Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: BZ on November 19, 2020, 05:03:22 PM
-
Hello to Everybody,
I read a post on Bloodbeards blog about Battlesworn (https://bloodbeard.blogspot.com/2020/10/review-oathmark-battlesworn.html?showComment=1605804951446#c5072411434274345376), and he mentioned also an idea about having siege rules for Oathmark (as a supplement). That inspired me, made me think about it a lot. I wrote all this down in a (bit chaotic) post on my blog:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/11/15-siege-of-oathmark.html
But I would be happy, if that wouldn't stay a monologue, but we could discuss, have ideas about it. So please, share your thoughts here!
-
Warhammer 5th and 6th editions had siege rules. I remember them being very good but I was very young!
There were damage tables for sections of castle that could result in collapses or breaches, a load of modifiers to combat (attackers needed 6s to hit when climbing ladders, no rank bonuses etc) but I haven't played them in nigh on 20 years!
-
Interesting. I need to read the other supplement in my not-Warfare box to comment fully.
-
Warhammer 5th and 6th editions had siege rules. I remember them being very good but I was very young!
There were damage tables for sections of castle that could result in collapses or breaches, a load of modifiers to combat (attackers needed 6s to hit when climbing ladders, no rank bonuses etc) but I haven't played them in nigh on 20 years!
Thanks for the info! I was in love with WFHB (altough I never get to collect or play anything from it), but I didnt remember that there were siege rules. Can you recall, how a siege was built up? Had the castle parts point values, or were there pre-definied siege settings? I have to get the a look in the rulebook somehow.
-
I am planning a siege (castle assault, really) tomorrow, using Age of Fantasy, from One Page Rules. The main issue I'm worrying about are fun and balance.
While you often need to have many more attackers than defenders if the defensive situation is good enough, I don't have a good feel for this now.
Here are pictures of my castle, a 1/72 scale modular kit on an insulation foam base:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/L77XZ97DfavrjT1h8
I've made 8 wooden ladders (that I think are going to be frustrating to get figure bases in without falling).
Defenders are elves (GW's Lord of the Rings) with one unit of dwarves and a dwarven ballista.
Attackers are goblins (GW's LotR Moria Goblins, and Uruk Hai scouts as bigger goblins or orcs. Scarier looking than in practice.)
I'm planning on giving defenders cover for archers shooting at them. I'm not planning to have the castle walls benefit during melee, because I think the main issue will be how the attackers will only be able to fight a bit at a time. The game is based on alternating activations, but we draw counters instead of strict alternation, and I've moved melee resolution to the end, so you can have a big scrum. But I'm going to have to flex up here. I think if the guy on top of the ladder kills a defender, he gets to come up, and the next guy can fight. If the top guy is killed, they still get to move up the ladder, but not onto the wall, so still fighting one at a time.
I don't have an orcy-looking siege engine, so the attackers don't have any. But trolls will be able to throw goblins onto a wall. (5-6: succeed, 2-4: falls back safely, 1: dead goblin). And if they can get the drawbridge down, they can attack the portcullis and trolls can get into the castle.
I have no idea whether any of this is balanced. I'm running the game for two other players, so if it seems lop-sided, can add something in to one side or the other.
But I also don't even really know if it will be fun. We want there to be risky attempts and desperate defenses.
Hopefully we'll figure it out.
andy
-
5th edition had a whole book of scenarios, including capturing a messenger sending for reinforcements, fighting in mines undermining the walls, sallying out and the traditional castle assault. You could play it as a campaign where the earlier scenario had effects in the final assault.
6th edition included siege rules in the back of the big red book (along with skirmish, campaigns etc... the best WHFB rulebook ever!). It was just for a castle assault.
Certainly in 6th you did not pay for the castle, but defenders had half the points of the attacker. Both attackers and defenders could purchase siege equipment - siege towers, battering rams, ladders, rocks, boiling oil - as part of their forces.
-
5th edition had a whole book of scenarios, including capturing a messenger sending for reinforcements, fighting in mines undermining the walls, sallying out and the traditional castle assault. You could play it as a campaign where the earlier scenario had effects in the final assault.
6th edition included siege rules in the back of the big red book (along with skirmish, campaigns etc... the best WHFB rulebook ever!). It was just for a castle assault.
Certainly in 6th you did not pay for the castle, but defenders had half the points of the attacker. Both attackers and defenders could purchase siege equipment - siege towers, battering rams, ladders, rocks, boiling oil - as part of their forces.
I dont know the WFHB siege rules, but a "defender = attacker / 2" in 6th edition seems a bit oversimplified to me. Was it the same in 5th edition? Did you play any of it?
-
I am planning a siege (castle assault, really) tomorrow, using Age of Fantasy, from One Page Rules. The main issue I'm worrying about are fun and balance.
I cant find these on the One Page Rules homepage... Maybe Im blind, but where should they be?
-
Age of Fantasy is here: https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/
But I am making my own siege adaptations.
andy
-
Some thoughts.
It might be worth relating wall heights to "size", a one inch wall is an obstacle to normal figures. Both sides can fight over them.
A Large (two inch) wall provides an obstacle to large figures, an enormous (three inch) wall to enormous figures.
A normal figure cannot attack across a large wall but can defend from the "inside" of a wall.
Engineers can build one inch high ramp per turn per figure (uninterrupted one turn will build enough to allow fighting over a large wall, two turns for an enormous wall, though they are unlikely to be uninterrupted).
-
Age of Fantasy is here: https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/
But I am making my own siege adaptations.
andy
Still cant find anything about siege... Or am I misunderstanding, and there are no siege rules, but You are making your own, that fits to the core rules?
-
Some thoughts.
It might be worth relating wall heights to "size", a one inch wall is an obstacle to normal figures. Both sides can fight over them.
A Large (two inch) wall provides an obstacle to large figures, an enormous (three inch) wall to enormous figures.
A normal figure cannot attack across a large wall but can defend from the "inside" of a wall.
Engineers can build one inch high ramp per turn per figure (uninterrupted one turn will build enough to allow fighting over a large wall, two turns for an enormous wall, though they are unlikely to be uninterrupted).
1 inch wall is just a fence, for me it wouldn't be a siege to fight against it. But its a really good point to define which height is an obstacle for which monster size!
-
One of the earliest wargames supplements I ever bought was Warhammer Siege which was a massive complex, but inspiring set of rules covering sieges for Warhammer fantasy battles third edition (as well as sieges in 40k for Rogue Trader) the versions in later editions of Fantasy battle are much more playable but if you ever see a copy of the original its well worth picking up!
Siege rules for Kings of War are in the 2019 Clash of Kings supplement. IIRC they boil down to points values for siege equipment for attackers, defensive equipment for defenders , plus rules for moving between elements of the castle, and which types of units can hold which element. I think the walls etc were given stats a lot like the units so they could be attacked.
-
1 inch wall is just a fence, for me it wouldn't be a siege to fight against it. But its a really good point to define which height is an obstacle for which monster size!
A one inch wall can be fought over, higher than that human sized figures could not fight over them without ladders or ramps.
-
Another out of print book that is worth looking at if you get a chance is the Siege and Conquest supplement for Warhammer Ancient Battles. It has no provisions for magic or other fantasy aspects, but it is pretty good for the mundane aspects of sieges. It has some scenarios looking at sieges as well, such as sallies by the defenders.
-
One of the earliest wargames supplements I ever bought was Warhammer Siege which was a massive complex, but inspiring set of rules covering sieges for Warhammer fantasy battles third edition (as well as sieges in 40k for Rogue Trader) the versions in later editions of Fantasy battle are much more playable but if you ever see a copy of the original its well worth picking up!
Siege rules for Kings of War are in the 2019 Clash of Kings supplement. IIRC they boil down to points values for siege equipment for attackers, defensive equipment for defenders , plus rules for moving between elements of the castle, and which types of units can hold which element. I think the walls etc were given stats a lot like the units so they could be attacked.
Those KoW rules looking interesting, thanks!
-
Another out of print book that is worth looking at if you get a chance is the Siege and Conquest supplement for Warhammer Ancient Battles. It has no provisions for magic or other fantasy aspects, but it is pretty good for the mundane aspects of sieges. It has some scenarios looking at sieges as well, such as sallies by the defenders.
Are there pre-set scenarios, or free-to-shape castles with definied point values?
-
A one inch wall can be fought over, higher than that human sized figures could not fight over them without ladders or ramps.
Yeah, but with human height walls it still doesnt feel like a real siege for me. But it could be certainly included in such a rulebook.
-
Yeah, but with human height walls it still doesnt feel like a real siege for me. But it could be certainly included in such a rulebook.
You are right in that a one inch wall is a fighting position, however it is not so much the wall is one inch, but the height compared to the figure's base.
Two turns of engineers on a three inch wall and you are (temporarily) down to a one inch wall (less with ladders or siege engines)
Also, the inside of a fortification will have a one inch wall (assuming human size design). So if the wall on the outside is two inches, and the walkway on the inside is an inch high a large figure on the outside can fight a human figure on the inside. Humans on both sides could not fight using their fight stat, it would be a special shoot attack (dropping rocks, spikes, boiling oil, hellfire... depending on scenario and equipment).
-
Also, the inside of a fortification will have a one inch wall (assuming human size design). So if the wall on the outside is two inches, and the walkway on the inside is an inch high a large figure on the outside can fight a human figure on the inside. Humans on both sides could not fight using their fight stat, it would be a special shoot attack (dropping rocks, spikes, boiling oil, hellfire... depending on scenario and equipment).
Now I understand! Good idea!
-
Still cant find anything about siege... Or am I misunderstanding, and there are no siege rules, but You are making your own, that fits to the core rules?
Right I am making my own. I don't feel I need to have a lot of rules for this. As I said, maybe this is castle assault. Not knocking down walls. I hope the goblins can get somebody up to lower the drawbridge and let the trolls try to bash in the portcullis.
andy
-
Are there pre-set scenarios, or free-to-shape castles with definied point values?
I do not have my copy of Siege and Conquest at hand, but I think the basic castle assault points were based on the same concept as with WHFB, so that attacker has twice the points value of defender.
If you want to come up with a system where the defender gets to design a custom castle and buy for it with points, then it is probably worth keeping in mind that in purely game terms the smallest castle is the one that is easiest to defend with limited forces. Having a larger castle is likely a disadvantage, as the defender has to spread out over a larger frontage, while the attacker as more choices as to where attack.
The advantage of the large castle or a city wall is that you can hide more valuable assets inside it during times of trouble.
-
Having checked the Warhammer 6th edition rulebook, it recommends 3000pts of attackers versus 1500pts of defenders on a "classic" castle - 4 towers and 4 wall sections (one with gate). It suggests an additional tower and wall for each full additional 500pts of defenders.
So no actual points values for castle sections, but you could have a reasonable guess as to the value of sections.
-
We have been playing a few sieges (or in fact, attack of small castles) with Argad rules as part of larger events in a samurai campaign (historical context) there were no siege machines but basically what was done was climbing ladders and/or burning the gate etc. (and perhaps ninjas escalading the walls).
There are a few suggestions in the rules for this (or in past extensions somewhere) but it's intended for individually based miniatures, and to be used under GM control to avoid nitpicking... ::)
AARs (in French, sorry)
https://euthanasor-wargamesetmodelisme.blogspot.com/2018/01/sale-defaite-la-salle-des-fetes-compte.html
https://euthanasor-wargamesetmodelisme.blogspot.com/2018/03/mauvais-karma-pour-les-heritiers-compte.html
-
If you want to come up with a system where the defender gets to design a custom castle and buy for it with points, then it is probably worth keeping in mind that in purely game terms the smallest castle is the one that is easiest to defend with limited forces. Having a larger castle is likely a disadvantage, as the defender has to spread out over a larger frontage, while the attacker as more choices as to where attack.
The advantage of the large castle or a city wall is that you can hide more valuable assets inside it during times of trouble.
If the siege engines have the option to break down wall sections, then on a small castle, you could concentrate fire. So I think, that a small castle has not only benefits.
-
We have been playing a few sieges (or in fact, attack of small castles) with Argad rules as part of larger events in a samurai campaign (historical context) there were no siege machines but basically what was done was climbing ladders and/or burning the gate etc. (and perhaps ninjas escalading the walls).
There are a few suggestions in the rules for this (or in past extensions somewhere) but it's intended for individually based miniatures, and to be used under GM control to avoid nitpicking... ::)
AARs (in French, sorry)
https://euthanasor-wargamesetmodelisme.blogspot.com/2018/01/sale-defaite-la-salle-des-fetes-compte.html
https://euthanasor-wargamesetmodelisme.blogspot.com/2018/03/mauvais-karma-pour-les-heritiers-compte.html
Very nice pictures and a superb gaming table!
-
Having checked the Warhammer 6th edition rulebook, it recommends 3000pts of attackers versus 1500pts of defenders on a "classic" castle - 4 towers and 4 wall sections (one with gate). It suggests an additional tower and wall for each full additional 500pts of defenders.
So no actual points values for castle sections, but you could have a reasonable guess as to the value of sections.
Thanks! Thats a bit oversimplified for my taste... Im an engineer, and I would absolutely enjoy building and designing my own castle. So my wish-rules would include custom building options, as I wrote on my blog.
-
I would say the rules for sieges in WHFB 6th edition were fantastic (and probably still are). Played them quite a few times, they seemed to be written with fun in mind.
Had some cracking games including a 40K one with some marines holding out against masses of orks and traitor imperial guard/renegades.
The rules in Lord of the Rings SBG are good as well, we did Helms deep a couple of Christmases ago,
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/49/1836-231120094705-49422648.jpeg)
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/49/1836-231120094706-494232402.jpeg)
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/49/1836-231120094708-494241849.jpeg)
-
The rules in Lord of the Rings SBG are good as well, we did Helms deep a couple of Christmases ago,
Thanks! Is it also so simple, taht the attackers have double point value?
Nice pictures!
-
Used to have the WHFB Siege rules, but must confess that I never got beyond looking at the glossy artwork.
Simplicity is definitely the way to go, unless you want to turn the whole game into an accounting exercise.
Steders - lovely table....was that taken in the infamous Steders Shed? ;)
-
Simplicity and oversimplicity are not the same, and the borderline between them is not exact. For me the joy would be not only the play, the siege himself, but the castle building also. And for that are too simple rules not really enough.
-
Yes Akky that was in the shed.
For Helms deep I think I just chucked a load of figures on the table. I haven't got the picture from the end of the game where the Rohan relief column led by Gandalf got piked to death and Theoden got twated by a couple of Uruks in the gateway (really REALLY bad dice throwing by the good player).
-
If the siege engines have the option to break down wall sections, then on a small castle, you could concentrate fire. So I think, that a small castle has not only benefits.
You are right, but this also means the defender only has one area to defend - still an advantage to the defender I would say.
Having just read through your blog, I think the Warhammer Siege rules cover most of what you are looking for, with the exception of building your castle using point values. It removes rank bonuses for both attacker and defender on the walls, but the wall counts as hard cover against shooting and a defended obstacle against hand to hand combat. Attackers can only attack with one model per ladder and each ladder needs 4 models to carry it without penalty. The defender bonuses last until the attacker wins a round of combat when they can then put as many models on the battlements as they can fit. Siege towers remove the defensive bonus but still only allow a maximum of two models to attack until a combat round is won. Only walls can be assaulted, towers are judged to be too tall for ladders and siege towers.
Walls, towers and gates each have a damage table - there is a target number for destruction which is difficult to reach quickly but lower scores add positive modifiers to benefit future attacks. This works for war machines, battering rams and monsters (and even infantry, but their strength is likely to be too low to damage walls!).
Rocks and boiling oil for the defenders are shooting attacks which can only target next to the wall, but can be used whilst the unit holding them is being assaulted by ladder/siege tower.
Siege towers and battering rams have profiles too so they can be attacked/destroyed by defensive fire.
One thing to consider when developing a siege assault scenario is keeping it playable - Warhammer adds a seventh turn to its usual six for the assault. I haven't played Oathmark but to make a scenario viable it needs to broadly fit into the same sort of timeframe you would usually expect.
-
If the siege engines have the option to break down wall sections, then on a small castle, you could concentrate fire. So I think, that a small castle has not only benefits.
Even with a large castle, there are numerous sections where siege engines could concentrate their fire. That said, another issue is whether you want to even play such bombardment - which for historical sieges could take days or weeks. Perhaps such bombardment could be better handled as some sort of a campaign, where the defender could also have some options (counter-bombardment, sorties, sending messenger to bring reinforcements etc.). Once a breach would be achieved by the bombardment the attacker could then launch a proper assault.
As for detailed castle design system, that could be interesting, but are you also planning on building a modular castle system that would have enough pieces to cater for many options? Perhaps it would be best first to think of the actual castle elements (walls, towers, gates, hoardings, moats, drawbridges, portcullis, keeps, stables etc.) and materials (earth, wood, stone, fantasy what-nots) that could likely show before even thinking of point costs for them. Some of these might not make major difference, while some options such as very high walls (cannot be scaled with ladders) or multiple layers of walls (more difficult to bring equipment to bear on the second) might make life much harder for the attacker.
Another issue is the tactical goal of the attacker. Are they just trying to make it past a town wall so that they can start pillaging and burning (in that order) the buildings behind? Or are they assaulting a vital small castle where they need to clean every nook and cranny of the defenders? In the latter case, stout towers and keeps that can provide resistance for extended periods become highly valuable, while in the former case the attacker the attacker can try to ignore them once they have broken through a gate or wall.
-
Having just read through your blog, I think the Warhammer Siege rules cover most of what you are looking for, with the exception of building your castle using point values.
One thing to consider when developing a siege assault scenario is keeping it playable - Warhammer adds a seventh turn to its usual six for the assault. I haven't played Oathmark but to make a scenario viable it needs to broadly fit into the same sort of timeframe you would usually expect.
Thanks for Your input! I still think that point values should be important, because that can bring a balanced battle. Just halving the points for the defenders seems to me a way too rough solution... Although I never played Warhammer siege, maybe it works fine.
The only way to make a siege on tabletop not an overextended artillery shootout, is setting a turn limit and so force an attack.
-
Even with a large castle, there are numerous sections where siege engines could concentrate their fire. That said, another issue is whether you want to even play such bombardment - which for historical sieges could take days or weeks. Perhaps such bombardment could be better handled as some sort of a campaign, where the defender could also have some options (counter-bombardment, sorties, sending messenger to bring reinforcements etc.). Once a breach would be achieved by the bombardment the attacker could then launch a proper assault.
I don't think that it would be viable to make realistic sieges on the tabletop without being way too long. I think, there has to be a turn limit, which forces an attack, not only an endless waiting, and shooting on both sides.
As for detailed castle design system, that could be interesting, but are you also planning on building a modular castle system that would have enough pieces to cater for many options? Perhaps it would be best first to think of the actual castle elements (walls, towers, gates, hoardings, moats, drawbridges, portcullis, keeps, stables etc.) and materials (earth, wood, stone, fantasy what-nots) that could likely show before even thinking of point costs for them. Some of these might not make major difference, while some options such as very high walls (cannot be scaled with ladders) or multiple layers of walls (more difficult to bring equipment to bear on the second) might make life much harder for the attacker.
I'm not planning, I'm just dreaming :). I would love to build a modular castle, but I'm afraid, I will never have the time for it. At the moment, I would be happy, if I could paint my armies... But back to the castle: I thought about the castle elements. I have some rough ideas, how it could work (You can read it in my blog), but these are only seeds.
I think, more layers of wall would make a too big battle in time, and in space (in 28mm). And as my base for all this is Oathmark, that would not fit (relatively streamlined rank and flank battles in 28mm), so I would let these depth of realism go.
Another issue is the tactical goal of the attacker. Are they just trying to make it past a town wall so that they can start pillaging and burning (in that order) the buildings behind? Or are they assaulting a vital small castle where they need to clean every nook and cranny of the defenders? In the latter case, stout towers and keeps that can provide resistance for extended periods become highly valuable, while in the former case the attacker the attacker can try to ignore them once they have broken through a gate or wall.
Again, turn limit. I would be happy, with a simple siege, with for example the goal of occupying a given percent of wall sections or so. There could be other goals too (for example passing by a castle in a narrow valley, or about a river), but maybe it would be too complex for its importance.
-
Im not into AoS, and its pretty long (honestly, I have no time to watch all of it), but its a siege with home made rules (introduced in the first 4 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEgUMn9PZPs&ab_channel=RerollingOnes
-
I started to write detailed rules and stats for castle building and siege for Oathmark. I made it just for fun (I would need a modular castle to test it, which I dont have), but if anyone is interested, I can share it.