PDA

View Full Version : Realism tweaks for v.7



KellerMeister
31-08-2005, 09:41
I would like GW to tweaks the rules a bit in favor of realism in the next edition of the core rules. By realism I donít mean to cut down on the fantasy elements of the game, but in the way units behave on the battle field. Iím fairly new to the forum so itís quite possible that these suggestions have been discussed before - I looked around but didnít find them though. I believe that these modifications will make the game even more interesting and fun and also encourage the use of foot soldiers. What do you think of the following?

New Charge Reaction Ė Counter Charge

When a unit declares it is charging another unit in the front and the distance between them is more than 5Ē the opposing unit may choose to countercharge. Models on foot may countercharge models/units on foot and Cavalry models/units may countercharge models on foot and other Cavalry models/units.

The two units meet at the middle of the distance between them but a unit electing to countercharge may at maximum move up its normal move distance towards the chargers. If they meet combat is resolved as follows: Both units counts as charging and any weapon rules that is affected by this are active Ė Great Weapons may strike and so forth. Both units may strike as hits are resolved simultaneously and casualties are removed on both sides before calculating CR. If a unit is countercharged none of the units gains any CR bonuses from ranks but the +1 CR bonus for outnumbering is boosted to +2 CR.

This Charge Reaction means that a charge that might otherwise have been a failed one may strike home. If a charge despite the added move of the counter chargers fails to reach the target it counts as a normal failed charge for the charging unit. Since a charge that misses by that much in most cases never should have been declared in the first place, the unit is penalized by not being able to charge on the following turn. The countercharging unit may however, within their normal move distance, redirect if they wish and can. Units armed with pikes may not counter charge.


Modification of the Charge reaction Hold.

In reality units charged by cavalry seldom stood their ground but fled before the chargers. To represent this, units on foot should be forced to pass a Ld test in order to be able to withstand a charge by a cavalry unit armed with spears or lances or flee automatically. A large mass of foot soldiers might not however flee as easily from a small sized cavalry force and if the charged unit outnumbers the chargers they receive a +2 to their test.

Modification of the Charge reaction Flee/Redirecting charges

If a unit flees before a charge, voluntarily or not, the chargers move a quarter of their charge distance towards their target. With the remaining move they may then elect to redirect their charge at any unit that is a legal target from the new position.


Modification of the Spear and Pike rules

Spears gain +1S when charged by Cavalry
If a unit armed with spears elect to Hold and the Chargers are armed with hand weapons the spear unit attacks are resolved at the same time as the chargers.

Pikes gain +2S when charged by Cavalry

KellerMeister
10-09-2005, 08:27
No one cares to comment?

pyramid_head
10-09-2005, 11:47
structure points for all vehicles, modifiers for moving and shooting, modifiers for long range shooting, make snipers more effective, Ill post more when i think of em.

Nazguire
10-09-2005, 12:05
structure points for all vehicles, modifiers for moving and shooting, modifiers for long range shooting, make snipers more effective, Ill post more when i think of em.

V.7 as in Fantasy <--- not 40k lol :p

pyramid_head
10-09-2005, 12:47
V.7 as in Fantasy <--- not 40k lol :p

oh *****, yea go me.

Angelripper
12-09-2005, 22:15
Counter Charge
Sounds quite nice but I would keep th rank bonus for combat resolution

Modification on CR Hold
wouldn't change this Cavalry is powerfull enough, and I don't think it would serve the balance. All Cav Units might come more appealing for hmm let's call them more "simple minded players" as they are now. But on the other hand theese players use them right now mixing them with a Dragon (Only Dragonhammerplayers are good Generals :evilgrin: )

Redirecting Charges
Pretty logical for me, but I would let the Attacker move half the distance simulating the initial drive of the attack

Modifications on Spears and Pike.
Don't really know about this. +1 strength for spears is not bad to simulate the Spearman raming the end of their spear into the ground to prepare for the impact
+2 for pikes might be a bit much after all they fight in 4 ranks. Thats a hell of a lot strength 5 attacks against a Cav unit. It sounds fluffy but I think would overpower a quite good unit. On the other Hand maybe more DoW players might rise and they finaly get what they deserve, a new Armybook.

Just my two cents

Scanno
13-09-2005, 13:06
Counter charge sounds complicated. The whole thing of "turn based" would be turned on it's head as units from both sides move both turns. I can undersatnd where the realism factor is coming from, but I think real time works better in computer games.
Having cavalry break units automatically (as opposed to just easily, as it does now), would make them too powerful, I think. Combined wiht the redirected charges you suggest, you could break half the opponents army in one turn with a unit of goblin wolf riders (they have spears!). Doesn't seem like the sort of thing a unit of chosen warriors of chaos would worry about. In a world where 20' blood deamons are after yuor soul, a horse mightn't seem like all that bad an opponent.
I'll agree with Angelripper on the spears and pike comment; I like the spears idea, but combined with 4 ranks, the pikes would probably end up too good.
Realism problems I'd like to address include cavalry getting a S bonus for charging 2", and chariots plunging headlong into the middle of units on a suicide run.

that's all I've time for now

Zanusiekk
13-09-2005, 19:11
My major realism concerns (as have been stated before) relate to shooting and the tactics thereof:
Firstly, I think the balance between bows and guns is fine from a gaming pov, but as for realism, it is a bit off... I think archers should be allowed to fire in deep ranked formation, but measuring to see which ranks can reach the target and which can not.
Handguns, on the other hand, should take one whole turn to reload, but should be allowed to fire every turn if deployed in two ranks or more. Moreover, it should have a morale-related effect on the target, especially chargers, for example forcing a panic test with negative mods to ld if ANY wounds are taken. Their rang should, of course, be drasticaly cut down...

As for the option of shooting into hth, I have a house rule that I kind of like(I find it quite realistic and also, it makes for some fun considerations):

Shooting into cc is conducted as normal: shots are randomised so that hits are divided evenly between engaged units (shooter decides the target of excess hits). Then roll to wound and save as usual... remove some casualties... maybe have a cup of tea.
Then comes the amusing bit: Any unit hit by "friendly" fire takes an automatic panic test and, if it fails and flees, may not be rallied... ever.

Might even make it so that the panic test is modified by the number of wounds caused by your buddies.
Basicaly, this represents the unit deciding that this general-person is not such a great guy after all, and subsequently deserting.

This removes the issue of not being able to torch the remains of a small, useless unit but retains the wariness of firing into a big cc...

I think these are the major realism issues of the game as of now... (except of course for the obvious super-powered heroes and such, but they are just charming...)

Angelripper
13-09-2005, 21:09
The Idea of taking a morale test after got shot down by Muskets seems quite fluffy but i don't think it should be modified. After all as Scanno said in the Warhammerworld are much more frightening creatures trying to slaughter you and consume your soul than the big boom of a Musket.

Shooting into cc gives me a bad feeling. I can't imagine a unit to go on fighting if they know that their pals will just fire at the same enemy they are trying to cut down only a few feet away of them.
Letting them take a LD test and if it fails never have the chance to rally them is good, but I doubt that a General ordering to fire into cc will get any recruits for his next fight.
Well thats only for Humans, Elves and Dwarfes. Lizzies do everything the big Toad says, Orcs are crazy enough to ignore that fact, Skaven can do already and the undead, well they are already dead so who cares?

Realism and Heroes? :confused:
There is no realism in getting supertough heroes (ok there was Achilles, Hector, Horatio, & Arthur and his fanclub just to mention a few) but I'd never trade my Heroes for more realism I just love them :D

I think there is a little lack of realism in the use of indirect firering artillery. Such as Stonethrowers and Mortars. They actually don't need line of sight. (Fire over the Hill, I think the enemy is there somewhere, Sir) I think they should do so but the distance they scatter should be doubled at least.
Its no fun to see a couple of pileplates batter down your witchelves especially when they are well hidden behind a Hill.
I'm fighting the empire Gun/Knight Army regularly :cheese:

sulla
24-09-2005, 10:08
Modification of the Charge reaction Hold.

In reality units charged by cavalry seldom stood their ground but fled before the chargers.
Modification of the Spear and Pike rules

Spears gain +1S when charged by Cavalry
If a unit armed with spears elect to Hold and the Chargers are armed with hand weapons the spear unit attacks are resolved at the same time as the chargers.

Pikes gain +2S when charged by Cavalry

Actually, infantry in good order was seldom bothered by heavy cavalry. Traditionally, the role of heavy cav was seeing off other cav as horses dislike charging a massed body of men. In medievil times this may have been different but the infantry then was poorly equipped and trained. properly trained infantry like the romans or the turkish jannissaries saw off sarmatian, german and crusader heavy cav regularly.


Realism tweaks? Sure...

-1 armour save for being mounted instead of +1...A horse adds weight to your charge and allows you to defeat fleeing foes easier, it doesn't make you harder to hurt...on the contrary, a horse and rider are more vulnerable to shooting than a man on foot.

Barded cavalry can't march(gallop)...heavy cavalry are shock troops, they are geared towards a decisive charge, not racing around the field trying to outflank the enemy. This would create a role for lesser armoured cavalry and keep heavy cav back with the infantry and chariots.

Archery volleys...bowmen can fire in multiple ranks, but only over short range and at an additional -1 to hit. Also, they become move or fire when using this option.

Heavy cavalry should only be able to hold or counter charge (I like counter charge by the way), fast cav should be able to fire and flee as a charge reaction(probably at an additional -1 to hit on top of the stand and shoot penalty)...

I wouldn't mind seeing 40mm 3 wound monsters count ranks for 3 wide formations...it would encourage 6 and 9 strong units instead of 3's and 4's.

I'd like to see an end to autohit stuff. I'd prefer autohit items to give attacks which then have to be rolled. This would give some protection to lone characters, skirmishers and troops in cover.

Of course, if you really wanted to be realistic, get rid of wounds on characters! It is totally realistic that no matte where a goblin hits my lord with his spear, no matter how well you roll with his attack, you can't kill my DE lord in one turn...of course, no-one wants that much realism in the game... :)

Sulla.

Unseeing Eye
25-09-2005, 02:44
-1 armour save for being mounted instead of +1...
Barded cavalry can't march(gallop)...


-1 for being on a horse, +1 for barding. Double move (usually) for being on a horse, half because you can't march...

So essentially your idea of Heavy Cavalry is normal infantry with maybe a bonus charge attack?

KellerMeister
26-09-2005, 18:48
Actually, infantry in good order was seldom bothered by heavy cavalry. Traditionally, the role of heavy cav was seeing off other cav as horses dislike charging a massed body of men. In medievil times this may have been different but the infantry then was poorly equipped and trained. properly trained infantry like the romans or the turkish jannissaries saw off sarmatian, german and crusader heavy cav regularly.

I suppose this could be debated. However, my view of Warhammer is that it takes place in a very Medieval period so I guess we can all agree that "Heavy Cavalry" is indeed very heavy.


-1 armour save for being mounted instead of +1...A horse adds weight to your charge and allows you to defeat fleeing foes easier, it doesn't make you harder to hurt...on the contrary, a horse and rider are more vulnerable to shooting than a man on foot.

I think that the +1 is there to reflect the difficulties of hitting a moving target when it comes to ranged weaponry and the elevated position grants the same when fighting troops on foot. I guess that it is there when cavalry fight cavalry for simplicityís sake. But it is also so that it is more difficult to put thrust and power behind an attack when you are mounted compared to when you are on foot. I have no real problem with this rule.


Barded cavalry can't march(gallop)...heavy cavalry are shock troops, they are geared towards a decisive charge, not racing around the field trying to outflank the enemy. This would create a role for lesser armoured cavalry and keep heavy cav back with the infantry and chariots.

Interesting point.


Archery volleys...bowmen can fire in multiple ranks, but only over short range and at an additional -1 to hit. Also, they become move or fire when using this option.

Well, if volley fire was to be introduced I think it should have to bee be more random and less dependant on ballisitc skill. Since Volley fire doesn't involve aiming at all (part from range) I think its effects should be very uncertain. Here's my thought: To be able to use Volley fire a unit of archers should consist of at least 20 models. Volley fire can be used between 1.5x the normal maximum range and down to the normal max the weapon. Place the 5(inch) template over the targeted unit, roll a scatter D and a D6. Move the center of the template D6 result +1 inches accordingly but deduct the BS of the firing unit first. If the target moved the previous turn, add +1 to the move. Any model completely under the template takes a hit on 4+ partially under on 6+.


Heavy cavalry should only be able to hold or counter charge (I like counter charge by the way), fast cav should be able to fire and flee as a charge reaction(probably at an additional -1 to hit on top of the stand and shoot penalty)...

Reasonable since heavy cavalry is hard to turn around and so forth.


I wouldn't mind seeing 40mm 3 wound monsters count ranks for 3 wide formations...it would encourage 6 and 9 strong units instead of 3's and 4's.

I have no opinion on this


I'd like to see an end to autohit stuff. I'd prefer autohit items to give attacks which then have to be rolled. This would give some protection to lone characters, skirmishers and troops in cover.

...or this.


Of course, if you really wanted to be realistic, get rid of wounds on characters! It is totally realistic that no matte where a goblin hits my lord with his spear, no matter how well you roll with his attack, you can't kill my DE lord in one turn...of course, no-one wants that much realism in the game... :)

Well, in the interest of staying as far away from Herohammer as possible I would vote ney on this one. ;)

Nekharoth
28-09-2005, 04:58
i think shooting into close combat should be dependant on a number of factors including: the race of the shooters, their BS, the type of ballistic weapon they are using and the range they are firing at. the issue here is that to be totally realistic there are too many potential options, modifiers, and probably additional dice rolls. it may make the process too complicated.

i think the matter of race needs to be addressed, as for example, Skaven might fire into close combat because the life of a Skaven is worth little or nothing, especially Skavenslaves. they are not a morally driven society so the don't really care if they hit their own if the ends are justified. but conversely, I think it would be quite realistic for Wood Elves to fire into close combat (maybe only at 1/2 range or less), because they are highly skilled with a bow and actually can confidently pick out individual enemy combatants.

In short:

If multiple enemy units are engaged in the same combat, the player must nominate which enemy unit they are targeting before any dice are rolled. Any modifiers that apply to the target unit are applied (eg. +1 for shooting at a large target).

Skaven, undead, orcs & goblins and lizardmen may fire into close combat at any range. randomise shots between combatant units. (eg. 1-3: enemy unit hit; 4-6: friendly unit hit). If multiple friendly units are engaged in the same combat, the unit closest to the firing unit is hit by any 'stray' shots.

No war machines or blackpowder weapons may fire into close combat, regardless of race, range, etc.

Units with BS 4 or higher armed with (any kind of) bows, crossbows or repeater crossbows may fire into close combat at up to half range. Roll a D6 for each hit scored, if the score is equal or less than the firing unit's BS the shot hits the targeted enemy unit, otherwise the closest friendly unit is hit. A roll of 6 always fails and will hit a friendly unit.

Crux
28-09-2005, 23:01
The +1 Armour Save for being mounted is because the blows/shots may hit your horse instead of you, and because it's way easier than rolling whether you hit the horse or the rider.

sulla
01-10-2005, 23:35
The +1 Armour Save for being mounted is because the blows/shots may hit your horse instead of you, and because it's way easier than rolling whether you hit the horse or the rider.


Sure, but the point is, If you kill either the horse OR the rider, the cavalryman is no longer effective.

Crux
02-10-2005, 22:30
Sure, but the point is, If you kill either the horse OR the rider, the cavalryman is no longer effective.
Yeah, I know. But for simplicity, horses give +1 armour save. If you start fiddling with that rule, you'll have to introduce randomising between riders and mounts, units of cavalry, infantry and riderless mounts, etc.

Gabacho Mk.II
03-10-2005, 08:20
My suggestions:


> Various formations... with various strengths and weaknesses. [turtle, shieldwall, etc]

> Bow shooting to be more effective than it is now [maybe giving bows greater range and/or a +1 to hit, versus what we have now]

> Skirmishers may only use Ld. of its own, not from nearby general or attached character.

> General's Ld. to be modified as follows --
If a Lord fighter = Ld. range to be up to 12"
If a Lord Mage = Ld. range to be up to 8"
[just doesnt make sense to me that a wizard would have the same gravitas as that of a fighting hero]

> Chariots can only make impact hits if they charge their normal move or more. [For example, a chariot with M8 needs to move at least 8" or more in order to gain impact hits... this has been suggested by previous posters on other threads]

> Cavalry (as above) needs to move at least their normal move before delivering its charge and gaining a charge (+2S for lances for example) bonus. Reasons are obvious for me.

> Outnumbering ONLY to be gained if the Outnumbering unit is AT LEAST 2 times greater or more! [this has been suggested by previous posters on other threads]

> Fear to be toned down when applied to Break Tests. Undead winning and destroying units due to enemies losing by a single point is ridiculous.

> Hand weapon and shield bonus only for units with Ws4 or greater. [again, suggested by various ongoing threads]

Adept
03-10-2005, 09:30
-1 armour save for being mounted instead of +1...A horse adds weight to your charge and allows you to defeat fleeing foes easier, it doesn't make you harder to hurt...on the contrary, a horse and rider are more vulnerable to shooting than a man on foot.

To further the point, Heavy Cavalry should be at least two wounds and toughness four each. After all, a horse can take several blows that would fell a man, and continue to fight for the duration of the battle.


Barded cavalry can't march(gallop)...heavy cavalry are shock troops, they are geared towards a decisive charge, not racing around the field trying to outflank the enemy.

Nonsense. Destriers with barding could still outpace men easily.

Apart from that, I agree with your post.

A few things I'd like to see, myself:

A scenario generator akin to the 40K one. Make each battle about something other than killing each other. This would simulataneously add realism and a necessary counter to one-trick armies.

Nerfing of blackpowder firearms. A napoleonic era musket was lucky to get three shots in a minute. A man with a longbow can get six. Longbows have an effective range up to 300 yards. Handguns would be lucky to be half that.

Wintersdark
03-10-2005, 23:16
Ugh... don't try to make rules changes based on realism, it really doesn't work in the grand scheme of things. The combat system is VERY, VERY abstract. Attempting to make it more realistic is doomed to failure. One could argue that Heavy Cav isn't terribly well implemented from a realism viewpoint, much like one could argue that chariots aren't either (they were NEVER used for what they do in Warhammer!) However, the game works with them as they are now. "Realism" isn't needed, particularly considering that people will never decide on which of the proposed ideas are more realistic anyways.

Any changes made to Heavy Cav, for example, should be made within the current system to attempt to better balance them, not to make them work more realistically, much like how in the change from 5th to 6th edition, chariots where changed to be single entities you fire at, rather than randomising hits between the crew, chariot body, and steeds. It's less "realistic" but far more practical from a gaming perspective.