PDA

View Full Version : A fresh start: What do you think the most important qualities a unit-based wargame sh



Ludaman
07-04-2016, 03:01
This is going to be a long post, be forewarned :):

Towards the end of 2014 and throughout the first half of 2015 I saw the writing on the wall for Warhammer: The game of fantasy battles, and I began to work on my own fantasy wargame, I worked with a couple friends who had bachelors in mathematics and engineering, and an artist to design concept art. I researched the heck out of certain periods of European history, and began working with a writer on the backstory and setting for my game.

And then I found "The Ninth Age". It looked like they had beaten me to the punch. A team of game designers, fan input, and even an art team! I was floored by the community that was quickly being built! So I put aside my work and jumped into the Ninth Age forums with excitement.

6 Months later and my excitement is gone.

A major reason I decided to work on my own game was that I felt "special rules bloat" had ruined 7th and 8th edition. The weaponskill, Strength/Toughness, and Armor save charts always offered lots of variables for a robust and exciting game, however somewhere along the line these core mechanics got lost under a pile of special rules. By the end of 8th edition it was hard to think of a single unit that simply compared WS to WS, Strength to Toughness, and then allowed the opposing unit to roll armor saves against the attack without some sort of special rule effecting the outcome. Rerolls became incredibly common, ward-saves became the norm, and every other unit had some form of frenzy, hatred, or stubborn. Along with the issues caused by excessive special rules, the addition of the step-up mechanic, horde-formation, and fight in extra ranks completely unbalanced the leadership system and required steadfast to be added to compensate, which in turn created further imbalances to the game.

The ninth age looked like it was going to try and do what I was attempting: get back to the basics of what made warhammer great, cut down the special rules, aim for balance, and even add units to armies that had been neglected.

They've done a great job so far of improving balance to be sure, but the core of "The ninth Age" is still basically 8th edition with all of its special rules, imbalances and issues.

On the other hand there's "Kings of War". A fun, simple system of rules that allows for a shorter, faster-paced, more tactical game. The downside being that I don't like the I-go-you-go mechanic and I dislike how they've handled characters.


Now for my 2 questions :

1. Are there people that visit Warseer that would be interested in a different type of tabletop game than what's currently being offered? A system built on a strong core ruleset that makes use of those core rules rather than finding exceptions to them, a system that at the same time allows for more customization of it's characters and the ability to attach those characters to units.

2. What would the most important aspects of tabletop, unit-based, wargame be to you?

And I guess as a final question, do you think there's any room left in the market for another wargame?

Folomo
07-04-2016, 04:21
1) There are a lot of "oldhammerers" out there that love older editions of warhammer, so you could appeal to them.

2) That enough people play it. In the end is the most decisive factor, since no matter how good a system is, if you can't get a game there is little chance it will prosper.

3) Sure, as long as it has 2 of these 3 things: Strong miniatures, Something that differentiate it from all other wargames and has enough followers.

Kakapo42
07-04-2016, 04:38
When it comes to mechanics, I think for me the most important part is that they reflect the background setting.

Overall I don't consider the actual wargame mechanics themselves to be very important at all, what really matters to me is the aesthetics and background setting (and, perhaps even more importantly, the creative freedom in that background setting) of a tabletop game, since I generally consider them less games and more storytelling exercises. I'm actually exactly the sort of narrative-oriented uncompetitive storytelling hobbyist type that GW appears to be attempting to target with AoS, which makes it very ironic that I hate AoS just as much as, if not more than, the competitive-focused tournament and PUG gamers that have been alienated by it (again, aesthetics and a good background setting with enough creative freedom are the really important things to me, and AoS fails HARD on both those fronts as far as I'm concerned).

So when I look over a set of game mechanics, my main concern is usually how well they reflect the background setting. To this day my favourite special rule from Warhammer Fantasy is Asrai Archery from the 6th edition Wood Elf army book (which is not entirely by co-incidence my all-time favourite Warhammer army book), because just that one simple rule - that Wood Elf units can move and shoot at full effectiveness - instantly transforms the entire Wood Elf army into an extremely mobile hit-and-run fire and manoeuvre force where every unit that isn't locked in combat is (or at least should be) constantly moving and repositioning, just like how it's described in the background. The absence of that special rule is one of the major factors that drive my decision to continue using the 6th edition Wood Elf book instead of the 8th edition one.

Other special rules I'm particularly fond of are the old rules for Beastmen herds, the Bretonnian Blessing of the Lady and the part about the Lance Formation rules where Damsels/Prophetesses are automatically placed in the centre of the unit rather than the front (it stands to reason that the chivalrous knights in the unit would surround the fair maiden in their midst to better protect her). It's rules like that that really bring the background setting to life that are important to me.

And from what I can see, it seems as though there's always room in the market for another wargame.

SilentHunter
07-04-2016, 04:42
I hope 9th age becomes a success but I honestly believe it will encounter constant balancing issues throughout its life if it continues to introduce new factors into the game like new races, rule tweaks or army composition restrictions, sure you can balance it to a point but it will never be the point that every player is satisfied, the core of 8th had serious issues and building on that base game with 9th will only keep causing issues in the long run. Kings of war seems to have a very good core to it and seems very balanced on paper but with the introduction of different races and troop types eventually one race will counter another then there is the mission of rebalancing that which brings different factors into the game which can unbalance it again.

For a game to have strategic depth without flooding you with rules and information, 40k is currently overcomplicated for new players and completely unbalanced and I find age of sigmar to simple, it does have some depth but not enough that I honestly believe I can win by out-thinking my opponent like you could in 8th, a balance of depth but not making it difficult for the player base to grow rather easily, hate to break to the vets but you need a new stream of players being introduced for a game to grow, a good story is important, people want to throw themselves into these worlds, it becomes more than models moving on a board, the battle you play out is a part of the world. I like the no points system as long as there is an additional factor to brings back some sense of balance and puts in the players hands and responsibility to not be ********** and make the attempt themselves at a balanced game, I like the responsibility of having to think fairly instead of a points system that says hell as long as its within x points go be a douche its within the rules and structure of the game.

Gorthor21
07-04-2016, 05:56
I honestly believe that you should go full force into making your own wargame. I appreciate what the guys have done in 9th Age and I do like KoW for its own merits but I miss the individual ranked models from WFB. If there could be a middling ground between the simpler concepts behind KOW and the indepth customization of WFB circa 6th Ed then I would jump into a new game.
I feel every wargame has to have some kind of defining gimmick for a lack of better words that marks it out from the rest. I would love to see what you have come up with so far Ludaman if you happen to have it all in one place.

ashc
07-04-2016, 07:31
I just wanted to chime in with good luck on making your own game if you choose to continue down that path Ludaman; it sounds like you are looking for a sweet spot somewhere between 9th age (8th ed tweaked) and KoW, and i definitely think the market is there.

Through all this 8th ed to AoS stuff I've actually discovered something about my taste in wargames, and that is that I am no fan of ranked mass battles mainly due to finding painting lots of similar rank and file far too tedious! Horses for courses and all that, and more power to you my friend. :)

Urgat
07-04-2016, 07:39
Just my opinion, but I think 8th ed was the pinacle of WFB. I do agree on the special rule overload. Regen was something special, half a dozen units and magic items might have had it, now, I wouldn't even dare count. But on the other hand, there's no editions that allow many different kind of armies like 8th ed does. You can do elite, you can do horde, you can do gunline, etc etc. As a goblin player, I could never do horde (well I did, but I gimped myself by doing so) before 8th ed. Personally, going back to previous editions, for me, would just suck the fun out of the game. I mean, I've been waiting for 4 editions before WFB actually stopped punishing me for playing my gobs the way they were portrayed in the fluff...

MagosHereticus
07-04-2016, 09:27
I think the most important thing in a table top game is to make the models all mean something. My big turnoff with kings of war is that I don't get to kill individual models. Secondly the rules need to be simple enough that you can play the game without having to refer to the rulebook at every step or redo entire turns if huge mistakes have been made. I also think you need to consider what 8th edition got right, for me I loved to expansion and formalisation of unit types, it made the behaviour of units much more sensible. The market is always open for another competitor, the key is making the models a high enough quality and unique in their appearance.

Maccwar
07-04-2016, 09:44
I think the most important thing in a table top game is to make the models all mean something. My big turnoff with kings of war is that I don't get to kill individual models.

I realise how subjective this is but having switched over to KoW some time back I now see individual model removal as positively archaic. Although I don't go in for it much myself (I'm far too old school) I have seen some amazing and beautiful unit based armies with each unit being a mini diorama. Not absolutely impossible to do with model removal but a lot less practical.

Shakkara
07-04-2016, 09:56
* I think customizing characters is one of the most important things, I miss the hundreds of magic items of 6th edition.

* I also want to see a hard cap on the amount of models in a unit (the cap being determined by the quality of the unit). 20 models in a unit should be the average and you shouldn't see 40 in a unit unless it is a unit of goblins.

* No more than 3 special rules per unit unless it is a character.

* A reset from all this powercreep; core units being real crap again with hardly any special rules (no more crazy witch elves, dark riders, etc etc), not so much toughness and armorsaves so you don't need to bring strength 5 or better all the time.

* Maybe separate strength and armor penetration property so strength is not king.

* Initiative mattering again, complete removal of ASF and ASL but great weapons just giving -I and spears giving +I when charged, etc.

Arrahed
07-04-2016, 11:43
* I think customizing characters is one of the most important things, I miss the hundreds of magic items of 6th edition.

* I also want to see a hard cap on the amount of models in a unit (the cap being determined by the quality of the unit). 20 models in a unit should be the average and you shouldn't see 40 in a unit unless it is a unit of goblins.

* No more than 3 special rules per unit unless it is a character.

* A reset from all this powercreep; core units being real crap again with hardly any special rules (no more crazy witch elves, dark riders, etc etc), not so much toughness and armorsaves so you don't need to bring strength 5 or better all the time.

* Maybe separate strength and armor penetration property so strength is not king.

* Initiative mattering again, complete removal of ASF and ASL but great weapons just giving -I and spears giving +I when charged, etc.

I agree. Unfortunately people got used to the high power level of 8th edition.

But the biggest problem is probably the player base. T9A has the huge advantage of having the tournament scene as a player base. A home made system would have a very hard time gaining the critical mass.

ewar
07-04-2016, 12:01
* I think customizing characters is one of the most important things, I miss the hundreds of magic items of 6th edition.

* I also want to see a hard cap on the amount of models in a unit (the cap being determined by the quality of the unit). 20 models in a unit should be the average and you shouldn't see 40 in a unit unless it is a unit of goblins.

* No more than 3 special rules per unit unless it is a character.

* A reset from all this powercreep; core units being real crap again with hardly any special rules (no more crazy witch elves, dark riders, etc etc), not so much toughness and armorsaves so you don't need to bring strength 5 or better all the time.

* Maybe separate strength and armor penetration property so strength is not king.

* Initiative mattering again, complete removal of ASF and ASL but great weapons just giving -I and spears giving +I when charged, etc.

You just outlined 9th Age :)

@op I honestly think you should stick with 9th, there has been a huge reduction in special rules and extremes of power, it really is in a great place right now.

I really like that the secondary objectives are fundamental to winning and for that you need core ranked units.

Herzlos
07-04-2016, 12:58
I think the most important thing in a table top game is to make the models all mean something. My big turnoff with kings of war is that I don't get to kill individual models.

I'd say you can have all models meaning something without having to remove them from the board; you certainly want to avoid units on the table which do nothing or have models that are just wound markers. Sure it's kind of cool to watch units shrink in size, but it's also pretty cool to be moving dioramas about the table rather than blocks of individually based troops, and you can have the damage account for more than just missing fighters.

Personally I want to be able to treat a unit as a unit, with a unit stat that isn't directly based on what is in it; it can have different stats based on damage but I don't want to have to count warriors + weapons + extras. Hail Caesar does this pretty well (units are small/medium/large with an overall damage stat).

I also want rules to be as unobtrusive as possible - special rules on where absolutely necessary, with any skills being reflected in stats. No compounded special rules like X which is cancelled by Y which can be cancelled by Z and so on.

2DSick
07-04-2016, 13:06
Now for my 2 questions :

1. Are there people that visit Warseer that would be interested in a different type of tabletop game than what's currently being offered? A system built on a strong core ruleset that makes use of those core rules rather than finding exceptions to them, a system that at the same time allows for more customization of it's characters and the ability to attach those characters to units.

2. What would the most important aspects of tabletop, unit-based, wargame be to you?

And I guess as a final question, do you think there's any room left in the market for another wargame?[/QUOTE]

Now imagine if you could mix the simplistic fluidity of KoW with the alternate act-react mechanic of bolt action.... Now there could be something special!

Haravikk
07-04-2016, 14:50
In terms of what makes a good ruleset, it's definitely simplicity; this shouldn't mean that anything needs to be lost, just streamlined or integrated in different ways. But more importantly, removing cruft can increase game speed. Mechanics should also try to avoid feeling one-sided, as anything that leaves your opponent just waiting around is boring.

For this reason I much prefer game systems that allow interleaved turns with indicators to track what units have done. Basically you take turns moving units till movement is done, then take turns shooting and so-on. This actually eliminates the need for Overwatch since you can just shoot anything that is moving towards you, though fleeing as a charge reaction is still handy for luring enemies into traps. It also minimises the time that you spend waiting for your opponent, though that can still happen if unit numbers are mismatched, but that can be accounted for by encouraging bigger units for cheaper models vs more units.

There's a thread about the fixed to-Hit and to-Wound rolls, which effectively boils all defence (defending weapon skill, toughness and armour) into the saving throw + rules. It's not ideal, but to be honest I don't like the old way any better, as both methods involve your opponent waiting to find out how many saves to roll, the latter just requires you to have a good grasp of the tables first.
My preferred system for such thing is to roll a number of Attack dice (representing offensive skill/strength) while your opponent rolls the same number of Defence dice (representing defensive skill/toughness), you then pair off the successes to determine who has more. Excess Attack successes are wounds leaving the defender to make a final saving throw for armour/dodge etc (if they have one). This is a better system IMO because it feels more like a duel between the two sides, plus there are some nifty things you can do with it. For example, if the defending player rolls more successes and their unit can Parry, then these successes could become bonus attacks that they can make in return. Combat resolution/morale (or special rules affecting these) could be based on the difference between Attack and Defence successes, rather than actual deaths, to represent one side's aggression overwhelming an enemy, even if armour is saving them from actual fatalities, making it a good place for And They Shall No Fear to be based on deaths alone for example.
A lot of board-game systems use this kind of simplified attack successes vs defence successes mechanic, and I think it works well and is definitely more fun than tables and waiting.


A lot of people lament what is lost rules wise in Age of Sigmar, but actually war scrolls incorporate a lot of characterful rules and are nice and simple (nothing to lookup if you know the core rules, which at four pages is pretty easy), the real losses are breaking units and the points system IMO. As I've said, some mechanics could be simpler/better, but on the whole it's very straightforward, easy and fun to play, it just requires some tweaks at the moment.

smaxx
07-04-2016, 15:30
1. Are there people that visit Warseer that would be interested in a different type of tabletop game than what's currently being offered? A system built on a strong core ruleset that makes use of those core rules rather than finding exceptions to them, a system that at the same time allows for more customization of it's characters and the ability to attach those characters to units.

2. What would the most important aspects of tabletop, unit-based, wargame be to you?

And I guess as a final question, do you think there's any room left in the market for another wargame?
I appreciate the following idea :
- Simple core rules with few exceptions.
- All the rules and army listst etc in one book
- Depth and further development should be in scenarios and campaigns.

Many people think that the core rules and tinkering with the army lists and unit properties is important, but I prefer that the units are quite simple and not too excotic. And then there should be lots of scenarios and campaigns that offer the variety. Table top gaming should focus on fine miniatures and beautiful boards and terrains, and there shouldn't be too much need for memorizing complex rules.

Bolt Action follows that philosophy very well. The units have very little variation, rules are simple, and Warlord Games publishes just campaign books that don't change the armies, but gives scenarios and theatre specific special rules.

So : Take any existing simple and good game mechanics, and create the actual content on top of that. I really like Kings of War mechanics, because it's really simple and straightforward. You could just add some story based scenarios on top of those mechanics.

Tokamak
07-04-2016, 17:51
A wargame above all needs to be cinematic. I don't really care about clever alignments and positioning. I want themed armies with a distinctive background led by unique characters wading into each other. At least a third of the fight should be won in the list construction phase. Placement should be less important but using special tricks to get enormous leverage during the battle should the core of the gameplay.

Spiney Norman
07-04-2016, 19:37
A wargame above all needs to be cinematic. I don't really care about clever alignments and positioning. I want themed armies with a distinctive background led by unique characters wading into each other. At least a third of the fight should be won in the list construction phase. Placement should be less important but using special tricks to get enormous leverage during the battle should the core of the gameplay.

Are you being sarcastic by any chance? You've pretty much just described AoS and 40k

SuperHappyTime
07-04-2016, 19:50
Now for my 2 questions :

1. Are there people that visit Warseer that would be interested in a different type of tabletop game than what's currently being offered? A system built on a strong core ruleset that makes use of those core rules rather than finding exceptions to them, a system that at the same time allows for more customization of it's characters and the ability to attach those characters to units.

2. What would the most important aspects of tabletop, unit-based, wargame be to you?

And I guess as a final question, do you think there's any room left in the market for another wargame?

I have a hard time being able to answer number 1 because I think a "core ruleset" may immeasurably boring on its own. Oddly, Eighth had a good balance of core and special rules, it was more that the core rules sometimes felt illogical. I think Kings of War is a perfect Core Ruleset, but it fails on what I like about unit based games... the unit. A unit is supposed to slowly be whittled down and KoW has a very distinct there or not there policy.

In answering number 2, I'll state what is where AoS fails when it comes to units; I don't really need units. There isn't much of a reason why I need to take 10 state troops when I may get what I want out of them with just 3 or 4. And there isn't much to distinguish a unit of State Troops from a unit of Demigryph Knights, they both move, attack, and die. Battleline and not scenario is the boring bread and butter choice for unit games because in most unit-based war the goal was to hold the line and not get slaughtered. Not grab an objective marker on a weird end of the battlefield.

Is there room for another wargame in the market? Yes, but there isn't enough room for another line of miniature models. I look at my current warhammer collection project and though 1000 points look distinct but able to form and hold a proper line (yes, a bunch of MSUs fit the part), it still took on average $200 to build each army, and you just can't force people into that.


addition of the step-up mechanic
Where's the hate for this one coming from. I would have rage-quit the first game I ever played without this rule.

SuperHappyTime
07-04-2016, 20:28
You just outlined 9th Age :)

@op I honestly think you should stick with 9th, there has been a huge reduction in special rules and extremes of power, it really is in a great place right now.

I really like that the secondary objectives are fundamental to winning and for that you need core ranked units.

I don't want to speak for Ludaman, but I believe he has gotten tired of T9A.


And then I found "The Ninth Age". It looked like they had beaten me to the punch. A team of game designers, fan input, and even an art team! I was floored by the community that was quickly being built! So I put aside my work and jumped into the Ninth Age forums with excitement.

6 Months later and my excitement is gone.

...

The ninth age looked like it was going to try and do what I was attempting: get back to the basics of what made warhammer great, cut down the special rules, aim for balance, and even add units to armies that had been neglected.

They've done a great job so far of improving balance to be sure, but the core of "The ninth Age" is still basically 8th edition with all of its special rules, imbalances and issues.

T9A is basically a balanced 8th, because that's what it began its life as. Nobody started at the beginning and said "Light infantry should act like this,", "Horses should die to spears", "Magic should be wildly destructive to both the opponent and the wizard" etc.

theunwantedbeing
07-04-2016, 20:29
Ideally a unit based wargame would have a lot of detail and customisation.

Warhammer Fantasy worked very well for the most part, but there were a few area's where the detail just wasn't there.
Regeneration was a flat 4+ most of the time but had the opportunity to be anything from a 2+ to a 6+ but this range was never utilised.
Magical resistance could have been a stat, rather than the 1-3 system.
Fly didn't need to be an upto 20" move, it could have had a stat.
Poison, much like Regeneration didn't need to be capped as a set roll, it could have varied.

Weapon options were also fairly sparse.
There was no option to give your hero two ranged weapons in most instances, you either had to pick one or the other....even in armies where units could pick two ranged weapons.
Similarly with combat weapons, you got to choose one and that was it in almost all cases.

Magical items in some respect actually added this variety, the only issue was that you were given the choice to have one of an item and when you're given the choice of a 6+,5+ or 4+ ward you'll invariably pick the 4+ and never bother with the others. So that was a missed opportunity as there was too much choice which lead to there being very few different choices ever being used.

Special rule bloat was an issue 8th faced.
High Elves had an interesting example where they had ASF before 8th edition, but once 8th edition appeared ASF got an extra rule presumably because otherwise the High Elves wouldn't get much benefit from having ASF, as they already had enough initiative to fight first anyway. This had the knock on effect of the Dark Elves getting ASF when their book was re-done for 8th, which meant the previous hatred rule was obsolete and that got replaced by yet another special rule which gave more re-rolls....


Aside from the rules having enough detail, the game needs to be engaging without prolonged periods of one player not getting the option to do much.
It's not too bad waiting for one player to move his entire army but can be if they're indecisive or didn't use their own wait time to plan ahead, but if the enemy is getting a long and exhaustive shooting or magic phase where you're not getting the option to do much beside roll a few armour saves and remove your own models for half an hour then this is a problem. So ideally both sides need to be reasonably active in the participation of whichever action is happening, or if they're not then you need some way to make sure that one player doesn't get stuck doing very little while they wait for their own turn where their opponent gets to sit around and be bored.


So detail and plenty of interaction between players is what I feel makes a good wargame.
Customisation is a nice touch as well, 8th did army customisation extremely well despite having individual customisation suffer compared to older editions where you could give your troops almost any combination of equipment options if you wanted.

Ludaman
07-04-2016, 21:58
Thanks to everyone who has posted so far, I'm getting some great ideas from many of you, and it's quite motivating.

Someone asked why I don't like the "step-up" rule. I actually do like the rule, I think it's great, I just think the entire break test mechanic needed an update in 8th edition to compensate for "step-up" and fighting in 2 ranks.

Urgat
07-04-2016, 22:20
Break tests have always been broken imho. Morale shouldn't be a "all or nothing" deal.

Ademo
07-04-2016, 23:38
I have to agree with urgat - and this links to his earlier point about Gobbos - and I assume why he likes 8th with steadfast hordes? For me - I much prefer the idea that you remove additional miniatures for each point you fail a morale test by, representing some members of the unit losing their nerve, this stops the all or nothing but also means that winning combat does mean something and wears down the enemy unit. Either that or a tiered approach of some sort. As an old orc and gobbo player myself (6th edition), nothing sucks more than losing combat by 1 point and then having your unit of 40 orcs turn tail, run and often get chased down!

Ludaman
08-04-2016, 00:05
I have to agree with urgat - and this links to his earlier point about Gobbos - and I assume why he likes 8th with steadfast hordes? For me - I much prefer the idea that you remove additional miniatures for each point you fail a morale test by, representing some members of the unit losing their nerve, this stops the all or nothing but also means that winning combat does mean something and wears down the enemy unit. Either that or a tiered approach of some sort. As an old orc and gobbo player myself (6th edition), nothing sucks more than losing combat by 1 point and then having your unit of 40 orcs turn tail, run and often get chased down!

I've been seriously considering a "shaken" mechanic similar to KoW's where a unit that loses combat and fails it's morale check would lose power in both attack and defense and then if they fail in a subsequent turn they break and run. Rather than have generals and BSBs give leadership value and re-rolls they might allow units to remove shaken results allowing for situations where the general is basically commanding a unit to fight to the last man.

Mirbeau
08-04-2016, 01:08
Something akin to 8th, but with less models on the board. 8th would have been perfect for me with more customisation and people playing at 1500-2000 points.

de Selby
08-04-2016, 01:08
At this point I'm looking for a functioning system to use my Warhammer models in, with enough differentiation that the rules feel fluff-compliant for each unit type. Currently that's 9th Age or one of the legacy WFB editions. Is the idea to provide full support for all the different units GW manufactured (plus maybe some they didn't) or a more generic rule set?


A wargame above all needs to be cinematic. I don't really care about clever alignments and positioning. I want themed armies with a distinctive background led by unique characters wading into each other. At least a third of the fight should be won in the list construction phase. Placement should be less important but using special tricks to get enormous leverage during the battle should the core of the gameplay.

:D I don't want hardly any of those things...

Ludaman
08-04-2016, 02:10
At this point I'm looking for a functioning system to use my Warhammer models in, with enough differentiation that the rules feel fluff-compliant for each unit type. Currently that's 9th Age or one of the legacy WFB editions. Is the idea to provide full support for all the different units GW manufactured (plus maybe some they didn't) or a more generic rule set?



:D I don't want hardly any of those things...

The basic outline of Factions/armies (without giving away my story) is to have:

1.Elves
2.Men
3.Dwarves
4.Orcs & Goblins
5.Undead

As the starting armies with each having access to basic units: infantry, cavalry, ranged shooting, warmachines.

Then you would pick a deity/alignment which would give you access to unique characters, units and schools of magic.

So an Elf army might worship an evil God and gain access to cultists, monsters and lizard cavalry. If you instead chose to worship a deity of nature they might gain access to elite archery, Tree-ents, and stag-Knights.

My goal would be to add lizards, beasts and ogres at a later time: Men who worship evil would have access to demons of various types.

Malagor
08-04-2016, 03:10
IMO what I want is fun in a wargame.
I want the factions to feel unique both when it comes to facing them and playing as them and as close to their background as possible.
I have no problem with special rules since they add these flavors that makes a army stand out and makes them unique.
I got no problem with complicated rules as long as they make sense. Some might react to this and my liking of 8e since it doesn't make sense but I don't find 8e to be a complicated game, it is really quite easy to learn and get into if you are willing to learn.
Random elements are fine as well since not only can they add alot of fun to a game but also fits armies like Orcs & Goblins and Skaven.
And I want items, I love customizing my characters. In terms of balance of course alot of items are a nightmare to balance but man they sure are fun.

8e Fantasy is the game right now that I feel is the closest to what I want. 9th Age is a good attempt of fixing the issues I got with 8e but went too far with the streamlining that it made some factions boring to play.

mightymconeshot
08-04-2016, 03:26
I would suggest the Hail Caesar rules, or at least giving them a look over. I think the morale rules are great and what you are looking for. They are not an all or nothing and but based on a chart. Basically 2d6. 10 being fine, 2 being destroyed. You subtract causalities at a certain point from your roll. But it results in a shifting battle line as there results that push the loser back in different ways.

Ludaman
08-04-2016, 05:38
I would suggest the Hail Caesar rules, or at least giving them a look over. I think the morale rules are great and what you are looking for. They are not an all or nothing and but based on a chart. Basically 2d6. 10 being fine, 2 being destroyed. You subtract causalities at a certain point from your roll. But it results in a shifting battle line as there results that push the loser back in different ways.

Thanks for the suggestion Hail Cesar has been on the research list for a while but maybe I'll bump it up a little :)

smaxx
08-04-2016, 05:56
Thanks for the suggestion Hail Cesar has been on the research list for a while but maybe I'll bump it up a little :)
I was also going to suggest that :) It has a lot of similarity to Warmaster, so there is a clear connection. You might like to look at Warmaster also, I guess HC is further developed from it (don't really know Warmaster that well, I've just read the rules without playing). Hai Caesar works best with a bigger amount of units than a normal Warhammer game, You'd better have 3 divisions, each having typically about 3 - 5 units. And the game just gets better with more divisions, but then the physical room may become difficult with 28mm minis...

Holier Than Thou
08-04-2016, 09:08
The basic outline of Factions/armies (without giving away my story) is to have:

1.Elves
2.Men
3.Dwarves
4.Orcs & Goblins
5.Undead

As the starting armies with each having access to basic units: infantry, cavalry, ranged shooting, warmachines.

Then you would pick a deity/alignment which would give you access to unique characters, units and schools of magic.

So an Elf army might worship an evil God and gain access to cultists, monsters and lizard cavalry. If you instead chose to worship a deity of nature they might gain access to elite archery, Tree-ents, and stag-Knights.

My goal would be to add lizards, beasts and ogres at a later time: Men who worship evil would have access to demons of various types.

That sounds cool. I look forward to seeing more details.

SuperHappyTime
08-04-2016, 15:19
The basic outline of Factions/armies (without giving away my story) is to have:

1.Elves
2.Men
3.Dwarves
4.Orcs & Goblins
5.Undead

As the starting armies with each having access to basic units: infantry, cavalry, ranged shooting, warmachines.

Then you would pick a deity/alignment which would give you access to unique characters, units and schools of magic.

So an Elf army might worship an evil God and gain access to cultists, monsters and lizard cavalry. If you instead chose to worship a deity of nature they might gain access to elite archery, Tree-ents, and stag-Knights.

My goal would be to add lizards, beasts and ogres at a later time: Men who worship evil would have access to demons of various types.

This is something I would love to get involved in helping to create.

Sheena Easton
08-04-2016, 15:47
Clear rules mechanics that don't have layers of exceptions and special rules tacked on to everything so that it is easy to work out what something does. 8th edition ended up with an unnecessary number of special rules on top of the basics and the drektitude that is Age Of Sigmarines has an obscene number of rules and effects for every single unit, weapon and shield - and they all have ridiculous puerile names to boot...

Philhelm
09-04-2016, 01:40
Thanks to everyone who has posted so far, I'm getting some great ideas from many of you, and it's quite motivating.

Someone asked why I don't like the "step-up" rule. I actually do like the rule, I think it's great, I just think the entire break test mechanic needed an update in 8th edition to compensate for "step-up" and fighting in 2 ranks.

I pretty much hate combat resolution in Warhammer. Sure, it's simple math, but you have to tally kills, determine bonuses for charging, flanking, high ground, standards, defensive position, etc. It usually ends up in an argument ("I killed six skeletons." "No, you only killed five.") and it unnecessarily slows the game. There should be a way to streamline it all.

theunwantedbeing
09-04-2016, 09:51
I pretty much hate combat resolution in Warhammer. Sure, it's simple math, but you have to tally kills, determine bonuses for charging, flanking, high ground, standards, defensive position, etc. It usually ends up in an argument ("I killed six skeletons." "No, you only killed five.") and it unnecessarily slows the game. There should be a way to streamline it all.

You're saying your group has difficulty with simple addition and subtraction, so it needs to be simplified further?

HappyDad
09-04-2016, 10:39
... 8th edition ended up with an unnecessary number of special rules on top of the basicst...

The way I see it, the main 8th edition core rules were fairly slick. It was the 8th edition army books that really muddied the water. Eg. I hate the fact that Dark Elves could re-roll all failed to wounds, and that Dwarves had that awefull table to roll on at the start of the gam. Not to mention Daemons having to roll on a random table every turn. I have sold all my 8th edition army books and gone back to using the 7th edition books (with 8th edition rules). And I find this far more satisfying. I used to worry that the points costs from the 7th edition books would be incorrectly calculated for 8th edition (Lol - back when I thought GW actually did calculate these and not just pull them out of a hat). But I am finding the points costs from the 7th edition books seem much more fairly balanced the wackiness of the 8th edition army books too.

Vazalaar
09-04-2016, 12:17
IMO what I want is fun in a wargame.
I want the factions to feel unique both when it comes to facing them and playing as them and as close to their background as possible.
I have no problem with special rules since they add these flavors that makes a army stand out and makes them unique.
I got no problem with complicated rules as long as they make sense. Some might react to this and my liking of 8e since it doesn't make sense but I don't find 8e to be a complicated game, it is really quite easy to learn and get into if you are willing to learn.
Random elements are fine as well since not only can they add alot of fun to a game but also fits armies like Orcs & Goblins and Skaven.
And I want items, I love customizing my characters. In terms of balance of course alot of items are a nightmare to balance but man they sure are fun.

8e Fantasy is the game right now that I feel is the closest to what I want. 9th Age is a good attempt of fixing the issues I got with 8e but went too far with the streamlining that it made some factions boring to play.

I coudn't agree more!

mrtn
10-04-2016, 01:08
Thanks for the suggestion Hail Cesar has been on the research list for a while but maybe I'll bump it up a little :)

Here's another vote for HC. There is a Facebook group for a fantasy version called Shadow Storm, unfortunately it's not as streamlined as I (and I guess you) want yet, too many acronyms and special rules. I was going to try it for my last game, but we just ended up trying the magic a bit, and found real-world equivalents for our models, ie we just played a normal game of HC. Skaven clanrats was medium infantry, two rat ogres was a war elephant and so on.
It's very forgiving, so if you just have about the same size units as your friends it doesn't matter if you have five files per rank or ten.

For me the things I feel is important for a unit-based game is that it's just unit-based (so no individual basing and casualty removal). I also appreciate solid base rules, having something called a powerfist have the same rules as a powahklaw is insane. Just tell me I have 3 attacks and shut up with the fiddly bits.

Xelee
16-04-2016, 02:35
It should be a fun project for you. I (and let's face it, hundreds of gamers) am doing something similar and it's a good opportunity to tweak the base game to your tastes.

My comments re: the above posts:

There are lots of 'element' based games out there. However, I don't know that it's necessary to go entirely away from basing things on individual figures. I think WHFB was too fiddly sometimes but something more like what they did in War of the Ring could be the best of both worlds: individual heroes, attacks and wounds based on the number of models, individual upgrades for units and and the ability to target special models within units.... But no long thin lines of models, or conga lines, or need to worry about exactly where in each rank a model is. I also quite liked having the possibility to arrange specific standard formations (like a cavalry wedge) in games like WAB.

Another game - Warthrone - combines the idea of different formations impacting on the fight with morale/cohesion. So some formations perform very well but when they degrade they shift to a more scattered and less effective formation. I really like this in theory but again this is fiddly as it seems like you would need a lot of specific movement trays.

My big recommendation is to check out the different 'command and control' methods out there. Ancients/Medieval rules have a lot of methods that might give you some ides. Lots of different ways of modelling this and getting away from IGO (and wait while I do my whole army) then UGO (and I wait). Could be as simple as drawing chits/dice to mix up order of activations or having a force grouped into commands or even the Common method of taking turns to activate a unit (with maybe the Epic Armageddon twist where you can roll to retain another activation.) This is one area where I think WHFB really lagged behind.

Obviously the more traditional WAB successor games (War & Conquest, Hail Caesar, Clash of Empires) will have same easily applicable tweaks on the WHFB base for you. I also suggest War of the Ring as again it's easy to relate that to WHFB but some things are quite different. It might be even more useful to look at games like Dux Brittaniarum (or other games by that writer) and Sword and Spear as these are very playable implementations of alternative command and control methods.

Hope that helps. You can look at Warthrone (and whatever Shield Wolf WHFB type game is called) for free. The other games I've mentioned have to be purchased but you could look at reviews or borrow if you can't find them cheap.

Praznagar
23-04-2016, 19:37
Ludaman I feel your pain!

I am in the same situation, albeit further down the path (it was actually KoW which prompted me to devise my own system). Hubris or glory?

I've gone for a vastly simpler approach, only four stats per unit and an emphasis on multi-player battles.

If anyone would like to take a gander at my Warpack (http://www.warpack.uk)site, I'd be keen to get some feedback on the game.

I just started a summary thread on Warpack over here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?417692-New-tabletop-game-Warpack-Your-Fantasy-Battles&p=7619626&viewfull=1#post7619626).