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.
Actually, I'd prefer your answers. That's why I started this thread.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?
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?
Your criticisms (and I appreciate them) seem to fall into two categories: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.
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.
There definately is a system. The first one didn't work, so I retooled and came up with a new one.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?
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.