that while you can say the other RPGs are more miniture RPGs is a joke you dont need minatures or a battle grid to play them. While with 3rd ed they imply you do need the components which is why they givem them to you.

Most people buying the game will see it on a shelf before they look at any other aspect about it, and their initial reaction will be that it at least some kind of hybrid board game. Honestly the only board game component it doesnt have is the board (though you could nit-pick it does) so thats a well justified view about it. It doesnt mean its a bad or good thing, it doesnt mean it cant be played as an RPG, hell it can alos be played as a board game too, with only the core rules.

Likewise you can harp on about the 'negative' review (it is a neutral one) as much as you like but its rather obvious to anyone reading the review that it wasnt played and anyone not inteligent enough to see that likely isnt going to be inteligent enough to play an RPG, assuming they would even look for a review.

morskittar said:

Agreed. However, I wasn't posting in response to comments about the reviewer, but in response to comments that appeared to be suggesting that shop keepers who dismissed WFRP3 were incompetent.

For what it's worth, I find most reviews of games to be lacking in substance, whether positive or negative, play-test or read-through, and I particularly dislike reviews that are merely contents summaries.

Cheers

Sparrow

Loswaith said:

I hope you are right about that, Loswaith.

I would also like to say that I cannot believe people are still going on about "the board game issue". I thought the Emperor's Decree event cleared it up to all those who attended it: this is not a boardgame unless any roleplaying game that uses more than dice and character sheets as components equals "a board game".

What is a boardgame? According to dictionary.com it's this:

board game

–noun

1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another.

2. any game played on a board.

WFRP is neither as far as I can tell.

Now, as for it being a card game ... I guess you could call all previous editions of WFRP dice games then.

Ludlov Thadwin of Sevenpiecks said:

Its the perception people have. And with tension meters, party cards, initiative meters and all the cards, it woud probably look like a board game at first glance and look. And sometimes thats all it takes for someone to just walk away.

And power to them for it. You cant just hold them down, shout at them "Like game" and be done with it.

From what I have seen, I would not call it a board game, a component interactive game perhaps.

Anyway, Im waiting to hear more opinions of the game, even though mine is pretty much solid. But its always fun to see others reactions, good or bad.

James Sparrow said:

That was not my intent at all. I should probably watch that, as years in the "industry" have left me somewhat bitter about how common unproffessional and poorly-run stores (and distributors and manufacturers) there are. The point was intended to be "professionals who dismiss any game out of hand without assessing how it can make their store money are incompetent", but skewed a bit too far back into that old rant.

I'm with you on the reviews. I certainly don't mind a relatively high level "impressions of play" review, but would prefer to see something that provides information beyond what can be gleaned from online box shots.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I wouldn't want to force anyone to like the game, don't worry:) In fact, I have yet to find our how much I'll like it myself. I know you don't like the idea of 3E, Peacekeeper_b, but I do appreciate the thoughtful way you express your opinions.

So, is there a review that is worth reading? I'd like to see it. Meanwhile, feel free to tell me whether I like it or not...

Just got into this game.

Initially, I sort of did not know how to take the party cards/tension meters and the distance system.

The last RPG I played extensively was DnD 3rd Ed. That game required a battle grip to play effectively. Generally, our games and battles became very tactical.

The system that FFG presents in Fantasy Role Play is actually, now, quite fun. You lay the game down abstractly, use some nice looking markers to represent the general feel of the encounter and the parties readiness and proceed. I am enjoying it, so far. At least, I a enjoying the change of pace.

As the GM, and not a terribly big investor in Warhammer lore/culture or games, I find myself instantly struggling with cobbling together a story to tell.

The box set in my opinion does not contain enough "Adventures" to build on. I only came to this forum looking for "modules".

Good Luck guys.

P.S. I choose Beedrill!

Apparently, Christian Petersen, CEO of FFG has spoken out against this review as well.

www.icv2.com/articles/news/16362.html

Although Petersen expressed many of the same sentiments I did, folks over at RPG.net are lamblasting him for it for attacking the reviewer (accusing the reviewer of having a conflict of interest that was not disclosed). The editor's response contains a statement from the reviewer disputing the accusation that the reviewer applied to write for the new version and was turned down, so we have a he said-he said situation. Which one is telling the truth or is the truth something in between?

While I agree that the reviewer didn't really review the game and am disappointed that he made certain declarations about it after (apparently) only looking over the contents of the box, I don't feel Petersen helped the cause by playing the "conflict of interest" card.

Yeah, I can't say I've ever seen a company criticising their criticism go down well.

It's a crap review, but FFG did send him a box in the first place. It's fair to expect a review with content (positive or negative), but I don't think there are any winning actions to be taken if you don't get that.

I'm starting to think that the controversy over this new edition of a roleplaying game is going to be worse than when 4th edition D&D was released.

I find the whole thing quite ridiculous and petty.

While with 3rd ed they imply you do need the components which is why they givem them to you.

You don't *need* any of the components, although to do without will require a bit of extra work. All of the information *could* be put onto paper. Action card results, talents, recharge status, stance status, wounds, criticals, etc. Everything can be recorded just with paper and pencil. The fact is, though, that the tokens and pieces are already there and don't require you to do anything. They make it very simple for the GM and players. In fact, the only need for a paper and pencil during a session is to record clues and write down notes, nothing needed to track things. The tokens/cards also make it easy for everyone to see how wounded/fatigued/stressed/etc the other PCs are, rather than needing to ask or look at scratch marks on paper.

Honestly the only board game component it doesnt have is the board (though you could nit-pick it does)

Where is the board? The tabletop? As long as each player has a small space for their own stuff, they don't need to sit at a common table. Just like any other RPG.

hell it can alos be played as a board game too, with only the core rules.

What? Have you even played the game? How can you play WFRP as a board game? I'm curious, really. I personally, can't see how WFRP can be played as a boardgame.

I do agree that first impressions from looking at it make it seem like its a boardgame. That was the first impression that I had when I saw what came with it. I think that's part of the reaction some of us are having. Reviews like this are reinforcing the thought that its a boardgame, when it in fact plays absolutely nothing like a boardgame, and truly plays like an RPG. It's a valid review to say it *looks* like a boardgame (or boardgame/rpg hybrid). It's a lie (whether intentional or not) to say that it *is* a boardgme or boardgame/rpg hybrid. And, the "reviewer" says both. Given the fact that he had the box in front of him, and didn't take the time to even skim through the books, I don't even see why he felt he could write something and actually call it a review. It would be like looking at the outside storefront of a store and then writing a review about the store, without even having set foot inside, let alone browsed the merchandise or talked to the employees.

Necrozius said:

This is the attacks, D&D saw/continues to see

1. The game is made for kids, short attention spans who need all the componets to focus on the game.

2. The game is a boardgame (this will become the 4E D&D is World of Warcraft arguement for warhammer) not an rpg.

3. I know I have an old oop edition I could play, but I'd rather be on internet boards saying how much I hate it, over and over and over.

4. I have every right to say I hate the game over and over and over. You just don't want me to repeat myself because you are a fanboi.

Sinister said:

Quoted from the SA forums, Traditional Games discussion:

"I love Edition debates because they boil down to two fat nerds basically trying to convince each other that they are not having fun."

HA HA HA HA HA

Necrozius said:

That is so true. What amazes me is when it breaks down into an arguement of math and probability, and technical issues. While I understand that's important to game design, it's only important to players when the game isn't fun.

dvang said:

Actually you do need components, you loose a good chunk of the rules without the components. Conversly if the information of the cards and character character cards were contained in the books I would agree with you.

On the board:
Take the party sheet and stance meters inparticular, they way they are used and displayed could be considered the board. I persoanly would say they are a board but as I said if you nit-pick they are as such.

In playing as a board game:
I mean realy, any RPG can be played as a board game. It realy isnt that far of a stretch to beable to do so for any RPG let alone Warhammer 3rd ed. If you cant actually see that then nothing anyone says to the contray will ever be a valid view to you. Its something anyone could see whether thay have played an RPG or not.

Necrozius said:

I hadnt come across that one before, was good for a chuckle... thanks.

Second review on icv2, and this time it's a real one:

www.icv2.com/articles/news/16385.html

sudden real said:

Its good to see that he liked it, but I really wouldn't call that a review either. People really want a more in depth look at the various mechanics and specific examples of such things as the dice helping gameplay, etc.

Loswaith said:

It's quite simple, actually. You just have to stop roleplaying (other than basic declarations) and focus solely on game mechanics. I know people who actually enjoy this from time to time, given the right system (the more tactical, the better). Still, I don't think it's the way most RPGs were meant to be played, not even D&D4.