Project: Adapting Warhammer rules for historical and Westeros purposes

[Atheling]

I'm not being facetious but Google Warhammer Ancient Battles 

Darrell.

[Major_Gilbear]

Pretty simple chart!

Another thing to comment on (I think I may have missed it in you earlier comment), and that is that your WS charts exaggerate the difference in WS quite a bit - which may not be intentional.

So a troop with one point more skill than his opponent gets a double benefit - he hits more easily and at the same time is harder to hit.

It might be worth spreading out the results a bit more - so one point more skill than his opponent makes it easier for him to hit, or harder to be hit. You wouldn't get both benefits until you are two points higher

Something like this:

Code: [Select]


          Defend
   WS  1  2  3  4  5
A   1  4+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 6+
t   2  3+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 6+
t   3  2+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 5+
a   4  2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 4+
c   5  2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+
k


You could feasibly skew them a little more if you want, though that might make it harder to remember

[Nord]

You don't really need a table at all, it's a basic formula of sorts.

4+ to hit
If ws is greater than opponent, add 1 (ie 3+ to hit)
If ws is twice as much as opponent, add 2 (ie 2+ to hit)
If ws is half or less than opponent, deduct 1 (ie 5+to hit)

Or something like that at any rate. A system like this does away with the table (which is derived from the formula anyway), always a good thing in my book. Charts are tedious. There's also the advantage that you can use any WS you want, you are not just restricted to the range 1 to 5 - helpful if at a later date you want to introduce more fantastical elements.

On the WS range you have, it's skewed to the bottom end. Why have WS 1 if nobody ever uses it? Conversely, at the top end, there's little room for distinction between regular troops (WS 3), elite troops (WS 4) and veterans (WS 3.66?). Unless you have some mechanism in mind to cater for troops that are better than regulars, but not at elite levels.

Personally I would go something more like 1 = civilian/awful, 2 = raw/untrained/poor, 3 = regular, 4 = veteran, 5 = elite, 6 = heroic. It doesn't really add anything to your table, nothing at all if you go with a formula instead.

[Charlie_]

So a troop with one point more skill than his opponent gets a double benefit - he hits more easily and at the same time is harder to hit.

It might be worth spreading out the results a bit more - so one point more skill than his opponent makes it easier for him to hit, or harder to be hit. You wouldn't get both benefits until you are two points higher

Something like this:

Code: [Select]


          Defend
   WS  1  2  3  4  5
A   1  4+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 6+
t   2  3+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 6+
t   3  2+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 5+
a   4  2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 4+
c   5  2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+
k



Hmmmm yes, that's a good point.
I like my chart because of its simplicity. You won't really need to remember how it works or keep looking up. Your chart (and the existing charts) are technically more complicated.
But you are right about the double benefit.
The question is - is the double benefit overpowered or not? I'm hoping it's not, because then we can keep things simple!
I would like to argue that it is not overpowered, but rather having one point extra WS should be considered something truly impressive, rather than just a small bonus. If we use a WFB example.... a High Elf spearman has WS4, but who the hell cares? He's just gonna get crushed by monsters and blasted apart with magic anyway.
In my games, I want that WS4 to really make him elite. So 10 WS4 elites fighting 10 WS3 regular troops will nearly always win, unless they are very unlucky. They will hit much easier, and their opponents will have a much harder time landing a blow on them. You may disagree, but I think that double benefit is good.
But thinking about it, I may need to make it more expensive in points! +1WS should be worth 2pts not 1pt, but we're getting ahead of ourselves now.

Your chart could work nicely though. However I think it should allow for the best swordsmen being only hit on 6s when fighting the average WS3 soldier, which your chart doesn't allow. But it would do if the maximum WS was 6, not 5 (for Jaime Lannister etc).

[Charlie_]

You don't really need a table at all, it's a basic formula of sorts.

4+ to hit
If ws is greater than opponent, add 1 (ie 3+ to hit)
If ws is twice as much as opponent, add (ie 2+ to hit)
If ws is half or less than opponent, deduct 1 (ie 5+to hit)

Or something like that at any rate. A system like this does away with the table (which is derived from the formula anyway), always a good thing in my book. Charts are tedious. There's also the advantage that you can use any WS you want, you are not just restricted to the range 1 to 5 - helpful if at a later date you want to introduce more fantastical elements.

On the WS range you have, it's skewed to the bottom end. Why have WS 1 if nobody ever uses it? Conversely, at the top end, there's little room for distinction between regular troops (WS 3), elite troops (WS 4) and veterans (WS 3.66?). Unless you have some mechanism in mind to cater for troops that are better than regulars, but not at elite levels.

Personally I would go something more like 1 = civilian/awful, 2 = raw/untrained/poor, 3 = regular, 4 = veteran, 5 = elite, 6 = heroic. It doesn't really add anything to your table, nothing at all if you go with a formula instead.

Yes, very interesting....
I would argue small charts like the one I posted are not tedious, but lots of large and confusing charts are!

Of course the 'base' WS could be reduced to 2, or set at 4 or 5 (if using a 1-10) system. Hmmm, many options here! Keeping it at 3 has the bonus of keeping things familiar to existing WFB or WAB players, but whether or not that is a good thing or not is up for debate.

Back to an earlier point, look at that statline if we remove M, W and A. Looks nice to me! 3 being the starting point across the board with the exception of Ld.

[Nord]

Yes, long statlines should be avoided if at all possible, but too short and you end up with hundreds of special rules to differentiate (hello songs of blades and heroes).

Being very pedantic here, but do you need S/T/I if all your combatants are human? Won't they all end up being value 3? If that's true, then ditch them. It depends on where you go next, once you have determined number of hits. If you are sticking with traditional S vs T rolls, then you might need them. Personally, I have always thought rolling S vs T to be a step too many - once a hit is suffered, see if the armour prevents damage, or die. Especially relevant in low fantasy settings I would say, you won't have thick skinned orcs or regenerating trolls will you?

I reckon you could definitely lose I at the very least. Make combats simultaneous, with perhaps rules for strike first/last as special considerations. When else would you use I?

[Charlie_]

Yes, long statlines should be avoided if at all possible, but too short and you end up with hundreds of special rules to differentiate (hello songs of blades and heroes).

Being very pedantic here, but do you need S/T/I if all your combatants are human? Won't they all end up being value 3? If that's true, then ditch them. It depends on where you go next, once you have determined number of hits. If you are sticking with traditional S vs T rolls, then you might need them. Personally, I have always thought rolling S vs T to be a step too many - once a hit is suffered, see if the armour prevents damage, or die. Especially relevant in low fantasy settings I would say, you won't have thick skinned orcs or regenerating trolls will you?

I reckon you could definitely lose I at the very least. Make combats simultaneous, with perhaps rules for strike first/last as special considerations. When else would you use I?

Skipping the to-wound stage certainly could be done. But I don't think I'm gonna go that far...
Cutting out the Wounds stat goes a long way to simplifying things I think. I think S v T till needs to stay there... A hit has been scored - is it a minor wound, or a serious enough wound to kill or incapacitate the enemy? Sure, most units will be 3 v 3, but I want a S bonus from 2-handed weapons and charging lances, and S4 available to some elite troops (I think higher Toughness will be characters only).

However, here's an idea. Could armour simply increase toughness, rather than giving a separate save?

As for Initiative, sure it is only used to determine who strikes first, but I think that's gonna stay. Unless I go for simultaneous striking. Surely striking order is worth having though, to allow faster troops the potential to kill all enemies before they can strike back? If its simultaneous, what happens when two units wipe eachother out at the same time?
Also, as most troops will have I3 and be drawing in terms of strike order, I think I should allow whoever won the last round of combat to strike first before resorted to roll-offs.
I could very well be persuaded to go for simultaneous striking though, if you think it makes sense!

[Nord]

You need to try out both methods, see which you like the best. I have played WHFB for 20 years, never really blinked an eye over the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save (even then roll to parry, or ward save). But recently I have enjoyed both Saga and Lion Rampant which roll (respectively) just twice or once per combat. Games are a hell of a lot quicker, such that you can usually get in two games of Saga or three games of LR in the time it takes to play one game of Warhammer. Now I find the endless dice rolling a bit of a chore.

[Charlie_]

You need to try out both methods, see which you like the best.

I've given it quite a lot of thought since my last post.

I think if you were to combine Armour Saves with rolling to wound, rules for armour would have to be simplified quite a lot, and subsequently rules for weapons would need to be simplified too. And the end result would be a much quicker, simpler game, but it would suffer from lack of variety. Most infantry units would be identical.

I'm not going to go this route, but I will keep it in the back of my mind, as it could always work nicely for a simplified, quicker Warhammer game..... Or at least allows more room for complex movement and strategy as you're not being bogged down by dice rolling.

1. Roll to hit comparing WS as normal.
2. Roll to wound comparing S and T.
3. Three types of armour. Light armour is the minimum, and adds nothing. Heavy armour adds +1T (or -1 to wound if that sounds better). Full plate armour adds +2T (or -2 to wound). If mounted, barding is considered part of the full plate array, so is irrelevant. Being mounted adds nothing to your save.
This means an attack from the average Strength (let's assume it's 3, and let's say it's an arrow hitting our soldier) will wound and kill someone with light armour on 4+. Someone with heavy armour will be only killed on a 5+ by the same arrow. And someone in full plate, either infantry or cavalry, will only be killed on a 6.
So just two rolls with both shooting and combat - to hit, and then to wound. If both successful, he is dead. Fully armoured knights, either on foot or mounted, become tough nuts to crack either with arrows or regular close combat attacks.

Having special rules for different weapons would kinda spoil the simplicity of this. So it doesn't matter what close combat weapons your units have, it makes no difference. Spears, lances, hand weapons, halberds, 2-hand weapons... Doesn't matter. This in turn encourages units of mixed weaponry, which as I see it would be realistic for medieval armies.
The one exception would be pikes, which would get their own rules to do with fighting in ranks and receiving charges.
And shields do nothing. Doesn't matter if your models are armed with swords and shields or double handed war-hammers, they fight the same.
(Though perhaps a unit of infantry entirely equipped with large shields would get some sort of cover save from shooting).
This sounds nice and smooth, but it makes all those infantry units much the same. The elites have better WS (and maybe better S, I or LD), which makes them notably more powerful, but all the rank and file troops are identical.
So I won't be doing this. But it does have its appeal I must admit!
_________________________________________

[Major_Gilbear]

I was thinking more about this this evening...

Why even have a table, or even use the hit/wound/save mechanics of WHFB? If you're pretty much much going to mod the hell out a ruleset, why not just write what you want?

For example, I rather like the way Warmachine handles the basic mechanics:

• Roll dice, and add your ranged or melee stat to the score, along with any modifiers.
• Compare your total score to your opponent's defense stat. If you equal or better, you hit.
• Roll dice and add the relevant weapon's damage stat, along with any modifiers.
• Compare your total score to your opponent's armour stat. If you exceed their value, the difference in score is damage taken. (NB: most troop units in WM have one wound per model, so each roll that exceeds armour kills a model).

Now, WM uses 2D6 per dice roll (and has ways of adding more dice to an attack too), so models have to be rolled one-by-one. However, you could use one dice (doesn't even have to be a D6 - it could be a d12 or something) per model/attack instead, allowing you to roll a rank of infantry attacks all at once. Whilst a single dice might make results too wild for WM, for the more abstract blocks of troops in a game like WHFB it might actually add back in some of the "result spikes" that normally come from the characters and magic items that you've removed.

This way, you would have sensible stats that are easy to understand, and easy to remember/use. There would be no charts either.

A sample statline might look like this:

WS-BS-Def-Arm-A-I-Ld

Armour could add to a model's armour stat, and it could also even reduce the defense stat too if you wanted (very heavy or cumbersome armour for example).

This also means that skilled swordfighters might have a high WS (expected; makes them aggressive because they can land blows more easily), but also have a higher Def (to reflect their skill in preventing an enemy from landing blows of their own).

What also works well with this is that you can tweak the profile stats for a unit to reflect any nuances you might want, and still have simple upgrade options like heavy armour adding +2 to a model's score, or full plate adding +3 but also reducing Def (or Initiative if you prefer) by 1.

You could extend this to weapons too; giving them simple rules that don't bog things down too much, but that do add some character. For example, spears might add +1 to Def in the turn you're charged, and lances could add +1 damage and +1 WS on the turn they charge. Pikes might add +2 Def, but only aginst cavalry. And so on. Again, it's pretty easy to remember, and as long as you don't add fifty weapons types or whatever, it still gives you plenty of ways to reflect the different equipment/units/factions.

[Arlequín]

Some excellent ideas coming out here... although as the Major says, if you're going to change a rule set so fundamentally, why use it at all?

As far as stat lines go, each value used should have an equally representative function. I like the idea of toughness to represent armour as well as commitment, or doggedness. Likewise strength being a representation of the weapon type wielded, plus the average ability across the unit.

I'm not sure charts are needed. The relevant factor could be used to define the typical number of casualties, modified by defence, plus or minus other modifiers and opposed rolls. So instead of comparing totals on a table, you simply compare the unit profiles.

For example: S 4 versus T3 gives 1 casualty. +1 for charging. Opposed roll gives +1 in the defender's favour, bringing it back to 1 casualty... or something like that. Simple and no need for a chart. A minus factor provides friendly casualties in a charging unit that has bitten off more than it can chew.

If you use a standard unit size as the base, i.e. units are multiples of five or whatever, then bigger units multiply the factor. So our single casualty above for a five-man group, becomes two for ten men, three for fifteen and so on.

In short the manipulation of the stat line in a more imaginative way can obviate the need for a lot of pointless rules and tables. It also allows individual units to have some uniqueness in comparison to their almost identical fellow units.

Obviously this is a simplistic representation of an idea which can be worked on, but I wanted to ilustrate an idea, rather than provide a finished rule element.

[Charlie_]

Well thank you for all the input so far guys.

I think I now need to make the decision whether to stick close to the WFB / WAB rules, or consider a radical overhaul which might well result in something entirely different. Talk of getting rid of the to-hit/to-wound/save format has got me thinking hard.

However I think I'm gonna keep it, and thus what I am working on is not gonna be a drastic rethink, but rather a steamlining and tinkering of the WFB / WAB rules.

Warhammer Ancient Battles has been mentioned by several peoples, and I do have a copy of those rules. The obvious question is why do I not just use those rules and leave it at that? Well there are things I don't like about the WAB rules in the same way as there are things I don't like about the WFB rules.
Obviously they both use the same core mechanics.
WFB has lots of fantasy elements to make it more complicated.
WAB does not have this, but it has lots of confusing layers of other rules to make up for it, especially when it comes to formations and such, so it is really just as complicated.

So what I am trying to do is make a clear, streamlined edition of the core Warhammer rules, avoiding both the fantasy elements of WFB and the over-complication of the WAB rules. It will be scaleable, from skirmish to mass battle. It can be expanded with supplements for siege, artillery, and the addition of fantasy elements such as magic and monsters. But I'm just looking at the core rules now.

So yes, I think I will keep the charts and three-stage rolling of Warhammer.

I will keep the 1-10 ranges of stats, even with the average human stats being 3 and rarely (or never) getting higher than 5. This is so there is room for things with high S and T to be brought in later with expansions (cannons, elephants, monsters, etc).

With that out of the way, let's take a look at some of the changes I am planning to make! I welcome all who are familiar with the Warhammer rules and like the core mechanics to give me your thoughts.

_________________
Armour. WFB has just light and heavy armour, but a few armies have special armour unique to them with a higher save. WAB has light, heavy, partial plate and full plate. I want to get full heavy plate armour in there, but not go as far as having 4 armour levels like in WAB. So I will have....

Light armour: 6+ save
Heavy armour: 5+ save
Full plate armour: 4+ save
Shields add 1 to the save.
Being mounted adds 1.
Barding (any sort) adds 1.

This gives a max of 3+ for infantry and 1+ for cavalry. I'm not sure I want the cavalry one that high... And also, my historical knowledge has always told me how shields were mostly abandoned when full plate armour came in. What if shields add nothing to full plate? So that gives a max of 4+ for infantry, and 2+ for cavalry.
Infantry with heavy armour and shield, or infantry with full plate, both get a 4+ save. The obvious advantage of going the full plate route is it lets you wield a a 2-handed weapon and still get that save.
Another thing which might need re-evaluating - Cavalry getting +1 save has always been part of the Warhammer rules. Do you think it makes sense? If we abolished that, it gives us max saves of 4+ for infantry and 3+ for cavalry. Abolishing it and keeping shield+plate gives us max values of 3+ for infantry and 2+ for cavalry.
Which of the above options sounds most sensible to people? I think there should always be room for heavy cavalry to have a 2+ save at least.
And for those with good historical knowledge, what are your thoughts on the full plate + shield dilemma? Would WotR foot men-at-arms be throwing aside their shields to wield a poll-axe because the armour gives them enough protection, rather than making the shield obsolete? Should I still keep full plate + shield as a valid option, or is that shield just gonna be pointless?

WAB also has two different shield sizes, which I think adds an unnecessary complication.

What are your thoughts on tweaking the armour system?

[Charlie_]

-double post

[Nord]

It's hard to comment on some things in isolation. The armour values you suggest make sense, if they are pointed appropriately. I can remember a time when cavalry reigned supreme in WHFB, but more recently they have been less effective. So these things make sense if pointed appropriately and if they work well in conjunction with the rest of the the rules. It's one of those areas when the sum is greater than the parts.

[Nord]

On the cavalry gaining +1, I think this is open to debate. I'm not a historical student so I can't give an academic answer and I suspect experts would argue back and forth anyway. I can tell you that in Saga cavalry give you a longer move range, but you are easier to hit (in shooting), so dunno if that's of any use. I always felt that 1+ was too much, even in fantasy with plenty of high strength attacks. In a low fantasy (human only) setting where the typical S is just 3, those cavalry are going to be pretty hard to kill. Not necessarily a problem in itself, depending on (you guessed it) points value and other rules. There's no right or wrong answer to your questions, in the end the designer makes the choices, the players then play it or play something else. Or modify it.