Building a better Warhammer

[Commissar von Toussaint]

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.

Well, that was how it started.

But once you play it, the differences become more apparent.

It is similar to WHFB in the same sense that Avalon Hill's Afrika Korps is similar to GDW's Third World War. Both use counters, Zones of Control and a hex grid. One is clearly derived from the other.

But once you play them, the differences are quite stark.

Obviously Conqueror is still a work in progress. And I have to admit, I haven't playtested it enough to fully appreciate its tactical possibilities.

For example, there is no "magic" number of ranks for the Outranking morale bonus. This means that some units will want to broaden frontage - particularly because "centering up" is mandatory.

And Outranking isn't the key to victory. Basically the tempo of the combats is quite a bit different.

I have to say that it is farther from WHFB than VOID is from 40k.

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:

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?

Actually, I'd prefer your answers. That's why I started this thread.

You see, I know what I like. The results are pleasing to me and the rules make sense.

What do you think needs to be changed?

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.

Your criticisms (and I appreciate them) seem to fall into two categories:

1. I have my history wrong
2. I am too similar to WHFB.

Now 1. is debatable. Records of historical battles are spotty at best and we're not entirely sure how combat really went. So it's a judgement call. That's what makes game design so much fun.

As for 2., I don't see the point of changing something that I don't consider broken.

Jim Dunnigan (the Godfather of wargames) once remarked that one shouldn't be afraid to borrow concepts and game mechanics from systems you like. The worst thing you can do is change stuff just to make it yours.

So while I am really quite happy that you spent a lot of time outlining your issues with the game, I would be even happier if you could give some suggestions for what needs to be done.

To me, "that's just like GW" isn't really a problem. The whole point is that GW players will feel very much at home and able to use almost all of the same figures and armies.

But Conqueror has a few tricks of its own, particularly the focus on Morale and Melee Skill over Toughness and Combat Resolution.

To put it another way, if you play Conqueror like WHFB, you will get crushed.

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?

There definately is a system. The first one didn't work, so I retooled and came up with a new one.

The thing was, many units' point values didn't change when I recalculated - which is probably why I didn't notice how bad the original version was.

A basic unit of 20 models costs 10 points and has the following profile:

MS AS SV HL MV ML
1 1 0 1 4 E

This is the baseline for all tabulations.

For each increase in MV and ML, add 10 points. Increases in MS cost 10 points per increment up to MS 4. MS 5 and MS 6 each cost 20 points. Increase in SV cost 10 points through SV 3. It costs 20 additional points for SV 2.

Maces cost 30 points per unit while great weapons cost 20 points. Flails cost 40 points.

Spears and two hand weapons are a little different because they multiply the effectiveness of attacks. Their cost is 10 points per MS of the model in question.

So MS 2 units pay 20 points for them while MS4 units pay 40.

Cavalry follows the similar rules, but since their units start with only 5 models the base movement for them is 8 (reduced to 7 if barding is used). Lances cost 10 points.

Skirmishers add 10 points per 10 models.

Archery is a little different. Archery uses the same basic calculations as above, but applies to units of only 10 models.

What is more, the end result is multiplied by two.

Thus a unit with the above stats costs 200 points for 10 models.

Thrown weapons are 10 points multiplied by AS.

If AS is not used (the unit has no missile weapons) the profile may include it for completeness, but no points are charged for it.

The Undead abilities cost 40 points (20 for Obedient Beyond Death, 20 for The Horror).

Characters use the same profile but the base cost divided by four – or two in the case of missile weapons. In addition, the cost of leadership increases from 10 points per step to 20 points for B and A morale units. This morale cost is reduced by half, not by 4.

Also, characters do not pay the base 10 points (since they are single models).

There is a certain amount of discretion in tabulating the final results, generally taking the form of rounding up, particularly in cases where the unit’s potential clearly exceeds its listed stat line.

Chariots' trample attack costs 20 points.

[grickherder]

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.

After reading your replies, I'm beginning to see how much of a difference your replacement morale rules make.

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.

This is certainly true. It's also why I prefer smaller scales. With 15mm, I can use a regular 4x6 table and have tons of space around the battle so that whereever it moves, hitting the table edge is incredibly unlikely. I just thought the auto-elimination, while a common wargaming convention, was unnecessarily harsh.

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

I guess you could just leave it at the edge and mark it, or take it off table, to be returned on a successful role of some sort.

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.

That is certainly true. But there are also instances of infantry and pikeblocks getting out of sight of the battle by cresting a hill. They almost always made their way back. Sometimes though, too late to do anything of consequence.

I plan on avoiding the scenario entirely by using a larger table compared to my smaller scale miniatures (and measurements in cm).

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.

While that is certainly true, an experienced sergeant and a good signaller can accurately asses the various factors and tell the archers at what angle and draw to fire. It's how they did it during the 100 years war and War of the Roses.

However, I do realise that even if you do come up with some sort of volley system, it's functionally going to be just a limitation of the firepower... which is what you already have. So... ummm. Yeah.

1. Any archery fire that hits forces a morale check. Archery isn’t about kills, it’s about harassing fire.

I didn't catch the weight of this distinction during my first read through. It is certainly an important one.

2. Archery has a much higher (and more historically accurate) rate of fire.

Defintely. Bows could typically fire 9-14 arrows a minute with crossbows about half that. I think what you have is about right. I think the every second phase for the crossbows might be a bit artificial. Not sure of a better way of doing it. It's not like they're reloading during that time.

Crossbows, after all, were adopted more and more into the Rennaissance because of the economics involved rather than effectiveness.

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

Especially when you get into situations where some ranks are out of range or at long range while others are not. Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to give each archer group a quarter of their number in shots and a half when elevated. Regardless of formation. And range is measured from the centre of the unit. Just an idea. Don't know if it's better or not.

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

Except when guided by someone who knows what they are doing. It's not wonderfully effective, but good enough to be adopted at times.

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.

Then, by all means keep it.

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

I guess I'm just used to playing with gamers who wouldn't look for abusive situations. Maybe make it possible, but a punishingly bad idea. 3 hits to your side, 1 hit to the enemy.

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

There are accounts of Greek Peltasts raining slings and javelins on opponents already engaged with the hoplite line. The Persians did it a lot-- they had those big shield walls and had infantry holding up the enemy while the archers fired blindly into the mass-- those guys did a lot of blind volley fire and the typical soldier's life wasn't exactly valued.

There are also instances of European commanders doing it. Especially when levies and conscripts were on the recieving end.

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.

I'm pretty sure an immediate morale role with a penalty for it being friendly fire would be enough.

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.

But morale is everything. Automatically causing a test first is a big advantage. Especially given that both sides would contact with momentum.

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.

But those charges that were of consequence historically were ones against battle lines that were already engaged or outclassed by their opponent in the first place. In many Mideival battles, both lines would be advancing. It was the cavalry crashing into the flank of an already engaged body of soldiers that usually did the deed. Or well armed footmen engaging a unit already fighting with weaker forces like levied spearmen.

I suppose it works either way, but I just think there are too many variables to give an advantage to the charger all the time.

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.

That's certainly true. Kudos for that.

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.

Which was actually how a lot of the battles were decided. When a line couldn't be redressed and the enemy broke through and started getting in everyone's flank and rear. Ground was given and taken back.

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.

Yeah, especially if it's 1 to 1 like WHFB. When it's 100s to 1 like Warmaster or DBx it makes more sense to have push backs and less eliminations. I'd say your figure scale is close to on where casaulties should be appreciable.

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.

You could have some units give a bit of ground when they don't fail too badly. If the enemy pursues, you could mark them to have a penalty in the next fight.

But if the flow and breaking of the battleline is abstracted away, then by all means, keep them static until one is finished.

It could simply be that the disintegration and redressing of lines isn't something you want to represent.

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

Again, i can only say that I didn't quite comprehend the full gravity of your morale system. That's a great feature.

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.

While that is true, units also gave ground and/or took it before breaking. If routing after melee is only supposed to represent full breaking, then there's no real reason to change it. It's just assumed that some shoving is done, but it's not represented for simplicity.

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.

That makes sense. It also makes units capable of doing so far more elite.

As for skirmishers, I'll give the rules another read with more of an eye on the impact of morale.

It seems to have a much larger impact than I first comprehended.

I'll give the rules an actual try and get back to you.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

My hopes for a battle report and continued work have been dashed by a combination of factors, not the least of which was the need to pack up everything and move in less than two weeks.

Now that this is accomplished, it will be a bit before things can be unpacked and sort out. Heck, it took this long simply for my internet connection to be hooked up.

Regarding the game, my goal is to get the Undead involved in some playtesting to see how they stack up, particularly with regards to morale.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Well, a hellish schedule has kept gaming from happening at all. However, game design continues to creep forward. Of course, without playtesting much of what I'm doing is hypothetical, but at least the framework is useful for when things calm down a bit (say in December ).

One of the things that got me interested in minis was the coolness of the battlefield. Basically the look. Board games can beat miniatures in most respects: space, time to set up, game balance and complexity and realism.

Minis win because they look cool and have that individualized aspect. One copy of Panzer Leader looks just like another. But all orc armies are different.

My motivation for playing 40k is the ruined cityscapes and cool tank conversions.

While field battles are all well and good, I find myself tinkering with a siege/assault system for Conqueror.

A couple of thoughts to let people know where I am coming from:

1. I want the system to be simple, but realistic. To that end I'm doing a bunch of research on historical sieges (as opposed to reading fantasy novels and watching Lord of the Rings over and over again).

2. I want it to move fast, but also keep the scale constant.

So the first thing that came up is bombardment. Basically this should happen before the assault even begins. That you can smash a wall in WHFB is kind of strange. Armies didn't assault until the breach was there - or they did it without expecting to get one.

Yet in WHFB you can trundle forward and hope that with three turns and three cannons, you will get one by the time your troops get there.

Which brings me to the other problem: wasted movement.

Having units run forward and got shot for three turns is a waste of everyone's time. I'm leaning toward starting assuaulting forces 12 inches from the walls. It saves time and, given the higher rate of missile fire in Conqueror, still leaves ample time for troops to get cut down.

The big things I still haven't sorted out are ladders and siege towers.

Any thoughts?

[itcamefromthedeep]

---First off, well done. The basic rules system is sufficient. Having said that, I do not want to play the game you have created. I really do not think that you have enough variation in killing ability, 12 variations total is just not enough for high fantasy when compared to at least 100 common variations in Warhammer (WS 2-5 times S3-7 times A1-4). For a game based on close combat, it can get really boring if you only use 2 stats. More stats may be unnecessarily complicated from a rules standpoint, but from a fun standpoint I like to have some variation in my army lists.

---Heroes kinda suck. High fantasy is about heroic stuff, so have characters rock. You say that models in your game represent about 10 soldiers: models in fantasy represent about 25. Characters and Champions are just that killy. I think you need to bring back Attacks, if only to deal with ogre-sized models. The utility for characters and monsters (even cavalry) is an incidental benefit. Even if you just add it to models with multiple Attacks (models without the stat have 1 Attack as a convention if you like), it would add some variety.

---In short: nice try, but I prefer an imperfect Warhammer to a soulless game that approaches zen-like perfection.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

---First off, well done. The basic rules system is sufficient. Having said that, I do not want to play the game you have created. I really do not think that you have enough variation in killing ability, 12 variations total is just not enough for high fantasy when compared to at least 100 common variations in Warhammer (WS 2-5 times S3-7 times A1-4). For a game based on close combat, it can get really boring if you only use 2 stats. More stats may be unnecessarily complicated from a rules standpoint, but from a fun standpoint I like to have some variation in my army lists.

I can appreciate this viewpoint, I really can. I love games that get into the deep details of fighting. Ever play Imperium Romanum II? Comes with a 32-page rule book and 8 pages of charts and tables - plus the province maps and the scenario booklet. I love checking for corn rebellions, rolling for barbarian activation and all that.

My point is that I can really understand where you are coming from. Numbers are cool.

The reason I got away from GW's system is that I realized that they actually have LESS variation than it appears. Don't look at the numbers, look at the percentages.

Now it is true that my system is clearly a little shorter in terms of calculations. Instead of WS, S and T and then a Save, I only have MS and Sv.

So there are less inputs, meaning that you get less gradations. However, GW's gradations are actually in a very narrow area.

For example, even though WS has 10 possible ratings, there are only three actual options you can get: 3, 4, 5. So that cuts their results in about half.

Same with S and T. You are never better than a 2+ to wound, and the differential has to be quite high in order for T to completely outstrip S.

Finally, S can negate the armor save and often does. The 6+ save is generally worthless as a high percentage of troops and weapons neutralize it.

My point is that when you go through GW's system and strip it to the core, you get a vary narrow range of results which tend to result in rather indecisive outcomes.

I completely agree that it seems as though you have a higher degree of variability with WHFB than Conqueror, but in actuality you don't.

The maximum expected result of a GW combat is .56 kills per model - and remember this is a situation where a you have a WS 3 S 3 model fighting a WS 1 T 1 model with no save. Remember that these odds will not change even if you use a WS 10 S 10 model against the same defender. So even though the numbers change, the result is exactly the same.

In my system, the maximum result is .83 kills per model. While you can get at this a couple of ways (MS 3 vs MS 1 or MS 6 vs MS 3) there is less superfluous numbers.

I will grant that GW does have the "unhittable" monster, but I look at that as a bug, rather than a feature. I'm not a big fan of games that turn into Godzilla vs. Japanese Defense Force.

My point is that there really isn't that much variation in GW's lists. It looks that way, but it isn't really the case.

---Heroes kinda suck. High fantasy is about heroic stuff, so have characters rock. You say that models in your game represent about 10 soldiers: models in fantasy represent about 25. Characters and Champions are just that killy. I think you need to bring back Attacks, if only to deal with ogre-sized models. The utility for characters and monsters (even cavalry) is an incidental benefit. Even if you just add it to models with multiple Attacks (models without the stat have 1 Attack as a convention if you like), it would add some variety.

A clarification: The game is scaled to 10 troops per model, whereas WHFB is 1 to 1.

Now, my characters do get double attacks, and with their high MS (and the fact that they have higher kill probabilities) they are arguably more effective than many of their WHFB counterparts.

In the "best case" combat outlined above, your WHFB character only has a 56 percent chance of a kill while a Conqueror has an 83 percent chance. What this means is Conqueror characters, who get "only" two attacks, run about 1.66 kills per turn, while WHFBs get barely one - indeed, a WHFB character needs three attacks to get the same number of kills a Conqueror character can.

I grant you that WHFB has more outliers, but they are just that: The odds of getting three kills on three attacks is pretty remote.

Now, as to ogres, they get bonus attacks. Ogre models have the "extra attack" special rule and their leaders get three attacks.

I will say that I don't much care for Herohammer and I want Conqueror to show that the main impact of characters is to lead armies, not kill them single-handedly.

That being said, since combat is decided by kills, the side with more characters in the battle has a much greater advantage proportionally than in WHFB.

That is something I'm pretty proud of: in my game armies kill each other, they don't shove back and forth until someone gets bored and goes home.

So you are correct that GW uses a lot more numbers than I do, but most of them don't amount to anything.

---In short: nice try, but I prefer an imperfect Warhammer to a soulless game that approaches zen-like perfection.

I don't think numbers are what gives WHFB it's "soul." It is the fluff and the look. Right now, Conqueror needs both of those things. I need some art to evoke the "look" of Ryeworld and background so that people understand what is going on and what is at stake.

I'm pretty happy with the core rules and lists and you are basically confirming my sense that what Conqueror really needs is some solid artwork and evocative stories. I'm working on both.

[Sybaronde]

So Conqueror (or the better warhammer) is becoming sort of its own brand?

[Crazy Harborc]

Hey, never met, likely we won't. I, I do hope you create a very good set of rules and get them published. Here's hoping they then catch on.....world wide

[Commissar von Toussaint]

So Conqueror (or the better warhammer) is becoming sort of its own brand?

Yes.

It was a gradual process, but rather then be just another web-based set of variant rules, I'm trying to get Conqueror to stand up on its own.

I'm putting the RPG side of it into a d20 system book. Most of the core rules are done and the main thing is getting the background put together.

I really don't like GW's background, but I give them credit for making it pervasive. They saturate their books with art and pack them with little vignettes that give people an idea of what the world is about.

That's the kind of stuff I need to add. A lot of it is already written. For example, the founder of the Red Knights was the last great Goden King, Otto III the Brave, who died at the epic Battle of Oldburg in 1344. In the 250 years since then, the successive kings of Godenland have retained a claim to be Grand Master of the Order, though no one takes it seriously.

Stuff like that. I need to make Thracios and Luminos as famous as Sigmar and Khaine, or help people to look at the Red Knights like they do the Bretonnians (though actually they are closer to Knightly Orders fluff-wise).

Needless to say, that takes time. I'm pretty happy with the core system and most of the army lists work. I am in the happy circumstance of being able to shape my fluff and my rules into a seamless whole.

The big challenge remaining before me is actually the magic system.

That's going to be tricky. The one in the rule book now doesn't work the way I want it to, so it's going to be discarded.

Harborc: I don't think anyone could accuse you of being a sock puppet.

[Crazy Harborc]

All hail the great one!! All hail the keeper of the sock soap

A suggestion/question/whatever....okaaa....my 2 cents worth. Having a magic phase IS important. I suggest that the main rules be able to be balanced and playable with OR without magic spells etc. Here's hoping yours will do so??

[Commissar von Toussaint]

As a matter of fact, I just finished the revision. It went faster than I thought.

I'm glad to see we agree completely on what magic should be.

All armies are fully operational without magic. Undead require no spells to work properly. Magic is a purely optional, but I think most people will use it.

Magic has its own phase and all spells are cast then.

In terms of the system, you buy the wizard, then buy the spells. During the magic phase each wizard casts one spell and it automatically works. There is no dispell/power dice system.

For people who want to protect themselves, they can buy a wizard and give him the "Countermagic" spell, which will stop one spell on a 4+. If they are serious, they can buy him the Antimagic Box item, which adds +1 to his die roll.

If you read through the spell, though, you won't find any game-enders. No Curse of Years or Gork's Tap Dance Session. The damage spells are limited, the enhancement spells do just that - enhance. So people will choose magic with a mission in mind - maybe to speed up their cavalry or make their archers even more accurate.

Or they may want to use magic to protect themselves from missile fire. The point is that magic helps tactics, it isn't the tactic.

[Crazy Harborc]

Sounds like my idea of how magic should work!!! Sooo......now I'll have to talk to my regular opponent's. I hope one or more of them will be interested in trying it out or whatever.

EDIT TIME Well, after I posted the above...my old fart eyes noticed the link. I guess I'll be reading some rules for a couple of days. New reading material for my home library.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

This weekend I'll try to put revised army lists up as well - ones with wizards on them!

I'm also adding a couple of units to the Dwarf roster: berserkers and skirmishers. I actually want the dwarves to be reasonably mobile, which is why they don't have a lower movement. With some decent skirmisher options, I think it will be possible to make them more of an offensive force.

[Crazy Harborc]

Army lists By the by, I am reading my way through the rules (I'm slow). I like them, I think I understand them (hey, I have to re,re,re,reread GW's double speak, bounce around versions). Anyway, I am looking forward to the army lists

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Glad to hear it.

With things as they are, I'm not sure when I can revise the army lists.

However you should be able to download them here.

Eventually there will be two books: Core rules and army lists. At the back of the army lists there will be an appendix that will explain how to do the points for your own custom lists. That information is somewhere else on this thread I think.

Anyhow, you should find your existing WHFB armies fit rather well into the system. If there are units that aren't used or lists that are missing (for example, I don't have any interest in skaven) you can simply make up your own points for them once you decide on what you think their stat line should be.

One other thing: some of the races that I am using don't translate directly. For instance, elves are much tougher to reflect their skill and age. Gitlings (my version of goblins) are a lot closer to what I feel they should be: hordes of chaff that overwhelm you with numbers.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to clarify. I know the rules have some gaps and after I ran that .pdf I tightened down the magic rules some more. I'll try to do an update next week.

[itcamefromthedeep]

---Okay, I think we just talked right past each other a while back. Of course Warhammer has less variation then it looks, because only Weapons kills of 2 through 5 are at all common. WS 6 and 7 appear in almost every game, though. And while most troops have a Strength of somewhere between 3 and 5, Strength 6 and 7 happen a lot as well, and even 8 and 10 make appearances along with War Machines. Having the option to deal with excessively powerful things is flexibility that Conqueror lacks. Simplification means that you inevitably lose variation. Previous simplification by Games Workshop usually meant amalgamating rules so that many armies followed a similar framework rather then slightly different rules that accomplished the same thing. You take it too far however, cutting out variations that are evocative during gameplay. I like the idea of seeing a dumb brute Kroxigor smash stuff. This is borne out by the difference between WS and S, where flat MS fails to give this kind of distinction. You put yourself in a straightjacket, preventing yourself from using values that contribute to the flavor of a fight if nothing else. Flavor matters in making a game cool, more so then convenience. The answer to the lack of variation you see is to widen the scope (notably through an edit in the WS chart) rather then to cut down the variation that comes up relatively rarely.

---When I said that heroes kinda suck, I was actually paying attention to the kill ratios. I was comparing, say, an Empire Captain to his unit of knights. Higher WS (which matters in that case), higher Strength (which matters in most cases), and three times the Attacks makes for a much more powerful individual. Taking on elves you are looking at 22/12 kills for the hero compared to 7/12 the knight, including horses (hero does 3 times as many kills). Change those elves to Ironbreakers and you are looking at 31/36 compared to 7/36 (more then 4 times the kills). Taking into account the deadlier normal troops of Conquerer compared to heroes, the difference becomes even more pronounced. But enough of statshammer. Note that I completely ignored super-characters in that comparison; I am no more a fan of Herohammer then you are.

---Believe it or not, the battlefield scale of Warhammer is about 1" to 40' which conservatively means that a Warhammer model represents about 25 troops, maybe as many as 100. That makes heroes start to look really powerful by comparison.

---By soulless I was referring to the fluff. I found nothing compelling aboutthe armies you outlined. If instead you showed me how it would apply to Warhammer units, then go ahead. If you can demonstrate that your system is sufficient to represent all the units in a given Warhammer army, then I will reconsider my opinion.

---Thnk you for your respectful response and your honest attempt to demonstrate your points. I'm not convinced, though.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

This is borne out by the difference between WS and S, where flat MS fails to give this kind of distinction. You put yourself in a straightjacket, preventing yourself from using values that contribute to the flavor of a fight if nothing else. Flavor matters in making a game cool, more so then convenience. The answer to the lack of variation you see is to widen the scope (notably through an edit in the WS chart) rather then to cut down the variation that comes up relatively rarely.

No, I understood exactly what you meant. My point was that while a low WS, high S model may look different than a high WS, low S model, the percentages are the basically the same. To me, that's just wasted numbers and superfluous die rolling.

If you go through the motions of running a round of combat using Conqueror, you will see the difference immediately. There is less die rolling and it happens simultaneously, meaning combats go very quickly. They are also more decisive.

Now in terms variation, I have to disagree with you about that. Elves and goblins are only marginally different in combat effectiveness. The percentage different in kill potential is basically determined by the elves using spears in three ranks. Otherwise goblins can hold their own against elves.

There is differentiation, of course: Initiative and leadership. But initiative only matters in a continuing combat, and WHFB is a game of impacts.

Leadership can be decisive, but WHFB undercuts it in two ways:

1. They use psychology rules that completely undercut high leadership (fear, terror), and
2. Leadership only matters if a unit loses the combat.

So even here, the mighty elf stat line looks different but the real reason elves can thump goblins is that GW had to add two special rules. Otherwise, in practical terms the units would be very similar.

What Conqueror does is make those numbers matter. I don't try to blind players with irrelevant statistics. A MS 2 ML D gitling will get crunched by a MS 4 ML B elf every time - no special rules needed. I think people have gotten so used to GW having to make special rules that they forget why they are necessary and the critical part they play.

I made a decision early on that I didn't want to make players memorize dozens of special rules but instead I wanted the stats to tell the story. That is what they do.

Now you mention the idea of the WS 3 S5 Kroxigor - low on cunning but high on strength. We both know that in WHFB, Strength is the most important combat stat. High strength negates both toughness and armor. WS is mostly for chrome.

If you go through the lists, you will see that I have created similar effects. Ogres and such have multiple health levels, multiple attacks, a save bonus, and an AP bonus. Technically I use special rules for these, but only to explain why they have a higher save and their greater AP.

So I guess we can agree to disagree in terms of what is important in a game. For me, a bunch of numbers that look significant but really don't have much game effect is a bad thing. I want my numbers to matter and I will let the actual combat effectiveness of the unit create its feel and flavor.

When I said that heroes kinda suck, I was actually paying attention to the kill ratios.

Not the overall ones, though. The Empire hero you are talking about may be relatively more effective than the troops he leads, but he is still ineffective overall in terms of what he can do.

Heroes in Conqueror are both more effective in terms of kills (since attacks are more effective) and in comparison to the troops they lead. Yes, the Empire captain rolls more dice, but at the end of the day he still isn't doing that much because WHFB prohibits anybody from doing all that much.

Believe it or not, the battlefield scale of Warhammer is about 1" to 40' which conservatively means that a Warhammer model represents about 25 troops, maybe as many as 100. That makes heroes start to look really powerful by comparison.

The official line is that one model = 1 person. I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's been explicitly spelled out several times.

By soulless I was referring to the fluff. I found nothing compelling aboutthe armies you outlined.

I'm working on that. It is worth noting that GW has had a 25-year head start on me in terms of fluff.

If instead you showed me how it would apply to Warhammer units, then go ahead. If you can demonstrate that your system is sufficient to represent all the units in a given Warhammer army, then I will reconsider my opinion.

I don't know that it will apply for all of them, but it will do most.

Thnk you for your respectful response and your honest attempt to demonstrate your points. I'm not convinced, though.

I can't convince you to like something that you don't. What I can do is try to show you a side of it that maybe you haven't considered.

Conqueror looks painfully simple.

But once you start playing it - actually moving pieces across the table top, rolling the dice, etc. - the tactical complexity becomes apparent.

In practical, hands-on terms, you spend less time measuring, less time rolling dice, less time resolving combat and more time concentrating on the actual battle.

Combats aren't a series of whiff-fests that center on combat resolution scores but actual engagements where units chew into each other. Morale is structured so that units gradually start to lose cohesion and come apart.

Of course you can also have mass assaults where low-morale troops charge, fail to dislodge a superior foe, rout and then rally so that they can try again next turn.

The next time you have a chance, fight a combat between 20 goblins and 20 high elves, then do it between 20 gitlings and 20 Arcadians. Tell me which is more in line with what you would expect elves to do to crap horde troops.

The battles are also more interesting because of what the units are doing and what they are capable of. With the square formation, you have a lot more options than you do in WHFB.

Also, I offer a lot more variantion in terms of what weapons actually do. I have two kinds of spear and three kinds of hand weapon. So units may have the same stat line but different weapons and they fight very differently.

I admit that the fluff is a huge weakness, but it is one I'm trying to address. The trick is to provide fluff for them that want it while not overwhelming players who simply want an alternative combat system. I'm trying to cater to both crowds: people hungering for a new campaign setting and people who could care less but just want a better rules set.

[itcamefromthedeep]

---The variations in the results of Attacks are not that huge, but I don't care. I don't roll dice because in order to determine the outcome, I roll dice because it's fun to roll dice. If I wanted to quickly determine the outcome of a fight, I'd play chess with my beautiful models. Or better yet a computer game, where the computer can figure out who wins in a randomized manner a whole lot faster then I can by rolling dice.

---You have it in your head that the dice rolling is superfluous, but I consider it the entire point of playing. Rolling dice is fun. If you wanted to quickly dtermine the outcome of a fight you might as well just do an opposed die roll between the units with bonuses or penalties based on unit effectiveness (use a 20-sided die if you want more variation in the possible results). Higher number wins the combat, with the difference determining damage (ties do damage to both sides, in Health Levels and Morale). There, you're entire unit's combat effectiveness described in a single number: Combat Bonus. Your bonus could be the result of any number of factors, including Morale and Melee Skill, with bonuses for characters and such. That might be the kind of elegance you want to use, but I would find that that kind of simplicity takes away from the entertainment value of my games.

---There are flaws in how Warhammer works, mostly in how Initiative and Weapon Skill are undervalued (as you described with your goblin and elf example). Perhaps Leadership needs to have a more expanded role as well, but that is a problem that can be fixed within the framework of the Warhammer system. You are attempting to sidestep those problems rather than doing the difficult work of fixing them. While it is true that there is not a lot of variation in the outcome of an attack, I think that the answer is not to reduce the stats to better reflect those odds but rather to change the effect of the current stats to widen the range of possible outcomes. In this way I think you are going about the business of "building a better Warhammer" backwards. The answer not to remove dice rolling, but instead make dice rolling easier and/or more decisive.

---I suggest that you avoid wasting any more of you time and buy a Lord of the Rings themed chess set, because that is trend that your game is moving in. I do not mean that to be dismissive or insulting, but the trend toward removing dice rolling and measuring points in that direction. I can see that you don't like to do a lot of dice rolling or measuring or memorizing of special rules, but chess already does that a whole lot better then any game system that used Warhammer as a template. Your perfect game system has already been made, and has been there for millenia.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Okay, I have to admit I found this set of responses rather petty. I don't expect people to praise my system unabashedly, but if your point of reference is that WHFB is the ne plus ultra of wargaming and cannot be improved upon, I have to wonder why you even visit this forum.

---The variations in the results of Attacks are not that huge, but I don't care.

Obvioulsy you do care, you did a lot of math earlier.

I don't roll dice because in order to determine the outcome, I roll dice because it's fun to roll dice. If I wanted to quickly determine the outcome of a fight, I'd play chess with my beautiful models. Or better yet a computer game, where the computer can figure out who wins in a randomized manner a whole lot faster then I can by rolling dice.

Sorry, I don't believe you. I don't believe you sit at home and roll dice just to amuse yourself. I don't believe that when you play WHFB, you pay no attention to what the dice do and just roll them around because you like the rattling sound on the tabletop.

This strikes me as a cop-out. Why do you like dice rolling? Is it the randomness? Is it the sense that you're taking some physical action? Maybe you really do just like to make them roll. I don't know you.

But your earlier remarks indicated that you felt that WHFB's extra dice gave you more variation in results which I think I demonstrated isn't the case.

---You have it in your head that the dice rolling is superfluous, but I consider it the entire point of playing. Rolling dice is fun. If you wanted to quickly dtermine the outcome of a fight you might as well just do an opposed die roll between the units with bonuses or penalties based on unit effectiveness (use a 20-sided die if you want more variation in the possible results). Higher number wins the combat, with the difference determining damage (ties do damage to both sides, in Health Levels and Morale). There, you're entire unit's combat effectiveness described in a single number: Combat Bonus. Your bonus could be the result of any number of factors, including Morale and Melee Skill, with bonuses for characters and such. That might be the kind of elegance you want to use, but I would find that that kind of simplicity takes away from the entertainment value of my games.

Dice rolling is a randomization mechanic, nothing more. It is a means to an end. I like the simplicity of GW's system of rolling by model for miniatures rather than using a Combat Results Table or some other method. That's why I use a variation of it.

---There are flaws in how Warhammer works, mostly in how Initiative and Weapon Skill are undervalued (as you described with your goblin and elf example). Perhaps Leadership needs to have a more expanded role as well, but that is a problem that can be fixed within the framework of the Warhammer system. You are attempting to sidestep those problems rather than doing the difficult work of fixing them.

I take quite a bit of exception to this in particular. I addressed these flaws in a comprehensive manner. I am under no obligation to use GW's stat line or to "fix" it for them. Instead, I looked at the point of the exercise and then determined what areas were necessary.

For example, I believe the initiative stat is unnecessary. Why? Because I think it is absolutely stupid to assume that troops will march mindlessly forward and die but not bother to swing their weapons.

That is the core supposition of WHFB and I hate it. I believe that if the front rank is cut down and losses bleed into the second rank, the second rank will fight as well.

Once you allow this "fill-in", Initiative becomes useless. Hence, I got rid of it.

While it is true that there is not a lot of variation in the outcome of an attack, I think that the answer is not to reduce the stats to better reflect those odds but rather to change the effect of the current stats to widen the range of possible outcomes. In this way I think you are going about the business of "building a better Warhammer" backwards. The answer not to remove dice rolling, but instead make dice rolling easier and/or more decisive.

There is nothing stopping you from doing this.

---I suggest that you avoid wasting any more of you time and buy a Lord of the Rings themed chess set, because that is trend that your game is moving in.

I already own one. I assure you Conqueror plays quite differently.

I do not mean that to be dismissive or insulting, but the trend toward removing dice rolling and measuring points in that direction.

Again with the chess argument. Listen, there are LOTS of games out there. This whole idea that if you don't play WHFB you HAVE TO play chess is, to put it bluntly, stupid. It's a pathetic argument and after all the productive and civil discussion we've had, I'm very disappointed to see you make it.

I can see that you don't like to do a lot of dice rolling or measuring or memorizing of special rules, but chess already does that a whole lot better then any game system that used Warhammer as a template. Your perfect game system has already been made, and has been there for millenia.

This is game design forum. If you have no interest in anything other than chess or WHFB, why come here?

The pettiness of this post is so at odds with the earlier, respectful and constructive comments you made that I can't help but wonder if someone hijacked your account.

If are truly interested, I suggest you go through this thread and read through the process by which I came to use the current stat line and system.

The reason I wonder if your account wasn't hijacked is that it is as if our earlier discussion didn't even happen.

[Aelyn]

Your perfect game system [Chess] has already been made, and has been there for millenia.

Don't want to get involved in the argument, but I would like to point out quickly that the current ruleset for Chess has actually only been around for a few hundred years; while the game is at least two thousand years old in the same way as WHFB is a good twenty-five, thirty years old, the original was a totally different game, and changes to the rules have been made (comparatively) pretty recently (a few hundred years ago, capturing en passant didn't exist because pawns couldn't move two squares in their first move.)