PDA

View Full Version : Even more rule alterations



Avian
22-06-2005, 16:16
Listed below are the proposed house rules for our local league / campaign, the parts in orange being new, the others having been used last season as well:


Magic Weapons
Single-handed Magic weapons that are NOT described as spears, morning stars, pistols, etc. count as Hand weapons with regards to the Hand weapon + shield armour save bonus, and the extra attack bonus when used with an additional hand weapon. Magical hand weapons carried by Orcs / Ogres count as Choppas / Ogre Clubs, respectively.
Magic shields
Magic shields grant the Hand weapon + shield armour save bonus when combined with a magical or non-magical Hand weapon.
Charges
When charging, units must maximise the number of models fighting from both sides whenever possible, not just from their own side.
Difficult terrain
Being in Difficult terrain does not automatically stop a unit from being able to make march moves.
Spears
Cavalry charging the front of an infantry unit fighting with spears suffer a -1 to hit penalty for the first round of combat. This applies to all
models in the unit, both riders and creatures.
Note that this only applies when the entire unit (not including any characters) are fighting with spears, and that it applies whether or not the chargers actually attack spear-armed models.
Halberds
Halberds are Armour piercing.
Bows, longbows and shortbows
When firing at short range in the Shooting phase, 1 additional rank of models may fire.
When firing at long range in the Shooting phase, 2 additional ranks of models may fire.
Crossbows and repeating crossbows
When firing at long range in the Shooting phase, 1 additional rank of models may fire.

Note that the bonuses for missile weapons only applies to shooting done in the Shooting phase and not to shooting done in any other phase, such as Stand & shoot or magical firing done in the Magic phase (Incantation of Smiting, for example).


EDIT: Forgot the one about marching in DT.

anarchistica
23-06-2005, 21:58
Why do only spears hve the -1 to hit rule? Why not halberds or pikes? Pikes i can understand because they're already awesome, but halberds are still quite weak (and not worth it even with AP).

boogle
24-06-2005, 23:13
have you ever tried to charge in and hit a block of spearmen?

maybe a fear test for trying to charge a block of Spearmen/Pikemen if you are mounted

Avian
25-06-2005, 18:35
Why do only spears hve the -1 to hit rule? Why not halberds or pikes?
Eventually this rule might be extended to other polearms as well, though I'm a bit weary about giving a weapon two new rules without proper testing first.



maybe a fear test for trying to charge a block of Spearmen/Pikemen if you are mounted
Takes the choice away from the player and leaves it up to the dice. Too dull for my taste.

anarchistica
25-06-2005, 20:46
Eventually this rule might be extended to other polearms as well, though I'm a bit weary about giving a weapon two new rules without proper testing first.
I've spotted a possible problem. Vampire Count Skeleton Warriors. With this rule, you could have 4 units that are at -2 to be hit (Cursed Book)...:eek:

Avian
25-06-2005, 20:52
I've spotted a possible problem. Vampire Count Skeleton Warriors. With this rule, you could have 4 units that are at -2 to be hit (Cursed Book)...:eek:
I know about that one. So far it has not been a problem, as nobody much takes skeleton spearmen anyway (let alone 4 units...).
Just take infantry and sort them out with that instead.

Gazak Blacktoof
25-06-2005, 22:17
Note that the bonuses for missile weapons only applies to shooting done in the Shooting phase and not to shooting done in any other phase, such as Stand & shoot or magical firing done in the Magic phase (Incantation of Smiting, for example).

Any particular reason for this adendum? Its not like people actualy use smiting on their archers, I know I don't unless my skull catapult has destroyed itself. Would it be too powerful compared to the magic missiles of other races? Especially considering that you need a sizeable unit of skeleton archers to make it woth while.

If any additions were to be made to the power of bows, I think it would be preferable to allow extra shots to be useable only when the unit is stationary. This prevents wood elves getting out of hand considering that they can now move and fire with out penalty, firing in 3 ranks whilst doing so would be rather nasty. Preventing move and fire shooting in multiple ranks (additional to that allowed by hills) should aleviate any worries about abusive tomb kings shooting. Given that TK archers are no better than normal archers except when 'to hit penalties' such as move and fire come into consideration.



Is there any reason that characters wielding magic swords and carrying magical shields need to be more difficult to kill? As far as I'm concerned its a trade off.

Avian
25-06-2005, 22:25
Being able to move and fire is the only advantage bows have over crossbows and handguns. If you disallow this you hurt bows more and crossbows and handguns not at all (and that is more or less exactly the opposite of what I'm aiming for).

If woodies want to make, big, expensive, unarmoured units whose only real advantage is that they can actually use the bows they have paid for, then more power to them.

Maybe the reason you are not using the Incantation of Smiting on your archers is that they don't get to shoot much? Is there not a chance that this could become worthwhile if you could actually get a decent ammount of shots from a unit?

That having been said, this rule set has been tested in 60+ games with no complaints from those who have tried them.



Is there any reason that characters wielding magic swords and carrying magical shields need to be more difficult to kill? As far as I'm concerned its a trade off.
What kind of trade off? You swap your cheap and very good great weapon for an expensive magic weapon that doesn't do much and you get a not-very-big increase to your armour save.
I'm not impressed by that trade off.
A character on foot with a magic weapon is normally limited to a 4+ armour save (HA + SH). Now you can have a 3+ armour save instead.
Take this example:
-Empire Captain on foot with great weapon and armour of 1+ save. 84 pts
-Empire Captain on foot with Sword of +2 S, shield and FPA (totalt of 2+ save in CC): 100 pts
That is more like a decent trade off, if you ask me.

maxwell123
25-06-2005, 22:39
but halberds are still quite weak (and not worth it even with AP).

I must disagree here, to a certain extent. Halberds become quite awesome against infantry with the armour piercing rule. The halberd would then cancel out both the shield save and the hw/s bonus save against most infantry. Infantry with just heavy armour or light armour/shield wouldn't get a save at all.
The killiness of the halberd just gets significantly better and it becomes a worthwhile weapon vs. infantry.

The problem in giving armour piercing to halberds is that it means halberds will still be the suckiest weapon against heavy cavalry (at least in first round, in later rounds great weapons will be much worse, particularly if the halberdiers have higher initiative than the cav).
Whilst the killiness of the halberd improves significantly enough vs. infantry, it doesn't do so vs. cavalry with the armour piercing rule, making halberdiers great at taking on pretty much any infantry, but remaining so very vulnerable to a cavalry charge.

Would giving halberds armour piercing AND -1 to be hit vs. charging cav be OTT??

maxwell123
25-06-2005, 22:45
What kind of trade off? You swap your cheap and very good great weapon for an expensive magic weapon that doesn't do much and you get a not-very-big increase to your armour save.
I'm not impressed by that trade off.
A character on foot with a magic weapon is normally limited to a 4+ armour save (HA + SH). Now you can have a 3+ armour save instead.
Take this example:
-Empire Captain on foot with great weapon and armour of 1+ save. 84 pts
-Empire Captain on foot with Sword of +2 S, shield and FPA (totalt of 2+ save in CC): 100 pts
That is more like a decent trade off, if you ask me.

I agree.

Part of the problem with taking magic weapons with characters on foot is it usually means you need to take a magic armour or talisman as well. Dwarves, Chaos Lords, Vampires and Ogres can generally manage ok without them, but other characters (Elves, humans, skaven, etc) need that magic armour/talisman to go with their magic weapon or they are a sitting duck in combat.

Allow single handed magic weapons and shields to provide the hw/s bonus mundane ones do would be a good way of enabling characters on foot to achieve at least a half decent armour save and not be forced to take magic armour for a chance at survival in combat.

Avian
25-06-2005, 22:52
I must disagree here, to a certain extent. Halberds become quite awesome against infantry with the armour piercing rule.
Not really. If you run Halberdiers with shields vs. Swordsmen you'll find that they are more or less equal (swordsmen are at +1 to hit while halberdiers are at +1 to wound, both save on a 6), with the only difference being that swordsmen will hit first in later turns due to +1 In.
Both cost the same.


I will, at some point, try the spear bonus on halberds as well. I don't think it will be all that amazing on most units. Feel free to try it out for yourself. :)

maxwell123
25-06-2005, 23:15
Not really. If you run Halberdiers with shields vs. Swordsmen you'll find that they are more or less equal (swordsmen are at +1 to hit while halberdiers are at +1 to wound, both save on a 6), with the only difference being that swordsmen will hit first in later turns due to +1 In.
Both cost the same.

Well, you're only comparing Empire Swordsmen/Halberdiers here, not halberdiers in general.

Non-human/Undead halberdiers have got excellent weapon skill. Stormvermin and Temple Guards are WS4. Chaos Warrior halberdiers, Black Guards and Phoenix Guards are WS5. Hand weapon/shield troops won't be at the +1 to hit against these warriors generally. Indeed, often these halberdiers will have +1 to hit AND +1 to wound vs. hand weapon/shield opponents.


I'd actually just like to see Empire Halberdiers get heavy armour. Every other non-human halberdier regiment has heavy armour.
I like the theme of halberdiers being heavy infantry and spear armed troops (NONE of which have access to heavy armour currently) as light to medium infantry.

Give Empire halberdiers (who are fully trained soldiers) heavy armour and that will leave Bret Men at arms as the only halberdiers in the game with light armour.

Avian
25-06-2005, 23:30
Well, you're only comparing Empire Swordsmen/Halberdiers here, not halberdiers in general.
You can use my Unit Combat Calculator (http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~tarjeia/avian/calculations/unit_combat.php), if you like. Let me know if you find some situation where an AP halberd is remarkably better than HW+SH.


Both Empire, Bretonnian and Sylvanian Halberdiers come with light armour.

Gazak Blacktoof
26-06-2005, 20:14
Being able to move and fire is the only advantage bows have over crossbows and handguns. If you disallow this you hurt bows more and crossbows and handguns not at all (and that is more or less exactly the opposite of what I'm aiming for).


Which they would still have and they would be effective when on a hill too. But consider the damage mutliple rank shooting from bow fire would do to fast cavalry. They already get it in the neck from skiirmishing archers, but in that instance at least the bowmen do not have a rank bonus and so can be overrun by the cavalry should they make contact. Ranked archers who are able to move and fire in multiple ranks would become superlative flank protection against fast cavalry and other high cost/ low defense troops even when they can escape the fire arc of the archer unit in a single movement phase.






Maybe the reason you are not using the Incantation of Smiting on your archers is that they don't get to shoot much? Is there not a chance that this could become worthwhile if you could actually get a decent ammount of shots from a unit?


Yes perhaps I would, which is why I asked if this would be overpowering, I don't think it would, so why preclude it?




That having been said, this rule set has been tested in 60+ games with no complaints from those who have tried them.


I'll try it out and get back to you.





What kind of trade off? You swap your cheap and very good great weapon for an expensive magic weapon that doesn't do much and you get a not-very-big increase to your armour save.
I'm not impressed by that trade off.
A character on foot with a magic weapon is normally limited to a 4+ armour save (HA + SH). Now you can have a 3+ armour save instead.
Take this example:
-Empire Captain on foot with great weapon and armour of 1+ save. 84 pts
-Empire Captain on foot with Sword of +2 S, shield and FPA (totalt of 2+ save in CC): 100 pts
That is more like a decent trade off, if you ask me.


Then that would be a problem with great weapons for characters, or more specificaly their cost. Even as it stands the magic weapon version you gave above is better in certain situations.

The trade off comes when considering items that give more than a marginaly better great weapon. For example a sword that does multiple wounds, or ignores armour saves entirely. You've also found this paricular combination of a great weapon and a 1+ save suit of armour, this isn't applicable to all of the races.

Not all of the races can get a good save and take a great weapon, so the choice is more real for some armies than it is for others.

Avian
27-06-2005, 15:49
But consider the damage mutliple rank shooting from bow fire would do to fast cavalry.
It's not the multiple ranks that kill you, it's the number of models. What people don't see to get is that this method doesn't let you shoot any more than you normally would. So if your archers kill a lot of fast cav then it's because you have taken a lot of (rather expensive) archers. It may seem horribly unfair to some people, but I don't think letting a 12 pt archer actually shoot is going to be a problem.



Yes perhaps I would, which is why I asked if this would be overpowering, I don't think it would, so why preclude it?
Because, for undead, being more than the opponent gives a significant bonus (auto-breaking). That + not geting any negative modifiers (well, any modifiers at all) makes it much more interesting to make a large unit of the deadies.

But by all means: Test it with skellies being allowed to fire in ranks in the magic phase and come back with the results.



Then that would be a problem with great weapons for characters, or more specificaly their cost. Even as it stands the magic weapon version you gave above is better in certain situations.
To be honest: A great weapon and a decent armour / ward save is probably still better in most situations.


The trade off comes when considering items that give more than a marginaly better great weapon.
The problem is that these decent magic weapons cost around 50 pts, while a great weapon typically costs a tenth of that and is all-round better, not only because it leaves you with lots of spare points to spend on other stuff, it's often more killy as well!
There is a limit to the damage you can do by boosting magic weapons, because at the moment they don't compare.


Not all of the races can get a good save and take a great weapon, so the choice is more real for some armies than it is for others.
Name a few you cannot have a good armour / ward + GW combo. Please.