PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions for 8th Edition - more realistic rules



Odin
14-01-2008, 15:50
I’d like to see the next edition of Warhammer do more to accurately represent the way weapons really work. Some of you may argue that this is fantasy and therefore doesn’t need to be historically accurate, but I would assume a halberd works much the same in the Warhammer world as it does in our world. Obviously it is important that we have a game that is (a) fun, and (b) reasonably balanced, but I think that can be achieved, and in fact improved by making things a bit more “realistic” (for want of a better word).

An example – a wall of spears should be a particularly effective weapon against cavalry. Charging a unit of spearmen in the front should be a worrying prospect even for Chosen Knights and Blood Knights. I would suggest they ought to benefit from +1 Strength when charged in the front by cavalry. Perhaps they should even strike first when charged as well?

Halberds work in a similar way when charged by cavalry – they generally have a spearhead as well as the axe blade, and are formed into a wall of spikes to impale charging horses. They ought to count as spears when charged by cavalry in the front (though obviously two-handed, so no shields). The existing rules should continue to apply the rest of the time.

Cavalry are currently reckoned to be a bit too powerful – hence GW is increasing the cost of a lot of cavalry, particularly knights, as they re-release the army books. I think my suggestions above would be a far better way of balancing things out, and make it more realistic at the same time.

Missile weapons are also a bit of a problem, as they can only fire in one rank. This means predictable battlefields – every player with missile troops wants at least one hill on each side of the battlefield, nicely within the deployment zone. If they don’t get it, it means clumsy long units all over the battlefield. But most missile weapons were frequently fired in two or even more ranks historically. Certainly bows would use volley fire (at least it’s in LotR!), firing over the heads of their comrades to rain arrows down on the enemy. Troops armed with muskets would also fire in two or three ranks. Not sure about crossbows, but I assume it’s pretty easy to aim a crossbow between the people in front of you rather than into the back of their head!

Also to consider – Bows were indeed less powerful than crossbows generally (though the longbow was an exception, still the same S3 in WHFB), and crossbows were much easier to fire accurately, but longbowmen could fire about 12 shots a minute, while crossbowmen could generally manage one shot in that time (I believe that comes from stat comes from the 100 Years War).

Not sure what the answer is here, but I would suggest that missile troops should perhaps be able to fire in two ranks, OR maybe bows should be able to fire twice with a -1 to hit penalty, or perhaps both.

The main advantage to early gunpowder weapons wasn't the power (they were inaccurate, unreliable and very slow to reload), it was the fear they caused that was their main advantage, especially against horses. Perhaps a blackpowder unit that stands and shoots also causes fear to the unit it shoots at. If the fear test is failed, the unit obviously cannot charge. Perhaps this could be restricted to cavalry again.

Thoughts, anyone?

W0lf
14-01-2008, 15:53
Hmmm extra rules like this could be good but itd greatly upset the balance of the game untill all books had a 8th edition army book. Not sure.

Rodman49
14-01-2008, 15:54
Most of your rules seem to complicate the game significantly, which I say is bad for any game system. On the other hand differentiating weapons like the bow/crossbow/handgun thing is a generally good idea. And halberds need a huge buff.

L192837465
14-01-2008, 16:04
a halberds +1 s is great as it is. it makes normal infantry worth it. spears fighting in 2 ranks is perfect as it stands.

a unit of handgunners causing fear after standing and shooting is rediculous. it essentially sounds like you have a lot of problems and/or hatred against knights. you field a unit of chosen chaos knights and tell me they're too good.

and 8th edition? good god, its not going to be upgraded until... what, 2010? blegh.

\i wash my hands of this thread.
\\all of what was stated is opinion.

Wolfmother
14-01-2008, 16:12
its fantasy

pst orks dont exist

theunwantedbeing
14-01-2008, 16:14
Note that historically, a wall of spears was not particularly effective against cavalry.
Specifically heavy cavalry, as these were designed to defeat spearmen.
It was only with the introduction of the pike that heavy cavalry was actually negated by these "spearmen".
These were 2 handed spears, not the 1 handed warhammer variety.

Halberds simply arent long enough to work like 2 handed spears, they work like 1 handed spears.

Nerf heavy cavalry eh?
Seems thats your only wish so far.

So you want to inctroduce far more shooting into the game eh?
We'de need a notable change in the ballistic skill chart for that to happen or a large increase in the cost of missle troops.

Why would it be just cavalry?
Surely EVERYONE would suffer the fear effect, a knight in full armour is going to be less worried about a few inaccurate shots than a bloke on foot with no armour.

Any actual rules sugguestions?
At the moment the rules we have are pretty good for a representation of historical warfare.

Odin
14-01-2008, 16:19
a halberds +1 s is great as it is. it makes normal infantry worth it. spears fighting in 2 ranks is perfect as it stands.

That must be why Emprire halberdiers are so popular. :rolleyes: Halberds are pretty rubbish at the moment, and don't really have rules that represent how they work. If the rules for great weapons was fight in two ranks but -1 strength, you'd say "hang on a second, that's completely inappropriate" - well the current rules for halberds are pretty inappropriate to what they do.

Spears aren't very good against what they SHOULD be good against, which is cavalry.


a unit of handgunners causing fear after standing and shooting is rediculous. it essentially sounds like you have a lot of problems and/or hatred against knights. you field a unit of chosen chaos knights and tell me they're too good.

Why is that ridiculous? That's pretty close to the effect they had on the battlefield. And I field Chosen Knights all the time, and they are a little bit too good. I don't field any armies with blackpowder weapons. This is not some personal issue, I'd just like to see slightly more realistic rules (which would obviously need to be balanced out).


and 8th edition? good god, its not going to be upgraded until... what, 2010? blegh.


Hopefully it won't even be out that soon. But that's no reason not to discuss potential improvements. Would you prefer it if I wait until the rules have already been sent off to the printers and it's too late to change anything?

The fact is, Warhammer has been trundling along for several editions without many changes. I just think GW should have a look at the weapons rules with a view to making them slightly more appropriate to the weapons they represent. My first post was just throwing a few ideas out there.

W0lf
14-01-2008, 16:22
And I field Chosen Knights all the time, and they are a little bit too good

shhhhhh. No need to let everyone know now is there..

Odin
14-01-2008, 16:24
its fantasy

pst orks dont exist

So, if the rules for shortbows were "+2 strength in close combat, always strike last" you'd be happy with that would you? Cos it's fantasy so it doesn't matter. Or would you say "hold on a second - that's not what shortbows do!"?

Wolfmother
14-01-2008, 16:39
no id love it and id also do an army of goblin bowmen! rofl

theres mechanical horses at the same time as there using bows its not real it dosent matter

Odin
14-01-2008, 16:42
Note that historically, a wall of spears was not particularly effective against cavalry.
Specifically heavy cavalry, as these were designed to defeat spearmen.
It was only with the introduction of the pike that heavy cavalry was actually negated by these "spearmen".
These were 2 handed spears, not the 1 handed warhammer variety.

Halberds simply arent long enough to work like 2 handed spears, they work like 1 handed spears.


That's what I was hoping for - informed discussion!



Nerf heavy cavalry eh?
Seems thats your only wish so far.

I use heavy cavalry a lot. I don't have any armies with halberds, spears or blackpowder weapons. It's just generally accepted (I think) that heavy cavalry was a bit too good in 6th edition, and GW are upping the cost, in some cases quite dramatically. I simply wondered if there was a better way of balancing out heavy cav without making the ludicriously expensive.


So you want to inctroduce far more shooting into the game eh?
We'de need a notable change in the ballistic skill chart for that to happen or a large increase in the cost of missle troops.

I don't want to introduce far more shooting. Just make missile units less cumbersome, and slightly more realistic. But it would be a significant change, and would need to be well thought out (which is not something I am really able to do while sitting in the office pretending to be hard at work!).



Why would it be just cavalry?
Surely EVERYONE would suffer the fear effect, a knight in full armour is going to be less worried about a few inaccurate shots than a bloke on foot with no armour.

I thought I explained that one - the sound was particularly effective at terrifying horses, and the riders often had trouble keeping their steeds under control.

Chiron
14-01-2008, 16:44
My hopes for weapon rules.

Spears, +1 strength and strike first when charged by cavalry to the front. Fight in 2 ranks
Pikes - as they are now
Both of these should require cavalry charging to the front to pass a Ld test in order to charge to represent horse's shying away.

Halberds - S as user and -2 to armour save minimum (not great at wounding but fantastic to penetrate weak spots in armour)
Swords - as usual (bleh)
Bowmen - can fire in two ranks
GW stay the same
Handguns - stay the same

EvC
14-01-2008, 16:46
Personally I think war machines and chariots need the biggest changing... and yes you can scream NERF!!!! at me, I don't care :D

E.g:
Stone Throwers: allow armour saves for partial hits. They're already too devestating for infantry.
Cannons: D3 wounds each maximum!
Chariots: Models in base to base contact after charging are automatically hit by the impact hits. Other models get to make an initiatie test to avoid the damage. They should not be able to devestate entire units by themselves!

W0lf
14-01-2008, 16:47
Both of these should require cavalry charging to the front to pass a Ld test in order to charge to represent horse's shying away.

actually historically itd be the other way around.

17th century warfare usually saw the pike vs horse fight come out with the horse winning.

Dicipline was so bad pikemen would lose nerve and break at the sight of 300+ charging cavalry, drop their pikes and flee.

Odin
14-01-2008, 16:47
theres mechanical horses at the same time as there using bows its not real it dosent matter

I really don't understand this attitude. Of course it's fantasy, but it's fantasy based on real life. Humans are much like the humans in the real world, horses are much like horses in the real world, shields help protect you, bows allow you to shoot arrows. I don't expect some kind of anally-retentive set of rules that meticulously replicate medieval warfare - I just think it's worth GW looking at the rules and thinking "is there anything we can do better here".

Chiron
14-01-2008, 16:53
actually historically itd be the other way around.

17th century warfare usually saw the pike vs horse fight come out with the horse winning.

Dicipline was so bad pikemen would lose nerve and break at the sight of 300+ charging cavalry, drop their pikes and flee.


Screw historically, I want a reason to take something other than HW&S all the damn time!

But logically I see Empire spearmen and elven spearmen as a lot more disciplined than historical counterparts, perhaps special rules for the more well trained armies to make cav take the test and one for horde armies to take the test?

Odin
14-01-2008, 16:56
actually historically itd be the other way around.

17th century warfare usually saw the pike vs horse fight come out with the horse winning.

Dicipline was so bad pikemen would lose nerve and break at the sight of 300+ charging cavalry, drop their pikes and flee.

Hmmm, but take the battle of Stirling Bridge, where the Scots infantry (a lot of them armed with those two-handed spears theunwantedbeing was talking about earlier) massacred the English heavy cavalry.

It's a tricky one - obviously discipline is represented by the Ld characteristic, but you won't take a break test until after the first round of combat, not before. You could say that heavy cav cause fear on the charge, but again, this runs the risk of overcomplicating things.

Odin
14-01-2008, 16:58
Screw historically, I want a reason to take something other than HW&S all the damn time!


Indeed - there's a balance to be struck between the realities of medieval warfare, the background of the warhammer world, and creating a fun and balanced game.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
14-01-2008, 17:03
push back

if the enemy loses combat by say 3 points and pass the leadership test they are pushed back 3", so lose by 1 = 1", 2= 2" up to a certain maximum to stop the enemy from winning by 20 and you getting double 1

exceptions would be undead and things unbreakable

W0lf
14-01-2008, 17:03
so you want more realistic rules and then say 'screw what happened in real life'.

Im confused..

W0lf
14-01-2008, 17:05
one rule ive always felt should be in place is that any army that has no wizards gets +4 DD. (base 6, dwarves would still only get 6 and it would be reduced to 4 if you took a runesmith)

This would mean armies wouldnt need to include magic and magic defense would be easier to attain.

Maybe +3 dd then an extra +1 for each 1k points added or sumthing?

mightygnoblar
14-01-2008, 17:10
right i think that a clever way to make this work and a good way to represent the dicipline of spear formations is to give them a rule that upon a succesful Ld test the spears strike first and have +1 strength against cavalry

scratchbuilt
14-01-2008, 17:16
I agree with making things more historically accurate. I just don't happen to know squat about actual historical combat:o.
I think upsetting 'balance' is no reason not to change, as balance isn't perfect now either.
Bows being able to volley fire seems the most needed change to me. But I wonder if that occurs at the range whfb illustrates?

Dominatrix
14-01-2008, 17:25
Not to crazy about your suggestion Odin. What they will basically do is nerf cavalry armies and make gunlines all the more popular. In the end everyone will just form a line of bows/ guns and shoot each other to oblivion. If that is realism then I happily pass.

Odin
14-01-2008, 17:26
One thing I ask people to bear in mind is that my suggested changes for spears will give them a small boost against heavy cavalry, but I suspect some of you are worried it will completely "nerf" heavy cav. Let me give an example.

A unit of 24 Empire Spearmen, 6 models wide receives a charge from a unit of 5 undivided chosen knights. For simplicity's sake, no champions.

Using the current rules, the chosen knights would cause on average about 7 wounds on the charge (I make it 6.94...). 5 spearmen get to strike back, causing on average 0.139 wounds (i.e. the chances are they will cause no wounds!).

Using my suggested rules, giving the spearmen +1 strength and always strike first against cavalry charging their front, the spearmen would cause on average 0.5 wounds on the charging knights (not exactly a massacre!), and would still suffer pretty horrific casualties in return (an average of about 6 I think, though it gets into fairly complex statistics at this stage).

Not exactly going to make heavy cavalry useless is it? Just give spearmen a slight boost, and a chance of not dying horribly.

Odin
14-01-2008, 17:29
Not to crazy about your suggestion Odin. What they will basically do is nerf cavalry armies and make gunlines all the more popular. In the end everyone will just form a line of bows/ guns and shoot each other to oblivion. If that is realism then I happily pass.

Absolutely - the most important thing is to have a fun game. I completely agree that we don't want to see nothing but static gunlines. Check my last post to see why I don't think it would be that significant a "nerf" to heavy cavalry. These changes could not be made in isolation, they would have to be part of a carefully considered re-working of the rules, including the Army Books.

W0lf
14-01-2008, 17:32
The porblem is what you've suggested is fine but as you say wont have any real impact.

So arnt you just adding rules for rules sake?

Thats a bad thing.

Cherrystone
14-01-2008, 17:47
8th edition:
*Make every weapon type unique and tactical in different situations.

*Re-introduce Lapping around or another mechanic to represent the escalation of combat, allowing the troops you brought to use their characteristics to actually fight.

*Better shooting - shoot in 2 ranks for 'straight' fire weaponary and massed archery for the bow types.

*If armybooks to change have missile troops (if fluffy) with worse WS and or Ld then their more combat brothers. This will also balance the extra ranks a missile unit will now deploy in given the above rule.

*Pushbacks in combat. (i still use the 3rd ed rules for this).

*Some sort of combat disengagement / withdrawl.

*Better magic.

Jan Skarthen
14-01-2008, 17:48
Hmmm, but take the battle of Stirling Bridge, where the Scots infantry (a lot of them armed with those two-handed spears theunwantedbeing was talking about earlier) massacred the English heavy cavalry.

It's a tricky one - obviously discipline is represented by the Ld characteristic, but you won't take a break test until after the first round of combat, not before. You could say that heavy cav cause fear on the charge, but again, this runs the risk of overcomplicating things.

Sorry but The Battle of Stirling Bridge needs put into some perspective as an example.

The English sent English and Welsh foot troops across the wooden Bridge first to form a a bridgehead however the ground beyond was boggy and they remained on a causeway across the soft ground. The heavy cav followed them over and moved off the causeway onto bogland partly due to the foot troops slow advance.

The Scots had taken position on slopes overlooking the battlefield armed with 12' long spears. At the critical moment as the English got 'bogged' down Wallace gave the order and the Scots charged down the slopes to reach the bridgehead and trap a large number of the English who perished , trapped between the Scottish spears and the river. What cavalry had crossed the bridge was soon in toruble on the boggy ground, and those fighting to retreat back over the bridge were blocked by those still advancing. Only one English heavy cavalry regiment made it back across the bridge taking heavy losses/

Not quite a wall of spears meeting a heavy cavalry charge head on.

Ethlorien
14-01-2008, 18:03
@ Cherrystone: Sorry, but I'm not familiar with Pushbacks (got into the game at the start of 6th edition). Could you enlighten me?

Thanks

Sideros Peltarion
14-01-2008, 18:04
Make battles like Crecy actually possible. ie the spear rules and buff bows.

theunwantedbeing
14-01-2008, 18:10
If you want realism you need to introduce rules for making enemy units have to take a test or just run from heavy cavalry units that charge them, with negative modifiers if they are going to get charge din the flank/rear.

Spears need to be of different lengths, ie a longspear (which you use 2 handed and can outreach a lance) and a normal spear which you use 1 handed is of no use against cavalry.(but allows fighting in ranks still).

You also need to differentiate between hacking and slashing weapons and stabbing weapons.
This would allow armour saves to work in multiple ways so that some armours work best vs stabbing weapons, while other's vs hacking weapons. The best ones working against all types equally well.

ie. chanmail works well vs hacking weapons, but vs stabbing weapons its a bit pants.

Pushing back would be a useful addition for equally matched troops, and you could allow elite troops to be able to voluntarily fall back a few inches to possibly gain some advantage that way.

Obviously the game length will need to be extended somewhat(say doubled) to provide more chance to make use of all the extra combat rules.

With longbows you have several sorts of arrow tips you can use.
ie. pointed hardened steed ones would be good for punching through flat armour, while fishbone is it?(I forget all the names) would be rubbish vs that type but very good against unarmoured foes.

The volley fire rule would have to have disadvantages, maybe not a -1 to hit penalty but an inability to effectively flee...so flee distances are reduced to a single D6 perhaps.
Perhaps both to diminish the efectiveness of shooting troops.

etc etc lots and lots of rules

Ethlorien
14-01-2008, 18:19
Keep the game the same as is, yet introduce an Advanced advanced version incorporating all this extra rules for depth and realism.

Dominatrix
14-01-2008, 18:31
Keep the game the same as is, yet introduce an Advanced advanced version incorporating all this extra rules for depth and realism.

Sorry but I fail to see the use in something like that. Warhammer has never been the most realistic miniature wargame (of the top of my head i can think of DBM been light years ahead in realism).

What makes it so popular, is that its rules are a good compromise between being realistic, and being simple enough to make the game move along in a relatively fast pace.

Tip this balance too much in the realism direction and you will make the game sluggish (the same way that tipping the balance too much in the fun direction will make it bland and simplistic).

galenus
14-01-2008, 18:36
Alternatively, you could play Warhammer Historicals. Not being snippy, the "realism" game just already exists and historicals can be every bit as interesting as fantasy. If you really want to make a comparison between the Heroic fantasy world and the historical world...Archaon had the backing of the dark gods of chaos, a suit of armour and magical ward saves if near-invincibleness, and an innumerable host of warriors and daemons at his command but failed to sack one major city. Alexander and friends conquered most of the known world with light armour and a lance.

Ethlorien
14-01-2008, 18:43
[QUOTE=Dominatrix;2260181]Sorry but I fail to see the use in something like that. Warhammer has never been the most realistic miniature wargame (of the top of my head i can think of DBM been light years ahead in realism)./QUOTE]

Hey, I'm all for keeping the rule as is - it was just a suggestion for those that want a little more realism. Hell, I'm not ready to buy another $65 rule book yet anyways!

Wolfmother
14-01-2008, 19:06
yer i agree the rulebooks are overpriced £30!

ZeroTwentythree
14-01-2008, 19:13
Push-backs happened if you won combat but your enemy didn't break. You shoved them back -- 3" I think, or maybe it was a variable number of inches connected to how much you won combat? Too long ago to remember.

It was one of the rules I was also sad to see removed from the game.

Shamfrit
14-01-2008, 19:27
The only problem with multiple rank firing with bows is that, as can be seen from a historical perspective, it is incredibly difficult to fire through your opponent's back.

The normal formation for Bowmen is several feet apart, with ranks a foot or so off kilt with the one in front of it. This makes it a very loose formation, but it allows all the archers to fire up, over and through.

Now, one rank bowmen have no problem here. The only solution would be to deploy the archers with a model on and model off, which would look weird. Or to introduce a rule something along the lines of the following, to represent the rear ranks firing over, in a hindered volley:

Front Rank Fires As Normal.
2nd Rank Fires at -1 BS, as they can still 'see' targets and this represents the angle firing.
3rd Rank Fires at -2 BS, since it's a straight up down affair.
4th Rank Fires at -3 BS. Firing over the entire unit.

These modifiers could be in addition to move and fire, and cover/skirmishers etc. Which would effectively give 3/4 rank shooting only to the elves or elites, as is reflective in the old Citizen Levy rule.

It would also give the feel of the entire unit sending one mass arrow volley up and down like steel rain, as apposed to Legolas like sniping with arrows going straight forward seemingly unstoppable...

Thoughts?

(Although I'm fine with the rules as they are, just wondered what we could come up with for some House Rule fun, since 8th Edition is at least 2 years away!)

Shimmergloom
14-01-2008, 19:30
push back

if the enemy loses combat by say 3 points and pass the leadership test they are pushed back 3", so lose by 1 = 1", 2= 2" up to a certain maximum to stop the enemy from winning by 20 and you getting double 1

exceptions would be undead and things unbreakable

push back would hurt you alot of the times.

The last thing you want to do is push back an enemy unit so that he can flank charge you with units in the flank now that you've exposed it to his units.

Nor would you want to push back and put your own units out of range or LOS of the enemy's flank.

If it was optional maybe, but I think it's better off being left out.

happy_doctor
14-01-2008, 19:48
If it is realism we're discussing here, the way many weapons work would have to be changed:

-Spears: +1 strength vs cavalry and strike first against it

-Halberds: armour piercing as many have said before me

-Handguns:Given the fact that blackpowder weapons are fairly new contraptions, i'd give them a -1 on the to hit roll, to reflect their primitive nature.

-Bows: Fire volley shots (2 ranks instead of one)

-Lonbows: armour piercing (similar to the british longbow)

What I'd really like to see is a weather conditions chart, with effects ranging from snow and rain, to desert conditions.
This would provide for more challenging battles. For example, heavy rain could render blackpowder weapons largely ineffective and slow mounted troops.

Any thoughts on this?

Ethlorien
14-01-2008, 19:59
I've played around with the idea of weather and of time (dusk, midnight, etc...). Never really got anything off the ground (used to use modifiers to shots with heavy wind, and stuff like that). I would love to see some kind of optional Events chart that players can roll before each game to represent these factors. Heavy snow and wind might hamper a player's gunline, while muddy ground could spell disaster for cavalry.

Odin
14-01-2008, 20:00
If it is realism we're discussing here, the way many weapons work would have to be changed:

-Spears: +1 strength vs cavalry and strike first against it

-Halberds: armour piercing as many have said before me

-Handguns:Given the fact that blackpowder weapons are fairly new contraptions, i'd give them a -1 on the to hit roll, to reflect their primitive nature.

-Bows: Fire volley shots (2 ranks instead of one)

-Lonbows: armour piercing (similar to the british longbow)

What I'd really like to see is a weather conditions chart, with effects ranging from snow and rain, to desert conditions.
This would provide for more challenging battles. For example, heavy rain could render blackpowder weapons largely ineffective and slow mounted troops.

Any thoughts on this?

I was actually working on a system of randomised battlefield events. Tables to represent difficult weather conditions etc (muddy ground, snow, blazing sunshine). Including one table of various random things like ammunition shortages (like the English had at Crecy), desertions...

Basically, there are very very few battles from history that fit the pitched battle format of most Warhammer games, so I wanted to inject some life into my games - might submit it to Watchman if it works out well.

ZeroTwentythree
14-01-2008, 20:06
The only problem with multiple rank firing with bows is that, as can be seen from a historical perspective, it is incredibly difficult to fire through your opponent's back.

The normal formation for Bowmen is several feet apart, with ranks a foot or so off kilt with the one in front of it. This makes it a very loose formation, but it allows all the archers to fire up, over and through.

Now, one rank bowmen have no problem here. The only solution would be to deploy the archers with a model on and model off, which would look weird. Or to introduce a rule something along the lines of the following, to represent the rear ranks firing over, in a hindered volley:



Not the only solution. I can think of 2 more.

One would be to put archers on larger bases, representing more space they require to fire. This would put them at a disadvantage in melee, as fewer could get into BTB.

Another would be to deny them rank bonuses for CR, representing the fact that they are in a loose formation to fire en masse, so don't have the strength of a truly ranked unit.



push back would hurt you alot of the times.

The last thing you want to do is push back an enemy unit so that he can flank charge you with units in the flank now that you've exposed it to his units.

Nor would you want to push back and put your own units out of range or LOS of the enemy's flank.

If it was optional maybe, but I think it's better off being left out.


Push backs encourage a more "battle line" way of thinking and deploying in depth. What we have now is lone units, or sometimes units with flankers, roaming all over the battlefield. But with push-backs you'd frequently be better off in a tighter formation, and would be wise to keep some troops in reserve behind the main line, so they could both discourage flankers, plus take advantage of any holes opened up by push-backs.

Odin
14-01-2008, 20:09
Alternatively, you could play Warhammer Historicals. Not being snippy, the "realism" game just already exists and historicals can be every bit as interesting as fantasy. If you really want to make a comparison between the Heroic fantasy world and the historical world...Archaon had the backing of the dark gods of chaos, a suit of armour and magical ward saves if near-invincibleness, and an innumerable host of warriors and daemons at his command but failed to sack one major city. Alexander and friends conquered most of the known world with light armour and a lance.

I have been contemplating that very thing recently. Not sure which era I'd go for, but probably either 3rd crusade or 100 years war.

Chiron
14-01-2008, 20:11
I like the Night Before battle rules in WD quite a lot, random personalities for your units leaders

http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/6th-ed-warhammer/dwarf-tactica/night-before-by-nigel-stillman.html

Lars Porsenna
14-01-2008, 21:00
The only problem with multiple rank
Front Rank Fires As Normal.
2nd Rank Fires at -1 BS, as they can still 'see' targets and this represents the angle firing.
3rd Rank Fires at -2 BS, since it's a straight up down affair.
4th Rank Fires at -3 BS. Firing over the entire unit.

Thoughts?


Needlessly complex IMHO.

If you want more realism in the game, then mining WAB is definitely the way to go. WAB uses a special rule called "Massed Archery" or somesuch, essentially saying that the front ranks fire as normal, but only every other model in the rear ranks gets to fire. Thus a unit of 24 bowmen get 6 shots from the first rank, but only 9 from the rear ranks (18 guys left in the rear). Still that's 15 full arrow-shots, but it does mean that I don't Have to track which dice are at BS3, BS2, BS1, etc.

There are other rules in WAB I'd love to see ported over to WHFB (like Light INfantry, etc). In general I think WAB is a more solid game, and have sometimes thought about running Fantasy in WAB (porting over the special rules as needed). Runing a Fantasy army vs historical one is not reccommended, since WAB used 5th ed points costs...

Damon, though I think Byzantines might still be competative.

Lars Porsenna
14-01-2008, 21:07
I have been contemplating that very thing recently. Not sure which era I'd go for, but probably either 3rd crusade or 100 years war.

HYW is the way to go. The current Armies of CHivalry supplement is a good one, and with a bit of research and correct troop choices, you can pretty much do the entire war (I'd use the WotR list however for Formingy and Castillon). 3rd Crusade less so. Currently the only list IIRC is in the Armies of Antiquity supplement (no roled into the WAB 1.5 rulebook), and it's a little "overpowered" IMHO. Personally, the "crusader" armies I want to do are either the Sword Brothers (for the Northern Crusades) or the Achaian Franks. That'd be a fun army to research and model...

Damon.

R Man
14-01-2008, 22:26
The problem with making shooting more potent is it might actually make Infantry less effective than they are currently as infantry will, due to slower speed and less armour, suffer badly to shooting.

Halberds are very effective weapons on tough, well armoured troops like Grave Guards and Chaos Warriors but while the +1 Strength is good it leaves militia type troops too vulnerable to counter attacks.

While making spears +1 Strength is reasonable against heavy cav it does hit light cav a little too hard.

If anything the game should focus more on syrengy between different units to disuade people from using all cav or all gunline armies. There is something of this in the HE book with their magic and the VC corpse cart, and maybe Empire detatchments as well.

fracas
14-01-2008, 22:32
allow bows to indirect fire (guess range) using large template but all under the template are partials hits. scatter as usual for wind.

pikes strike first at cavalry charges

spears +1S vs cavalry charges

ZeroTwentythree
14-01-2008, 22:36
The problem with making shooting more potent is it might actually make Infantry less effective than they are currently as infantry will, due to slower speed and less armour, suffer badly to shooting.


And we all know that no one likes gunlines under the current rules!



While making spears +1 Strength is reasonable against heavy cav it does hit light cav a little too hard.


I don't see that as an entirely bad thing. Light cav shouldn't be going toe-to-toe with formed infantry anyway. If you make the +1S to the front only (which makes sense), then light cav can still do its weasely flanking business. I'd also limit this to the first turn of combat. I'm not sure the strike first is necessarily a good idea for simple spears, either.

Odin
14-01-2008, 22:37
Needlessly complex IMHO.

If you want more realism in the game, then mining WAB is definitely the way to go. WAB uses a special rule called "Massed Archery" or somesuch, essentially saying that the front ranks fire as normal, but only every other model in the rear ranks gets to fire. Thus a unit of 24 bowmen get 6 shots from the first rank, but only 9 from the rear ranks (18 guys left in the rear). Still that's 15 full arrow-shots, but it does mean that I don't Have to track which dice are at BS3, BS2, BS1, etc.

Problem is, that would allow huge ranked up units of archers, while historically (as far as I know anyway) archers always formed up in fairly thin lines - not a cumbersome single rank like WHFB, but not in a big block either. The practical limit of +1 rank bonus would nicely reflect the fact that they aren't in as solid a formation as close combat infantry.

Shamfrit
14-01-2008, 22:38
allow bows to indirect fire (guess range) using large template but all under the template are partials hits. scatter as usual for wind.



That pretty much is spot on a simplified version of what I was trying to get at. Great big hails falling down, occasionally vying into your own unit or falling short because the angle was wrong etc.


I guess i've been playing Mordheim too much, i've gotten used to rolling two seperate dice for Verminkin because they've got a dagger/sword dagger/axe etc.
I don't see it as cumbersome....myself anyway.

I've just thought, perhaps paying say, 10 points for some units, training allowance, and put the first rank as crouching models, allowing two ranks to shoot, but giving the first rank -1ws because they're kneeling or -2 M" running since it's kinda hard to run when you've got dirt digging into your knees....or am I babbling?

Odin
14-01-2008, 22:43
I don't see that as an entirely bad thing. Light cav shouldn't be going toe-to-toe with formed infantry anyway. If you make the +1S to the front only (which makes sense), then light cav can still do its weasely flanking business. I'd also limit this to the first turn of combat. I'm not sure the strike first is necessarily a good idea for simple spears, either.

Absolutely - light cavalry should never, ever, under any circumstances want to charge into the front of a fully ranked up unit of spearmen. If you can't get a flank charge with fast cavalry you don't deserve them.

Odin
14-01-2008, 22:46
I've just thought, perhaps paying say, 10 points for some units, training allowance, and put the first rank as crouching models, allowing two ranks to shoot, but giving the first rank -1ws because they're kneeling or -2 M" running since it's kinda hard to run when you've got dirt digging into your knees....or am I babbling?

I suspect they'd probably just stand up if they wanted to move or fight in close combat.

L192837465
14-01-2008, 22:56
they wouldnt crawl like babes when they move, they would get up and walk like a human being.

nothing needs to be done with shooting! i don't see what everyones problem is with it! yes, if we wanted to make things more realistic, we'd be using D10s or even D20s for our "to hits" and any rolls needed. that right there sums up why "realism" and Warhammer" do not really stack.

the whole "archers firing indirectly"? wtf? i'm going to try and sum this up in a conversation:
leader: "allright men, we're firing just over that forest that we cannot see through!"
dude: "how far is it?"
Leader: ".. what?"
dude: "i said how far is it?"
leader: "how should i know? lets all pull back the exact same on our bows and hope for the best, shall we? on 3!"

etc etc


does this strike anyone else as rediculous? allright, spears get +1 strength against heavy cav. now ALL heavy cav have the lance formation and special rules and after the first round of combat, the knights are formed directly behind the unit they ran through, using any movement left over from the charge to turn.


\my opinions.
\\ dumb conversation... why did i type this!?
\\\GRRRRR WARSEER!
\\\\slashies.

Odin
14-01-2008, 23:07
I'd expect archers to still need line of sight from the front rank. The second rank can see over the front ranks shoulders.

As for the rest of it, I think you'll find I've said several times I'm not suggesting that WHFB should try to become a detailed simulation of combat. I'm simply suggesting a few carefully considered tweaks to make units operate slightly more like they ought to. That's the point of bringing out new editions of WHFB surely? (well, that and getting £30 off all of us every few years)

Ymir
14-01-2008, 23:10
I agree with a lot mentioned here - especially I believe spears should be more effective versus cavalry, and bows should be able to fire in two ranks. If we -really- want a more historically accurate Warhammer, however, both stone throwers and chariots should vanish completely, which would not be that cool, really, because I love chariots. Stone throwers, historically, are not nearly accurate enough to have ever been used in ordinary battles, and bolt throwers and chariots are devices of antiquity and the bronze age, severely outdated in all medieval warfare - only the britons and such still used the chariot in year 1 CE, - neither the romans nor the chinese had used it in battle for centuries. With the invention of the stirrup, the chariot became totally obsolete, as heavy cavalry was much more cost-effective and not nearly as fragile.

In a more historically accurate Warhammer, heavy cavalry should do impact hits, and chariots would only be used in armies that -are- actually extremely out-of-date, like the Tomb Kings. Stone throwers wouldn't exist, except in siege scenarios.

What I -really- miss, however, is the ability to 'lap around' a smaller enemy fighting block. As I recall you could do that in the last edition. In real battles, a larger, wider formation that charges a smaller one would of course use this to its advantage, overlapping the flanks of the enemy. This is completely impossible in this edition of Warhammer, which irritates me to no end - it is -so- unrealistic, and looks so dumb on the table when a unit attacks a smaller unit and most of the guys in the front of the larger units just stands still and does nothing while a few guys in the middle fight. I never played the edition before this one, so I don't know why they removed those rules, but come on! A game like Warhammer -needs- them. It is sooo cheap when a chaos lord single-handedly defeats a whole block of ushabti just because the rules prevents them from ganging up on him.

Lars Porsenna
14-01-2008, 23:22
Problem is, that would allow huge ranked up units of archers, while historically (as far as I know anyway) archers always formed up in fairly thin lines - not a cumbersome single rank like WHFB, but not in a big block either. The practical limit of +1 rank bonus would nicely reflect the fact that they aren't in as solid a formation as close combat infantry.

I guess I should also mention that archers on their own in WAB (that is, units that are not using the Combined Formation rule with heavy infantry) are typically light infantry, so only get a +1 rank bonus in combat resolution already due to the fact they are Light Infantry.

I have yet to see, nor hear of, any anecdotal evidence of huge blocks of archers firing in multiple ranks like that. I think after a while, a "law of diminishing returns" begins to set in. Besides, having more units (or more "frontage" per an archer unit) is always going to be better than having massive blocks of archers. Consider, 2 archer units of 24 models (4 ranks) gets 15 shots per (for a total of 30 bowshots), while 4 units of 12 (2 ranks) gets 9 shots per (total 36). For the fact that the 4 units are slightly more expensive (assuming you take full command), the extra 6 shots is definitely worth it IMHO.

Damon.

Zoolander
14-01-2008, 23:29
Odin, I agree with your sentiments. There are to many unrealisitic aspects of the game that bother me too - like why you flee towards the enemy that made you run, just because it's the nearest table edge, or why undead are affected by poison or can use musical instruments.

However, in the end, it would become a more boring game, as everyone suddenly started fielding units with the same weapons, same setup, etc. At least the way it is now, you have a variety of options open to you.

Shamfrit
14-01-2008, 23:41
Archers in historical battles were usually, if not always (, at the scale a 2k point battle implies) considerably larger in size than they are in the current Warhammer Universe. Of course, that's The Old World, this is Earth, and several centuries on, but, the fact remains. You wouldn't have 200 men, and only have 20 archers. You can see it now, vast, thousands strong armies, instead of massive hails of arrows like post 1300/1400 warfare on scale began to see, you'd get 20 arrows whittling over the battlefield knocking 8 men down...instead of 100. I know there's a problem with scaling, but archers need to do just that, Arch.

There is absolutely NO president in the current rule/meta to even begin thinking about ranking Archers beyond 2 ranks, I only saw HE do it before with Levy, now I've not seen it at all.

We're also missing a vital point here. In our warfare history, crossbows changed the way wars were fought, even more so than Muskets, hell, the Pope even tried to ban the crossbow as it was too powerful, too inhumane, and great units of longbowmen and crossbowmen could destroy a heavily armoured army with relative ease.

To suggest that a large scale force would take a large block of archers, for only 5 to shoot, or 10 (, Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen do will in a wall for some reason...) Whilst the rest do what...stand and giggle?

Shoot up, at the general windfall of the advancing line, as has been done for millennia, right back to the invention of the first bows. There is no reason why hails or volleys can't be introduced, make it a rule for ranged attacks over 24", more shots, less accuracy, scatter, whatever you like. At the moment, fanboi or rulepicker aside, i've not seen a shooting unit that's worth it's points that isn't a War Machine as far as game go. But that's all relative of course.

El Haroldo
14-01-2008, 23:44
I think there's a number of things besides weapon descriptions (some nice ideas going on though) that need altering.

Personally I don't enjoy the fact that there are no rules for scenarios other than those you make yourself. In friendly games we often set an objective 'take that hill, kill each other's general', but I think it would add another dimension to go to a tournament and have a list of scenarios. Yes it's a 40k thing, but it introduces a fun element, and a goal beyond 'let's line up our troops and see who has the most left on the table 6 turns later'.

Regarding Heavy cav in particular, yes, it should be powerful, but plenty of races can get it cheap and as core choices, hence it's prevalence. Change that and you'll see fewer all heavy cav armies. I know the Empire and Bretonnia have a long tradition of knightly orders, but realistically, when their lands are threatened, it would be the state troops/militias that bulk out the army, and the local lord would send a group of veteran knights to lead. More a army book than a rules issue. Moving Silver Helms to special was probably the best decision they made in the HE book, because it recognised the fact that all heavy cav armies tend to be wicked good, hence the rise of gunlines to counter them.

If anything needs to be changed overall rules wise to heavy cav, it's the fact that no matter how heavily armoured the rider was, the horse was vulnerable. Maybe randomised shooting (roll to hit, then roll again; 1-3 resolve hit against bulletproof rider, 4-6 against quite vulnerable steed, successful wound against either, model is removed). This seems needlessly complicated, and not really a good idea but it's all i could think of to introduce some sort of drawback to cavalry. As it currently stands, bringing S3 weapons to a battle against heavy cav is like bringing a stick to a knife fight, as a result, hello gunlines!

mooze
14-01-2008, 23:50
Bows are really woefully inadequate and historically inaccurate as well. General peasant levy bowmen (not post-Henry longbowmen) fired in high arching volleys from relatively dense formations. Bows were not nearly as weak as they are made to be in whfb and different heads were available to penetrate armor such as bodkins.Most medieval European armies had large (often 50%) contingents of archers, why? because they actually killed things.
I would like to see basic bowmen (the ordinary bs3 types) able to fire in four ranks but at -1 to hit. Two ranks at their normal bs3, and up their points a bit to account for this. They might be worth using then and it would add some to the complexity of the battlefield and to the fun of the game. I never worry about bows with heavily armored units as archery is, presently,a joke.

Ymir
15-01-2008, 00:00
I've always thought shields should provide more protection versus missile fire than they currently do. Especially if we wants missile fire to become more effective; shields also ought to be more effective against it; both would be rather historically accurate. I would say 5+ armour save vs missile fire with shields only, instead for 6+. At least if the shields are rather large, like those of the Tomb Kings. (Well, they're skeletons also, the should have like 4+ save versus arrows...)

On a side note, sure, crossbows caused quite a stirrup in Europe, but they weren't really -that- revolutionary. One should remember that they had been used in China for more than a thousand years when they reached Europe, after all. On the other hand, the thing with the crossbow in Europe was that it was an easy weapon for ordinary people to use, which was essential for many uprisings...and the chinese have had quite a few dynasties overthrown by angry peasant mobs, and the bloodiest rebellions in all of history. One could think there might be a connection... ;)

Shamfrit
15-01-2008, 00:07
I've always thought shields should provide more protection versus missile fire than they currently do. Especially if we wants missile fire to become more effective; shields also ought to be more effective against it; both would be rather historically accurate. I would say 5+ armour save vs missile fire with shields only, instead for 6+. At least if the shields are rather large, like those of the Tomb Kings. (Well, they're skeletons also, the should have like 4+ save versus arrows...)

On a side note, sure, crossbows caused quite a stirrup in Europe, but they weren't really -that- revolutionary. One should remember that they had been used in China for more than a thousand years when they reached Europe, after all. On the other hand, the thing with the crossbow in Europe was that it was an easy weapon for ordinary people to use, which was essential for many uprisings...and the chinese have had quite a few dynasties overthrown by angry peasant mobs, and the bloodiest revolts in all of history. One could think there might be a connection... ;)


Bows are really woefully inadequate and historically inaccurate as well. General peasant levy bowmen (not post-Henry longbowmen) fired in high arching volleys from relatively dense formations. Bows were not nearly as weak as they are made to be in whfb and different heads were available to penetrate armor such as bodkins.Most medieval European armies had large (often 50%) contingents of archers, why? because they actually killed things.
I would like to see basic bowmen (the ordinary bs3 types) able to fire in four ranks but at -1 to hit. Two ranks at their normal bs3, and up their points a bit to account for this. They might be worth using then and it would add some to the complexity of the battlefield and to the fun of the game. I never worry about bows with heavily armored units as archery is, presently,a joke.


Both really valid points, especially about Asian use of crossbows Ymir. I suppose in that case, the open plained/fielded conflicts fought in the UK would warrant easier ranged attack use, whereas in the valley ed/treed environment of inland China, the skirmish would take president, and ranged would become more sniping and ambush, with combat taking the greater toll.

Which I think only brings us back to the point of - large open warfare = lots of chance to shoot before ranks are closed, so why aren't we getting anything near that sort of feel?

Heck, give archer units a special rule - Quivers. This unit may fire in volleys only during turn 1 and 2. Would be more realistic, fire off all your arrows, than draw yours swords. If the HE want to be trained and martial, they'd better start showing it!

Lars Porsenna
15-01-2008, 01:29
Most medieval European armies had large (often 50%) contingents of archers, why? because they actually killed things.


I wouldn't scale archers to that level unless dealing with English armies. Most armies (per my analysis) typically came in at 25% archers, 25% cavalry, and 50% infantry.

One army, however, that was sent to help supress the Welsh Revolt in 1400 had something like 5000 archers and 7 knights!

Damon.

fracas
15-01-2008, 02:09
5th edition arrowhead rules allow the whole archer unit to fire at any target the lead model/champion has line of sight to. it was assumed the order to fire included which direction and how far the target it. it was rather unusual in historical terms to limit the bow's killing range to just direct fire.

Lord Raneus
15-01-2008, 02:39
Push-back sounds very realistic. Practical or not, I'd like to have that back-it makes very good sense. The two sides slam into each other, and one begins to push the other back, they don't just stand there.

Zoolander
15-01-2008, 04:21
Bows are really woefully inadequate and historically inaccurate as well. General peasant levy bowmen (not post-Henry longbowmen) fired in high arching volleys from relatively dense formations. Bows were not nearly as weak as they are made to be in whfb and different heads were available to penetrate armor such as bodkins.Most medieval European armies had large (often 50%) contingents of archers, why? because they actually killed things.
I would like to see basic bowmen (the ordinary bs3 types) able to fire in four ranks but at -1 to hit. Two ranks at their normal bs3, and up their points a bit to account for this. They might be worth using then and it would add some to the complexity of the battlefield and to the fun of the game. I never worry about bows with heavily armored units as archery is, presently,a joke.

Keep in mind that in WHFB, each model can represent multiple soldiers. Therefore, it's not really 5 archers in the first row, but maybe 40. Not that your point isn't totally valid, though.

Sir Charles
15-01-2008, 04:24
I thought they did away with that aspect meta game thing?

aenarion67
15-01-2008, 06:30
i think cav is a bit weak sometimes. maybe they should cause impact hits to represent the fact they knock guys over. this also might cure the problem that cav have when the charge white lions. just an idea

forthegloryofkazadekrund
15-01-2008, 09:10
Push-back sounds very realistic. Practical or not, I'd like to have that back-it makes very good sense. The two sides slam into each other, and one begins to push the other back, they don't just stand there.

very true, units could spend 1, 2, 3 turns killing maybe 1 model and getting basicly nowhere, i was thinking the loser could be pushed back a maximum of 3" depending on how much they win combat by - see other post of mine on here - , to stop as i said being beaten by 20, getting double 1



what about being able to disengage from combat, it would be dangerous to the unit trying it but could be worthwhile in some situations

W0lf
15-01-2008, 09:17
Pushback 3" for the loser if the winner wishes to and archer able to fire in two ranks sounds good.

Why not allow archer to fire in one rank at normal bs or 2 ranks with -1 BS ?

ZeroTwentythree
15-01-2008, 14:13
what about being able to disengage from combat, it would be dangerous to the unit trying it but could be worthwhile in some situations



Once again, like the push-back, I think this was part of the rules that got removed in the transition from 3rd to 4th. IIRC you could run from combat, but the enemy got a round of attacks on you which could potentially do enough damage to panic you turning a tactical withdraw into a rout.

Again, it's been a VERY long time so I may not be remembering this 100% correctly. I may be getting different games confused. :angel:

Am I imagining a rule that also said you needed to equal or exceed the movement rate of the enemy from whom you were disengaging? If it wasn't part of the rules, it sounds like a good idea anyway. ;)

sainthale1988
15-01-2008, 14:44
1) i'd make so only units of unit strength 5 or more can march block. i also think that only normal ranked infantry/ cavalry/ 'orge sized' units should be able to march block. at the moment highly mobile caracters, flyers and skermishing scouts are far too good at march blocking large numbers of block infantry into uselessness.

2) chariots can march but loose thier crazy pivot on the spot rules (they should be fast and relatively agile, not slow but able to spin on the spot!)

3) magic has to be better scaled so you don't have to have a 'critiacal mass' of offensive magic to make it worth while. on a spacific note dwarfs should get +1 dispel dice for every full 1000pts rather than the flat rate +2 (much more balance in both smaller and bigger games), and their anvil should work in the magic phase (its a magic item it should be able to be dispelled!). dispel scrolls should roll a dice '1=dosent work, spell gets though, 2-5 works as per now, 6- you are able to cast one of your spells in retaliation.

4) brettonians should be able to have foot knights. (don't collect them but it would make things more interesting and easier for them to defend their castles in defencive seiges)

5)tzeentch magic needs a total overhall to be less blasty and more..... tzeentch like

6) general aim to disscourage SAD armies (i'm sorry its just dull to play against and eventualy with)

7) 'ogre sized' models to be US 4 rather than 3 (don't necessarly need 4 wounds each)

8) rank bonus to be given by US 5, not 5 models. but some sort of compensation to brettonian lance formation

9) make halberds better. (not sure what exactly, but make them a more compeative choice esp for empire, either fight in 2 ranks at normal strength or one rank at +1 strentgh: i.e. defensive vs offensive use).

thats all i can think of right now. any thoughts?

Ymir
15-01-2008, 15:34
I want more skirmishers. I don't like units standing in blocks when it doesn't seem logical for them to do so. For example: slayers should be skirmishers, and glade guards, and dwarf rangers, I would even suggest monsters like ushabti, kroxigors and such. It's not cool that they have to move in unwieldy blocks when they are so few that they should be more maneuverable. And it's -so- stupid when someone attacks their flank and only one model may strike back. I hate that. Of course, the changes I'm suggesting would make such monsters much better than they currently are, but there's always other ways to nerf them.


And I second the idea that units should be able to disengage from combat. That would make a lot of sense. Especially with fast cavalry, chariots, skirmishers and such it should be a viable, if somewhat risky, tactic. There are some flying units that can already do that, aren't there?

R Man
15-01-2008, 21:50
i think cav is a bit weak sometimes. maybe they should cause impact hits to represent the fact they knock guys over. this also might cure the problem that cav have when the charge white lions. just an idea

The general consensus seems to be that cavalry is too strong.


I want more skirmishers.

Skirmishing makes sense for units that have the skirmishing rule and very few others should get it. Dwarves would never fight as skirmishers. Ever. That would leave them far to vulnerable to cavalry. Large monsters are far to clusmy to skirmish effectively. Skirmishing isn't just moving in loose formation, it involves some quite distinct tequniques.

Adding mandatory weather effects for battles could be simple and interesting. Mudd reduces cavalry movement while wind/rain reduces acuracy making these troops less reliable.

Ymir
15-01-2008, 21:59
Skirmishing makes sense for units that have the skirmishing rule and very few others should get it. Dwarves would never fight as skirmishers. Ever. That would leave them far to vulnerable to cavalry. Large monsters are far to clusmy to skirmish effectively. Skirmishing isn't just moving in loose formation, it involves some quite distinct tequniques.

Okay, maybe I should have put it differently: I want slayers and ushabti etc that doesn't move in unwieldy infantry blocks. If it was up to me, I would prefer getting rid of blocks completely except for ranked infantry units. Wheeling and reforming and such when there is less than,say, 10 models in a unit seems -so- not cool to me.

Of course, I do understand that infantry blocks as it stands are a fundamental aspect of Warhammer Fantasy, and that it would be a really large step to remove much of them in this manner. If we want rules that would make sense on a -real- battlefield, however, that's what I suggest should be done.

junglesnake
15-01-2008, 22:30
Most of your rules seem to complicate the game significantly, which I say is bad for any game system. On the other hand differentiating weapons like the bow/crossbow/handgun thing is a generally good idea. And halberds need a huge buff.

I disagree. If you want a fast and easy wargame then sure simplicity is the way to go.

There are plenty of other wargames out there that mix a little bit of detail with the basic game mechanics to provide flavour. I do think that there are some points that are right in the OP.

Early muskets etc were deployed in dense lines as their inaccuracy meant that they were not fired or aimed in the way that a rifle/musket would be now. In fact a good book to read on this subject is Mark Urban's "Rifles" about the first rifle regiment (the regiment "Sharp" was based upon). The first unit to be trained to use rifles with accuracy and aiming that is essentially how they are used now.

Then there is the issue of crossbows and bows. I have to admit that I don't understand why some armies don't have bows (ok maybe just Dogs of War). Crossbows never really forced bows out of use, bows were far easier to maintain, make and to repeatedly loose. And so far as my knowledge goes most of the time crossbows were out-ranged by long bows at least.

I would allow all bow armed units to fire in two ranks, and crossbows in one to represent the speed of fire.

As for halberds, the +1 strength is good because they were deployed as spears depending on the circumstances - the axe blade could also be deployed against cavalry by side-stepping the on-rushing mounts path and in a clothes-line manoeuvre aim the axe at the rider or the mounts head, remember a dismounted night was easy prey. To add to this the reach of the halberd prevented the knight to get in a swing at his foe.

kdh88
16-01-2008, 08:43
Okay, maybe I should have put it differently: I want slayers and ushabti etc that doesn't move in unwieldy infantry blocks. If it was up to me, I would prefer getting rid of blocks completely except for ranked infantry units. Wheeling and reforming and such when there is less than,say, 10 models in a unit seems -so- not cool to me.

Of course, I do understand that infantry blocks as it stands are a fundamental aspect of Warhammer Fantasy, and that it would be a really large step to remove much of them in this manner. If we want rules that would make sense on a -real- battlefield, however, that's what I suggest should be done.

I think that what needs to happen is a more general application of either "Raiders" special rule from BoC or the "Loose Formation" from the Lustria supplement for units in between skirmishers and fully ranked units. Neither skimirsh or close formation seem to adequetely represnt, say, zombies; the first implies a certain level agility, while the second implies some amount of organization and training.

Historically however, plenty of units actually did fight in close formation, so I don't think the rule should disappear. It would be silly to see Spearelves (who are basically hopilites) or Pikemen fighting in any other way.

On the subject of weapons, I'd like to see bows get Multiple Shots and Halberds get Armor Peircing against models with a US greater than 1 to give them more of an anti-cavalry role. Spears should just be free for most units; fighting in two ranks isn't really any better than the parry rule.

DeathlessDraich
16-01-2008, 10:18
I want to see clear rules:

1) All important terms defined i.e. the word define is used to explain Infantry, cavalry, mounted, monsters, move, pivot, characteristics, impact hits, successful charge, cast, attempt to cast etc etc etc..

2) A clear distinction between actual rules and the rules interface with reality (to use the silly popular word, fluff) - this should be in italics.

3) A rules format similar to the formal rules in many sports and not the semi narrative style at present.

Until these basic alterations are first made, any new ideas will add to the existing confusion.

sainthale1988
16-01-2008, 10:22
all very good points espcialy regarding imprecise terminology. although i don't have many trouble in understanding the rules they not 'water tight' enough to prevent 'rules layers' making things complicated.

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
16-01-2008, 16:29
Odin I couldnn't agree with you more about ranks for ranged weapons. if it were three ranks it'd probably be too powerful, 2 is good, at least for archers. It's stupid that they can't, it's perfectly realistic and I can't stand the need for hills where you want them and the fact that to use your troops properly you need to be in a stupid big long line.

tiacapan
17-01-2008, 10:00
I agree with the need to improve missile fire somewhat, the use bows etc. in Warhammer has pretty much become a standing joke amongst my regular opponents and I due to the general lack of noticeable effect on th enemy.

One thing I'd like to see is some way of noting the stamina of troops, by which I mean troops becoming tired during long drawn out melee combats. Needless to say some troops would have more staying power than others . I would suggest a -1 to hit penalty in the 3rd or 4th round of a combat (should it progress that far) which is only removed after the unit has had some time to recover it's breath. This would give a slight advantge to troops such as undead who could march and/or fight all night without becoming fatigued.

R Man
17-01-2008, 10:26
I think that what needs to happen is a more general application of either "Raiders" special rule from BoC or the "Loose Formation" from the Lustria supplement for units in between skirmishers and fully ranked units. Neither skimirsh or close formation seem to adequetely represnt, say, zombies; the first implies a certain level agility, while the second implies some amount of organization and training.

Historically the vast majority of soldier fought in ranks. For infantry there was no other way to resist cavalry and cavalry charged in mass for the shock effect. Ranked up units also can represent many things from the dense phalanx of a High Elf Spear Unit to a more spaced Roman style checker board used by Imperial Swordsmen to the zombie mass.

Skirmishing is not just standing a few feat away from each other. It involves a great awareness of where your fellows are and high levels of individual co-ordination and initative. Historically it was only after the success of British Rifle troops in the Peninsular war that looser formations began to rise in usage.

sainthale1988
17-01-2008, 10:30
Historically it was only after the success of British Rifle troops in the Peninsular war that looser formations began to rise in usage.

tell that the the slingers at the battle of hastings, or javiln men thoughout history etc.

however i agree that the vast majority of troopers were ranked, and it should remain as such. i'm all for making ranked troops more prevelent by reducing the effect of skermishers on them (i.e. not march blocking)

sainthale1988
17-01-2008, 10:51
how about that if cavalry want to charge a unit of spears (or pikes) in the front they have to take a leadership test on the mounts leadership?

Dominatrix
17-01-2008, 11:49
how about that if cavalry want to charge a unit of spears (or pikes) in the front they have to take a leadership test on the mounts leadership?

You do realise that cavalry units ride warhorses trained for battle not a bunch of skittish nags they come across while walking the countryside right?

tiacapan
17-01-2008, 11:58
I think the use of the Rider's Leadership would be a little more appropriate, but all the training in the world is unlikely to compltely overide the horse's sense of self preservation (animals tend to be a little more sensible than us in that regard).

I also agree with an earlier post that with firearms in their infancy in the old world their psychological effect should be taken into account on both mounts and troops with low morale/shaky nerves. I seem to recall an alleged incident at the Battle of Talavera where a local militia unit let loose a volley of musket fire and were so panicked by the sound of their own guns that they broke and fled.

sainthale1988
17-01-2008, 12:21
You do realise that cavalry units ride warhorses trained for battle not a bunch of skittish nags they come across while walking the countryside right?

then up their leadership then!

kris.sherriff
17-01-2008, 14:05
One thing I ask people to bear in mind is that my suggested changes for spears will give them a small boost against heavy cavalry, but I suspect some of you are worried it will completely "nerf" heavy cav. Let me give an example.

A unit of 24 Empire Spearmen, 6 models wide receives a charge from a unit of 5 undivided chosen knights. For simplicity's sake, no champions.

Using the current rules, the chosen knights would cause on average about 7 wounds on the charge (I make it 6.94...). 5 spearmen get to strike back, causing on average 0.139 wounds (i.e. the chances are they will cause no wounds!).

Using my suggested rules, giving the spearmen +1 strength and always strike first against cavalry charging their front, the spearmen would cause on average 0.5 wounds on the charging knights (not exactly a massacre!), and would still suffer pretty horrific casualties in return (an average of about 6 I think, though it gets into fairly complex statistics at this stage).

Not exactly going to make heavy cavalry useless is it? Just give spearmen a slight boost, and a chance of not dying horribly.

So basically one of the hardest hitting units in the came that is almost 100 points more than the empire spearmen unit can, IF it rolls average dice force the empire player to take a test at between -1 and -2 leadership.
That does not sound like spearmen suck to me. With some well placed leadership or a Battle standard the spearmen should hold giving the empire player a good chance to counter the knights with the 90 odd points that he would have left.
All of this relies upon the knights not rubber lancing and rolling average dice.
I honestly think that one of three things is happening here.
Either.
1. You are lucky and roll above average amounts of 'average' rolls.
2. Your opponent is unlucky and rolls and below average amounts of good rolls.
3. Your opponent sucks and cant actually grasp any tactics that would involve causing one wound on your knights before combat (not a hard job in the example of the empire army you used) or hold them up for one turn ready to counter charge.

I appreciate what you are trying to suggest but I honestly don't think that they need changing.
Spears are one handed, Pikes are two handed and do get extra bonuses when charged in the front.
Shooting is not as powerful as it could be but if any of the changes you suggest were made it would unbalance too many other aspects.
I actually use halbadiers in my empire army as a parent unit and have found them to be usefully, I do use a warrior priest in the unit but still I find the strength of four and lower cost makes them a better offensive option over swordsmen. (despite what mathhammer tells us)

I just don't feel that the extra rules would improve the feel of the game to a significant amount to make it worth the complications of re balancing everything else.

Kris

Feefait
17-01-2008, 14:42
I would recommend tryign to find the old WHFB ornange book form the late eighties, early 90's In there were many more "historical" or "tactical' rules and options. ALso many more monsters and fantasy stuff. GW has consistently dumbed down and simplified the game.

Right now with the competition it needs ot be quick and accesible. I got into it when it wasn't because I knew people who played it. When i go to out local store now to play there is always a younger kid wanting to start but it seems to complciated so they don't Not that some updates wouldn't help, but they wouldn't help GW sell the game either. And let's be honest, bottomline is that is what they are trying to do.

I think the game is simple, and it's fun. There are huge glaring issues of logic and reality, yes... but still I can now finish a 3000 pt game in maybe 4 hours. That couldn't happen before. Nice ideas, but don't stress yourself over it. This is NOT a realistic portrayal of any battlefield.

thomas
17-01-2008, 15:09
Well I don't know if it is been say, but my biggest problem with the rules are monsters. They just too bad.
Take the eksampel (from a played game): 3 trolls vs 10 knights with full com. The knights charges doesn't do anything, the trolls kills 3 knights. Resolution the trolls lose by 1 because of musician!!! The trolls didn't even feel the knights.
The same problem has every big monster (without really high Ld and subborn or unbreakable). Even if they kill one enemy per attack (normally 4-5 attacks) and don't get any them self, will they lose combat!!

I would like some rule (like the treeman old version anyway, don't know the new one) that they only have to take break test from CC if they get a wounds.

And heavy cavalry need to be balanced, take it from a brettonnia player if I want to win I will. Just 9 units of 9 knigths and no one have a chance.

Dominatrix
17-01-2008, 15:36
And heavy cavalry need to be balanced, take it from a brettonnia player if I want to win I will. Just 9 units of 9 knigths and no one have a chance.

So just because you are using an army with nothing but knights every other army's heavy cavalry should get nerfed as well? I fail to see your logic here.

N810
17-01-2008, 15:42
Halberds get Armor Peircing against models with a US greater than 1 to give them more of an anti-cavalry role. Spears should just be free for most units; fighting in two ranks isn't really any better than the parry rule.

HEAR HEAR

yea spears need to be cheaper and have have some kind of bonus against
calvery and since spears are used with shields it would be nice if
they got the some defenceive bouns as hand weapons/shields troops
ironicly have better defence than spearmen ????
halbreds and pikes need a bouns angainst calvery too.

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
17-01-2008, 16:24
I agree with the OP and disagree with those saying that this sort of thing will make things "more complicated".

From reality one knows a few things. If I was on a horse I would not charge a unit of spear men. It is *extra* complication for me to remember that in Warhammer land this is actually a sensible thing to do. Equally, the "only shooting in first rank thing" is also counter intuitive and requires more remembering.

If the rules get more realistic, it's fewer reality-exceptions for us all to remember.

sorry, but come on :rolleyes: Whilst I agree with your opinion, this is a pretty stupid argument.

you're saying that an extra rule saying it's harder to charge spearmen, is easier to remember than no rule? It is making the game more complicated, which I have no problem with, but complicatedness always means harder to remember.

And if you could shoot in two ranks, that would take more remembering than knowing you can only shoot with the first. To make it easier to remember , you would have to say they can all shoot, which can also be very unrealistic.

again, sorry, but I had to say it.


edit: and also, something about arch of sight. I have no idea how to represent it in a different and fair way. but it really is stupid the whole you can't charge what you can't see at the start of the turn even if it's an inch away from your nose. And the fact that the commander of the regiment, which effectivly can see anything, can't just tell their men to turn so that they could face an enemy that's 90 degrees away. If you have the movemet to turn and get there, you should be able to charge it, or come up with a decent reason why.

Ethlorien
17-01-2008, 16:52
I still think the game is fine as is, but a compendium of unofficial optional rules that players can pick and choose from, adding to the level of detail/realism they want would be a good thing too. Why not? It would be another $25-$50 book many people I think would run out and buy.

I've played, years ago now, games with ammunition for archers, tracking the time of day, sending out messengers for the general to relay his orders, stuff like that. Also, some of the rules mentioned in this thread I thought were pretty good and I'm considering adding a few to my house rules. Yeah, it would certainly drag the game length out, yet that's not always a bad thing for many players.