Building a better Warhammer

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I've got another battle report in preparation. When it goes up, so will a new copy of the rules and revised army lists - with extra fluff for your enjoyment.

One of the things I'm doing now is making sure the rules are clear. To that end, I'm using charts and such, which takes a little time.

The battle is between Arcadians (High Elves) and Boreans (Orcs). And of course there's no magic, since I haven't got the rules for that yet.

[Katastrophe]

Keep Plugging, I'd like to see the newest rules when they are complete

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Ask and ye shall recieve.

I haven't had time to write the battle report, but revised everything is up.

Check it out.

As you can see, the revisions are becoming less profound and a lot of the work I'm doing is polishing: charts and commentary and so forth.

There was a glaring hole that I had overlooked that got filled: units leaving the table. After much thought, I've decided that once you go, you stay gone.

Routed units are dead anyway, so it doesn't affect them. Non-routed units can either decline to pursue (you don't test ld to restrain pursuit, it's entirely your call) or stop on the table edge.

This prevents the "run off the board into safety" effect and it also discourages armies from lining up with their backs to the edge to torment would-be pursuers.

The big new things are the armies, and a word of explanation may be in order.

There are at this point 8 human army lists, many of them quite similar. This was done on purpose. The Successor Kingdoms have a lot in common and I expect (and hope!) that people will want to use them as allies.

They also fight amongst themselves, though, so that remains wholly within the fluff (except the Red Knights - they only fight bad guys).

In terms of other armies, there are two flavors of Boreans (Borea proper and the Tusk Confederation), so orc players get two lists and fighting styles.

I'm using two kinds of elves (there are no dark elves) and one general dwarf list.

The other races are Dragonkin (desert-dwelling lizardmen), Undead, Tauria (beastmen/minotaurs) and Salix Marshes (eeeevil fishmen).

A fifth army (that isn't evil but will be in that file) is Tigrans, who are cat people.

So, that's what, 12 good guys and 6 bad guys? Fine with me, especially since 8 of the good guys are very similar (Erxyia is probably the most unique because they use chariots).

Ultimately, the plan is to do one volume of rules and commentary, and one volume of army lists/background. A third section will deal with magic.

That's the plan at least.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Well, the new battle report got dumped because:

1. I've decided to put my time into more revisions and
2. Those revisions make the battle report somewhat obsolete.

I'm quite pleased with the core rules, the biggest thing that is slowing me down is the chrome: characters, magic and magic items.

I've finally nailed down characters, who have revised points values and a simplified system of fighting duels. I also have begun to generate a magic item list, which will probably expand as playtesting goes on and new ideas are offered (hint: like from you guys).

The big news is that the magic system is finally coming together. By that I mean I'm pretty sure of where I want to go, now comes the hard part of writing it all out.

Happily, I'm using a stripped-down version of my RPG (Adventures, Realms and Quests(tm) ) so a lot of that text can be recycled.

Oh, I've also added a new weapon choice: the flail. Can't imagine how I forgot to have this in the first place. The flail is a one-handed weapon that confers AP 1 and negates the opponent's shield. So it's like the ne plus ultra of armor-piercing weapons (which it pretty much was).

Anyhow, I'll have updated files hopefully next week.

[Mr. Sir]

Impressive work so far. But there is just one thing, I don't see why you would get rid of initiative. Surely It would make sense that some units would strike faster than others, even just the rare/special choices?

[Mr. Sir]

And(sorry about the double post) Under the measurement section it says that you can measure any distance any time.

I would've thought it would be more challenging if the players had to judge distances than just go for the easy option. I realise that you may have wanted to speed up game play, but IMO it'd be 'better' to have that element of uncertainty in the game.

Another thing, in the stat line there is nothing about the number of attacks a model has, did i miss something?

[Commissar von Toussaint]

All of those are excellent questions.

Intiative: The question of who strikes first is relevant only if you don't let successive ranks "fill in" and strike back. This is what GW does and I hate it. Conceptually, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The rules clearly state that if the attacking unit kills the front rank, the losses "bleed into" the second rank.

This means that troops are pushing forward and dying, but are too stupid to swing back. It makes no sense at all. A more realistic option is that after the initiative side goes, the surivors hit back.

In my first games, I used a concept called "priority" that reflected who got to swing first. The thing was, I found it didn't really matter. So in the interest of simplicity I just dropped it.

Combat in WHFB is about impacts: who gets to charge hits first and often breaks the opponent.

Charging has its advantages on Conqueror (Morale and lance bonus) but the real elements of combat are combat skill and leadership, at least as far as I'm concerned. And yes, position: flank/rear attacks are very bad.

Free measurement: This is an old cause of mine. Most games don't require guessing and I think it's silly that GW still does. There isn't really any "chance" once you get in practice, but what does happen is that new players or players with bad depth perception get screwed. So I dropped it. Games go a lot faster - particularly since people don't have to break out the micronometers to find out of a charge is in range. Usually they know exactly what is coming. I like that.

Multiple Attacks: All models have one attack unless otherwise noted. Characters get two. Some monsters (ogres) get two. Dragons get six depending on what attack mode they are using.

And if you have two hand weapons you get an additional attack.

Originally there was an Attacks stat in the profile, but it was always "1", so I dropped it. I know a lot of potential players are going to be used to GW's system, but I wrote the rules assuming they had zero gaming experience. I may put something to that effect in my discussion of the profile at the beginning.

Thanks for the feedback!

In other exciting news, here are the latest updates. The rule book is about done, though magic still needs some serious work (read: playtesting).

The Undead are finished (look for them in the "Other Armies" document). Tonight (hopefully) we'll kick off a game between the Tusk Confederation and the Undead so we'll see how those rules for fear and such pan out.

Note: the Undead require NO spells to function normally. That's always been a pet peeve of our gaming group so we fixed it. There are spells that help create new undead, but they can march, fight, etc. anyway they want. In fact, rather than make them slow, I simply made them supernaturally fast! Should be an interesting game.

Also, character got a bit of a revision, at least in how they are laid out and what equipment you can get. Magic items are up and ready for your selection as well.

Finally, I've been giving some thought to an "intermediate" upgrade of units, allowing you to have 20, 25 and 30-man infantry units. I'm content to keep archers and cavalry units the way they are. Most this lets people have a middle size that suits their figures and helps them make the points work out.

[grickherder]

Excellent thread that I will continue to watch. I got out of fantasy with the release of 6th edition just after I bought my 5th edition vampire counts army book (and army!). I've pondered getting back into it ever since.

I'm thinking instead of using a different scale. I'll probably go for 15mm or 6mm. I'm definitely on the hunt for rules sets and will be thinking about Conquerer and how it could be adapted for smaller scales. Given that they'll likely be mounted on stands rather than as individuals, it'll probably be a matter of making a "making change" system where only the back ranks are individual miniatures (or still stand based but on fractionally sized stands).

Once again, great thread (despite the attempted derailment)

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Thanks.

The reason I went with 25mm was that it was the scale I already had. Certainly you could reduce it and the distances proportionately. One thing that works in your favor: Conqueror uses fixed unit sizes.

That means if you use standard frontages, you could arguably base it anyway you want and simply use an army roster to record wounds, etc. Since melee combat is simultaneous, units will fight by basic frontage until they've been cut down to essentially single-digit size.

Obviously the individual figures look nice, let you track losses and give more variety for formations. But I can't see any reason why your idea wouldn't work.

Good thinking!

[grickherder]

The reason I went with 25mm was that it was the scale I already had.

Oh, I totally get that. It's right in the title of your thread. A better "Warhammer." Not a better "Warmaster" or something else. Obviously you'll have WFB miniatures.

Certainly you could reduce it and the distances proportionately. One thing that works in your favor: Conqueror uses fixed unit sizes.

I think I missed that in my glances through the rules. Very, very intersting.
I also like that each guy represents more than one guy. No more of this 20 guys taking a flag for a parade march nonsense.

That means if you use standard frontages, you could arguably base it anyway you want and simply use an army roster to record wounds, etc.

I'm thinking it might make sense to make small playing cards or business cards that have the unit info that are laminated so you can use a washable marker.

Since melee combat is simultaneous, units will fight by basic frontage until they've been cut down to essentially single-digit size.

This is where the making change comes into play. For example, say I have a unit where the frong is made up of 2 40mm stands with 4 15mm figures on each. That's 10mm or 1 cm per figure. The unit is a few ranks deep but the last rank has, instead of 2 40mm stands with 8 guys, has 8 guys arranged as follows:

40mm stand - 4 figures
20mm stand - 2 figures
10mm stand - 1 figure
10mm stand - 1 figure

No matter the losses, I can always "make change" to reduce it to the correct amount. And as long as both sides use the same basing, it should work fine.

Obviously the individual figures look nice, let you track losses and give more variety for formations. But I can't see any reason why your idea wouldn't work.

Hmmm. Formations might be an issue.

With 4 guys on a 40mm base as a stand size (an arrangement very common in other wargames for which I might use the figures) there are only a few formations I can make without extra "make change" guys. I guess I could always have more "make change" stands.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I don't think it will be much of an issue, honestly.

There are only two real formations per se: column (the standard one from WHFB) and square, which is easily represented by having the various stands face outwards.

The only challenge you will have is altering the frontage, and I'm not sure how important that is. Usually my units keep the same frontage for the whole game. I think most people do the same.

You may want to experiment until you get to the optimum frontage for a particular unit before you finalize your bases. Otherwise, I don't see any problem with what you propose.

[grickherder]

The links to the rules don't seem to be working. I've tried with firefox, explorer and the latest versions of both MS Office and OpenOffice. All the files seem to be blank pages with a 0 kb size.

square, which is easily represented by having the various stands face outwards.

I find this a bit strange. Why is there a square? Are there any examples of a square being used prior to the English civil war pike blocks (who rarely actually formed into squares facing all directions-- if ever)? I take it the square is designed to repel cavalry-- but it would only really work if those forming the square have spears, pikes or as they were equiped in the Napoleonic wars, long muskets with bayonets.

Why have early 19th century tactics in a high fantasy game?

I went to get the latest rules and take another look at it incase I am misunderstanding something, but the links don't seem to be working.

EDIT -- The other armies and the elves list work, but none of the other files.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

It isn't a 19th century formation. That would be a hollow square.

The square I use in Conqueror is actually an abstraction. It represents a unit refusing its flanks and basically facing all directions. Since the models have square bases, that's the terms I use because that's the shape they will generally assume.

Historically, units in that situation formed more of a circular shape (for obvious reasons - corners are particularly vulnerable).

The rationale is that many times a unit will face an attack by multiple elements on multiple sides. In WHFB, they basically are screwed - even knowing what is coming, they cannot react. With Conqueror, they can do what units realistically did: turtle up and plant the flag.

I'll take a look at the files and make sure that they work.

[Crazy Harborc]

Likely, those good ol' days squares (before the 19th cent.) were more like circles. Those warriors were a "little" busy for playing "dress those ranks"!!

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Yes. The Romans certainly used that formation and given the scale - a full-strength unit has 300 men in it - it makes perfect sense for a surrounded unit to face all sides, plant the flag, and build a wall of enemy corpses around their position.

I think the rules give decent tradeoffs for this: units in square may not charge, move or pursue, so even if they break their foes, they have to stand and watch them get away.

In one of my games, I had badly outnumbered Arcadians (High Elves) do that and they kill their enemies in heaps. Still, they enemy was wearing them down simply through numbers. Basically it works the way I want it to.

I suppose I could change the name if people have a problem with the "square" - I could call it "shield wall" for example. But what about units that don't have shields? So that's why I went with "square."

Oh, and something is definately wrong with the site. The files load fine, but don't download worth anything. If I can't get it to work, I'll try putting them up in .pdf format next week.

[grickherder]

Alright, I was thrown by the missnomer. I know what you mean about the amorphus defensive blobs. The hollow square distinction is helpful. I don't know what other term to use-- but I know that if I were to be demoing this game to my gaming group (mostly hex based wargame playtesters and historical grognards extraordinaire) the second "square" came out of my mouth, they'd forget about it being fantasy and we'd get side tracked into a lengthly discussion about how "square" isn't appropriate for the era or a discussion about when square and square like formations (or formations that accomplsihed the same thing) were first used and how it developed. When I do demo a little fantasy game for them, I'll call it "defensive posture" or something. It's not that they or I are opposed to fantasy and sci-fi gaming-- infact, we all love it, but when when people who like to pick nits find a nit, they pick it.

From the results the rule produces though, it looks like it accomplishes what you set out to do.

Care to email the files to disreality@yahoo.com ?

[grickherder]

The download links are still not working-- could someone with the latest version please email a copy to the address above?

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Sorry about the delay. My car died and we're moving in less than a week, so things have been hectic. And school starts tomorrow. Whew!

I've gone Acrobatic on the rules, and they worked for me.

Enjoy!

[grickherder]

No problem. The PDF worked fine.

I wanted to wait until I took a look through the latest version before commenting.

There are a few artificial feeling things I'd like to comment on.

1) The first being the rules about the board edge. My main question is "why?" Why have it be an autoelimination? The justification is that they've passed beyond the influence of the commander. But there are tons of instances when the unit is right in the middle of the table and does not respond to the influence of the commander. Should we remove them then as well?

And what would the commander of that particular unit do? Simply leave? Or head back into the battle, taking his own initiative and looking for signal flags and listening for horns and watching for messenger riders?

Perhaps some sort of rallying or morale check to return would be better. One of the main problems with games like Warhammer (and even DBA on the historical side of things) is that armies can artificially anchor a flank on the board edge. It could be miles of clear open ground, but cavalry won't be able to flank because if they tried, they get auto-eliminated for leaving the board.

2) Shooting -- only the front rank or two ranks on elevation? Why? Another warhammer hold over that doesn't make any sense. When a bunch of medieval archers shoot, do they directly aim at their target like they're using a rifle, or do they shoot up in an arch and have their arrows rain down?

Historically archers shot many, many ranks deep and over friendly units that weren't too close to the target. I understand that each base equals multiple troops, but archers typically formed their lines to maximize their fire.

You may want to have certain weapons capable of volley fire where all ranks attack (slings, bows, crossbows, etc.,). Or make all of them be able to fire.

"Composite Bow" is a bit of an artifact. Just make it a medium bow or a bow. It's definitely a sign of the influence of dungeons and dragons weapon descriptions on the minds of fantasy gamers. Certain armies had bows that
were made of more than one material like bone, wood or whatever in the same bow. But that didn't make them a different class of bow. Just what the bow is made of.

3) The arbitrary can't shoot into melee rule. It happened quite a bit historically. Intentionally or not, friendies got too close to where archers might be shooting. Probably the easiest way to handle it is to compare the relative sizes of the two units and distribute the hits accordingly. Or something. I understand the desire for simplicity behind not allowing it, but surely a simple solution that will allow for the character of some armies and commanders to come through would be good.

4) Benefits of charging. It really depends on what the attackers and defenders are armed with when it comes to whether or not a charge should be beneficial. Light horsemen with sabres charging into a bike block are not going to automatically cause the pikes to break first because they charged. And often times, when it was just melee troops, they were both moving at a light run at the time of contact.

It's another unneeded warhammer hold over. Why have this artificially charging construct that pretty much assumes that everyone stops and huddles into a defensive position at the end of every movement phase. Odds are, they're advancing from one turn to the next. Charging should only really matter with cavalry designed to charge and against non-melee troops like archers. As well, it should matter against units already engaged in combat.

5) Yet again, another warhammer hold over in the form of the pursuit rules. The morale rules and pursuits leave no real room for the historical gaining and losing of ground that often went back and forth on the battle line. It's basically a meet grinder of death until someone runs and then they might get caught and instantly wiped out.

6) Two hand weapons = extra attack. Here just because it's in Warhammer or is there an actual reason for it? Find historical examples of two weapon fighting-- there's not a lot of them. There's a reason for that-- unlike in Warhammer, having two swords did not automatically mean you could attack twice as much.

7) Skirmishers don't really act as historical skirmishers. A formed group of infantry that charges skirmishers is not going to suddenly have the
skirmishers dress ranks and put up a fight. They're going to be simply pushed back and/or scattered. Skirmish formation seems quite powerful and functions more like a loose horde than actually performing any skirmish function.

-----

It seems to me that this might be better off as a modification pack of house rules for Warhammer than as a stand alone rules set. Basically you've got:
play warhammer except:
1) remove toughness, make armour save 1 better for toughness 4-5, 2 better for 6-8 and 3 better for 9+ All hits wound without a toughness roll
2) translate LD into your morale/combat resolution system and use it instead
3) add the square/blob formation
4) have both armies shoot in both turns
5) move the magic phase to the top of the turn

and probably a couple other minor tweaks.

While I think you have succeeded in "building a better warhammer," I think you simply ported too much of warhammer in to really consider it
a stand alone game. It's more like a collection of house rules for warhammer.

From one of your earliest posts in this thread:

As I go through this (I'm on skirmishers now) I am subjecting each and every facet of the game to a test:

Is this necessary?
Does it matter?
What would I lose if I got rid of it?
Can I make it easier and more intuitive?

I'd suggest going through the process again. Maybe being a bit more cutthroat in the answering of the questions. You may also want to add the questions:
What results does this produce?
Are these results congruent with what I want in the game?
How could I do this differently if I had to in order to ensure the results are congruent with what I want?

Altogether I like it better than WHFB, but I think it's got a long way to go before it's a great stand alone system for fantasy battles.

Good job on tweaking warhammer into something much better though.

EDIT -- I'm also curious about the point system. Is there an actual system that is consistent from army to army or is everything priced at what you felt was about right?

[Commissar von Toussaint]

First off, thanks for the feedback. When you read down my responses, keep in mind that I’m trying to clarify things rather than argue. A lot of what you say are “holdovers” from WHFB in fact were conscious decisions. Others actually are unrelated.

1) The first being the rules about the board edge.

The short answer is: It’s easier.

The long answer is that board edges are inherently artificial. Works the same whether you’re doing miniatures or using a hex grid, I’m afraid.

I looked at the WHFB system for a unit coming back on and it is rather complex and doesn’t derive a great deal of benefit. So basically I cut to the chase – either a unit is off on its own or it stays on the field. Realistically, there isn’t much difference is, there? If the unit stops, it spends a turn facing anyway, but at least it is still on the table. With WHFB you pull it off and put it back on in the same place.

Basically if you have a better idea, I’d love to hear it.

I have to disagree with your assessment on command and control. History is replete with cavalry (especially) running off in hot pursuit and leaving the battle.

2) Shooting -- only the front rank or two ranks on elevation?

As you note, archers already get three ranks (each model is 10 real people, average three deep).

I do archery as a hobby and I’m a hell of a lot more accurate when I can SEE what I’m aiming at. I think the current system gives players the choice of shooting vs depth.

It may seem like WHFB, but there are some big differences:

1. Any archery fire that hits forces a morale check. Archery isn’t about kills, it’s about harassing fire.
2. Archery has a much higher (and more historically accurate) rate of fire.

I think when you take those two together you get a different game.

I tried to do it with unlimited ranks and the short version is that it didn’t work.

You may want to have certain weapons capable of volley fire where all ranks attack (slings, bows, crossbows, etc.,). Or make all of them be able to fire.

Have you ever tried to use plunging fire when you couldn’t see the target? Not much use.

"Composite Bow" is a bit of an artifact..

Hey, those “fantasy gamers” that play D&D are my target audience! Using terms they already know and are comfortable with is a feature, not a bug.

If I called it a “recurve” would you feel better?

3) The arbitrary can't shoot into melee rule.

First off, it isn’t arbitrary. That is a clear design decision. If I allow it, it will get abused.

People keep saying it “happened all the time.” Okay, when? And was it deliberate?

What you’re talking about would require a lot more in terms of command and control rules, like giving units pre-game orders, rolling for messengers and such. I’ve played games like that, and that’s not what I want to do here.

4) Benefits of charging.

I don’t see how this can be a “holdover.” Combat is simultaneous and the only real benefit for non-cavalry is a morale one. Seems quite a bit different to me. This has far more in common with the Brigade Series than WHFB.

Having the impetus of the charge is significant. Every historical account I can find backs this up. It is better to charge than to be charged. At least I dumped the whole “ooh, they have a flag, and a drummer and we don’t so we’re afraid” nonsense that is WHFB.

5) Yet again, another warhammer hold over in the form of the pursuit rules.

The key difference here is that the morale system isn’t binary any more. There is an intermediate state between “fine” and “routed,” which I think shows that units gradually start to come apart. Units can be “broken” through their losses and “disordered” by poor Morale Table rolls. This is quite a bit different from the WHFB system where units are perfectly cool unit they scamper.

I want melee combat to be bloody and decisive. People don’t sit back and shove each other until someone gets bored and slowly trundles home. For that reason I don’t think much of the “pushback” that you see in Warmaster. All it does is force a constant realignment of the units.

Conqueror is a good deal bloodier than WHFB. One of my pet peeves with WHFB is how you can have two huge units pile into each other and no one dies.

Do you have a suggestion? I mean there has to be a mechanic to allow the winners to finish off the losers. Like WHFB, I don’t insist that Routed units are slaughtered to a man. They aren’t, they are just shattered and cannot reform.

Unlike WHFB, my morale system allows units to charge, lose the combat, rout and run away, and reform on the same turn.

I think that is what you are talking about. If you want pursuit to be less deadly, I’m willing to look at that. But at the same time, there should be some way for units that are Routed to be “finished off” through vigorous pursuit.

Historically, very few units actually rallied once they broke. More often they fled the field and turned to brigandage or (if they had discipline) returned to their camp/base/castle. My personal favorites are the ones who looted their own baggage trains before leaving the field. I haven’t figured out how to do a rule for that, though.

6) Two hand weapons = extra attack.

It’s a tradeoff and something fantasy players seem to like – and it’s quite common outside of WHFB.

Unlike WHFB, I restrict two hand weapons to a select group of units. I think one unit in the entire Thracian list gets it and one Borean unit has it as well. That’s a far cry from WHFB where just about everyone has access to it – so much so that entire armies use it as their primary fighting style.

7) Skirmishers don't really act as historical skirmishers.

I think they do. The rules for what happens when they get charged are there to illustrate that it is a bad idea.

If you look at my Morale rules, a couple of things should stand out. The first is that it is quite easy for non-broken (that is, intact) units to rally. So skirmishers are there to do three things:

1. Harass the enemy with missile fire
2. Threaten flanks
3. Pull line units out of position

All of which they do quite well.