PDA

View Full Version : Siege rules



Avian
02-12-2005, 10:55
Greetings,
I have recently finished a modification of the Siege (http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~tarjeia/trondhammer/docs/Siege.doc) rules to go along with my scenario generator (link in sig.). I'd be much abliged if people would have a look at give me an opinion. :)

Dreadaxe
02-12-2005, 13:56
Hello

What about Ogre size infantry models with Battering rams ? Ogre-size model count as 2 human infantry models to push a battering ram at full speed ?

Avian
02-12-2005, 15:26
Ogre-sized creatures do as mentioned count as two infantry models each for the purpose of using siege equipment.
So: yes.

Crazy Harborc
02-12-2005, 22:05
Looks like a good set. I've only spot/skipped thru read for now. I will read it all later.

Um, have you included a "secret map" of all the hidden entrances of the besieged castle(s). Wellllll......I can dream can't I? heheheheh

Avian
03-12-2005, 12:19
Slight update, mainly some clarifications and cleared up mistakes.

Crazy Harborc
03-12-2005, 21:57
The list will be MUCH easier to use than a heavy, thiick "chonicles, 3 pounder" and two magazines!! There's nothing like dropping a yearly update into the courtyard. OR, dropping it on my siege engine(s):(

Um, about that map of all the secret entrances/exits:D

mageith
11-12-2005, 17:32
Slight update, mainly some clarifications and cleared up mistakes.

I incorporated several rules from your opus into my most recent castle assault (siege) game and want to share the results with you. I think I was using the original, so if I bring up some of your clarifications, let me know.

It was a game between 2250 Dogs of war (12 ogres, 40 crossbowmen 2 cannons and 60 pikemen, one wizard, general and paymaster.

The assaulters: Nurgle minotaurs with about 16 minotaurs, beastigors and 3 beastherds, two chariots and some wolves, a Minotaur Lord and three shaman. Zombie Pirates with 3 or 4 units of zombies, 8 bloated corpses, 2 carronades, 7 animated hulks, 7 deck droppers, a rotting leviathan, Luther and 2 wight captians. Clearly, neither side was optimized for siege.

By the seventh turn, the castle door was gone, one wall demolished by sappers and one wall overrun but most of the assaulters were dead or fleeing.

Onto the rules: Rampart movement. I had already tried to make movement as fluid as possible there but with your inspiration with further "assume any legal formation as they charge" and charge an adjacent section "regardless of arc of sight". I expanded it to include charging through a tower.

I liked the stand and shoot "regardless of how close the enemy is". I think we did this before, though but without a rule.

I don't limit the number of models on a section except by by what fits.

Shooting from towers and all directions. I had crossbowmen. Are you saying shooters have 360 degree LOS or just the tower does?

I loved the randomizing of auto hits and magic missles. I didn't use it for BS shooting.

War machine shooting. Auto hits on castle. In my very first game, the enemy had two or three great cannons. The walls game down very early. It seemed too good. The gate is worse. It goes very early.


Fight on the ramparts. Merely defended obstacle? Not first strike? I tried that in my early versions and it was too good for the assaulters. We play only wounds count.

Also, Skaven ranks counting???

Breaking from the ramparts, defenders. We allow units to re-roll on breaktests and panic tests, even fear. If they do break, they only have one chance to rally. The assaulting unit merely takes the rampart.

Breaking from the ramports, assaulters. They merely break and will probably rally. Your test rules are fine, though, and I may incorporate them for both sides. It makes for a cleaner battlefield and shorter game and are closer to the main rules.

I don't get the lapping around on the ramparts? (I actually use actual ladders and the models remain on the ladders until they actually get inside the castle. Often by that time the units are so small many are single models.

I love your hoard rule for flyers and the fluff for it. Elegant and brings flyers back into line.

I incorporated the ethereal floating up rule.

I already had the large target may attack the ramparts rule.

I like your tunneling rules.

Lots of good ideas, but I think assaulters would have pretty easy time of it since they have the outnumber bonus and flank bonus available to them. Though the defenders do get the high ground bonus (though these bonuses do offset each other). Defenders don't have the psychological advantages given in the Annual update and the ramparts don't defend them as well.

Mage Ith

Avian
12-12-2005, 15:22
Thanks for the feedback. I must admit that the "strike first" thingy was something I remembered after I wrote the rules and couldn't decide whether to put in or not. I'm going to be playing a few sieges in the not too far future, so we'll see.

I have also debated whether to just use the unmodified size of the armies when determining advantages, which would mean that the defender could have some psychological advantages if he liked (this assumes that the "Uneven battles" rules are used).

The skaven rank bonus rule is from a WD faq. It only counts towards Ld-though, not CR (may have to edit rules if not clear...).

I'm not sure on lapping. I mioght drop it altogether if it proved to clunky to describe in any meaningful manner. I have a problem with the "move extra models onto the ramparts" rule, so I thought I'd try doing something better.

Not sure on castles being a defined size either, the thought was to at least guarantee a minimum size.

I have also debated randomising missile fire against the gate in the same manner as against troops on the walls. Maybe no auto-hit rule is needed? Not sure it would make a difference for cannons, as the walls would generally be hard to miss in any case.

The idea is that models in towers have 360 degree LOS for the purpose of shooting, similar to fast cavalry.

mageith
16-12-2005, 14:33
I have also debated whether to just use the unmodified size of the armies when determining advantages, which would mean that the defender could have some psychological advantages if he liked (this assumes that the "Uneven battles" rules are used).

I've struggled over Victory conditions in my siege games. In my last battle the gate was blown off, one wall overrun and one wall destroyed (out of four walls), but most of the enemy was fleeing. The defender lost about half of his units too. Who won? We didn't count up points, though that was the victory conditions at the time. After the game, I came up with this:

VICTORY CONDITIONS: The battle is divided into four areas: Ramparts. Towers. Courtyard. Outside. Determine which side as the most areas under control.

Control all four areas and the result is Massive Victory. Control 3 more areas than opponent for a solid victory. Control two more areas than opponent (the beginning situation) and game is a minor victory. Control one more area than opponent or nobody controls any areas and game is a Draw.

An army controls an area if it has twice as much unit strength as itís opponent in that area or in the case of towers and walls, which army controls most of them. The outside and courtyard can also be divided into sections if the players agree.

So in my game, the defenders merely had control of the towers and the courtyard. The assaulters still had control of the Outside. The walls were contested with two each. So the game ended in a draw. Had the defender's in the castle sallied forth they may have contested the outside and ended up with a minor victory.



I have also debated randomising missile fire against the gate in the same manner as against troops on the walls. Maybe no auto-hit rule is needed? Not sure it would make a difference for cannons, as the walls would generally be hard to miss in any case.

I think the randomization rule is great and have implemented it. I also use it for cannons.

SHOOTING: All models in or on a tower or rampart may stand and shoot at any distance if not otherwise engaged. When shooting at the castle all non BS shooting, including auto hits is randomized, with the shots hitting the castle or overshooting on 1,2,3. Randomize again if the difference between overshooting and hitting the castle makes a difference.

and

CANNONS: Cannons and any straight-line template weapon works differently in siege. If aiming at a castle section roll, roll the artillery dice twice, but one at time. The first roll determines if there is a misfire. If the second roll comes up a misfire, the cannon merely misses the castle and no damage is done but no misfire results either. Otherwise the cannon will hit the castle. If shooting at the ramparts or the gates treat as non-BS shooting and randomize.

Crazy Harborc
16-12-2005, 22:34
I have been waiting for the 6th edition revision of the GW siege rules. Maybe they'll come out in 7th??

I know they did "update" in an annual or whatever. We usually just "wing it" when doing a siege game.

AND NOW............I starting to feel a need for a siege. I blame Avian!! Thanks guys.;)

Avian
17-12-2005, 16:27
The update they printed was done quite soon after 6th edition was out and to me just shows how little thought went into the siege rules in the first place. During the christmas holidays a couple of years ago we played quite a bit of siege and even made a couple of siege towers (if you are not too fussy they can be quite easy and cheap to make), but it became evident that the rules were somewhat lacking. :(

I have now borrowed the old siege book (the 5th edition one, though technically that's the new siege book (I also have the old, old 3rd edition seige book, but that was not too useful)) and I'll see what those rules were like.

Crazy Harborc
19-12-2005, 01:41
We upgraded the bolt throwers (single shot) to allow it to knock out a gate. Sadly, I can't find the written copy of what we did.

Dreadaxe
17-10-2006, 23:37
I have now borrowed the old siege book (the 5th edition one, though technically that's the new siege book (I also have the old, old 3rd edition seige book, but that was not too useful)) and I'll see what those rules were like.

5th seige rulebook was got (2 ?) WD add-on articles.

Dreadaxe
18-08-2010, 09:13
Necrothready
News for 8th edition?

yabbadabba
18-08-2010, 12:42
Having played a siege under every edition since 2nd, I can say that what GW has done is to pay attention to their core design philosophy of Fast, Fun, Furious - something sieges inherently are not unless you Storm the Walls. When you compare the last siege book with the first one, then it is like comparing an instruction manual with the back of a baked bean tin - but both versions worked fine. Siege is something that WFB has come to sadly lack, along with a broad variety of scenarios, uneven battles, abd variety of terrain. The last siege I played took 5 hours and was immense fun.

Avian, the link to the rules isn't working and I can't find it on your site - could you repost the link please. It will be interesting to see what you have come up with.

Dreadaxe
18-08-2010, 13:14
Avian, the link to the rules isn't working and I can't find it on your site - could you repost the link please. It will be interesting to see what you have come up with.

i don't Avian but
http://www.avianon.net/downloads.php?f=rules_siege_scengen

Crazy Harborc
19-08-2010, 00:49
Unless GW starts pushing siege toys/equipment...again...OR puts out another siege book/suppliment, I don't expect any GW support of siege games in WHFB.

yabbadabba
19-08-2010, 00:54
Unless GW starts pushing siege toys/equipment...again...OR puts out another siege book/suppliment, I don't expect any GW support of siege games in WHFB.And? Not sure what you are getting at :confused: