Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Charlie_ on August 03, 2015, 01:59:57 PM
-
Hi all.
I have recently decided to take the bold step and get back into wargaming! Years ago I was a Warhammer Fantasy player, but gave it up. I've always waned to get back into it one day, but a few things stood in my way or put me off:
1 - Setting / world. I like the WFB world as a sandbox type setting, but my vision of it is much more low-fantasy, realistic style, and in recent years I've seen it get too crazy and over the top for my liking. Medieval historical gaming appeals to me, but I don't want to just recreate Agincourt etc.
2 - Rules. Again, I like the core WFB rules, but don't like how it is continually shifting with every new edition and with every new army book, the emphasis changing every time, never settling on one fully balanced and flawless edition. Cursed to be eternally flawed and unbalanced.
3 - Scale. I want a massed battle game, not skirmish. But it must be scaleable to some degree, something that works equally well with with 50 or 500 models on the table. I do want individual models, not unit bases.
4 - Cost. This is the most important one. Games Workshop have (but maybe don't any more) made the best models, but they are just too damn pricey. To collect those massed ranks of high elven infantry will simply not happen (especially as I'd be wanting to find all the old 90s metal models, picking them up off ebay one by one).
But two things have recently happened that have shown me the way back!!!!!
1 - Perry Miniatures. My preferred era of medieval warfare is 15th century, and Perry Miniatures have a pretty much complete range of VERY high quality plastic kits to cover this era. Those 5 boxes are all I need, and they are seriously affordable!
2 - George R R Martin. I discovered the world of A Song Of Ice And Fire through the Game Of Thrones TV Show, and quickly realised it was EXACTLY what I want in a fantasy setting - a detailed, realistic, believable low fantasy setting closely based on the real world. I have since read all the books and am absolutely hooked.
So what I'm gonna do is get back into wargaming via Westeros, using Perry Miniatures for my own vision of Martin's world, and using my own simplifed / rearranged WFB rules.
With the WFB rules, my view is that by removing all the fantasy elements such as magic, monsters, flying creatures, epic heroes, plus chariots and war machines, we have a very good core rules system, made much more manageable when its essentially just human infantry and cavalry fighting other human infantry and cavalry. Without all the crazy, random, overpowered stuff with broken rules popping up everywhere we can actually focus on stategy.
So I've been working these past few weeks on my own take on the WFB rules, adapted for medieval historical warfare, and subsequently to be used for battles in Westeros too. Using all 8 editions of WFB and the Warhammer Ancients rules as source material.
Would people here be interested in this? Discussing ideas for adapting the WFB rules? Both little tweaks and drastic rethinks. I'd love to have some people to bounce ideas off! : )
-
My only gripe with WFB/WAB was that it was a large skirmish game masquerading as a mass battle rule set. Not that it wasn't still fun to play anyway despite that.
If you are looking for a mass battle set in a similar vein, but is actually what it says on the tin, might I suggest Kings of War (http://"http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/kings-of-war.html")as your starting point? Mantic even intend producing historical lists for them.
:)
-
Warhammer ancient battles would be the way to go, you will be able to pick up the rules on ebay. Also the wab forum has lots of army lists you can tinker with
-
Count me in, I have a similar view on the game. I think 8th edition is possibly the best set of rules, clearer and more streamlined than previous versions. You might want to reintroduce some extra movement rules, the current set you can pretty much just do whatever you like, which might not match your views on ranked up units moving.
I'm not that sure on the scaleability. The rules were obviously designed with fairly big units in mind, since every phase became very potent. There are far more casualties in this version than previously, which requires biggish units. Small units die in one phase and are probably better handled in a game like Lion Rampant (or rather the upcoming Dragon Rampant, if it's up to snuff).
Anyway, feel free to bounce round some ideas, it would be interesting to see what you are thinking.
-
Warhammer ancient battles would be the way to go, you will be able to pick up the rules on ebay. Also the wab forum has lots of army lists you can tinker with
I've been looking at the WAB rules and am liking some of the ideas and concepts they have, though at the same time a lot of the special rules seem to get rather messy quickly. But I'll definitely be using it as a source, and I'll check out the army lists on the wab forum, thanks for the tip.
Count me in, I have a similar view on the game. I think 8th edition is possibly the best set of rules, clearer and more streamlined than previous versions. You might want to reintroduce some extra movement rules, the current set you can pretty much just do whatever you like, which might not match your views on ranked up units moving.
I'm not that sure on the scaleability. The rules were obviously designed with fairly big units in mind, since every phase became very potent. There are far more casualties in this version than previously, which requires biggish units. Small units die in one phase and are probably better handled in a game like Lion Rampant (or rather the upcoming Dragon Rampant, if it's up to snuff).
Anyway, feel free to bounce round some ideas, it would be interesting to see what you are thinking.
I like a lot of elements of 8th, but I don't like how it's so lethal and everything dies so quickly. In most evenly matched combats there should be just a few kills on each side each turn, rather than whole ranks being slaughtered (unevenly matched combats is a different thing of course).
I would like to see lots of blocks of infantry on the table, but it shouldn't have to be single huge units. 100 spearmen sounds awesome, but I'd rather see 4 blocks of 25 than one huge block of 100, for instance! I don't like the steadfast and horde rules at all (which both encourage these huge blocks).
One thing I want to do is cut down on all the special rules and make the base statistics more important, especially WS. Having a high WS should be enough to really make a unit stand out. In WFB 8th, it really doesn't mean much when everything that unit is facing will be having always strikes first, re-rolls, impact hits, stomp hits, and things like that. So many layers of special rules, with every army book introducing new ones to make the army competitive with the old ones, which in turns just clogs up the system with more special rules and makes the old stuff seem weak. The ridiculous Age of Sigmar rules GW has just brought out really takes the biscuit - the statline is pretty much non-existent, so what makes each of the old WFB units unique (they have had to quickly churn out all these rules to make the old units still playable) are special rules for every single one, most of which seem to revolve around... re-rolls. And more re-rolls. Just loads and loads of dice rolling. There is no consistency - I think I saw on the warseer forums somebody listed all the different rules for shields that are out there now, as each unit has DIFFERENT shield rules! Ridiculous.
So let me put this first idea past you, a small tweak which I think will have an interesting impact. And that's the close combat 'to hit' chart (WS v WS). As it stands, you cannot get more than a 3+ or less than a 5+. I propose it should be redone to look more like the 'to wound' chart. Consider that most human warriors will have a WS of 3 or 4.... As it is now WS3 still hits WS4 on 4+. Let's make that 5+. Suddenly this one point increase in WS becomes much more important, with no need for special rules to make the elite troops stand out. And now a warrior with WS5 (which should just be characters) hits the WS3 guy on 2+, and is only hit back on a 6+! Makes having WS5 or higher suddenly really make you something special, whilst in WFB it doesn't make that much difference. Such a skilled swordsman should be hard to kill, not because he is particularly tough, but just because it's so hard for the average soldier to get through his defences and land a blow.
But keep in mind that most units will have a WS of 3 or 4, with 5 reserved for certain characters, and 2 for peasant levies.
I hope that made sense!
-
1 - Perry Miniatures. My preferred era of medieval warfare is 15th century, and Perry Miniatures have a pretty much complete range of VERY high quality plastic kits to cover this era. Those 5 boxes are all I need, and they are seriously affordable!
2 - George R R Martin. I discovered the world of A Song Of Ice And Fire through the Game Of Thrones TV Show, and quickly realised it was EXACTLY what I want in a fantasy setting - a detailed, realistic, believable low fantasy setting closely based on the real world. I have since read all the books and am absolutely hooked.
So what I'm gonna do is get back into wargaming via Westeros, using Perry Miniatures for my own vision of Martin's world, and using my own simplifed / rearranged WFB rules.
Good man - sounds like a plan! :)
I've played a few games with various of the Warhammer historical rules (derived more or less from the WFB / LOTR rules), but I never played Warhammer as such. But I'll be following this with interest, as I'm gradually swelling my own Game of Thrones collection with a view to having some games with it in the not too distant future... :)
-
There's a balance to be struck between simplicity and flavour. The simpler the rules, the less different the sides are. That's not to say that special rules are good, just that they help differentiate the different races. Now this might not be important in a low fantasy setting where everybody is human, but in the Warhammer world some of the special rules do help to make the races what they are. However, I agree that AOS has gone completely the wrong direction.
I guess your WS idea works well, though it might limit you if you, at some future stage, want to introduce more levels. Personally I find the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, to be ponderous. In War of the Ring, there's just one roll, attack vs defence, where attack is an amalgamation of the traditional WS and S, while defence is more an amalgamation of T and armour save. Similar in Lion Rampant, though this is a fixed value, better troops need lower numbers to roll (3 is best, 6 is worst). There's a similar system in Saga, though here it's reversed so that better troops require higher numbers to be hit and then there's a standard save roll (which of course can be varied by special rules!).
In isolation, it's hard to comment on the WS change, without knowing what happens next in the melee sequence.
-
Personally I find the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, to be ponderous. In War of the Ring, there's just one roll, attack vs defence, where attack is an amalgamation of the traditional WS and S, while defence is more an amalgamation of T and armour save.
I will be definitely keeping the WFB combat system (roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save). I like it! Combined with the M WS BS S T W I A LD statistic line, and simple rules for different weapons and armour, it helps each type of warrior being different, which as you'e pointed out is going to be even more important when it's just humans v humans. Though I'll want to keep this as streamlined as possible by having little to no special rules which can lead to lots of confusing cross-referencing from different books etc.... I think with just an Attack and a Defence characteristic to compare, all the human troops will start to be very similar.
Also, I find the careful selection of an army one of the most satisfying parts of the hobby, weighing up all the different weapon options and statistic bonuses that can be purchased using a point system to come up with your own personal, customised army.
-
There's a similar system in Saga, though here it's reversed so that better troops require higher numbers to be hit and then there's a standard save roll (which of course can be varied by special rules!).
To me this is eminently logical. A shooter's skill varies little; give him a target and he will hit it consistently according to his ability, so a unit's skill is the average of the ability of the men in it. The variable is how well a target is protected against his weapon.
For example we could say one particular archer consistently hits the bull (or as near as makes no odds) eight times out of ten. That is reduced by covering the target with varying and successive types of protection and then ultimately by moving the target while he shoots. There is actually no hit roll required, that does not change... he consistently 'hits' the target the same amount of times, whatever it is. What would constitute a 'save roll' represents the actual variable.
For me too then a roll 'to hit', 'to wound' and to 'save' is two more dice rolls than are really needed, for shooting at least. Melee is substantially different however.
-
We are discussing weapon skills/melee, not shooting at the moment.
-
Mostly mentioned already, but...
1) Warhammer Ancient Battles sounds like what you may be after. In a nutshell, it's a stripped-down WHFB for playing historical massed battles. It's out of print now, but they are easy/cheap enough to come by second hand.
2) Kings of War. Massed battles, streamlined rules, but still offers plenty of tactics/manoeuvring. Magic (in terms of spells) takes a minor role and can just be omitted without fuss. Heroes might need a tweak to improve their command benefits but reduce their own direct combat capabilities (although they do not appear to be too overpowered as they are).
3) Actual Warhammer FB, with a few mods. You might want to consider which edition you want for this...
- 6E hobbled heroes, magic, and magic items quite a lot (and is therefore probably the "least" fantastical edition I think).
- 7E was often considered the most "competitive" as a ruleset, but there was a lot of imbalance between different forces (plus, elite armies like Daemons did well as multiple-small-unit forces rather than proper massed battles).
- 8E had the best internal balance I think, but massive "deathstar" units, hugely destructive magic, and a mixed bag of gigantic monstrous creatures/infantry/cavalry may not be suitable for what you have in mind.
For this route, I would probably consider 6E (easy to strip down) or 8E (capping unit sizes and monsters would avoid deathstars and remove the requirement for much of the magic). For 8E, you may need to re-do some of the point-values as well (to reflect that against smaller units shooting will be more effective than it is normally).
So let me put this first idea past you, a small tweak which I think will have an interesting impact. And that's the close combat 'to hit' chart (WS v WS).
I think older editions used to be like that! (at least, if my dodgy memory serves... 4E or 5E?)
IIRC, the reason it was "flattened" was to stop a very small high-WS unit holding up a huge brick of troops who couldn't roll enough dice to have a reasonable chance of scoring some sixes and ending the combat. In other words, it helped to avoid an extreme element of "herohammer", whilst still permitting heroes to be powerful enough to be attractive choices. In other words, it helped to discourage an army of small elite units that their opponent had little hope of stopping without lots of elites/shooting/magic/heroes of their own.
-
For me too then a roll 'to hit', 'to wound' and to 'save' is two more dice rolls than are really needed, for shooting at least.
If we are talking about shooting, that is something to think about for sure. I'm making sure to include 'volley fire' rules for massed units with longbows - to keep it very simple, every rank in such a unit can shoot assuming they are in range. And for volley fire, when the archers are not actually targeting individual enemies, it could well make sense to do away with the 'to hit' roll. However I will be keeping it. In this case the Ballistic Skill stat isn't used for actual sharp-shooting, but rather archer discipline, experience and teamwork. So a unit with BS4 is more likely to have all their arrows hit simply because they know what they are doing, being proffessional, experienced archers. A unit with BS3 is less likely to have so many arrows hit because they are not quite as professional, and more arrows are likely to fall short, or they are not able to get so many arrows in the air.
Ballistic Skill should be considered a more abstact statistic, I guess, as opposed to representing the chances of hitting that bullseye. The BS4 archer unit simply will have more arrows hit the enemy statistically - whether this is because they are better shots, more professional & disciplined, or FASTER shots, well that's up for you to decide!
30 archers with BS3 shoot an enemy unit with volley fire. 15 'hits' on average, whatever that means.
30 archers with BS4 (the real pros) do the same, 20 'hits' on average. Perhaps their higher BS means they can just get more arrows in the air in the same ammount of time?
Note that rank and file archers will only ever really have a BS of 3 or 4. 5 and above is reserved for characters, and would likely never be bothered with.
For this route, I would probably consider 6E (easy to strip down) or 8E (capping unit sizes and monsters would avoid deathstars and remove the requirement for much of the magic). For 8E, you may need to re-do some of the point-values as well (to reflect that against smaller units shooting will be more effective than it is normally).
I think older editions used to be like that! (at least, if my dodgy memory serves... 4E or 5E?)
IIRC, the reason it was "flattened" was to stop a very small high-WS unit holding up a huge brick of troops who couldn't roll enough dice to have a reasonable chance of scoring some sixes and ending the combat. In other words, it helped to avoid an extreme element of "herohammer", whilst still permitting heroes to be powerful enough to be attractive choices. In other words, it helped to discourage an army of small elite units that their opponent had little hope of stopping without lots of elites/shooting/magic/heroes of their own.
I'm using 6th edition as the starting point, definitely. 8th edition made infantry more important, but in a clumsy, ultimately broken way. I will not be using the Horde or Steadfast rules!
8th is also too "lethal" for my liking. Multiple ranks of supporting attacks mean people die in droves. I would prefer a more protracted combat with less casualties each turn (unless its obviously very one-sided, heavy cavalry charging archers for instance, in which case it should be over quickly).
In regards to the combat 'to hit' chart...
I've got scans of all the WFB rulebooks from 1st to 8th edition, and have compared them all. It seems the 'flattened' chart was introduced in 4th edition. In 3rd edition and before, you could indeed have a 2+ or 6+ to hit, BUT it's a bit lopsided and confusing, i.e. WS3 hits WS3 on 5+, and you only get 2+ if you have more than double WS than your opponent.
An important point is that WS stats in WFB vary hugely, because we have elves, epic heroes, daemons, vampires etc involved on one end of the spectrum, and goblins on the other.
In the historical game, with just humans, WS won't vary so much. As I said earlier, WS5 and above will be just characters. So the idea of a super elite unit being invulnerable to hordes of lesser troops, as you described, won't happen so often.
Another thing I'm thinking about....
Parts of the stat-line will NEVER vary except with characters, and I'm wondering if a few of them could actually be abolished as part of the cleaning-up process.
Movement - Isn't really necessary. All you need to know is infantry move 4, cavalry move 8, and barded cavalry move 7. I know W40k doesn't have a movement statistic. You could have a character upgraded to M5, but it ain't really necessary, and instead of that you could introduce a special character skill to be purchased like equipment instead (I've got a very small number of them already, such as "quick shot").
Wounds - It is so tempting to get rid of this. With no monsters, the rank and file are ALL gonna have 1 wound, no doubt about it. Characters start with 1 wound, but you can buy extra ones for them up to a reccomended maximum of 3. But I've never really understood the reasoning behind having both a Wounds and Toughness statistic. And however good they are, all characters should die just as easily as the rank and file when hit with an axe. The only real reason I can think of to justify multiple-wound characters is the 'hero' factor - heroic characters who just won't go down, taking wounds that would stop a lesser man and still fighting. But if I want this to be realistic, such a concept shouldn't exist really. If I abolish the Wounds characteristic, the Toughness one becomes more important, and we can have characters with Toughness 5 when you want to represent someone like Gregor Clegane for instance. One wounding hit will take him out, but it will be noticeably tougher to actually score that wounding hit.
Attacks - Again, I think having an Attacks statistic higher than 1 should be for characters only. And so then it is tempting to abolish it for the same reasons as above, as characters are just men like everyone else. But then again I'm more inclined to keep this one, as I think you should be able to have some characters who can kill more than one of the enemy in one round (but again, this should not be the norm).
-
Well, if the stat-lines are all going to be flattened, I don't really see the point of having a huge chart.
Instead, I'd have a smaller chart that runs on WS difference from 0-3+. Simpler to remember, and if you need to represent a legendary swordsman or such, you can just give him an ability that grants his attacks a flat +1 bonus or whatever (so even against an opponent with the same WS as him, he'll still be striking at +1 to his dice rolls to reflect his skill).
For heroes, there are other reasons for their having wounds and much higher stats; they are usually recipients of magic items. Nobody wants to spend 100pts on a magic weapon for an average guy who dies to one normal hit - you'd often as not never even get to use the item (which many people would find somewhat deflating). If you don't have magic items, and if your characters are just there for command purposes, then an average statline might work well enough.
If all your factions are humans, I suppose you could lose the Move stat.
Then again, if all your factions are human, you're banning magic, magic items, monsters, and high-level characters... Well, most of the changes to the mechanics would be moot. I mean, you've already "solved" most of the issues by restricting the other options instead. For example, if you can't take a human with WS lower than 3 or higher than 5, then the rest of the WS chart is irrelevant anyway.
-
Well, if the stat-lines are all going to be flattened, I don't really see the point of having a huge chart.
Instead, I'd have a smaller chart that runs on WS difference from 0-3+. Simpler to remember, and if you need to represent a legendary swordsman or such, you can just give him an ability that grants his attacks a flat +1 bonus or whatever (so even against an opponent with the same WS as him, he'll still be striking at +1 to his dice rolls to reflect his skill).
For heroes, there are other reasons for their having wounds and much higher stats; they are usually recipients of magic items. Nobody wants to spend 100pts on a magic weapon for an average guy who dies to one normal hit - you'd often as not never even get to use the item (which many people would find somewhat deflating). If you don't have magic items, and if your characters are just there for command purposes, then an average statline might work well enough.
If all your factions are humans, I suppose you could lose the Move stat.
Then again, if all your factions are human, you're banning magic, magic items, monsters, and high-level characters... Well, most of the changes to the mechanics would be moot. I mean, you've already "solved" most of the issues by restricting the other options instead. For example, if you can't take a human with WS lower than 3 or higher than 5, then the rest of the WS chart is irrelevant anyway.
Aha, very interesting, I will think about this for sure...
At the very least smaller charts will make things look simpler on paper!
Perhaps WS and BS should be between 1 and 5 rather than 1 and 10? Again, not really gonna have much effect on how things run, other than make it look much simpler on paper, but that's very important I think!
There will be no magic items of course, but I could work on a short list of special abilities to be purchased in the same way, just for added customisation with your characters (and to be simply not used if decided it makes things too complicated). Little things like increasing their combat prowess beyond the afore-mentioned reduced stat ranges, letting them shoot twice in a turn, extra command abilities, etc.....
Note - Expanding things beyond human v human combat for fantasy purposes and eras other than medieval could be done in simple little supplements, and kept away from the core rules. One little supplement for 'monsters' (be they elephants or dragons) which could introduce the Wounds stat for these big creatures, and maybe weaken their fighting prowess as they take wounds.... A supplement for sieges, including all rules for artillery (I'm steering clear of artillery myself for the foreseeable future). A supplement for magic (much reduced in power and randomness compared to the WFB rules - a wizard should assist the army, not break the game).
-
(http://i.imgur.com/MLgEb0G.jpg)
Well how about this, then? Things are looking much more streamlined now!
WS 3 should be the average, representing the typical soldier skilled at arms and used to battle.
WS 4 should be for elite soldiers.
WS 5 should be for exceptionally skilled swordsmen, just characters. Think Jaime Lannister or Barristan Selmy.
WS 2 is for untrained soldiers, raw recruits, peasants, etc.
WS 1 is for civilians who have never held a sword before (and won't really ever appear)
______________
I was playing around with drawing up some stats for ASOIAF characters just for fun a while ago, and when it came to Jaime, Barristan, Ser Loras Tyrell etc I was scratching my head over it. Who is the better swordsman? Who is faster? Who is stronger? But using the above system, they are all WS5, and that's all that matters.
-
I'm not being facetious but Google Warhammer Ancient Battles ;) :)
Darrell.
-
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:
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
-
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.
-
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:
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).
-
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/3sCEiGV.jpg)
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
_________________________________________
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
-double post
-
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.
-
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. lol
-
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.
I've been following this thread with interest (and have deleted a couple of rambling responses already!). But I think that Nord's comments here are spot on. I can remember playing my first game of Hordes of the Things many years ago, after a childhood of playing Warhammer almost exclusively. It was a real "scales falling from eyes" moment: a game that could be played in an hour or two; with abundant flavour and tactics; and that delivered a much more convincing battle than Warhammer ever did. Playing Lion Rampant since has echoed that experience.
To my mind, the thing that Warhammer did well was distinguish between different fantasy races. So, while an orc was slower (I) than a human, it was also more robust (T). But its larger base size meant that fewer got into combat than an equivalent frontage of humans. Meanwhile, a hobgoblin was as tough (T) and large (base size) as an orc, but was quicker (I), though, for whatever reason, less good at shooting (BS). Also, hobgoblins were subject to Frenzy and were therefore fiercer but less reliable than orcs, and so on. And that was before you got into weapons and armour.
So, I think that if you strip out fantasy races from Warhammer, you're pretty much getting rid of its raison d'être. What Warhammer does less well, I think, than other systems, is distinguish between different (human) troop types. Oddly enough, Warhammer did make some nods to this in the first edition, in which heavy infantry were to be based on 15mm bases (though I don't think anyone ever did this). Also, I think other systems probably scale better than Warhammer. It worked best at a fairly small "large skirmish" scale - The Dolgan Raiders, Terror of the Lichemaster, etc. - but was then expanded to cover massed battles. As Nord says, other systems handle medieval-style warfare with much more grace (and, crucially, speed!).
All that said, it's a very interesting project and discussion! :)
-
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.
I agree, 1+ shouldn't be achievable (even if a 1 always fails).
The way I see it, there are three options (assuming a 4+ save with full plate).
1 - Shields add nothing to full plate. Leads to a max 4+ for infantry and 2+ for cavalry.
2 - No bonus for being mounted. Leads to a max 3+ for infantry and 2+ for cavalry.
3 - Abolish rules for barding (consider metal barding part of the rider's full plate). Again, leads to max 3+ for infantry and 2+ for cavalry.
I'd really love to hear thoughts on the shield + full plate debate!
And a similar subject to discuss...... close combat weapons.
WFB has rules for spears, halberds, flails, 2-handed weapons, morning stars, and lances. It used to have rules for pikes (in 3rd edition, and for Dogs of War only in 5th and 6th) but currently doesn't.
WAB omits flails and morning stars (makes sense, just treat them as hand or 2-handed weapons), but does have rules for pikes.
I propose halberds and 2-handed weapons be rolled into one, and while we are there restrict them to infantry only (no wielding 2-handed swords when mounted!)
So that leaves us with the basic hand weapon, plus spears, 2-handed weapons and pikes for infantry.... And spears and lances for cavalry.
2-handed weapons..... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus, requires two hands, and always strikes last. Halberds in comparison are +1S, two hands, but no striking last penalty.
I suggest the whole category (which includes halberds, bills, pole-axes, two handed swords and hammers, etc) be just +1S, requires two hands, as per warhammer halberds. Or, if you prefer, +1S, cannot use shield in combat. I think +2S is too much, and the striking last rule is an unnecessary (and perhaps unrealistic) complication.
So your infantry and can either hand hand weapons and shields, and get extra protection, or 2-handed weapons, and get less protection but hit harder. Simple!
Anyway, the difference between a halberd and a pole-axe is not that great!
Spears, I like them as they are (an extra rank fighting, unless the unit charged that turn).
Pikes..... WFB made them 'super-spears', fighting in 4 ranks. WAB has them in just 2 ranks like spears, but lets them always strike first. I quite like the WAB route, the always strike first makes a lot of sense. There should be (and will be) other finer rules to do with pikes and manouvering, formations, flank and rear attacks, etc.... But for the core rules, I think they should be always strike first, fight in an extra rank. Maybe 2 or even 3 extra ranks? Or does that make them too overpowered? Perhaps they deserve to be super effective when receiving a frontal charge? I guess that can all be decided with playtesting.
Lances.... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus when charging, whereas cavalry with just spears get a +1S.
Like I've done with 2-handed weapons and halberds, perhaps I should roll them both into one and keep the bonus at +1? Elite heavy cavalry might well have S4 anyway, which leads to S5 on the charge....
I mean, in a massed battle situation, is being charged by heavy cavalry with lances really gonna be that much more devastating than being charged by the same heavy cavalry with swords, axes and hammers? I'd love to hear thoughts!
I think streamlining the combat weapon rules like so would be a good thing. Pikes will always be a special case requiring more rules, as their effectiveness is so circumstantial (they should be very effective when receiving a frontal charge, but a pike unit is limited in how it can move, and if the enemy hits them anywhere other than the front they are suddenly useless).
I've been following this thread with interest (and have deleted a couple of rambling responses already!).
As I've said before (or perhaps haven't, so sorry if this hasn't been clear!) I'm just trying to streamline / simplify the Warhammer system to be used for historical / low-fatasy (ie ASOIAF) medieval settings, or make the best of it without completely abandoning it. If in the end it becomes clear that other systems are better, so be it! I will then have two options to choose from, my Warhammer edition or alternatives. :) But I'm not gonna simply abandon Warhammer just because other systems that may be better / easier / simpler are out there.
Welcome to the discussion, please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts about the details of the Warhammer system and how it can be tweaked!
-
Well, this is a proper wargaming discussion :)
Still following with interest.
-
And a similar subject to discuss...... close combat weapons.
WFB has rules for spears, halberds, flails, 2-handed weapons, morning stars, and lances. It used to have rules for pikes (in 3rd edition, and for Dogs of War only in 5th and 6th) but currently doesn't.
WAB omits flails and morning stars (makes sense, just treat them as hand or 2-handed weapons), but does have rules for pikes.
I propose halberds and 2-handed weapons be rolled into one, and while we are there restrict them to infantry only (no wielding 2-handed swords when mounted!)
So that leaves us with the basic hand weapon, plus spears, 2-handed weapons and pikes for infantry.... And spears and lances for cavalry.
2-handed weapons..... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus, requires two hands, and always strikes last. Halberds in comparison are +1S, two hands, but no striking last penalty.
I suggest the whole category (which includes halberds, bills, pole-axes, two handed swords and hammers, etc) be just +1S, requires two hands, as per warhammer halberds. Or, if you prefer, +1S, cannot use shield in combat. I think +2S is too much, and the striking last rule is an unnecessary (and perhaps unrealistic) complication.
So your infantry and can either hand hand weapons and shields, and get extra protection, or 2-handed weapons, and get less protection but hit harder. Simple!
That all makes sense. I think the slowness of two-handed weapons in Warhammer was an RPG hangover (cramped dungeons or whatever).
Anyway, the difference between a halberd and a pole-axe is not that great!
That's very true. One thought though: if you wanted to distinguish between knightly poleaxes and the polearms of the lower orders, you could make a distinction. You could keep the +2S for poleaxes, two-handed swords and so on, and have halberds as +1S but with the option of acting as spears instead (when threatened by cavalry, for example, and perhaps just for an initial round). That might serve to distinguish between billmen (or halberdiers) on the one hand, and foot knights on the other. And it would up the destructive power of the knights, which might fit quite well with the ASOIAF setting and echo the +2 bonus for lances.
Spears, I like them as they are (an extra rank fighting, unless the unit charged that turn).
Pikes..... WFB made them 'super-spears', fighting in 4 ranks. WAB has them in just 2 ranks like spears, but lets them always strike first. I quite like the WAB route, the always strike first makes a lot of sense. There should be (and will be) other finer rules to do with pikes and manouvering, formations, flank and rear attacks, etc.... But for the core rules, I think they should be always strike first, fight in an extra rank. Maybe 2 or even 3 extra ranks? Or does that make them too overpowered? Perhaps they deserve to be super effective when receiving a frontal charge? I guess that can all be decided with play testing.
For historical purposes, I think pikes should be "super-spears"; they pretty much usurped the shorter spear's battlefield role in the West. ASOIAF effectively pits different epochs against each other, so the more advanced battlefield technology should have an edge.
Lances.... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus when charging, whereas cavalry with just spears get a +1S.
Like I've done with 2-handed weapons and halberds, perhaps I should roll them both into one and keep the bonus at +1? Elite heavy cavalry might well have S4 anyway, which leads to S5 on the charge....
I mean, in a massed battle situation, is being charged by heavy cavalry with lances really gonna be that much more devastating than being charged by the same heavy cavalry with swords, axes and hammers? I'd love to hear thoughts!
I think the lance should be something special; it maximises the impact of a heavy cavalry charge. It was the dominant heavy-calvary weapon for centuries because is worked. Also, in a Westerosi setting, anything that sets knights a cut above other troops is probably good. And if you allow the extra benefits of lances and pikes, you get a pleasing "problem and solution" balance.
As I've said before (or perhaps haven't, so sorry if this hasn't been clear!) I'm just trying to streamline / simplify the Warhammer system to be used for historical / low-fatasy (ie ASOIAF) medieval settings, or make the best of it without completely abandoning it. If in the end it becomes clear that other systems are better, so be it! I will then have two options to choose from, my Warhammer edition or alternatives. :) But I'm not gonna simply abandon Warhammer just because other systems that may be better / easier / simpler are out there.
Welcome to the discussion, please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts about the details of the Warhammer system and how it can be tweaked!
No, you were quite clear! :) I suppose my point is that it's worth looking beyond Warhammer to see how that game could be improved. But, as with the ship of Theseus, if you replace each plank ...
So what does work well with Warhammer? Well, I think that the different base sizes for humanoid infantry are a good start. For example, I'd be tempted to put Wildlings on 25mm bases (like old-school hobgoblins!) to simulate a looser fighting style. That way, your Baratheon infantry (or whatever) will have an edge even if the Wildlings are individually better fighters. You might do the same with Dothraki infantry. In a way, this is just using the original Warhammer rule about 15mm bases for heavy infantry, but updating it to fit with contemporary miniature sizes. Many suitably barbaric-looking 28mm miniatures will probably be more comfortable on 25mm bases anyway.
-
Well, some good points raised so far!
A few more thoughts of my own:
Two-handed weapons. Different weapons exist with different profiles, mostly to add flavour; in mass-battle terms, I doubt there is any huge difference between certain specific weapons types.
Great weapons are a way of allowing models with low strength to have a better chance of hurting models with high toughness and/or a good armour save. That they always strike last is a balancing factor - it doesn't really matter on some troops (low initiative will see them strike at the end anyway) but does matter more on others (elite troops, who may have a high WS and I). Halberds are a compromise, gaining a lower bonus but at no penalty. And so on.
Similarly, weapons like pikes, spears, and lances probably ought to give an initiative bonus in the first round of combat (reflecting their superior reach), and probably get a damage bonus on the charge if wielded by or used against cavalry (again, a first turn-only bonus).
Another thing about your comments on cavalry charges and spear/lance strength bonuses - cavalry sometimes charges cavalry. If they are well-armoured, that first-turn punch is a good way of ensuring you do some "shock" damage before the handweapons come out in subsequent turns (and it becomes a back-and-forth slugfest of "who fails more 3+ armour saves").
If you are keeping the bulk of the rules the same, and if you are restricting yourself to human armies with little statistical variation between them, perhaps keeping the weapons' more complex rules might be a wise way of keeping some player choice in the game.
I also get the strong feeling that you should probably play a few games of WHFB using blocks of troops with regular weapons to get a better feel for what you're gaining/losing with all these changes (many of which I'm increasingly thinking are just unnecessary).
I would also strongly suggest you try Kings of War, which accomplishes *precisely* what I think you're trying to do here. As for weapons, etc - in KoW you have a block of troops with a profile that already takes into account a variety of factors including equipment. If you want to represent a specific unit that has some distinctive characteristic (due to training, weapons, or skills) then it's easy to simply adjust the troop profile accordingly. It also makes army lists easy, since it doesn't require players to calculate every individual model's exact loadout and points value.
-
One thought though: if you wanted to distinguish between knightly poleaxes and the polearms of the lower orders, you could make a distinction. You could keep the +2S for poleaxes, two-handed swords and so on, and have halberds as +1S but with the option of acting as spears instead (when threatened by cavalry, for example, and perhaps just for an initial round). That might serve to distinguish between billmen (or halberdiers) on the one hand, and foot knights on the other. And it would up the destructive power of the knights, which might fit quite well with the ASOIAF setting and echo the +2 bonus for lances.
I think the lance should be something special; it maximises the impact of a heavy cavalry charge. It was the dominant heavy-calvary weapon for centuries because is worked. Also, in a Westerosi setting, anything that sets knights a cut above other troops is probably good. And if you allow the extra benefits of lances and pikes, you get a pleasing "problem and solution" balance.
So what does work well with Warhammer? Well, I think that the different base sizes for humanoid infantry are a good start. For example, I'd be tempted to put Wildlings on 25mm bases (like old-school hobgoblins!) to simulate a looser fighting style. That way, your Baratheon infantry (or whatever) will have an edge even if the Wildlings are individually better fighters. You might do the same with Dothraki infantry. In a way, this is just using the original Warhammer rule about 15mm bases for heavy infantry, but updating it to fit with contemporary miniature sizes. Many suitably barbaric-looking 28mm miniatures will probably be more comfortable on 25mm bases anyway.
The thing is, in regards to weapons....
I think the look of a unit of troops with mixed weapons is good. I can't imagine all the infantry with regulation poleaxes would gather in one group, the ones with halberds in another, and the sword-and-shield guys in another, right? Though obviously I'd never suggest that each model in a ranked unit be armed differently.
I think giving all forms of polearms and 2-handed weapons the same rules helps encourage the mixed-weapon look.
And in regards to knights having better weapons than 'lowly' bills... I think their (presumeably) better stats should do the job.
Example - Imagine you have two blocks of 20 infantry, both with quite a diverse mix of weapons. But just upon glancing a them, you can see that one is supposed to be the elite knightly type, and the other the 'lowly footman' type. The former has heavier armour, the latter has less. The former is equipped with a variety of 2-handed swords, axes, hammers, etc, whilst the latter has mostly bills, with some spears, halberds and poleaxes here and there. The latter also has a few more heavily armoured models in it as well, but overall there is less metal and more cloth.
In terms of weapon rules, they both have the same - 2-handed weapons.
But just by looking at them it's clear who is harder, and this is easily represented by the knights having better armour and better stats (at least higher WS, maybe higher S and LD as well).
Your idea for polearms is a nice one though, allowing them to act either as 2-handed weapons or spears. It's worth considering. But it maybe gives them an obvious advantage over the 'knightly' weapons (ie flexibility).
I think a simpler, but similar solution is when it comes to polearms, have the player make clear whether the unit is equipped with spears or 2-handed weapons - if the models are all armed with English bills, they should definitely be allowed to 'count as' spears. Simple.
If I see my opponent fielding a unit of billmen, I will politely ask "spears or 2-handed?"
Your idea for 25mm bases is indeed a very interesting one, which I had no considered. It gives such troops a definite disadvantage. I will consider it!!!
Similarly, weapons like pikes, spears, and lances probably ought to give an initiative bonus in the first round of combat (reflecting their superior reach), and probably get a damage bonus on the charge if wielded by or used against cavalry (again, a first turn-only bonus).
I would also strongly suggest you try Kings of War, which accomplishes *precisely* what I think you're trying to do here. As for weapons, etc - in KoW you have a block of troops with a profile that already takes into account a variety of factors including equipment. If you want to represent a specific unit that has some distinctive characteristic (due to training, weapons, or skills) then it's easy to simply adjust the troop profile accordingly. It also makes army lists easy, since it doesn't require players to calculate every individual model's exact loadout and points value.
Spears initiative bonus - it's something I've considered, but am put off by adding an extra special rule to such a simple weapon.
Having said that though, I am giving pikes such rules. I think pikes should get a +1S bonus against charging cavalry, and the strikes first bonus (perhaps until they lose a round of combat, representing the enemy pushing past the pikes en masse).
You mention "it doesn't require players to calculate every individual model's exact loadout and points value"... But I love that!!! :) Deciding whether to upgrade a unit's armour for an extra point per model, deciding between spears or halberds, seeing if I've got enough points to give that unit shields.... Customising an army in detail is one of the things I like about the Warhammer points system. Let me get this straight, I enjoy a lot of the fiddly details in Warhammer, especially when it comes to army selection.
Going back to armour, I'm thinking the simplest thing to do is to get rid of warhorse barding. So we have the three levels of armour, 6+, 5+ and 4+. Being mounted adds one. Shields add one. Maximum save for infantry is 3+, for cavalry it is 2+. Consider warhorse barding just part of the armour upgrade you are getting for the rider.
-
Well, I don't know if it's the time of night or what, but I'm slightly confused now... Why are you streamlining armour rules and fiddling with weapons, when the ones in the game are (1) already present (2) familiar to players (3) designed with the game mechanics in mind. If you like the fiddly detail, and have already cut out most of the obvious fantasy elements, what's left to do besides play?! ???
-
Well, perhaps we should look at it this way...
If I'm gonna play using either WFB or WAB rules, I will make some changes / house rules for sure either way. Consider this me putting together lots of house rules for how I'm gonna be playing it, which I will write up and consider 'my edition'! :)
Perhaps weapons and armour aren't the best place to start in terms of changes, being admittedly concerned with just little details. Perhaps instead I should offer my thoughts on movement/formations/terrain and army selection?
-
I feel that army selection (i.e., write your own army lists) is probably going to account for 90% of any real modification you will need.
Most of the the other discussed elements that you are adding/removing/changing will likely be addressed by this alone (i.e., what weapons, what armour, what troops, what statlines, any unit-specific rules or not, etc) simply because pretty much everything in the game beyond basic mechanics requires permission from the army list to use.
For example, if your list doesn't permit any models that have access to magic, then there is no magic for that force. Same for monsters, mighty heroes, esoteric weapons, etc. Limiting unit sizes or imposing minimum sizes/unit ratios is something else you can do.
After that, I'd probably play-test it and see how you get on. You might find a number of the things that you wanted to change have been taken care of simply because they no longer come up in games.
Anyway, apologies if I come across as rude or awkward in my comments here (definitely not my intention!) - I just think that focusing on the things you don't like rather than on why they are there in the first place is making a rules adaptation unnecessarily convoluted.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication". ;)
-
I feel that army selection (i.e., write your own army lists) is probably going to account for 90% of any real modification you will need.
That is very true!!!!
I've been working on not so much an army list, but a 'unit generating' format. So starting at base human stats at 5pts per model, with points for equipment upgrades and (limited) stat boosts, plus a few select special rules that can be purchased.
The idea is you can use this to create any infantry or cavalry unit you want, though obviously there are recommended guidelines (no silly things like archers in full plate).
The less special rules, the easier this should be to do and keep balanced.
I have then put together a generic medieval army list using this format, which should cover rules, stats and equipment for all medieval unit types, plus upgrades.
I've put some special thought into the creation of characters. Obviously what makes characters unique is access to even higher stats if you pay for them (most notably W and A over 1), and the all-important LD bonus, which costs much more for characters as other units can benefit from it. Still, if you buy NO upgrades for a character he still costs just 5 points, as he is has no benefit over any other soldier!
This allows creation of not only generals and leaders but cheap, customised unit champions and heroes if you want. I'm not gonna both with the 'unit champion' upgrade (or command groups at all, but we can discuss that later!). But you can still make these mini-heroes if you want. For example, let's say a halberdier with standard equipment costs 9 points. You can purchase an extra attack (10pts) and +1WS (1pt) for a leader figure, making him cost 20 points. If you choose to give him an extra point of leadership (20pts) he will now cost a pricey 40 points, because his increased LD will benefit the whole unit greatly. You have freedom to equip him differently if you want. Just a rough example, obviously points values are in no way set in stone.
_______________________________
Anyway, let's have a look at some of the ideas I've had for movement, formations and terrain.
As it's just humans and horses right now, we can assume all infantry have a movement value of 4 and most cavalry a movement value of 8.
(Heavy cavalry should be reduced to 7, either due to barding or just having an armour save over a certain threshold (say 3+ or more), but that ties in with the armour issues I was pondering earlier. I don't think infantry being slowed down by heavy armour is really necessary.)
In Warhammer, 'skirmishers' are a special sort of troop with a host of special rules. In modern WFB only infantry can skirmish, but cavalry get their own special set of 'fast cavalry' rules for similar roles.
I suggest any unit can skirmish if it wants, unless they have an armour save over a certain threshold, and we rename it open formation. Units ranked up are in close formation. Open formation units move like skirmishers in older editions of WFB (not like in 8th edition), all staying within 2" of the group but moving as individual models. This includes cavalry. Obviously this gives them movement advantages, especially where terrain is involved (see below). So rather than having confusing layers of rules (in WAB we actually have 'close order formed', 'open order formed', 'light units' and 'skirmishers'!), you just choose with each unit whether it's in open or close formation. Obviously some units are much better suited to one or the other depending on their role, and close formation can be a real hindrance on a battlefield with lots of rough terrain. To underline the fact that close formation is best for blocks of combat troops, open formation should have a rank bonus limit (I suggest it can get one, but never more than +1).
A unit can switch between one and the other with a full reform move, though it should require a successful LD test.
Both types of unit can make a special 'double move' (with a few circumstances not allowing it, like being too close to the enemy). For open formation it is called 'run', for close formation it is 'march'. Units cannot shoot if they run/march.
Fast cavalry rules are not needed, as all the movement benefits are included simply through being in close formation.
A few special rules could be purchased though, most notably 'horse archers' (lets them shoot with bows after making a full run move).
In both WFB and WAB the movement penalties of terrain and changing formation are a bit too messy for me, especially when combined with marching (and back in 3rd edition, the reserve move). Models are reduced to half rate, and cannot march, in terrain... what does that leave, a move of 2"? You might as well give up!
My idea is to simplify the penalties to limiting whether the unit can make a march/run move or not. No more halving and quartering the movement statistic, no more half inches. Though this may well have the same end result, I think stating the rules like this simply make things easier. Troops with the 'skirmishers' rule added another layer of complication in warhammer (and 'light troops' in WAB).
How about this......
Open terrain - No penalty obviously. All units can move or march/run.
Difficult terrain - No penalty if in open formation, can still run. If in close formation, cannot march (so just move at base rate).
Very difficult terrain - Open formation units can move, but not run (so move at base rate). Close formation units cannot move at all.
Impassable terrain - Obviously no one can move through it.
Linear obstacles (low walls etc) - No penalty for open formation, can still run. Close formation units can move over, but they cannot march.
When it comes to reforming in close formation, most reforms require a successful LD test. A complete reform means they cannot move or shoot. Certain smaller reforms mean they can move but not march, or maybe they can only subsequently move if they pass a LD test. Makes the LD stat important for moving blocks of troops around the battlefield.
What is the end result of these changes gonna be? Well it won't be that much different, but I see it as a definite streamlining of the rules.
Battlefield movement all comes down to open or close formation, and in what circumstances units can march/run or not. Which of the two formations your units adopt is the question, which in some circumstances is a no-brainer, whilst in others it's a bit trickier.
-
-double post
-
-triple post! :(
-
Personally speaking, movement is the one phase of the game that should be so simple. And yet terrain should matter. I like the Saga system. If a unit starts, ends or passes through terrain, it's whole move is reduced. In simple terms, touch terrain in the move phase and your unit move is halved. Very abstract yes, very simple yes, but very easy to remember and allows the game to move on. No defining terrain as area, linear, etc. Skirmishers ignore this rule. It needs a tweak if you are going to go with open order/closed order.
I would be wary of introducing an extra layer of open order/closed order. What purpose does it serve? It seems counter intuitive to your stated aim to simplify and streamline Warhammer rules. So I wonder why you are doing it?
-
I would be wary of introducing an extra layer of open order/closed order. What purpose does it serve? It seems counter intuitive to your stated aim to simplify and streamline Warhammer rules. So I wonder why you are doing it?
You misunderstand, I'm not adding an extra layer. Open order is in all respects 'skirmishing' as you know it. I'm just freeing it up, making it accessible to more units and not a special rule for specific troops. I've just changed the name to be more appropriate for covering a broad range of troop types.
'Skirmishers' as we know them would just be small units of troops equipped suitably for the role, who would obviously always be in open formation.
-
Okay. So a unit can be ranked or in skirmish, requiring a ld test to change from one to the other. I don't really see the benefit of this, and the drawback is lots of faffing around changing from one to the other. Obviously, you will move at all times in skirmish mode to avoid move penalties. I assume ranked mode gives some combat benefit, so units will want to change into that to fight. Move in skirmish, fight ranked, what are the tricky decisions you refer to? I'm still not seeing where you are going with this. Units being able to chop and change like this, it's not working for me. I prefer some units to have special roles, makes them distinct. And I would rate skirmishing as one of those special roles.
-
Okay. So a unit can be ranked or in skirmish, requiring a ld test to change from one to the other. I don't really see the benefit of this, and the drawback is lots of faffing around changing from one to the other. Obviously, you will move at all times in skirmish mode to avoid move penalties. I assume ranked mode gives some combat benefit, so units will want to change into that to fight. Move in skirmish, fight ranked, what are the tricky decisions you refer to? I'm still not seeing where you are going with this. Units being able to chop and change like this, it's not working for me. I prefer some units to have special roles, makes them distinct. And I would rate skirmishing as one of those special roles.
No, you probably would never switch between the two, especially as it takes a full turn to reform. The option is there, that's all.
In open formation you either get no rank bonus, or a maximum of +1, so there is the obvious benefit of fighting in close formation.
So with most units, the decision is obvious. The 'decision' units to me seem to be units of light/medium cavalry equipped for combat.... Do you give them extra manoeuvrability but sacrifice a bit of their combat potential? And archers/crossbowmen.... Huge units are worth forming up, but small/medium units of say 10-20, you might benefit from having them in loose formation... but maybe not, depends how the battle goes.
And in terms of 'special roles', this again goes hand in hand with the customizable 'from the bottom up' way of making units. You can design units for these special roles.
You want your light skirmishers? Make sure you don't give them too much armour so they can be in open formation, equip them with appropriate weapons. You don't need to buy them a special rule. Want a flexible unit of flanking cavalry? Make sure not to equip them with too much armour, again so they can benefit from open formation if they need to, but a good unit of 10 with spears would still pack a nice punch against flanks and small enemy units when formed up.
-
I think having totally open ground-up lists will lead to a balancing nightmare personally. I also think it is waaay too complicated compared to the current form of army lists. Personally speaking, I'd much rather have a conversation like this with a friend:
"Hey, I've adapted WHFB for playing ASOFAI games. Do you want to have a game?"
"Sure, what did you change?"
"Just army lists really. Everything else is the same."
"Cool. What House are you thinking of playing?"
"Starks"
"Okay, could I play Lannister?"
"Sure. Here's the army list. Also, here's the Starks army list too, for info."
"Thanks!"
That's *really* simple, and it keeps the game fairly accessible for any exisiting/old/new WHFB players. The lists for each House tell me what units I can have, what stats they have, what upgrades they can take, and which units skirmish or whatever. Done.