Page 1 of 29 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 648

Thread: Building a better Warhammer

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Building a better Warhammer

    Over the past couple of days, I've been thinking a lot about fantasy miniatures, mostly due to the fact that Narnia fully rocked. As I left the theater, I turned to my wife and said "If only Warhammer could do battles that cool."

    Veteran (and frustrated) High Elf player that she is, she agreed.

    Having read and participated in lots of discussions about Warhammer over the past five years, I distilled the criticisms with it into four main areas:

    1. The profile
    2. The game system
    3. The army selection process
    4. The magic system.

    I immediately dropped magic because it's really an add-on that is the easiest to fix.

    That left me with the big three.

    It is kind of a paradox that the profile used in WHFB is both the strongest and weakest point.

    It is strong because it has stood the test of time and is pretty intuitive. Most people can easily relate to how fast something moves, how well it hits something, how tough it is, etc.

    GW has tweaked this from time to time, but the basic concept is pretty much set in stone.

    My first question was: Does this really work?

    After some of the debates this summer, I don't think it does. WS doesn't count for enough and Strength counts for too much.

    In fact, looking over the profile, it seemed to me that many of the aspects didn't need to be included.

    So my starting point was to consolidate the stat line into what was really useful.

    Now as a veteran gamer, I understand that we like numbers. Indeed, the more possible variants the better. You can see this in the old hex-based games where they went from one "combat strength" to "attack" and "defense" and later to "Close attack," "armor attack" and so forth.

    We love numbers.

    So I fully expect that a lot of people are already wary of cutting down on the stat line.

    Anyhow, the first thing I did was agree on what SHOULD stay. That was easy: Movement, Ballistic Skill and Leadership.

    All of these are very important. For my purposes, I renamed them to make them fit better with the RPG I'm also working on (the rules are over 100 pages and I think we've got the magic system down - finally).

    Some measure of health is also important, so I kept that.

    This left the main melee combat skill - which I creatively named Melee Skill.

    This is a catch-all for WS and S. A combination if you will.

    Finally, armor is important and so is toughness. I combined these into a Save stat.

    So the final profile looks like this:

    MS AS SV HL MV ML

    MS is Melee Skill
    AS is Archery Skill
    SV is your armor/toughness save
    HL is Health level
    MV is Movement
    ML is Morale

    So what does a "normal" human look like?

    Well, that brought me to the second point: the system.

    GW uses a 10 point system with 6-sided dice, which doesn't work that well. Originally, it meant that a lot of troops couldn't hurt other troops.

    GW figured out that people didn't like this, so they toned it down. The effect is that it is effectively a 6-point system with some outliers.

    My reasoning was that it would be easier to just use a 6-point system and have special rules for the outliers, so that's what I did.

    MS is rated 1 to 6. That way, everyone has at least a chance of hitting everyone else. I use the same table as the GW wounding one (so if it's equal, you hit on a 4+, one better a 3+, one worse 5+ and so on to a maximum of 6+ and a minimum of 2+).

    In practice, the MS 1 troops do rather poorly against their "betters," but that was my intention.

    This allows un- or lightly- armored troops to plow through the rabble as they should.

    an MS 4 Elf will simply tear up a bunch of MS 2 gitlings (my version of goblins).

    Of course, MS isn't all there is to it. Once you hit, you also need to wound.

    In WHFB as we all know, this is where S and T come in and a lot of problems start.

    High Elves and other high WS troops simply don't matter as much as S. Indeed, as several folks have pointed out, S is arguably the most important stat in the game as it can negate Toughness AND armor.

    I'm using a similar scale for armor (light armor 6+, add +1 for shield, etc.) but the maximum is a 2+. Particularly tough creatures might get a bonus on their save, but the maximum is still 2+.

    So basically you hit and then they save.

    I'm getting ahead of myself, but I know people are already saying "Great, so how do you kill cavalry?"

    I have two answers for you. The first is that weapons have an Armor Penetration number that helps cut into armor. Great Weapons are AP 2. Lances are AP 2 on the charge. Spears are AP 1 if used two-handed (no shield).

    The other way is that certain big creatures (ogres, for example) get an integral AP on their profile.

    The final change I made was to morale. I really don't like how you are either broken or totally fine. There is no "disorder" or anything like it.

    So rather than go with a number, morale is a letter from A to E. When you need to make a morale check, you roll on a table and the results are no effect (you're fine), disorder (ranks disrupted, may not charge or fight/shoot in two ranks) and rout.

    The table uses 2d6 and A is similar to Ld 10 in terms of odds, but the results are more graduated. Basically it's easier than doing a "margin of failure".

    So a basic human man-at-arms with sword, shield and light armor would have the following stats:

    MS 3
    AS 3
    SV 5
    HL 1
    MV 4
    ML C

    For contrast, here is what an elf looks like:

    MS 4
    AS 4
    SV 4
    HL 1
    MV 5
    ML B

    Finally, here a gitling:

    MS 2
    AS 3
    SV 6
    HL 1
    MV 4
    ML D

    Anyhow, that's all I have time for right now. I'll post the whole rules once I get them tightened down a bit.
    Last edited by Commissar von Toussaint; 07-08-2008 at 01:07.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  2. #2
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.,USA
    Posts
    7,438

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    It reads well, makes sense (that's a curse sometimes). Since I want to keep in touch with this thread, I decided to chime in.

    By the by, the writers of the 6th Edition rules have a statement in the rulebook that makes it clear (at least to me), that threads and efforts such as this, are a very important part of what they hoped to encourage WHFB players to do........Think.
    I am therefore I think OR I think therefore I am?

  3. #3

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    argh...i love that ur trying to change the system, and i like these rules, but im only just getting into the current rules, and this system does some big restrictions on stats. e.g a blood thirster would be mele skill 6 under these rules, but then so would a lord of change, or a lord choice. it does restrict. nonetheless this is minor, and could be worked around. and this way, elves would infact be superior to otherwise almost the same stat line gobbos. good luck with this

    EDIT: light alliance members will also be commenting on this soon enough (i sent them hyperlink)
    Last edited by crashbang; 23-12-2005 at 19:18.

  4. #4

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Just a quick note. My earlier post indicated that missile troops could shoot in two ranks. Since I'm using two shooting phases, that is now out.

    Carry on and Merry Christmas.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  5. #5

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Well, I have a draft of the rules. I'll post them as soon as I can figure a way to get them out into the ether.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  6. #6
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.,USA
    Posts
    7,438

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Going to take a short, midweek holiday. Hope to read the rules when we(I) get back.
    I am therefore I think OR I think therefore I am?

  7. #7
    Chapter Master Easy E's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,946

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    The Morale system sounds like it involves a great deal of charts. Is there a seperate one for each letter, or is it a sliding scale? Do you startat say B and then as casualties accrue you can slide down to a C or D?

    I am interested to see how this comes together, and how user friendly it is.
    Do you like free wargames?
    http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/

  8. #8

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    one thing i'd like to know,as i may get my mates to playtest this. how did you determine stats for certain units. did u do averageing (S+WS divided by 2) or did u do some other method? if so, did you round the Ms up or down in the case of, say 4.5?

    i believe that heroes and monsters should be allowed to go above MS 6 personally, it would sort them out from the elite units. overall i like where this is going, and think that some Gw developers should keep an eye on it.

  9. #9

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Quote Originally Posted by crashbang
    one thing i'd like to know,as i may get my mates to playtest this. how did you determine stats for certain units. did u do averageing (S+WS divided by 2) or did u do some other method? if so, did you round the Ms up or down in the case of, say 4.5?
    No, I used a six point scale.

    1 = untrained
    2 = poor
    3 = trained
    4 = veteran
    5 = elite
    6 = legendary

    This provides a good deal of variation and puts most of the emphasis on skill rather than power.

    Certain weapons confer armor penetration, as do monstrous creatures.

    i believe that heroes and monsters should be allowed to go above MS 6 personally, it would sort them out from the elite units.
    An elite unit is MS 5. And that would be a very, very elite unit. Think Grail Knights or Swordmasters. Most armies will only reach MS 5 for their characters.

    Remember, this works like the current S vs T, so a unit with even MS 4 vs MS 2 is going to hit on 2+ and will only be hit back on 6+.

    Since I don't want anyone to be unhittable, going beyond MS 6 was out of the question.

    overall i like where this is going, and think that some Gw developers should keep an eye on it.
    Gee, thanks.

    Okay, I playtested last night and it goes pretty damn fast. I made a couple of changes (gave characters an extra attack) and so forth.

    Here is a site with the documents on it. Download and be amazed.

    The three documents are the army lists, main rules and a summary sheet.

    One thing I should warn you about is that since I've broken so completely with WHFB, I'm using my proprietary fluff. The conversion is pretty easy though.

    These parallels aren't totally exact, but they're pretty close to what people are used to dealing with.

    If folks really like the system, we can do mass conversions to the WHFB army lists.

    Goblin = gitling
    Weirland = Empire
    Red Knights = Bretonnia
    Borean = orc
    Yagur = black orc

    Enjoy!
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  10. #10
    Banned Adept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,662

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    For heroes and monsters, I would suggest taking a look at the Lord of the Rings mechanics, and adding Might, Will and Fate points, or their equivalent. That way you can distinguish powerful, hard to kill or arcane individuals without going over 6 on any stat.

  11. #11

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Obviously this is the very first draft so I expect there may be signifcant changes.

    Regarding characters, I'm open to the notion of special rules that apply only to them, however one of the big differences between this and WHFB or LOTR is that I have an actual scale: 1 model = ten real figures.

    That means the power of characters is going to be a little diminished.

    The other thing I want to avoid is having combat effectively decided by CR. The only reason why characters can't take on whole units in WHFB is CR, which is the convoluted mechanism that keeps an otherwise unrealistic and ungainly miniatures system on the rails.

    I don't really use CR. I let the units fight it out and then test to see who has had enough, which is a more traditional (and IMO) realistic approach.

    It is still possible (and likely) for small units of excellent troops to hammer mediocre ones and send them running. It is also possible for big blocks of decent troops to resist hard-hitting elites, since I give them a morale bonus.

    But the bonus of having more ranks won't help you if your unit is being chewed up and spit out.

    I like the notion of big battalions being better. That's why cavalry are 5 models and infantry are 20. And yes, I am planning on offering different sizes of units. But additional models will be cheaper, since mostly they will be there to enhance morale (adding ranks) and stave off being broken.

    I think GW understands this by doing the 25 percent threshold for a break check.

    My problem is that realistically, when units lose that many troops (especially units of average or below-average troops) they tend to fall apart.

    This morale system punishes even elite units if they take heavy losses, which I like.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  12. #12
    Chapter Master Cpt. Drill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,866

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint
    After some of the debates this summer, I don't think it does. WS doesn't count for enough and Strength counts for too much.
    If people were able to hit on 2+ then I think that it would make it alot more WS orentated but it would just make high ws characters too good....


    But for new stats everyone loves random charts right? why not generate befor the battle with a d66 chart!
    There’s no school like
    the Old School

  13. #13

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Quote Originally Posted by Nurglitch
    Unfortunately you haven't defined your terms, or analyzed any of your 'design concepts'.
    What is this, a final exam?

    I'll let you know when you're layed out your design concepts in some sort of systematic manner.


    While it may not be your intention, you're sounding like a lecturing professor. Your credentials for evaluting my "design concepts" are what, exactly?

    My concepts are pretty damn clear: A fundamental reworking of Warhammer. Check out the thread title.

    This is also a bit more: a stand-alone game that doesn't rely on familiarity with Warhammer to succeed. It uses none of the fluff nor does it rely on GW figures to play.

    On the other hand, it is not independent of Warhammer because that is the dominant fantasy rules set. I purposefully designed this to use my existing 28mm models. As a bonus, it will also be backwards-compatible and (hopefully) people on Warseer will be able to do their own Warhammer armies using this system.

    For example, I'm going to do chariot rules because players want them. But I'm also going to do them my way.

    I sense there is a demand for this thing, and I'm trying to fulfill it.

    And frankly, I've wasted enough time on this game designer navel gazing.

    The system is what it is. It works the way I like and that's that. It's similarity and widespread acceptance isn't a bug, it's a feature. Just like how Warzone, Starship Troopers, VOID and other games are tapping into the 28mm scale to appeal to an existing market. People are comfortable with this type of game, as am I.

    I hope that clears things up for you.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  14. #14
    Commander Sybaronde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bærgen, Norway.
    Posts
    888

    Re: Building a better Warhammer



    Nurg, aren't you going a bit overboard? I mean, basically, what you've done in this thread is criticising his work method. One way is to say that 'this is how I think you should do it', but what you've done so far is 'what you're doing sucks, because I don't think it does anything else'.

    Not to discredit you, because I've seen what you've done with DM, but in the spirit of games developers, this is really a farce.

    Oh well,

    Syb

  15. #15

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Meanwhile, back on topic, I did a 1,000 point playtest game last night that showed me a couple things, the most important of which was:

    1. 1,000 points is a lot of models.

    Seriously, I was pretty pleased by the way the system worked. the one thing I'm looking at is a sliding scale for captured banners, pegging them to the morale of the unit they come from. It makes sense that the standard of a knightly unit would be worth more than that of bunch of gitling slaves, yet Warhammer gives them both equal value.

    This in turn leads to the debate over whether units should even get standards, which strikes me a silly in the extreme. Standards are an essential element, if only to help guide the movement of the unit. They are a rallying point and a source of pride.

    Characters also seem to be right where I want them. They offer good leadership and can help tilt the battle (with those two higher MS attacks) but they don't win by themselves.

    All in all, pretty promising. I'm hoping to do another run tomorrow night (only 500 points or so) and I'll keep you posted. Maybe even a battle report!

    Oh, and I almost forgot: Latest version of rules, army lists and of course your handy dandy summary sheet can be found here.

    It occurs to me some folks may not be able to read Word documents. If that's the case, let me know and I'll paste them in here.
    Last edited by Commissar von Toussaint; 05-01-2006 at 01:31.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  16. #16

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    The orcs are already on the web site. Boreans are orcs.

    I don't use GW names (I could, I suppose) but you'll find most every core troop out there.

    high elves are next on my list. Maybe this weekend, maybe next week.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  17. #17

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    The latest version of the rule book is now up here.

    The rules about morale should now be quite a bit clearer. Also, I've changed how maces work. I thought I'd do the "they strike last" thing to balance their AP 1, but upon reflection that doesn't work out too well.

    So I'm simply raising the point cost for units to get maces.

    There may be some updates and upgrades to the army lists in the next few days, but basically I've got things where I want them. Once the core system is solid, I'll add chariots, monsters and magic.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  18. #18

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Okay, here is the High Elf list. Should be pretty straightforward.

    A couple of notes to explain things.

    There are no rules for psychology as yet, so hatred, fear, etc. don't exist. My goal was to design a system that didn't need add-ons to work properly.

    That's why spearelves don't get "fight in three ranks" with their spears. Honestly, they don't need it.

    So go forth and playtest and tell me how it goes.

    Arcadian Lord
    Brave and proud, Arcadian lords have centuries of experience in warfare. Though they seldom take the field, when they do so it is with consummate skill and determination.

    Character on foot 85 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    6 6 5 3 5 A

    Equipment: Heavy armor. May have shield (10 pts), great weapon (20 pts), spear (20 pts) or composite bow (30 pts). shield.

    Character on horseback 120 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    6 6 2 3 8 A

    Equipment: Heavy armor, shield, lance, barded warhorse.

    Arcadian Noble
    Though not as skilled or deadly as their betters, Arcadian Nobles are still worthy adversaries.

    Character on foot 75 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    5 5 5 2 5 A

    Equipment: Heavy armor. May have shield (10 pts), great weapon (20 pts), spear (20 pts) or composite bow (30 pts).

    Units

    Arcadian Archers


    The Arcadians understand the importance of providing missile fire support to their line regiments. Standing in ordered ranks, Arcadian Archers are capable of raining death on their foes.

    10 models 220 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    3 4 5 1 5 B

    Equipment: Heavy armor, long bow.

    Arcadian Scouts

    The trackless glens of the Western Vales are a place where Scouts learn their skills. They are warriors who specialize in ambush and stealth. They appear out of nowhere, hit their targets with precision accuracy and then disappear.

    10 models 260 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    4 4 6 1 5 B

    Equipment: Light armor, long bow.

    Special Rule: Skirmishers.

    Arcadian Spearmen

    Deadly foes with superb equipment, the Arcadians prefer to fight in deep phalanxes.

    20 models 165 points
    30 models 205 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    4 3 4 1 5 B

    Equipment: Heavy armor, shield, spear.

    Arcadian Blademasters
    Some of the most elite warriors in the world, Blademasters can recall battles that took place before the fall of the Hesperian Empire.

    20 models 150 points
    30 models 190 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    5 3 5 1 5 A

    Equipment: Heavy armor, great swords.

    Arcadian Outriders

    The scouts for the main army, Outriders ride swift steeds and can perform feats of incredible horsemanship.

    5 models 220 points
    10 models 275 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    3 4 5 1 9 B

    Equipment: Light armor, composite bow

    Special Rule: Skirmishers.

    Arcadian Knights

    Some of the most elite warriors in the world, the Arcadian Royal Guard can recall battles that took place before the fall of the Hesperian Empire.

    5 models 180 points
    10 models 225 points
    MS AS SV HL MV ML
    5 3 2 1 8 A

    Equipment: Heavy armor, shield, lance, barded warhorse.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  19. #19
    Chapter Master Hlokk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    2,472

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    *Does the CVT dance*

    CVT, what I love about this system is that your not drowning it with ******** like a lot of GW games. For example, when a GW supliment comes out, the person will have to spend hours learning pages and pages of new rules.

    One question, do you have plans to convert all GW armies to your conquerer rules set, or is it something you will leave for other members of the board to do?
    Hlokk: Warseers Resident White Wolf fanboy.
    Quote Originally Posted by der_lex
    If a woman sleeps with lots of guys, she's a ****, but if a man sleeps with lots of women, he's Hlokk.
    2006: 2nd Place: Warseers Best poster. 2007: 2nd Place: Warseers funniest poster

  20. #20

    Re: Building a better Warhammer

    Cool.

    Regarding the army lists, I think there can be a little of both: I can do the main conversions and people can add what they wish.

    I'm glad you picked up on the main focus of the system: keeping it simple.

    Let's take the High Elves for an example.

    Leaving out the wizards for a second (yes, there will be magic, but I'm taking my time in getting it right) I am going with the lord/hero idea of having two "levels" of character. Sometimes more.

    Okay, now the units.

    High Elf core units are:

    Spears
    Archers
    Seaguard*
    Silver Helms

    Specials are:

    Reavers
    Dragon Princes*
    Swordmasters*
    Shadow Warriors
    Chariot

    And the rares:

    Phoenix Guard*
    Bolt Thrower
    White Lions*
    Giant Eagle

    The ones with the * are 0-1. I'll get to them later.

    Okay, looking over that list and comparing it to mine, you don't see a lot of gaps.

    For example, the only core unit I left out is seaguard, which I could change by adding bows. The problem with that is that archery is hideously powerful to point out, especially for elves. My algorithm means you double missile troops because they get two shooting phases per turn. So you'd be looking at 330 points for just 20 of them.

    But I guess if people want to, they can give it a try.

    Now let's look at the specials.

    I have Shadow Warriors (but without the hate, which isn't really important anyway) and Reavers. I also have Swordmasters, but they are unrestricted.

    Stepping back for a moment, that is most of what High Elf players bring to the table.

    I haven't nailed down the chariot rules yet, but as you've seen, I'm thinking about them. Chariots weren't a priority with me for two reasons I've given above:

    1. I think they are somewhat silly in a high medieval context
    2. I don't own any, nor do any of my friends.

    So when I was designing the core rules, they weren't a priority. But if one of you wants to give it a try, we can go with it. Come up with rules, play them, and tell me how they work.

    Dragon Princes are generally agreed to be marginal cavalry choices. I'm not averse to making a fire-proof unit, but I would need to nail down the magic rules first.

    Also, since I'm already giving elves bonus charge distance (without a special rule, it's just marked that way in the profile) I don't see the need to create an even more special super secret charge distance bonus. That's one of the main things I hate about GW: the army list arms race.

    They create a special rule in one list, and then feel they have to trump it in another list.

    Enough already! Aracadian (High Elf) cavary moves fast and hits really hard. That should be enough for anyone. They are already better than the best human cavalry in the game: the Red Knights.

    I see no need to make them even more better.

    Okay, now let's look at the rares.

    I'm not planning on using war machines because they are actually very inappropriate for a field battle. I admit I'm not the world's greatest authority on pre-gunpowder warfare, but the only field battle where I could find artillery (catapults, ballistae) of any kind being used (and making a difference) was the Second Battle of Cremona in 66 A.D. One bolt thrower was used to good effect before some troops infiltrated and cut the cables on it. Of course, the battle was also unique in that it was fought by moonlight, which was amazingly rare.

    If people want to make rules for them, that's fine, but what I'm saying is that when I think of a high fantasy/medieval world, siege weapons belong strictly in sieges.

    My final thought on the matter is that the way I'm structuring Conqueror, no one will needthem they way they do in WHFB. Monsters will be big and scary, but that is why you need mighty heroes to take them down.

    That being said, people have the models and they'll want to use them. My thought is to treat all bolt throwers like cannon: they cut a swath through a unit once every other turn.

    However, I think a lot of HE players will frankly enjoy not feeling they have to take RBTs to have a chance at winning and will really enjoy watching their archers rip into enemy units with showers of steel-tipped death.

    Okay, the other rares are the PG and WL, both much-maligned and dare I say it, largely useless.

    I don't have rules for halberds because a halberd is really a kind of great weapon. So if you have PG, they are like Blademasters, they just use a different kind of blade. Same with the WL: axes have blades, too.

    Now I know there are some players out there saying "but what about fear, and woodcraft, etc?"

    My response is that none of those are really necessary and in any event a lot of GW's special rules don't amount to that much.

    If people really, really want to do that, they can suggest points values and we can go from there.

    I will warn you that the way I do fear will be different and that a unit with it will cost a lot more. So the PG problem will persist.

    One thing I am considering is allowing every player to designated a "bodyguard" unit that gets a morale boost. You get one per army and it can be whatever unit you want.

    So people could then use White Lions or PG to represent that elite unit.

    Finally, what I'm doing is allowing people who bought all three units (SM, PG, WL) to "upgrade" them all to SM standard, which a lot of people seem to like.

    And let there be no mistake: Blademasters are hell on other units. I'm trying to think of a heavy cavalry unit that would dare take them on and I can't find any. Maybe some Death Knights I haven't come up with yet, but certainly the Red Knights would get munched, and they are my gold standard.

    The last unit is the great eagles and I haven't gotten rules for fliers yet. Just to give you an idea of what I am thinking, I am leaning toward two options for fliers:

    1. Zipping across the battlefield as you do in WHFB
    2. Dive bombing as in 5th ed. WFHB.

    In both cases, I'm thinking of having fliers simply make what one might call a "strafing attack" and then zooming away. Big monsters might stick around, but the others wouldn't.

    Anyhow, I hope that clears things up.

    I don't feel I need all the specialized units because my system gives them far better bonuses already.

    If you compare Arcadian spears to other line infantry, they fully rock. Three ranks is overkill and unneeded.

    GW's problem - particularly with elves - is that WS doesn't count for much, so to make low Toughness, average Strength armies amount to something, they need to give them extra bonuses.

    Since I emphasize Melee Skill and Morale, I don't need to resort to add-ons.

    I'm also comfortable with having different units in different armies sharing the same stat line and relying on their role in that army and equipment to make them different.

    I think GW's need to change at least one number per profile - often one that rarely if ever matters - shows a geeky insecurity with their system.

    I don't want to go down that road.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

Page 1 of 29 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [1.5k MechTau]Need help with the building.
    By A neutral shade of black. in forum 40K Tactics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-10-2005, 13:24
  2. So I'm building a new computer...
    By Lordmonkey in forum Computers and Consoles General Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 25-09-2005, 17:17
  3. BT building
    By old guard in forum Wargaming News & Rumours
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 22-09-2005, 01:18
  4. Building busting?
    By Lexx in forum 40K Tactics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 09:51
  5. Building better scout; where?
    By Gamgee in forum Modelling, Painting and Terrain General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 25-05-2005, 08:42

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •