Planning a retro Warhammer scenario - and a question on points costs

[tikitang]

For some reason, third edition didn't recycle all of the best illustrations from second (although it did use some), and it added some distinctly inferior ones by other people.

And also suffers from unnecessary bloat in so many areas, overcomplicating things that didn't really need fixing.

That said, I was only four years old at the time so am hardly qualified to say whether or not Warhammer players of the day thought 3rd Ed. was an improvement or not, but having studied through all the 1980s editions in great depth (about ten years ago) the only thing I saw in 3rd that I liked more than 2nd was having everything in a single hardback volume (shame about the horrible layout though), and the addition of some extra monsters (Cockatrice springs to mind) in the bestiary.

[Daeothar]

Another interesting discussion regarding older Warhammer editions.

And I blame you lot for my impulse buy of a 2nd ed boxed set just now... 

[Hobgoblin]

Oops! Just double-checked, and that poor lizardman is by Dave Andrews rather than John Blanche.

And also suffers from unnecessary bloat in so many areas, overcomplicating things that didn't really need fixing.

Yes, definitely.

That said, I was only four years old at the time so am hardly qualified to say whether or not Warhammer players of the day thought 3rd Ed. was an improvement or not, but having studied through all the 1980s editions in great depth (about ten years ago) the only thing I saw in 3rd that I liked more than 2nd was having everything in a single hardback volume (shame about the horrible layout though), and the addition of some extra monsters (Cockatrice springs to mind) in the bestiary.

I remember a lot of excitement around third edition and then the gradual realisation that it wasn't actually an improvement (especially with regard to magic). I actually prefer the three booklets: you can have one person checking spells or weapon effects while the other one looks up monster stats, for instance. And they stay open better on the table!

I do recall thinking that the orcs-versus-elves scenario in the book was a big disappointment after the likes of Vengeance of the Lichemaster and The Dolgan Raiders.

In general, third is much blander, I think. And while it's probably better edited, the language is less natural (Level 5 Hero rather than champion, for instance).

At least both editions have proper Slann!

[Hobgoblin]

Another interesting discussion regarding older Warhammer editions.

And I blame you lot for my impulse buy of a 2nd ed boxed set just now... 

Sounds a good move!

[Byrthnoth]

If I remember correctly, WHFB 4th edition had a list of points costs for the base profiles of different races, as well as for heroes and costs for equipment. There was also maybe a simple formula for modifying points for increased/decreased stats. I can't remember if it had costs for special rules. I think this was in the back of the 4th ed core rules, rather than the bestiary, where you might expect it.

I think 6th edition was when they started trying to get clever with points values, looking at the value of of stats relative to the rest of the models stats (e.g. an extra attack is worth more on a figure with higher WS and S, for example), and also trying to balance within and across army lists, so a basic elf in the high elf list was priced different from a basic dark elf, or whatever.

[Rick]

Just to be picky, there WAS a Ravening Hordes booklet released to cover basic army lists for a later edition of WFB but this isn't the one you want. The version you want is the 1987 Ravening Hordes v1 that has the army lists for 2nd edition in it - that should have a lot of material that you can use and adapt as necessary. Hope this helps.

[Hobgoblin]

Just to be picky, there WAS a Ravening Hordes booklet released to cover basic army lists for a later edition of WFB but this isn't the one you want. The version you want is the 1987 Ravening Hordes v1 that has the army lists for 2nd edition in it - that should have a lot of material that you can use and adapt as necessary. Hope this helps.

Yes, that's the one I've been looking at - the one with the Chris Achilleos "Orc Charge" on the front and the second-edition profiles for Skaven, etc. Cheers!

If I remember correctly, WHFB 4th edition had a list of points costs for the base profiles of different races, as well as for heroes and costs for equipment. There was also maybe a simple formula for modifying points for increased/decreased stats. I can't remember if it had costs for special rules. I think this was in the back of the 4th ed core rules, rather than the bestiary, where you might expect it.

I think 6th edition was when they started trying to get clever with points values, looking at the value of of stats relative to the rest of the models stats (e.g. an extra attack is worth more on a figure with higher WS and S, for example), and also trying to balance within and across army lists, so a basic elf in the high elf list was priced different from a basic dark elf, or whatever.

Interesting - thanks! Yes, it looks like 'harmonising' points costs is a fool's errand now. I think I'm just going to go with second-edition profiles and points and change Stupidity to testing on Ld rather than Int (which makes intuitive sense, I think: you'd get a Cold One to behave by prodding it with a suitable implement and barking in a stentorian voice, not by solving the Times crossword in a matter of minutes). But I'll make sure that the scenario features plenty of Int, Cl and Wp tests for other things: operating war machines and ; succumbing to frenzy, panic, terror or fear; and resisting magic.

As Stupidity was so absolutely crippling for low-Int types (who were the only ones who suffered from it), this should result in points costs being fairer than before, I think. Who wants to pay 127 points for a cold one that does nothing but slobber?

One early Warhammer trope that I want to use is having mixed units (e.g. a unit with a front rank of archers and two rear ranks of heavy infantry - or six lizardmen and two cold ones formed up in two ranks). These are alluded to in a couple of places, and I think they'll be perfectly viable with small unit sizes. From what I've seen, second ed's movement rules will allow for (e.g.) archers being moved to the back rank when close combat is imminent. I'll count long bases as two for the purposes of ranks - so those six lizardmen and two cold ones would count as two ranks of four if drawn up thus, with the whole unit subject to Stupidity on the lizardman leader's Int.

[tikitang]

If I remember correctly, WHFB 4th edition had a list of points costs for the base profiles of different races, as well as for heroes and costs for equipment. There was also maybe a simple formula for modifying points for increased/decreased stats. I can't remember if it had costs for special rules. I think this was in the back of the 4th ed core rules

This was actually on a separate sheet of white paper, included in the 4th edition box. It was quite useful for bringing your older armies into line with 4th Edition points, and was intended to be a 'get you by' until the 4th edition army books were published later down the road.

[Rick]

I've just remembered something that may or may not be of any use. There were no 'points formulas' published for WFB but there were points formulas published for the later Warhammer Ancient Battles rules - chances are they're still on the net somewhere if you look. I have no idea if they would be compatible but they might be worth a look?

[Hobgoblin]

I've just remembered something that may or may not be of any use. There were no 'points formulas' published for WFB but there were points formulas published for the later Warhammer Ancient Battles rules - chances are they're still on the net somewhere if you look. I have no idea if they would be compatible but they might be worth a look?

Thanks, Rick - good to know, and I may well give those a look at some point in this project. There is a points formula in second-edition WFB, though: it's just that I was planning to drop all the psychology stats except Ld, so was looking to see what had happened when the main game did the same.

I've now decided to keep all the psychological stats and just get round the Stupidity problem by testing it on Ld rather than Int when there's a non-Stupid leader involved. So a lizardman leading troglodytes gets the unit to test on his Ld; but if he's killed, the trogs test on their Int; they, after all, are the ones who have trouble keeping focus; he just needs a sharp stick! That means that the points costs are good as they are.

I will use the second-edition points calculator for the more colourful heroes - a peg-legged dwarf with a slower Move or a grossly fat chaos sorcerer who has to be carried, or whatever comes to mind. It would be interesting to see if the WAB one is essentially the same. I presume WAB was Ld-only when it came to psychology.

One thing that I'd completely forgotten before re-reading second edition is how important Cool (Cl) is as a stat. I recalled that it was used for Frenzy tests, but it's also used for Panic, Fear and Terror. So it's quite a big deal. And I finally understand why hobgoblins were described as being "less steady in combat" than orcs; they both have T4 and Ld7, but hobgoblins, with their susceptibility to Frenzy, have a Cl of just 6. So they are more easily startled than orcs, despite being fiercer fighters (Frenzy + I3) when they're on the attack.

[tikitang]

...there were points formulas published for the later Warhammer Ancient Battles rules - chances are they're still on the net somewhere if you look. I have no idea if they would be compatible but they might be worth a look?

I've been down this road before, i.e. trying to cobble together multiple versions of Warhammer (including WAB) to try and come up with a system that covers all my particular requirements for a given project, but it drove me nuts and killed enthusiasm for any such project! Better to save yourself a headache by keeping to the one largely self-contained, cohesive yet flexible system that is Fantasy Battle 2E.

As a side-note, I don't recall points formulas/calculators in WAB—certainly not to the detailed degree that WFB2E lays out. No subsequent edition of Warhammer would ever have anything so clear-cut as that.

[Rick]

The points calculations weren't in WAB at all. Good ol' Jervis wrote a long missive outlining his points calculations and methods, including the special rules costs, to an internet site some while ago (while they were still using some sort of calculator) so that WAB players could come up with their own profiles and army lists. WAB was trying to get out of GW's and WFB's shadow at that point, by being more open and fan-based.

[Hobgoblin]

The points calculations weren't in WAB at all. Good ol' Jervis wrote a long missive outlining his points calculations and methods, including the special rules costs, to an internet site some while ago (while they were still using some sort of calculator) so that WAB players could come up with their own profiles and army lists. WAB was trying to get out of GW's and WFB's shadow at that point, by being more open and fan-based.

Aha! It would be interesting to see that and see how close it was to 2E's calculator.

Out of interest, a question: I presume WAB uses standard human stats throughout (maybe with variations in WS and BS to represent training and experience) - but does it ever vary stats like Strength and Toughness? Those, to me, are the key reasons that Warhammer is better as a colourful skirmish game than a proper massed-battle set, as they override normal tactical considerations: for example, whether an orc has light armour or not is less consequential than the fact he's an orc with Toughness 4!

[Hobgoblin]

I've been thinking a bit more about the scenario, and I think I've hit on a way of running special events and surprises in a game where there's full transparency (i.e., everyone's read all the material when choosing who to play). I want this transparency because I want to play rather than just GM. So I'll give the other three first dibs on the forces and take what's left.

It should work like this, I think:

• Each player has three 'special ploys' that they play in the first six turns of the game. These will be secretly chosen from a larger menu (perhaps of six). So everyone will know what the other sides are capable of, but only each specific player will know what he has chosen.
• I'll provide six numbered envelopes, one for each of the first six turn. Each player puts a slip of paper into each envelope, three of which will be blank. At the end of each turn, the respective envelope is opened and its events are played out in the order the slips are drawn.
• The dwarf player's specials will be things like blowing up a bridge with timed explosives; collapsing a section of wall; releasing boulders to roll down down slopes; and so on.
• The necromancer's specials will include necromantic magic: raising all the dead so far as a unit of zombies at a specified point on the table; summoning ghosts; and releasing the Wind of Death spell (S3 hit on everyone on the table); and raising dead character models to join the necromancer's side (this could include him if he's been killed, so effectively a resurrection).
• The chaos sorcerer will probably have some choice spell effects too (this might be the only way I include magic in the game, to be honest) - perhaps 3ed's Vorpal Storm of Chaos for one! He might also have some powers like making all the beastmen go into frenzy for the next turn or allowing certain units to make an extra move as if lifted by invisible chaos demons. I'll have to have a think here.
• The lizardman player's specials will simply be the entry of his three detachments in any three of the first six turns and from specified locations.

That, I think, should add plenty of drama and a bit of strategising. I'll get the players to choose their options and write out their slips before the game, so that we can get things moving straight away.

[Rick]

One very fun game I ran was a WW2 game with several players where each player had different (and often conflicting) sealed instructions. One German player had instructions to ignore and rebuff any offers of help from a fellow officer who he saw as a rival whilst the other german player had to use every excuse to get his troops on-table to 'help' his colleague. The US player had orders to make contact with the French resistance while the British player had orders to keep away from the resistance as they weren't to be trusted. The french resistance player, of course, had orders to only make contact with the British as they didn't trust the Americans.
The use of 'sealed orders' can provide a lot of confusion and fun elements to a skirmish game as well as providing opportunities for different objectives and motivations for the players.