Building a better Warhammer

[Idle Scholar]

2. I'm not sure why you would take a morale check before an accidental charge. Do you mean an overrun?

I guess I'm referring to both situations. So case a) would be an overrun, and the question is do you test if the unit being overran is within 6" before moving the victorious unit or after. And case b) refers to an actual accidental charge which you've already covered.

So just to check, can you take more than one moral check per phase per distinct cause.

For example if a unit takes casualties from a magic missile and then takes casualties from two different sources of shooting will it take a total of 2 or 3 moral checks?

(Magic casualties, test. Casualties from one enemy shooting unit, test. Casualties from another enemy shooting unit, test.)

Likewise if a unit fights a round of combat, in the middle of which the embedded general dies which causes one engaged friendly unit within 6" to flee and then another engaged friendly unit within 6" subsequently flees from combat how many and in what order are the tests taken?

(My first guess would be, general dies, take a test,. Nearby unit flees, take a test. End of combat, take a test. Nearby combat ends and friendly unit flees, take a test.)

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I guess I'm referring to both situations. So case a) would be an overrun, and the question is do you test if the unit being overran is within 6" before moving the victorious unit or after. And case b) refers to an actual accidental charge which you've already covered.

Ah, so the situation is that a unit has overrun one unit and then would impact on a second one.

The answer is that to save time, you should simply roll its morale before moving the overrunning unit. If it stays, move it into contact. Otherwise, move it straight ahead through were the second unit was. If it had enough movement, it could actually run that one over, too.

So just to check, can you take more than one moral check per phase per distinct cause.

No. The shooting rules clearly state (though not clearly enough ) that only one check is made no matter how many units hit.

Because magic is a separate phase, a unit hit by magic would test, and then if it was hit by shooting, it would test again.

For example if a unit takes casualties from a magic missile and then takes casualties from two different sources of shooting will it take a total of 2 or 3 moral checks?

Two.

Likewise if a unit fights a round of combat, in the middle of which the embedded general dies which causes one engaged friendly unit within 6" to flee and then another engaged friendly unit within 6" subsequently flees from combat how many and in what order are the tests taken?

Common sense dictates that one should complete the combat resolution before making any morale tests. I should spell this out. Once that is done, the testing could begin. I should probably spell out a hierarchy for what order you would do them.

And yes, this does open the door for units to win a combat but then flee because their general is dead. Thinking it over, I may drop both the "general gets killed" test and the unit within range routs simply because they seldom come up anyway and the death of the general is now covered in the victory points.

While historically accurate, I've had a few games where the general died on turn 2 and the rest of the army fled. Not very satisfying.

Back to the old word processor!

[Idle Scholar]

I would rule that each unit only has to take one moral check per phase, and that additional checks start stacking -1's (exceptions being multiple sources of ranged casualties). Additionally units engaged in close combat only take their moral check at the end of combat.

So the general dies in close combat causing a nearby unengaged unit to flee. Instead of the generals unit taking 3 moral checks it takes its single mandated end of combat moral check at -2.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I've been unusually productive: I actually got the changes made and uploaded.

There is a longer explanation on the web site, but basically I've decided to limit checks to one per phase. There is no penalty for being shot more than once, and the death of the Army Commander no longer requires a check. This is because putting the rules together for that are more trouble than they are worth.

My reasoning is this: If the Army Commander is dead, you lose the +1 and probably lost the combat as well. Plus, he gives big victory points. That should be enough.

I've retained the "check if a friendly unit routs from melee combat within 6"" but now it only applies to unengaged units. The engaged ones have enough to worry about.

At this point, I'm sure folks are wondering why this didn't come up before now, and the answer is simply this: Not enough playtesting.

I haven't played in months, and when I did, the armies we tended to use were Undead vs Elves or Orcs. Orcs of course ignore the routed unit thing, so it never really was an issue.

This is why playtesting by people I don't know is so essential. I think we are really close to the definitive version, at which point we can waste our time with army lists.

Keep the reports coming!

[Infinitium]

I'm somewhat partial to having a single panic test at the end of each turn (at which point you tally all the separate instances, such as taking casualties (regardless source), fleeing friendlies, magic effects, commander within X inches etc and apply suitable modifiers. This somewhat tidies up the magic/shooting/combat casualties issue, and makes it harder to break a unit on purpose by making it test in each and every phase and is faster since it only has to be resolved once for every unit.

Obvious disadvantage is that it ups the variance in morale checks some more what with it depending on a single roll rather than the three or four you suggested. Thoughts?

[Idle Scholar]

It could be the basis of a nice system, especially if you give the controlling player ways of dynamically increasing ld as well (random/bought/Commander generated command points, position of friendly units). Though of course it has the downside of extra book keeping. It's probably outside the scope of Conqueror at the moment but it might make for a nice alternative rules pack.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I'm somewhat partial to having a single panic test at the end of each turn (at which point you tally all the separate instances, such as taking casualties (regardless source), fleeing friendlies, magic effects, commander within X inches etc and apply suitable modifiers. This somewhat tidies up the magic/shooting/combat casualties issue, and makes it harder to break a unit on purpose by making it test in each and every phase and is faster since it only has to be resolved once for every unit.

Obvious disadvantage is that it ups the variance in morale checks some more what with it depending on a single roll rather than the three or four you suggested. Thoughts?

The problem with your idea is that the current system is an integral part of Conqueror. Magic and shooting are not deadly precisely because of their effect on morale. Cleaning things up provides plenty of streamlining because the worst case (i.e. a unit must test each phase) is going to be so rare.

Delaying the test also means that it is impossible to use missile fire and magic they way they should be used - to soften up enemy units before the impact of melee combat. Conqueror successfully dispensed with "stand and shoot" as a charge reaction by using an integrated turn sequence. If I delay the test until the end of the turn, reaction fire loses most of its punch.

I think we've hit on the key compromise and as I said before, we really are working on the margins of the system at this point. Indeed, most of what I've been doing for the past year is making sure that I'm accurately documenting the way I'm playing the game, which is a lot different than developing the core rules.

I'm sure there are a few other glitches yet to be found, but my point is that these last few changes are really clarifications rather than a new concept. The telling thing is that the rules are actually getting shorter as a result.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Well, it's been a while. I moved in April and still have a bit of work to do on the house, but I'm looking forward to getting a few games in.

I'm also trying to figure out the best way to publish it - which is to say, if you've got changes, get them to me, because I'm trying to wrap up the definitive-no-kidding-First Edition version of Conqueror.

[Idle Scholar]

I'll be playing my next lot of games over the Christmas holiday but I think the last thing I noticed was that giving close combat infantry ranged weapons (darts or javelins) significantly overcosts them in relation to their effectiveness.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

How so? At 10 points per SS, the cost is fairly modest - comparable to maces and great weapons. An elite unit (SS 4) would pay 40 points and on a six-model frontage would average three bonus hits on their charge round. That's pretty huge.

Lower SS troops will be less effective, but they also pay less.

[thomas2]

How so? At 10 points per SS, the cost is fairly modest - comparable to maces and great weapons. An elite unit (SS 4) would pay 40 points and on a six-model frontage would average three bonus hits on their charge round. That's pretty huge.

Lower SS troops will be less effective, but they also pay less.

It's ten point per SS, but then doubled for standard 20 strong infantry. Costs the same as extra attacks when the MS and SS are the same(whether profile, 2 hand weapons, spears or pikes) but only applies in the first round and as ranged attacks hits caused are halved.

The point cost generator in general is a bit out, it is somewhat expected as trying to create a simple way of generating costs that are always balanced is pretty much impossible, but there are some issues that aren't really down to that. The mentioned throwing weapons, but also furious charge costing the same as extra attacks always instead of just when charging, bloodlust offers only a little advantage to its big disadvantage so maybe shouldn't cost points. Heavy armour and great weapon would also be cheaper and better than mace, shield and light armour.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I see what you mean.

I'm combing through the rules right now and making my "final" edits, so I'll probably halve the cost of thrown weapons when I get to the appendix.

Honestly, I'm tempted to rip the whole point cost thing out and simply create it as a supplement because I have a sense it will never really be finished. GW was canny in never openly releasing the formula so no one could point out that they need to carry the one or what have you.

Still, on the whole I think Conqueror's points work reasonably well. As you say, no system is going to be flawless and all I'm trying to get is a close approximation so that the opposing armies are somewhat balanced.

For the most part, I think I've succeeded. None of the battles I've played with the most recent incarnation of the rules have seemed lopsided - certainly not when compared with WHFB or 40k.

At least I have that going for me.

[Idle Scholar]

I absolutely agree, you have indeed made a better Warhammer.

With regards to the throwing weapons it was when attempting to work Romans into the list, the dual armed infantry just proved too expensive. We managed to make mixed units of Byzantines work by costing in only that percentage which had bows (they were a fan of having a unit consist of 10-50% archers), but they had the advantage that the bow armed troops can be of different stats and get to fire for many turns.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I am still in revision mode, but 2nd ed. 40k has once again caught my attention.

[thomas2]

This thread isn't very active, but in case someone cares I've made a few army lists.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I just read through your first list and it's brilliant.

You mentioned issues with the scale, so I thought I'd explain it some.

The reason I go with cavalry scale is that it is realistic. Cavalry really is a force multiplier - just look at how effective equestrian police are at riot control. One officer on foot has a pretty limited effect, but if you put him on horseback, he has better visibility and a much more commanding presence.

Historically, the number of men in a cavalry regiment was half or less that of the infantry. Conqueror preserves this.

With the "hordes", it was an issue of effectiveness and scale. I think of goblins, skaven and so forth as being half-sized - not in the sturdy dwarf sense, but thin and wiry. They fight as a clump and mostly pull their enemies down by sheer numbers. Their spear formations are impossibly dense and this overcomes their individual weakness.

Good job!

Now you remind me that I need to get that revised set up! I've been so focused on other games it completely slipped past me.

[thomas2]

I just read through your first list and it's brilliant.

Thanks, though my dwarven list is the simplest one (other than the complicated special movement and spear rules) and I worry that my other ones I overdid it with regards to special rules and the like.

You mentioned issues with the scale, so I thought I'd explain it some.

The reason I go with cavalry scale is that it is realistic. Cavalry really is a force multiplier - just look at how effective equestrian police are at riot control. One officer on foot has a pretty limited effect, but if you put him on horseback, he has better visibility and a much more commanding presence.

Historically, the number of men in a cavalry regiment was half or less that of the infantry. Conqueror preserves this.

But the standard cavalry unit is 5 models, and the standard (not ranged or skirmish) infantry unit is 20 models. It seems unnecessary to use scale for this when it is already covered elsewhere in the rules.

I do see your point with hordes.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I see what you are saying. Hmmm, I may adjust it back to 10 across the board - a 4:1 ration of baseline units makes sense.

Good thing you commented, because I'm making final revisions this week!

[thomas2]

Made another list. Also made some minor changes to the other lists, but nothing really worth reuploading.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Very cool.

Just so people know, I am working on the published version of Conqueror at the moment. I will meet with the artist tomorrow and then the new version will be up. Of course, you will have to pay for it, but not that much. It will be an ebook on Amazon.

To that end, the free version is gone. Business, you know.

PM me if you want a credit for play testing.