Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

  1. #1
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Okay, here goes... Wotrhammer, aka. War of the Hammer,
    a total conversion of the Warhammer FB army lists for the WOTR rules.

    I'm willing to help out, maybe even lead the conversion unless someone else steps up (but don't hold me to that yet, I'll ask around for interest where I play).

    A group of people would be needed to "punch in" conversions, one army book at a time, using the WOTR unit stats & costing formula (which I will detail later), apply any personal twists, and ideally playtest stuff in the end. Any special units that don't fit the formula would be designed together with the lead (to maintain consistency).

    Here's what I said on the subject in another thread:
    It's a cool idea and surely the game can be easily modified to suit square bases - you don't have to use the slotted movement trays. As luck would have it, a tray of identical dimensions can accept eight 25mm based Warhammer miniatures. 20mm based miniatures have some extra space, but no big deal.

    Monsters are the real issue, and would need to be compensated for having square bases instead of round to retain WOTR balance.

    A nice idea, since yeah, many of the units are easy to convert. It's the points costs where the real balancing work would start. You shouldn't convert those. Also, you'd have to dig a bit deeper to the Warhammer lore to come up with Legendary units for all races...as well as hero-level named characters.

    For example, here would be a statline for a formation of basic melee orcs:
    M F S D A R C
    6 3/5+ 4 5 8 1 3

    Wargear: Hand weapons and armour
    Shields +5
    Spears +5

    Note that there is a bit of variation added: Fantasy (and 40k) could do with a bit more differentiation and this is true in the orcs' case, to be honest they're worse shots than humans (not enough to warrant BS 2 which is very bad in the system), and they really have strength 3.5 in FB, and the Choppa rule represents that, but in WOTH they can be S4 without worries. The really tough S4 units in FB (like Ogres) would get S5 and so on.

    Also note that WOTR effectively has, three levels of armour, the ones that grant 1 or 2 defense are called "armour" and the one that grants 3 is called "heavy armour". The orc here has the armour that grants 1 defense eg. light armour.
    An easy rule of thumb is that sparse or leather armour grants 1 def, mail or scale usually grants 2, and full plate / gromril / chaos armour grants 3.

    Edit: Main Rules - initial draft and design notes done!
    Orc & Goblins - v.1.1
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Glabro; 24-04-2010 at 16:24.

  2. #2
    Chapter Master fracas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,874

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    start by translating wh stats to wotr
    ws is fight
    bs is shoot
    needto combine toughness and armor saves into defense
    simplify initiative as fighting order
    Warmaster: Kislev, Khemri, Dwarves
    BFG: Pacification (IN), Expeditionary (Tau), Battlefleet (Chaos), Corsairs, Crusade (IN)
    DW: EotBS, FSA
    LotR: Khand, Gondor, Mordor, Rohan, Easterling
    WHFB: Kaihuanotl, Caxuatn
    40k: Daughters of Cacophany, Sept Kel'tyr and Ukos'Va, Stormwatch, Kher-Ys
    Warmancer & NeoModernism

  3. #3
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Quote Originally Posted by fracas View Post
    start by translating wh stats to wotr
    ws is fight
    bs is shoot
    needto combine toughness and armor saves into defense
    simplify initiative as fighting order
    No worries, we got that part down. See my example.

  4. #4
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH USA
    Posts
    2,995

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Well, if we are interested in doing this I think we would need to discuss some basic ground rules to make sure we are all on the same page as it were

    To what extent are we willing to modify the main rules of the game?

    Are we trying to copy an army's play style and unit strengths or just making an army list the minis would work in?

    Do we want these armies to be cross compatible with WotR? So you can play Skaven vs Rohan. (personally I like this, but it would limit other things as well)

    We should always keep in mind WotR's guiding principles of keeping it fast and simple.

    Once we establish all that, I figure we should look for some units that legitimately are directly translatable, Bretonian Men-at-Arms equals either Warriors of Minas Tirith or Oathsworm Militia. I figure there should be a fair amount of that, WotR formations that we can simply rename.

    While I don't know the WFB armies particularly well, it seems to me we can use a lot of existing formations in the Brettonian, Elf, Empire, Dwarf and maybe Orc lists.

    Like I said, I really like the idea of the lists being cross compatible, but we can't do certain things that way. Reducing the number of figs in a formation for instance I don't think would work if we plan on mixing the army lists.

    That is where I am on this idea right at the moment. Thought?
    Once upon a midnight dreary...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanska of Kompletely Kroot, May 12 2009, 12:42 PM
    May your enemies taste as sweet as your victories...

  5. #5
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Well, if we are interested in doing this I think we would need to discuss some basic ground rules to make sure we are all on the same page as it were
    Agreed.

    To what extent are we willing to modify the main rules of the game?
    I am willing to modify the main rules to accommodate half the number of miniatures on the table. I believe this game should be playable by existing WFB players with the size of armies they have (and will have with 8th, since 8th will increase the size of armies at the cost of characters in a major way).

    This means rules for infantry with 4 minis per base, either with R2 per standard or simply 4 "wounds" per base, but attacks still being reduced by 1 per casualty.

    If the number of cavalry per base is reduced as well, then it might be worth it to create rules for cavalry that are based with the narrow edge of the movement tray to the front.

    It might also feel more Warhammer-like if we introduce new weapons like halberds and spears to the game. Some units are differentiated by their weapon options in FB and if we remove those, some units might be left feeling pointless, or we'd have to remove them (halberdiers vs. swordsmen vs. spearmen anyone?)

    Also, rules for monsters that accommodate square bases.

    And finally, heroes and monsters need to "fit in" with the changes to troops (after the "halving"). Ideally, the rules for halving should retain about the same balance.

    Are we trying to copy an army's play style and unit strengths or just making an army list the minis would work in?
    I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. Personally I believe first in simply converting the unit stats over like I did with the orcs. It should be quite easy to do so. Naturally, certain things like Initiative will be dropped. I need to think about units with multiple attacks, probably they'll have a common special rule (for example, the one that Uruk-Hai Berserkers, a 2-attack unit from SBG, has). Special rules will need special consideration: whether they're incorporated into the stats, dropped or whether the unit will have a similar special rule in WOTR.

    After that, we cost the units according to the WOTR costing formula, and tweak up or down as needed (for example, units with lots of D are better than units with lots of C, for example).

    Do we want these armies to be cross compatible with WotR? So you can play Skaven vs Rohan. (personally I like this, but it would limit other things as well)
    I don't see why not, however the WOTR armies would have to use the same rules for basing and figure numbers, and compatibility is not worth sacrificing those rules, as I firmly believe people will NOT have the required numbers of WFB miniatures if we require 48 models for a 150-point formation.


    We should always keep in mind WotR's guiding principles of keeping it fast and simple.
    Sure. That's one of the main draws of this system. It should stay the same in spirit or there'll be little point in the conversion.
    Once we establish all that, I figure we should look for some units that legitimately are directly translatable, Bretonian Men-at-Arms equals either Warriors of Minas Tirith or Oathsworm Militia. I figure there should be a fair amount of that, WotR formations that we can simply rename.
    I disagree. I want to convert all units straight from their WFB stats and not worry about existing units. It's a needless time-saving exercise. For example, Men-At-Arms would have a statline of:

    M F S D A R C
    6 2/5+ 3 4(6) 8 1 1

    That's with just l. armour and shield, spears and halberds
    not yet added. Still, it's significantly different to WoMT and more characteristic of Warhammer MaA. And they would have a special rule about having a higher courage if near a knightly unit or hero, just like "Peasant's Duty" in FB.
    Special rules are okay if we can keep them to one per unit.

    While I don't know the WFB armies particularly well, it seems to me we can use a lot of existing formations in the Brettonian, Elf, Empire, Dwarf and maybe Orc lists.
    Like I said, this would compromise the project in my mind and would result in inconsistency with those armies being ported vs. those armies using WOTR formations, and would not be as much fun. HOWEVER, we can use WOTR units as a basis / example for doing weird units from Warhammer that can't be easily converted otherwise. Examples being trolls / ogres, Monsters (Dragons, Stegadon being close to a Mumak etc.), and War Machines. So there the WOTR rules will be helpful in creating those units.

    Like I said, I really like the idea of the lists being cross compatible, but we can't do certain things that way. Reducing the number of figs in a formation for instance I don't think would work if we plan on mixing the army lists.
    Indeed. Yet I see no other solution than doing so. Still, there's no reason why WOTR armies couldn't be converted to the WOTH rules, IF we can come up with rules that retain the same balance between formations vs. monsters and heroes without changing the latter, and we really should try to do so.

    [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Glabro; 18-04-2010 at 08:51.

  6. #6
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH USA
    Posts
    2,995

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    How many figs do you percieve a typical fantasy player as having per unit (in WFB)?

    I was under the impression that 40K tended to field fewer models than fantasy and I easily have enough figs in my Tau army to field it as a WotR style force.

    From the games I have watched people seem to field largish units in WFB in order to get the rank bonuses (20-30 models, isn't it?) That is more than enough for a formation in WotR, and your saying that the number of models for WFB is going to go up this summer.

    You can't reduce the number of figs in a cavalry formation, there are only 2 to begin with, that would leave you with cavalry as individual models, same as monsters. But, in your system, if you reduce the number of infantry figs but not the number of cavalry you throw of the whole balance of the WotR rules.

    Basically, my view is that in order to reduce the number of figs needed (at least by your method) you have to design what ends up being an entirely new game, not making a mod for an existing game and that is a whole lot of work.

    As for the weapon choices, I would expect Halberds to function as two-handed weapons (or maybe a combination of 2-H weapons and pikes) and spears to be pikes, but I don't know what specific game effects those weapons have in WFB so I am just guessing based on historical usage of those weapons.

    Do we want these armies to be cross compatible with WotR? So you can play Skaven vs Rohan. (personally I like this, but it would limit other things as well)
    I don't see why not, however the WOTR armies would have to use the same rules for basing and figure numbers, and compatibility is not worth sacrificing those rules, as I firmly believe people will NOT have the required numbers of WFB miniatures if we require 48 models for a 150-point formation.
    That is not making them cross compatible, that is making a new system that is similar to WotR and converting 2 sets of armies to it. In my mind the goal here is to allow WFB players who don't like the LotR miniatures or don't like the Tolkien background to play WotR with people who DO like those things. Nothing should need to be done to existing WotR armies to make them playable against a WFB army.

    48 models for 150 pts??!! I have a 6 company formation of cheap goblins that costs more than 300 pts. While it is true that it is nice to have a max size formation as the base for an army, it is hardly necessary and most of the rest of the army will be comprised of formations with 3-4 companies, that is a number most WFB players should be able to hit with no problem. One of us, I think, is radically mis-estimating the number of miniatures most players have. I think I will poll some of the fantasy players at my local shop the next time I am there. Also, if people actually use this conversion it's not like they are going to be all super WYSIWYG strict, people will be able to mix in a few odd models of similar type to finish off that last company.

    If you convert all units based on some arbitrary set of formula w/o reference to existing WotR formations I think you will just confuse people when they see that this unit of humans with hand weapons, basic armor and shields have radically different stats from this unit of humans with hand weapons, basic armor and shields. It is not at all a "needless time-saving exercise", by finding the 8-10 units in the game that have direct analogs to the other system we (A)-save a bunch of time and (B)-ensure continuity and balance with the existing army lists, which I think is one of the most important goals.

    I see this as building an expansion for WotR. The core rules for the game should be altered as little as possible. New things can be added but changing how the game actually functions should be avoided as it is just going to create a huge amount of work and endless balance issues for the existing armies to work in it.

    On a different note, Is anyone else paying any attention to this thread, or is it just you and me who are engaged in the idea?
    Last edited by ForgottenLore; 18-04-2010 at 17:41.
    Once upon a midnight dreary...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanska of Kompletely Kroot, May 12 2009, 12:42 PM
    May your enemies taste as sweet as your victories...

  7. #7
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    I think we seem to have different goals. I don't feel a need to expand WOTR with Warhammer races, I'm seeing this as a separate entity. At least I wouldn't play Skaven vs. Harad, for example. So I guess our design principles simply don't meet.

    About the number of figs...well, in WOTR, Morannon Orcs cost 20 points per company. That is undercosted by at least 5, so let's assume Warhammer orcs would cost 30 per formation (due to better courage). A unit of six companies costs 180 points. That's 48 models. Let's assume you spend circa 500 points on characters. We'll have 1500 points for units. Some will be cavalry, some will be more elite units and use up less models, but the trick is all of these are way more expensive than normal orcs in real money, and people don't have that many of them in WFB. So if we go simply by Orc boys, that'd be the equivalent of about four hundred orc boys, point wise. And to repeat, yes, you will have different units and for example, 12 boar boyz might take the place of 48 boyz there and such, but I'm talking about the overall cost / size of the army, as like I said, special units are expensive.

    Conversely, a 2000 point WFB army that spends 500 points on characters (most spend more these days, but many play more than 2000) has 1500 points on troops, orc boys with shields cost 6 points so 8 for 48 points (vs. 30 in WOTRhammer). That is before command groups. In practise, though, WFB armies simply don't feature hundreds of models, except in horde armies (those are around two hundred) - unless you have a large collection that goes beyond "standard" gaming needs.

    For example, my troop-heavy 2500 pt. Orc & Bretonnian armies (meaning very few characters) :

    The Orcs have about 160-170 boys, a 13-strong Black Orc mob, 20 wolf riders, some war machines and a couple of chariots. That's maybe enough for 1000 pts + characters in WOTR. Not as far as I imagined, but this is a REALLY horde-based army (with horizontal space running out during deployment)


    The Bretonnian army has about sixty knights (give or take a few), sixty-ish infantry, a Warmachine, and a couple of flying cavalry. That'd be about (assuming 40 points per company of knights). That will actually go to 1500 points in WOTR, which is fine. It would appear that cavalry do not need to be reduced in numbers at least because they are a good source of WOTR points, but to be balanced with reduced infantry they'd have R1 or something.


    Of course, smaller point games are possible, leaving the 2000 point games for the true collectors. Smaller-pointed games should have some rules to make sure characters don't run amok point-wise to keep the balance in check.

    Enough Tau to field as a WOTR style force? That is indeed impressive, but that is not a normal sized 40k army and probably won't fit into a single FOC.

    Trust me, I'd like nothing better than to use the full amount of models that WOTR rules use but I wouldn't buy a loads of WFB miniatures just for that.

    But in any case, we can ask around. Obviously in your case you wouldn't change rules since you want to play the same game as WOTR armies do together with them, but still it might be useful for us both to find out how many guys people actually field in their armies, and how many they have as extra lying about.

    Edit: I thought about it...and perhaps one of this conversion's selling points could be to accommodate huge numbers of models for the visual spectacle. For those who want to see hundreds of guys on the table yet being able to finish the game in one sitting. So perhaps the "main" project could be simply written for the normal WOTR rules, and any "mods" to the unit sizes I was talking about can simply be added on if both players desire (the rules would be universal).

    That still might leave us at odds if you wish to insert Warhammer races into WOTR unit profiles. I won't go for that, because I'm not interested in that kind of WOTR Warhammer, so we might have to go at it separately regardless.
    Last edited by Glabro; 18-04-2010 at 21:50.

  8. #8
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH USA
    Posts
    2,995

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Sure WFB players won't be ale to play a big game right off the bat but I have 2 thousand point WotR armies that both number between 60 and 100 miniautres. My big 1000 point hoard army has less than 150 figs in it. Most Wargamers can probably hit that mark with their primary army.

    You keep assuming that you have to play with a full 6 companies in a formation. For a 1000 point game it would be entirely reasonably to have a 3-4 company formation as your main block. That's 24 or 32 figs, minus any heroes and upgrades. It was my understanding that you want the core units in a WFB army to be at least 20 figs to get the max rank bonus for combat resolution. Am I wrong on that? If I am then maybe I am off. That is only a couple figs short of 3 companies, which is more than adequate for a 1000 pt game of WotR. If the WFB player has 2 such blocks of infantry then they have more than enough for a good solid anvil in a small game.

    I think you are right though. We seem to have completely different ideas on where this should go, if it goes anywhere. Unless some additional people want to weigh in?
    Once upon a midnight dreary...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanska of Kompletely Kroot, May 12 2009, 12:42 PM
    May your enemies taste as sweet as your victories...

  9. #9
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Oh yes, 1000 point games of WOTR are fine. I was under the impression that WOTR was played at about 2000 points standard, but that might just be me misremembering.

    In any case, it doesn't really matter whether you'll have 6 formations with six companies per formation or 12 formations with 3 companies per formation model count wise. I was just using the six per formation as a standard.

    It is kind of a shame to reach a consensus on all the fundamental base rules, but then find out that we both had a different goal from the start.

    My vision is now "mass battle Warhammer" (alternative to Warmaster) with Warhammer-y stats and rules, and yours is WOTR-friendly Warhammer races.

    There's no fundamental reason why my Warhammer units couldn't play with WOTR races since the rules would be universal (of course they'd have unique magic lists and such). The basic profile for a man would be the same;

    M F S D A R C
    6 3/4+ 3 3 8 1 3

    This is before ANY equipment.

    it's just that Warhammer orcs are different from LOTR and so on.


    Probably Warmaster suits my idea for four infantry per tray better.

    WOTRHammer would be a step up. The nice thing is that both Warmaster and WOTR use 100x50mm bases for companies, so you could play both games with the same bases / trays.
    Last edited by Glabro; 18-04-2010 at 23:49.

  10. #10
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Okay, just to show what I'm talking about, I converted all the Orc & Goblin Common units to WOTR. There's even a surprise unit...
    Link in the OP.

  11. #11
    Chapter Master Leogun_91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gothenburg
    Posts
    4,041

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    For your information spears counts as handweapons and additional handweapons have no effect in Wotr, the bonuses for either are supposed to be part of the formations stats.

    I like this project, it seems to be quite intresting.

    I think I could help you with it but I agree with Forgotten Lore that the number of guys per formation shouldn't be changed.

    The magic rules must be changed to fit warhammer though, in warhammer it's really dangerous to use spells and that should be represented by the rules, the Wotr rules does not feature magic that is dangerous for the user.
    There aint nowt a cannon can do that a determined dwarf with a hammer cant achive.-Old Redmane

    Visit my dwarfs at http://kazad-grund.webs.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by Belakor View Post
    You folks keep telling everyone how awesome Mantic is because of what you get for a dollar, and I say you are still getting ripped off.

  12. #12
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    I am well aware that there are no rules for spears in WOTR. However, I plan on adding a few weapons to WOTRHammer, seeing as how Glaives will probably not see use, and pikes might not be there either except for the esoteric DoW (unless I go by alternative fluff where the Empire actually does use Pikes with their muskets).

    And of course I can easily reverse the decision and remove spears later on.
    I just feel that some of the "classic" units are differentiated by having and not having spears.

    You'll also note that in my game spears are free for infantry, and will thus be a tradeoff for a more defensive unit.


    You'll be happy to find that I've agreed to drop the alternative rules for halving models and focusing on the mass battle. Those who don't have enough minis can play smaller games or use proxies / tokens for rear rankers. But the main draw would indeed be the ability to field massed armies (after all, one "company" is the same as a regiment) with the grace and elegance of WOTR

    Magic will be unique to Warhammer. No-one will use the WOTR magic lists. Coming up with all the lores could be challenging...perhaps that is a good separate job for someone who wants to help? Someone who understands the Warhammer magic lists well.

    And you are welcome to help!
    Last edited by Glabro; 20-04-2010 at 09:33.

  13. #13
    Chapter Master Leogun_91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gothenburg
    Posts
    4,041

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Then I gladly help.......what would you like me to do?
    There aint nowt a cannon can do that a determined dwarf with a hammer cant achive.-Old Redmane

    Visit my dwarfs at http://kazad-grund.webs.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by Belakor View Post
    You folks keep telling everyone how awesome Mantic is because of what you get for a dollar, and I say you are still getting ripped off.

  14. #14
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH USA
    Posts
    2,995

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    With magic you would certainly want to convert all the various lores, just how hazardous is the WFB magic system? Can you simply add on to the WotR mechanics that a roll of "1" has bad effects for the caster, so you get:

    1----backfire
    2-5--normal effects
    6----enhanced effects

    or possibly just drop the "6" and not have enhanced effects?

    Warhammer magic is noted for being more powerful and having more direct damage that WotR, isn't it?
    Once upon a midnight dreary...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanska of Kompletely Kroot, May 12 2009, 12:42 PM
    May your enemies taste as sweet as your victories...

  15. #15
    Chapter Master Llew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,252

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    From a design standpoint, if you try to duplicate the Warhammer feel too much, you just end up with the Warhammer problems in a new system.

    Some friends and I have been working on this same idea for a while, but it has been low priority as we only play one big weekend a year. We actually approached it more from a position of adapting Warhammer Armies to feel like WotR armies, rather than making WotR feel like Warhammer. Fundamentally, I think that's easier as much more of the design work has been done.

    Personally, I wouldn't mess with the Wound mechanic for models as it's pretty solid balance already and it has a lot of implications for characters, etc. Dropping that idea is a really good one.

    For miscasts, probably the simplest thing I could think would be to retain the spellcast system as is already in WotR, but keep track of each caster who rolls a "1" result. Then, if there are at least 2 rolls of "1" in a turn, go to a miscast chart for each caster. Make up a curve so the middle gives a good likelihood of nothing happening (since miscasts would be more likely in this method) but put more effects out on the wings. Maybe base it on a 3d6 roll. You'd probably have to not depend on immediate effects for the penalties though for a number of reasons.

  16. #16
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH USA
    Posts
    2,995

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Miscasts would be MORE likely in that system? How unlikely are they normally?

    We actually approached it more from a position of adapting Warhammer Armies to feel like WotR armies, rather than making WotR feel like Warhammer. Fundamentally, I think that's easier as much more of the design work has been done.
    That is exactly where I am coming from, I just don't know anything about the warhammer armies.

    Did I miss something somewhere? Was there some talk about how wounds would work? I was totally assuming adapting particularly tough monsters to the hard to kill mechanic. Possibly adding another table between very hard to kill and extremely hard to kill as that seems like quite a jump to me.
    Once upon a midnight dreary...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanska of Kompletely Kroot, May 12 2009, 12:42 PM
    May your enemies taste as sweet as your victories...

  17. #17
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    From a design standpoint, if you try to duplicate the Warhammer feel too much, you just end up with the Warhammer problems in a new system.
    Yep, a careful balance has to be made here, between the playability and feel of WOTR with the characteristic elements of Warhammer. Check my implementation of Fanatics for an example of my design philosophy: a random but destructive (potentially to yourself) short-ranged artillery weapon, instead of spinning loons scattering about and being released out of turn order.

    Personally, I wouldn't mess with the Wound mechanic for models as it's pretty solid balance already and it has a lot of implications for characters, etc. Dropping that idea is a really good one.
    If you're referring to the number of models etc, agreed. It's much easier to keep the number of models in the rules as is. And yes, monsters will use the WOTR Hard to Kill rules, we're not messing with them in any way.



    The miscast could be something simple like whenever you roll a 1 to cast, roll again, and if it's a 1, miscast.


    Leogun, perhaps you would be interested in designing the magic lores for Warhammer?


    Oh, and one of the decisions I made is that by design I want duels to be "pure". That heroes always fight with their natural F value in duels regardless of spells, epic strike etc.
    Otherwise we're going to see things in duels that won't make sense in the Warhammer World.


    If people are interested in building army lists as well, that's good. I should probably design the weapons & new special rules too so that it's easier to be uniform.

    Also, there's the disclaimer that I want to retain the right to tweak and modify anything.


    If you don't care about design / balancing but want to help, just typing out the unit entries like in my text document but without points costs, special rules or tweaks helps immensely, because it lets me get straigth to tweaking.
    That'd mean simply translating the unit stats to WOTR, listing out weapon and command options according to what they have in Warhammer.

    Oh, and I just noticed that the text file I attached kills the formatting I had done, so I'll see about fixing that.

    Thanks for anyone who wants to help!

  18. #18
    Chapter Master Llew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,252

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    RE: Miscasts.
    Normally, you need double ones to get a miscast on a single spell roll. By keeping track of all results of "1" in a turn, if you get much magic happening, you have better odds of a miscast. (And lower odds in a low-magic game.)

    I haven't run the numbers on that for a statistical analysis, so realize I speak in generalizations.

    RE: Wounds.
    To oversimplify, the figures on the base (a company) is also basically your wound counters. Earlier discussion had mentioned perhaps only using 4 models per infantry base. It would mess with a lot of other aspects of the game to do that.

  19. #19
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Quote Originally Posted by Llew View Post
    RE: Miscasts.
    Normally, you need double ones to get a miscast on a single spell roll. By keeping track of all results of "1" in a turn, if you get much magic happening, you have better odds of a miscast. (And lower odds in a low-magic game.)
    RE: Wounds.
    To oversimplify, the figures on the base (a company) is also basically your wound counters. Earlier discussion had mentioned perhaps only using 4 models per infantry base. It would mess with a lot of other aspects of the game to do that.
    Indeed, but all is well now - I realized it would be a lot of work with no certainty of complete success in balancing it out with monsters etc.

    As this is well and truly a mass battle game (after all, each "company" represents one Warhammer regiment) part of the draw is being able to field hundreds of miniatures without the game taking days. In scale terms, a formation of four infantry companies represents around a thousand warriors or more! That's something to keep in mind in the design process.

  20. #20
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH USA
    Posts
    2,995

    Re: WOTRHammer - a Warhammer total conversion

    Wounds - OK I understand what you were saying now Llew. And yeah, Glabro has settled on not changing that I believe.

    Magic - OK, I figured it was double ones. I like Glabro's suggestion of rerolling a "1" to see if miscast. Can you miscast a spell and still have it succeed in WFB?

    I totally support using completely unmodified "F" in duels. It would not surprise me if that is how GW rules it if we ever actually get a FAQ.

    Text File - OK good, it wasn't me or my computer that was the problem. I've tried to look at that in a couple different programs now and the best I got was it looking like some weird Excel spreadsheet.

    If I understand fanatics right they hide in a unit of night goblins and then jump out when the unit gets into hand to hand, right? The artillery analog is kinda interesting, conveys the flavor that their buddies are throwing them at the enemy rather than they are jumping out but that is OK I think. But once they pop out don't they stay around and move randomly for multiple turns? If that is the case they might have to be a little more like stampeding mumaks, monsters that move randomly each turn.
    Last edited by ForgottenLore; 21-04-2010 at 00:55.
    Once upon a midnight dreary...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanska of Kompletely Kroot, May 12 2009, 12:42 PM
    May your enemies taste as sweet as your victories...

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •