Building a better Warhammer

[Commissar von Toussaint]

This was what I dug out. I'll format it later:

The formula for determining point values is not set in stone, but uses the following guidelines:

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.

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 per model is 30 points. Because they shoot less (once per turn as opposed to 10), the cost for missile weapons is only 5 points per AS rather than 10.

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.

In terms of selection requirements, there currently aren’t any save that an army must have a commander. Other than that, use whatever mixture suits you.

Chariots’ trample attack costs 20 points.

The Arrows Won’t Stop Them: Ghosts rules costs half the points value for SV 2.

[Mahatma]

I'd like to shake your hand Commissar. The rules you've included such as moral are what I have been looking for and what WHFB and Warmaster have not been able to give me. Only DBx, a few others and Conqueror can save my interest in wargaming right now.

I appreciate the work you've put in to your rules system and wish you the best of luck.

One point I'd like to make. In the army lists, have you thought of including some artwork to give people an idea of what the armies look like? I've glanced through the army lists and haven't got a grasp of what is what like I would have done with some pictures. I'm sure someone will chime in.

Also, have you considered creating army lists which match up with the 28mm miniature ranges that are out there? Vendel miniatures do some very good models of orcs, dwarfs, wood elves etc etc and I think your system would do well to support and be supported by alternate companies such as vendel, gamezone and many others that i've forgotten.

[Mahatma]

One more nit-pick: Dwarf Heavy Crossbows have light armour *gasp*. I think heavy armour would be more appropirate considering that elf archers get heavy armour and a dwarf wouldn't be caught dead in light armour imo.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Thanks!

Yes, I know there is still some work to be done. One thing I really need is some artwork. I have next to no graphic arts skills and so that will have to be someone I hire to do it for me. I'm hoping to get moving on that this spring, when hopefully I'll have some pocket change.

As for the dwarven crossbows - I hadn't thought of it that way. On the other hand, dwarves are so much tougher, that they don't need as much steel plate as those wimpy elves.

One thing I am planning on doing is putting together a real, illustrated battle report, complete with army lists and so forth, so people can get a feel for the totality of the game. You are correct in that it plays quite differently from WHFB and some of the other systems I've tried.

Morale is huge, no question, but right up there with it is the fact that units kill their way to victory. Combat is very bloody and elites - yes even elite infantry - will leave a trail of corpses in their wake.

This means that horde armies have to do something other than "git 'em!" to win. If they don't coordinate their attack, they will simply get crushed piecemeal - which is as it should be.

The other element that I've noticed is that cavalry dominates where it would expect to, but not everywhere. For example, even Red Knights fear to charge Yagurs with great weapons. It's a bad idea. Ogres are also tricky - if you don't break them on the first pass, odds are you will get chewed up.

I like that, it's the way I think it should be. Cavalry should dominate the quasi-medieval battlefield, but the same things that stopped them historically will stop them in Conqueror.

One thing that still isn't set in stone is magic. I'm still not 100 percent sold on where it is, but so far I like how it is working. I need to do more testing to see if it can be broken, but on the whole magic is a decent support, but not necessary if you don't mind taking some random pelting.

A final thought: once you set the pieces up and play the game, I think you'll like how much faster it plays. I mean that sheer mechanics of rolling dice, removing kills and resolving combat are a lot faster. It does take a little bit to get used to how shooting works if you've been playing a lot of WHFB, but once that's down, the game moves at a good clip and that is one thing I really enjoy.

[Urgat]

"Waves at fellow rulesmaker"
I'm writing my own rules, for my own fantasy universe too, as you might guess. My take is rather different than GW (or yours, from what I've gathered so far). Basically, I hate it when dies dictate the outcome of a battle, yet randomness is, w/o argument, a real factor. So what I'm trying to achieve is make rules where bad luck will make things a bit harder, but won't implacably crush your tactics through bucketloads of 1's.
My rule sets are nowhere near as advanced as yours (got movements, moral, I'm fleshing out the ranged attack rules, but the melee and magics need more work), but I'm getting there. Only problem is that since I elected the use of hexagons over rulers for various reasons, building myself a tabletop is taking time, and I can't playtest it on a large scale (at least I'm pretty ok with artwork, so I have an edge over you somewhere ). So I'm actually trying to make a second, mini-ruleset for smaller battles (somewhat between the warhammer skirmish rules and the regular 1000pt battle)
Well anyway, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to take a look at your rules in order to find inspiration

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Be my guest!

Clausewitz said that fortune is the single most important factor in war. Still, it's nice to keep a lid on it, particularly if you want something approaching an even game.

I debated using a combat results table rather than just fistsfuls of dice, but one the whole, I'm pretty happy with the way it works.

Good luck!

[Urgat]

Well, it's a mix of both actually, you get an "average" of hits/wounds, modified by disparities in stats and gear. In theory, it works rather well, you're sure to get kills (no chaos knights charging and killing zero goblins, if you will), the result will vary (it might actually vary a lot), but you should be assured a few kills nonetheless (I'm aiming for bloody combats like you do). As it stands, there is not really a fixed number of attacks per mini, what I have is some kind of mix between WS, A and I, so a successful roll of dice may (or may not) grant more than one attack for a single mini against a weaker foe. Well that's the theory, as I said.
Anyway, thank you, good luck to you too

[Commissar von Toussaint]

The biggest thing I'd suggest is that the math be simple enough that you can do it in your head. That's a nice feature of both WHFB and Conqueror and I think at this point any viable miniatures game needs it to succeed.

I will point out that by eliminating Toughness and Strength I pretty much eliminated the problem of bloodless combat. Elite knights will hit most rank and file on a 2+ with no armor save. I guess they could fail to achieve any kills, but it would take really amazing luck.

To put it another way, if it happens, go buy yourself a lottery ticket.

[Urgat]

Oh, it's failry simple really: you roll a dice per mini (depending on the "quality" of the unit, if it's base, elite, legendary etc, it's a D3, a D6 or up to 2D6 - but mostly D3 -), you add the equivalent of warhammer's WS, you deduct the opponents WS, add/deduct the modifiers from gear/special rules/magic buffs and you're basically set. Some more complicated rules to add when units got parrying or the like, but that's about all there's to it.
Everybody strikes at the same time, so casualties are removed only when the two sides have resolved their attacks.
I wanted to keep T and S to add more variety, not really to troops, but to gear modifiers, and armour bonuses go there too (like a chaos warrior with heavy armour and shield would not get a 4+ save, but T7 instead, if you want. Seems enormous, but weapons then kick in with stuff like rending or others).

Well anyway, to put it bluntly, it's not been playtested yet (because I lack a couple rules that would prevent a game from reaching an end), so it's all subject to change, but I think it works ok, at least on paper.
Still, yesterday, I lost so badly because I rolled so many 1's and 2's (example: 16 spearmen attacks on marauders, 3 hits iirc, and no wounds, I guess I should have gone and bought this lottery ticket ) that I'll keep firm on my volition of limiting the dice results to a matter of randomness, and not of definitive factor of winning/losing combat. My main objective (be it in making these rules, or when playing warhammer) is to have, above all, fun, and sometimes, I just can't have fun at all, because of dice rolls...

[Mahatma]

I've some more suggestions.

I assume this game is designed to be used with 28mm models. The unit sizes you have chosen will make the game too expensive for most people. If I'm using 30 men per unit, I'm looking at two £16 boxes of plastic or 10 x £7 blisters for metal. Now the game, as I see it, is meant to represent a battle in which up to 100,000 creatures are on either side. We can't buy and paint 100,000 men so we have to make do with a scale of 1 miniature =100 men or something like that.

Here is my fix. Reduce the size of each unit and make the casulties less severe, or give each model a couple more wounds so that the combats still last a long time. This way, the battleline will look more authentic, with a center composed of a dozen units and a flank composed of another half dozen. I don't know if you are familiar with DBx, Field of Glory and other historical games but that is similar to what I am thinking about but with a 28mm scale.

Also having archers able to deploy behind a spearmen screen would be a nice touch. Give them a -1 shooting penalty for being unsighted and it would allow a few other possibilities.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Mahatma: I've been thinking about special rules and formations for some time. Once I've got the "core" game taken care of, I intend to do an "ancients" version that uses more advanced tactics.

Basically, the world is coming out of its Dark Ages and, like ours, that meant that tactics were still evolving.

But in the days of the Hesperian Empire, the armies had more discipline and flexibility because they were professional. So the Hesperian Legions wil get some nifty tricks to explain their hegemony.

Your idea about shrinking the unit size has some merit, though. It would allow fewer figures to go farther, which is a good thing, so long as the units still are big enough to fill out the table top. I can see maybe dropping from a 20-30 for infantry to 16-20. What do people think? I want to keep the four-rank standard. It looks good and fits with the system.

I guess the thing I want to avoid is the "buy each man" pain that GW games give me. It's much easier (and realistic, when you get down to it) for troops to muster in by company.

All my playtesting has of course been with the current size and it's worked quite well. One fear I have is that with combat being so bloody, dropping the unit size too much could mean that units would simply get wiped out in a turn or two, which isn't where I want to go.

I'll have to think that one over.

If you are inspired, give it a try and let me know what happens. The points should hold (they are based on stat line rather than models).

As for changing the scale, I'm content with things the way they are. In pre-industrial times, you simply didn't see 100,000 men on the battlefield that often. When it happened, it was truly epic - an event for the ages where the fate of the world would be decided.

Basically that would take a mega-battle of suitable magnificence.

I could be persuaded to bump it up more (say 20 per figure) but then the scale gets a little strange. Remember, the linear scale is roughly 10 yards per inch, which gives about a yard of frontage per soldier. If I increase the number of people as you suggest, then the scale goes to 100 yards per inch - which means bows shoot two inches!

That's something that is easy to forget, especially because GW plays so fast and loose with its own scales. I try to take it seriously, though, so the game doesn't get too silly.

If I were to reduce the figures per unit, I could go with a slightly larger ground scale without messing things up too much. This would be because the "footprints" of the units would be smaller, leaving more open space, so missile units would be harder to screen, etc. Man, that's a lot of work though.

Still, it gives me something to ponder while I'm driving. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Glabro]

A very interesting-looking project.

A long-time wish of mine in Warhammer would be to see Spearmen be able to perform in a historically correct manner against cavalry (ignoring unit quality).

Perhaps in the next revision, you could research the matter and see if you can find a way for such interplay between unit types?
It would be something akin to "When a unit equipped with spears chooses the "hold" charge reaction against a mounted charging unit in the front, they get to "X" (which could be that the first rank of spears gets to "strike first", and that the spearmen count as having extra AP for the first round).

Also, Cavalry might require a morale test to charge spears in the front because of this, and so on...

I assume you want to keep the timeframe of the game out of the bounds of weapons such as halberds and pikes, which are specifically designed against cavalry (although again they lack these features in the Warhammer rules), but if you do include them, they could have similar rules.

[Crazy Harborc]

Cav charging into a wall of pikes OR spears IS too easy to do in WHFB. Head on charges against pikes and spears should be harder for cav to pull off.

IMHO, pre-charge rolls for receiving OR doing a charge should occur.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

When I first began developing the rules for Conqueror, I had a mechanic called "priority" that was used to determine when various weapons attacked. Pikes went first, then lances, then spears, great weapons, hand weapons and finally maces.

The reason I discarded it is that if combat is simultaneous, it doesn't really matter who goes first.

I believe that at the scale of the game, things are plenty realistic. I have seen too many systems that try to simulate each and every detail of combat. Whether they are more realistic is debatable, but they are unquesitonably ponderous and not much fun to play.

If I may quote Thulsa Doom: "What is steel next to the hand that wields it?" Infantry with spears or great weapons can and do beat up cavalry in Conqueror. I don't think a "fear" check is warranted - the player makes that when he decides to commit his very expensive troops into a contest of attrition with a unit that outnumbers them by a factor of three or more.

I can be convinced that the rules for spears could be refined. As it is, I don't differentiate between spears and pikes that much. This means that units basically can choose to use spears as pikes (two handed, no shield) or the standard hoplite-style spear (with shield).

Clearly there's a difference between a spear and a pike. When I was putting the game together I didn't really consider it that much, but during playtesting I have noticed situations where players prefer to drop their shields and gain the +1 AP of two-handed spears.

I suppose I could make a seperate "pike" entry, which would basically be the two-handed spear. I can say from playtesting that two-handed spears do a serious number on heavy cavalry.

This would also require me to revise the army lists and create some new entries. Some units would remains spearmen, others would become pikes.

I'm really trying to avoid special rules, but one other one that might work is allowing spears and pikes to "ground" their weapons before a mounted charge, giving them an extra +1 AP. Now this would be a huge bonus, and a Morale test would be required. Still, that would pretty much make it so cavalry rarely hit these units from the front.

What does everybody think?

[Glabro]

I think a morale test for an extra AP1 is a great idea, since it indeed takes guts for a unit of spearmen to stand up to a heavy cavalry charge that way. Only professional or determined soldiers could do it, after all (since the first rank knows it will probably be crushed - this causes a domino effect in peasant rabble).

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Over the weekend I thought about it some more and when I get a chance, the rules will be revised.

Pikes will now be what two-handed spears used to be: fight in two ranks, AP 1.

Both pikes and spears will further be able to "set" against charging cavalry, giving them +1 AP, (so most spear units will be AP 1 and pikes will be AP 2) on that turn only.

No Morale check will be required, but if the unit is hit from flank or rear, the unit will not be able to "set." However, since squares have no flanks, it will be possible for those units to "set" on all sides.

Thus, an unengaged spear or pike unit being charged from multiple sides could do an emergency formation change and then "set" against any cavalry.

I will offset this advantage for pikes by ruling that they cannot be issued shields - not even against missile fire. This seems accurate (the Swiss didn't use shields) so there is a precedent.

So far, I see three armies getting pikes: the Pyleans (humans), the Tusk Confederation (Boreans) and Aquilea (human).

The Arcadians (High Elves) will still have spears, because Elves are too conservative to use the new-fangled pike.

[Glabro]

That´s very cool! An anti-cavalry element to pole weapons gives the system that extra bit of historical and tactical flair.

Nice to have an influence on the development of this game. I hope you can realize it commercially some day!

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Don't forget that great weapons have AP2 as well, meaning that only very brave (or very foolish ) cavalry will charge decent units equipped with them. Yagurs with great weapons are very scary even to Red Knights (basically black orcs vs grail knights).

Since combat is simultaneous, you don't have to worry about your front rank being cut down before it can strike, which makes infantry much more dangerous.

On the other hand, knights still have very impressive hitting power since elites will generally score kills (not hits, but actually dead models) on a 2+ against most foot troops.

A unit of Red Knights led by a Knight Commander has a decent chance of breaking a unit of Yagurs with great weapons on the charge. But if it doesn't, the knights are basically finished.

As for the rules taking off, that's the idea. Of course if you were to download them and show them to your gaming group and build some interest and anticipation, well, that wouldn't hurt.

[thedodgeypanda]

I personaly i think 7th ED was made in buggmans bar!. I think warhammer's BASICS are good such as how combat is worked and how shooting is formed. Mages still controll most of the game but then again they always did. But if i would like to see is a compleat game re-do ut keep the basics how they are.

Maybe you sould consentrate on the psycology

[Commissar von Toussaint]

On the face of it, Warhammer is a decent game and its core rules are reasonably clear and easy to use.

The problem is that once you begin to systematically study the “gaming engine,” the flaws become unavoidable.

You can scroll back through this thread to read about the many complaints if you want. Having played a game of Conqueror this past weekend with someone who isn’t used to it but has a lot more experience with WHFB, I’ll give you a summary of what he noticed, which should also illustrate why I struck out in a new direction.

The first problem with WHFB is that it uses a lot of numbers and a rather convoluted process to try to achieve realistic results (that is, results that are consistent with player expectations based on fluff, points and stats).

I’m not going to go into the problems of a 10-point stat system that uses d6s for resolution, the fact that the points don’t work out and so on. Scroll back to see that stuff.

What I want to illustrate is how, from a mechanical perspective, Conqueror plays faster and easier.

To do a melee combat in WHFB, you have to go through the following steps:

1. Charger rolls to hit
2. Charger rolls to wound
3. Defender rolls saves
4. Defender removes casualties
5. Defender rolls to hit with remaining models
6. Defender rolls to wound
7. Charger removes casualties
8. Calculate CR
9. Loser makes morale check

Now try as you may, there is no way to streamline this. One player has to wait for the other player to roll dice before he can react because the system is sequential. What is more, because of the extra “filters” (WS, S and T, Armor Save), combat isn’t very decisive on its own. Most of the time ranks, position and banners matter more.

In Conqueror, it goes much faster, because it is simultaneous:

1. Charger and defender both roll to hit
2. Charger and defender both roll saves
3. Both remove casualties
4. Defender rolls morale
5. Charger rolls morale

Now you can argue that I cheated a little because I don’t have a “calculate CR” entry for Conqueror, but the fact is that this is determined entirely by kills. When the casualties are tallied, you know who won.

The point is that combats take a lot less time to resolve, making the game a lot faster.

A couple of other things he picked up on:

Magic is powerful, but not dominating. Choosing to take it is a positive choice (no scroll caddies) and no army has to have magic to play – not even the undead. It is wholly optional.

Morale works better and is more realistic. Instead of units being just fine until they break and run, there is a continuum to reflect units getting worn down. They can still bolt on the first test, but it isn’t like WHFB where units are either routed or just fine.

Morale also integrates with other abilities – like fear – so that high morale units have a clear edge over fear-causing critters. This is a direct contrast with WHFB where your elite, high-morale stubborn troops autobreak if they lose to a more numerous opponent.

There are very few special rules. Basically, I don’t need them. High Elves don’t fight in three ranks with spears because they don’t need to. Same with goblins – they don’t fear Elves because Elves are already scary enough to kill them in heaps.

(Am I the only who has noticed that EVERY army has to have special rules now in WHFB? There is no “base line” unit because even the core choices have special rules: orcs have choppas, Empire infantry detachments, etc. How lame is that?)

Basically, when you play a game of Conqueror, units do pretty much what they are supposed to. GW’s engine is so broken that for them to get realistic results (like Elves being able to pound goblins) they have to add fear and fighting in three ranks for it to work out right.

Anyhow, that's part of why I struck out with a completely new system. (The other is that I wanted to be free of GW's copyright.)

The thing is, if you like the way WHFB flows, you'll like Conqueror even better. It goes faster, the points actually reflect combat abilities, and the combats are about kills rather than CR tabulations.