Building a better Warhammer

[Commissar von Toussaint]

If people feel the problem with warhammer is that emphasis has shifted away from larger units to powerful characters and monsters then just readjust the bonuses for large units.

That is just one of many problems.

Outnumber the enemy increase the bonus from +1 to +2
Increase the maximum number fo rank bonuses as well from a maximum of +3 to +4 or +5

Now take your average goblin unit with standard and musician and its staic res could now be as high as

ranks +5
standard +1
outnumber +2
total static res +8

It is going to take a pretty impressive character or monster to get anywhere near that number of attacks let alone actual wounds on the unit.

Right, which makes horde infantry units - already dominant - even stronger.

Conqueror strikes a nice balance between characters, unit skill and numbers. My suggestion is to try a combat between two units using both systems and see which result is more realistic - that is consistent with the fluff. In addition, Conqueror's combat system will go faster because it is simultaneous - thus speeding game play.

Warhammer uses a set of abstractions and special rules to make up for the fact that its core system doesn't really work. Every few years, these patches get so top-heavy that they are stripped away - and then rebuilt again bit by bit.

Conqueror is a fresh approach and I think the core system is robust enough that special rules serve only as chrome rather than essential game mechanics.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I played my first game in a long while yesterday: Bretonnians vs Orcs. Bretonnians won.

As a result, I've been fine-tuning the rule book again. Hopefully in the next day or so the latest and greatest will be up. No big changes, just some additional clarifications, particularly in the magic area.

Previously there was a joint magic phase at the start of each game turn. This is simply too confusing so I'm going with individual magic phases at the start of each player turn. I've also clarified how many spells wizards can cast (one, two for masters), whether they can cast the same spell twice (yes), and cleaned up some of the language.

As mentioned before, battle standards are now out, but I did create a magic banner that adds +1 to Command Table rolls for units within 12".

[Commissar von Toussaint]

New rules are up! Hit the link in my sig to get 'em while they're still free.

[Cap'n Facebeard]

Hi, I'm really interested in your game, seems like a good alternative to WFB. Are you interested in people commenting / noting errata? Because I noticed:

- The rulebook mentions army lists at the back, but I couldn't find them. I downloaded some of your other lists (and realise they are more test sets than finished armies) but was just wondering if it was a mistake them not being in the rulebook.
- A paragraph under flyers is incomplete. Mentions that "charged cavalry may not ...", I assume the rest is "counter-charge".
- Under playing the game there is a mention of an Army Battle Flag, directing you to Rule 10.3. This is actually the section on Duels with Monsters. I couldn't find mention of the flag anywhere else, has the rule been dropped?

Sorry if that sounds picky, just thought you'd like to know some errata before any potential publication. You've already achieved a proof-read level better than published GW work, heh heh. I hope to give this game a try, thanks for making itavailable free (for now at least).

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I appreciate your attention to detail. It is hard to keep combing over the same text.

Yes, there were flags, but that section was deleted. Similarly, the game originally had army lists appended to the main rules, but I removed those as there are now two "versions" of Conqueror: the stand-alone rules and the WHFB lists.

Originally, I developed my own fluff so that I could break completely with WHFB and have the freedom to create my own lists.

However, I subsequently realized that a lot of people still like their WHFB armies, they just aren't that excited about the rules. Conqueror is flexible enough to use it for nearly any fantasy environment, so I stripped it down to the core rules and allow people to choose which lists they want to use. Of course, I also provide the points calculations so that people can build their own lists, which some folks here on Warseer have already done.

My next step (after fixing those errors) is to try to get this thing published. My goal isn't to be the next GW or make a ton of money, merely to have a system out there that I enjoy playing - and one that permits me to find opponents.

This is why I gave up on "house rules." It's easier to simply have a better rules set than try to convince people to change a game they may already like as it is.

By all means give it a try and let me know what you think. If you want to play it a bunch, do some write ups and I'll add you to the credits.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

While I was making those corrections, I had a new idea: victory conditions.

Conqueror already grants points for destroying units and characters, and I wanted to add holding the battlefield.

One of the things I hated about WHFB was the whole business of securing table quarters. It always struck me as silly.

Historically, control of the battlefield was very important in determining who won the battle, but it wasn't done by a grid.

Thus, my new concept is that you get victory points for three things:

1. Destroying more points of the enemy army (units, characters, etc.)
2. Killing the enemy commander, and
3. Having more points on the board at the end, which equates to "holding the field."

This means that there are at most four points in play, so a tie is possible (say one player kills more, but the other holds the field, and both generals are dead) - which is accurate. Some battles ended in a draw.

Of course, if you kill the enemy commander and slaughter his troops, you'll probably hold the field. Again, I'm fine with this.

Thoughts?

[Infinitium]

But assuming that both armies have an equal amount of points that would mathematically never change the outcome ever (as aquiring points by killing stuff effectively doubles into denying the enemy VP).

Anyway, I built a game using your rules as a base. There's a few key differences between the rulesets such as a unified game round and the way it computes morale (most notably that the amount of stuff killed in a single round of close combat doesn't matter as much, however the penalties for bringing a unit below certain thresholds are far steeper), but most of it is much of the same.

As for the armies.. meh. Basically I've been working this thing late nights whenever I've been bored enough so the background isn't anything worth mentioning, however the basic premise is to simulate the late 17th century (basically the changes brought by the 30 years' war) in northern europe (emulating the Swedish, German and Polish armies respectively) and adding Undead, Daemons, Angels, Magic and an army based on northern/brittish folklore ("Trolls", although the folklore version holds little resemblance to the popular image). Note that this isn't done by a long shot as I still need to add magic lores, magic items, upgrades, more units and decide point costs somehow (which probably won't happen as I don't have the time to balance it properly). The framework is more or less done however.

Not planning to actually do anything with this mind you (haven't really participated in any gaming group for years), but I'd appreciate feedback and this is probably the most relevant thread for it. Thoughts?

[Commissar von Toussaint]

But assuming that both armies have an equal amount of points that would mathematically never change the outcome ever (as aquiring points by killing stuff effectively doubles into denying the enemy VP).

In most cases, yes, which is as it should be. What I wan to avoid is the "hold the grid squares" mentality from WHFB's field battle. Destroying the enemy army is the main objective of a battle, but holding the field is also important.

Note that units that leave the field in good order (non-routed) yield no victory points, so it is possible for a player to crush one wing of the enemy and then withdraw and technically win the game on points. This places a check on that.

Anyway, I built a game using your rules as a base. There's a few key differences between the rulesets such as a unified game round and the way it computes morale (most notably that the amount of stuff killed in a single round of close combat doesn't matter as much, however the penalties for bringing a unit below certain thresholds are far steeper), but most of it is much of the same.

As for the armies.. meh. Basically I've been working this thing late nights whenever I've been bored enough so the background isn't anything worth mentioning, however the basic premise is to simulate the late 17th century (basically the changes brought by the 30 years' war) in northern europe (emulating the Swedish, German and Polish armies respectively) and adding Undead, Daemons, Angels, Magic and an army based on northern/brittish folklore ("Trolls", although the folklore version holds little resemblance to the popular image). Note that this isn't done by a long shot as I still need to add magic lores, magic items, upgrades, more units and decide point costs somehow (which probably won't happen as I don't have the time to balance it properly). The framework is more or less done however.

Not planning to actually do anything with this mind you (haven't really participated in any gaming group for years), but I'd appreciate feedback and this is probably the most relevant thread for it. Thoughts?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'll give it a look.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I read through your rules but haven't had a chance to block out some combat scenarios. Have you done any? What do they look like?

[Infinitium]

Not a lot to be honest since it's mostly just ideas I want to see implemented somehow at this stage and I've yet to tweak them. Did some basic combat math with the "better" armor and tweaked morale rules however to figure out the basic Rock/Paper/Scissor concepts, like Pikemen/Cavalry/Great Weapon bearers. I'll post some examples below (the math itself is simple so I'll withold it) featuring Pikemen, Greatswords, Heavy Cavalry and Chaff (archers).

12 Mercenary Pikemen (Ws2, Pikes, light armor) vs 6 Doppelsöldners (Ws3, Heavy Armor) - Pikemen average 2 kills/turn, Doppelsöldners 4 Kills/turn.

12 Mercenary Pikemen vs 6 Gendarmes (Ws3, Lances, Heavy Armor, Shields, Cavalry) - Turn 1 Pikemen average 3 kills, consecutively 1 kill/turn, Gendarmes 2.66 kills/turn

6 Doppelsöldners vs 6 Gendarmes - turn 1 Gendarmes average 2 Kills, consecutively 1 kill/turn, Doppelsöldners average 1,5 kills/turn

12 Mercenary Pikemen vs 6 Mercenary Musketmen (WS1, no equipment) - turn 1 Pikemen average 4 kills, consecutively 8 kills/turn, Musketmen 2 kills/turn.

6 Doppelsöldners vs 6 Mercenary Musketmen - Doppelsöldners average 4 kills/turn, Musketmen 0.66 kills/turn

6 Gendarmes vs 6 Mercenary Musketmen - Gendarmes average 4 kills/turn, Musketmen 0.33 kills/turn

So the basic premise is much of the same despite the more compact range of Ws across the board - Pikemen beats Elite Cavalry Beats Archers beats Pikemen, Elite Infantry beats Pikemen, Pikemen beats chaff better than both Cavalry and Greatswords but not quite as good as troops armed with additional hand weapons due to the charge penalty, but those cannot beat heavy cavalry as readily and so on and so forth.

What I haven't tested is how this works with the revised combat resolution, but hopefully it means that even low-morale units can fight on even after a devastating charge should they not be depleted and/or flanked. This means that morale plays a much bigger part relative combat ability than it did previously, and means that ranged units are better at directly affecting the outcome of close combat than they previously were (as a unit brought below 50% or so just isn't going to stick around much longer statistically), and also should be able to put a lid on topped out eggbasket units routing everything in base to base contact. Anyway theorycraft is theorycraft.

Hmm, speaking of cavalry, how do you feel about a sap rule for them (ie being able to flee voluntarily from close combat should they not break and rally automatically in the end phase)? It'd help them fight armed non-pike units more readily (which is positive since I removed their ability to break stuff on the first charge easily), has historical relevance (returning to their squires to fetch new lances etc) and allows more streamlining of the flying rules (so that they are basically skirmishers with sap, the free line of sight thing, the fixed movement, not being chargable/pursuable and moving over terrain).

[wilsongrahams]

Hi guys, I thought of a new idea whilst talking on a new thread.

It concerns making spearmen and halberdiers more effective against cavalry as that is their main job.

There were a couple options to do with the horses hitting the spears on the charge like a stand on shoot, but the one I like best is this:

Spears negate the save bonus a mounted model has - no +1 to armour save.
Halberds negate the save bonus a mounted model has aswell as any barding on his mount - no +2 to armour save.

These weapons were designed to take on cavalry, and the halberd modified when armoured cavarly were more common. This subtle change would make infantry a little more appealing to take over some elites as well as taking the edge off some heavy cavalry units. It also would not really need a revision of points costs so could be used inline with the current books.

Some of the rules for weapons just never sat very well with me compared to their real life usage and effectiveness. Such as why is it a hand weapon gets the bonus in combat rather than a model with javelin that can kepe the shield up infront of him - roman style.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Infinitum: I think the most important part of game design is understanding what kind of game it is that you want to play - and then building that.

I think you are on the right path in terms of making morale the key. As some who spent years playing historical wargames, I'm used to the notion that a sword is a sword: what really matters is the will to use it.

That's why Conqueror places its emphasis on two basic stats: MS and Morale. Armor and weapons are important, but without the ability to hit (MS) and the ability to take punishment (Morale) even the shiniest unit of pikemen won't last long.

The corollary to this rule is that the game should flow the way you want it to. If you want rocks/paper/scissors, make sure that you build it. Too many designers go all in for one weapon, or, like GW, keep rotating which weapon is best.

wilsongrahams: I'm pretty happy with how spears, pikes, halberds and hand weapons interact in Conqueror. Spears and pikes get lots of attacks, and can set against cavalry for an AP bonus, which makes charging them from the front very dangerous unless there is a serious skill imbalance.

Similarly, pole weapons are really nasty against cavalry because they simply tear through that armor. If knights charge pole weapons and don't break them on the charge, they will pretty much get wiped out - unless there is a big skill differential.

To me, hand weapons are crap. They are the default, and the default should be the worst choice. I hate the notion that every weapon should have a bonus. The bonus of the hand weapon is that you can use a shield and that it is cheap. Everything else costs extra.

So if you want huge masses of cheaply armed troops, you use hand weapons and shields. If you want them to actually accomplish something, you give them spears, pikes or pole arms. Again, that's what history showed us.

People can point to Roman legions all they want, but they always get it wrong. The legions dominated because of their training and discipline. In Conqueror, MS 4 and B Morale. Add in javelins to break up enemy ranks and their use of combined arms (people always ignore that the legions had slingers, archers and cavalry) and you have a rather nasty foe that isn't likely to run away.

Additionally - and this falls beyond the scope of most of our games - the Romans had a superb system of command and control. That's simply something we really don't bother with because it becomes frustrating for a lot of players. But that's why Rome kept winning: it's armies could maneuver under fire and its commanders had solid tactical skills - that is, they had a plan other than "Get 'em!"

Anyhow, if you haven't read Conqueror, give it a look and let me know what you think.

[Idle Scholar]

I've been reading the rules and I've got a few comments and suggestions, though I'm sorry if they're to nit-picky or have been addressed in this thread previously.

Th first is formatting, where you start talking about the stat line you get the line, then the explanation is split over the next page. I think it'd be easier to read if you stuck some white space or a picture so the entire section was on one page.

Then two questions. First why did you reduce the base sizes for cavalry, monsters and chariots? was it for a gameplay reason or just personal preference. Second when a shooting unit is charged in combination with a non shooting unit (say they're placed side by side) does the shooting unit still get stand and shoot, as the rules seem to indicate otherwise?

edit: By your wording, a charging unit that is restricted to corner to corner, or few mm to few mm contact with the enemy by another charging unit taking up most of the frontage must still engage to the front. But your diagrams show in those cases the charging unit may charge to the flank.

And on page 23 you've got a line of text that doesn't end, just before the gray example box.

edit: There's an unfinished line in the flyers section, something like 'Cavelry may not...' Presumably this was may not countercharge but was then changed. Also the Chaos army list is just a version of the Orc and Gobbo one.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Ugh.

Thanks for the pointers. I'll go over it again next week and try to tease out the problems. What I really need is a professional editor - but that would require the money to pay one. Still, I guess it is comforting that the list of defects gets smaller each time someone reads it.

[Archdaimon]

I skimmed through your rules, and they seem good.

I was wondering though, if you would get a better result and more variation options if you went from a d6 and 6 point system to a d10 10 point system?

(honestly it might have been suggested already, but I was unable to read through all 16 pages of posts.)

I will definately follow your progress with these rules. And if you'd like we would probably be able to playtest some stuff in my gaming group. We have played a lot of boardgames, and it is actually that approach we have to warhammer.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Yeah, we talked about using d10s earlier in the thread. Short version: d6 gets the job done.

This whole exercise started because I was moved to rethink WHFB from the ground up. If you have the time, skim through the early couple of pages and that will give you an idea of what I was thinking.

I'm hoping to get some games in over the holidays as well- and also finally fixing the typos noted above!

[Archdaimon]

Do yo have any other armylists ready than bretonia and Chaos?

I ahve an Empire army and would be curious to see how you would handle detachments?

And a friend of mine is playing lizardmen, how to deal with a rule like coldblooded?

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I haven't put together Lizardmen yet, and I'm not sure coldblooded would be necessary.

You see, if you cut away the gimmicks, Ld in WHFB is just a percentage. Cold-blooded essentially shifts it up a point or so, but it does so in a non-obvious way. By that I mean it's harder to crunch the numbers than a simple bell curve.

A simpler design solution would be to just give them higher morale or some other benefit.

When I was working on my own campaign setting, I came up with the Dragonkin, a desert-dwelling race of lizardmen who are led by (you guessed it) a dragon! Their army special rule was God-Emperor, which meant that they could never rout within 12" of their leader. Beyond that range they weren't so hot. It never got beyond a work in progress, though.

Cold-blooded can of course be more than just a leadership bonus. I could rate them a Morale category higher, which would make them quite steadfast. At a base Morale of B, they'd be quite difficult.

An alternative would be to give them a normal to sub-par morale, but say that they never get Disordered. If they get that result, they ignore it. They rout normally, though.

Now this would be huge, but characterful. Actually it would be much more in line with the idea that these guys are stoic lizards up until they quit and run away. No muttering, no jostling in the ranks, they are either in the fight or out of it.

From there it's just a matter of using the point values in the appendix to build out your units. This type of Cold-blooded I'd say should be worth 20 points per unit. So an E morale unit would pay 20 points, C would pay 30 and so forth. It's a huge bonus, but fits in with the character.

[Archdaimon]

Sounds good.
I just have a really hard time figuring out how much points an ability is worth.
Besides what written in your rules, got any advice?

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Describe the ability.

I think the undead abilities run 40-60 points (this is from memory, I don't have the rules in front of me).

Basically the cooler it is, the more it should cost.

I would add a word of caution that before you get rolling on working out the ability, ask yourself if it is something that stat line can cover. GW resorts to them so much because the core rules are too weak for the stats to count for that much. The stats actually matter in Conqueror, so just a 1 point increase in MS carries a lot more weight.

To put it another way, High Elf spears with MS 4, a 4+ save and B Morale don't really need any help in crushing goblins - their stats take care of it. No fight-in-three-ranks, no goblins-fear-elves, none of that.

What do you have in mind?