Rules Changes to WFB
Robert McDonald
edition rules and make them more reasonable. I would welcome any comments.
1. Orcs must have a higher strength than a human or goblin. Therefor the
majority of Orcs have a Str of 4 at a cost of +1 point. Only the really old
Orcs (smaller and more human sized) are now plain orcs with 3 strength. The
smaller orcs are known as lesser orcs and can still be fielded by those who
have some.
2. The Old beastmen must also be stronger than a human, and are increased in
str to 4 also at a +1 point cost. Only the really old 1st edition beastmen
(human sized) have 3 str.
3. The outnumbering rule only applies if one side unit strength is twice as
many or more than the other. This stops crazy situations where 31 humans
fight 30 orcs and gain a +1 bonus, the same bonus for defending a hill, when
in reality would the fighting parties even notice 1 additional human?
4. A unit or character only needs to make a break test if they have suffered
a casualty or wound in battle. In a situation where a force of chaos
warriors gets attacked by a large group of goblins, and the goblins fail to
inflict any casualties, the Chaos warriors might loose the combat, but with
no losses will probably fight on anyway, and won't be forced to make a break
test where they might have to run away from a foe who has not harmed them.
This rule is also obvious and needs inclusion to make 6th edition a complete
game rather than a stepping stone to 7th edition.
5. The rules on Page 76 to do with pursuit need some work. The way we play
these rules, the unit following up the charge with pursuit can only move
directly forward, and if it clipps a different unit or character then it can
turn to face them and bring maximum number of figures into combat. This is a
new charge as per the normal rules (no reaction except stand and fight, no
test when charging fear or terror causing creatures etc).
This combat is carried out immediately and not in the next combat round. If
it is carried forward then the system has to make sence of all kinds of
different situations like when the chargers are charged in return in the
next combat phase etc. Better to resolve it immediately as a bonus combat
except a unit can never pursue twice. Thus if they win against the enemy in
the "charge against fresh enemy rule" they cannot pursue. If the fresh enemy
beat them in combat they can pursue normally, and this can cause a domino
effect (rarely does however).
As per rule for overrun on Page 78, the attackers have the bonus over
pursuit that in overrun the player has the option to overrun and does not
have to make a lds test etc to restrain pursuit.
These rule changes are important as they make cavalry and chariots much
better choices in combat, able to follow up their victory in the same combat
round and work quite well in that they reflect the impact and damage a
regiment of heavy cavalry can do before you can react to them (as per
historical middle-ages battles, Agincourt, Crecy and Bannockburn not
withstanding). It also means a commander must be very carefull which unites
he places in reserve because he is not able to react potentially to a good
charge for 2 combats instead of the normal one round. Thus its possible for
Brettonian knights for example to break right through an army before the
enemy can issue any orders or make any moves to stop them - clearly a better
simulation of medievil and fantasy combat. This can also be the case for all
good elete unites in any army. It also brings the best style of play from
Warmaster in WFB.
We are going to playtest these changes and see how they go.
Like I said, any comments are welcome.
Cheers
Rob
--
Check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/rob_mcd_aus/index.html
Jim M
news:cSZs6.5182$zW2.2...@ozemail.com.au...
ruleset...
--
Jim
j...@hnjcomics.com
http://www.hnjcomics.com
remove the " hat." if you want to e-mail me
E-mail me for my latest list of on sale gaming items!
Rob North (Formerly the Father)
BAD BAD MAN!
Go to Big Al for correction at once!
-Northy
"Judicant"
"Everything... In its right place."
REED TEQ F.A.Q NWO OR i FALME YUO!
http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
"You want GW talk? Fuck off to a mailing list you completly stupid chimp."
Jim M
message news:3ab47c57...@news.ntlworld.com...
> You should already know to snip the fucking posts!
>
> BAD BAD MAN!
>
> Go to Big Al for correction at once!
>
(shhh, hey do you think he bought it...let's hope so, ssshhhh, he might hear
us)
Robert McDonald
> >
> > BAD BAD MAN!
> >
> > Go to Big Al for correction at once!
> >
> Except I wanted to repeat the whole thing, so I could read it again
later...
>
> (shhh, hey do you think he bought it...let's hope so, ssshhhh, he might
hear
> us)
>
I just want the rules (which are not too bad) to work properly, and be
reasonably realistic in a fanatsy environment.
The changes are fairly minor, and just a bit of a revision to the old
edition(s) anyway (with a couple of changes).
All rules systems need some revision when they are shown to be a little
unrealistic/wrong, so maybe we should call it WFB Version 6.1
The basic rules structure etc, is pretty good as it is.
Cheers
Rob
Mikko Leho
"Robert McDonald" <rob...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
news:cSZs6.5182$zW2.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> We are going to trial a couple of rule changes which will "fix" the 6th
> edition rules and make them more reasonable. I would welcome any comments.
>
> 1. Orcs must have a higher strength than a human or goblin. Therefor the
> majority of Orcs have a Str of 4 at a cost of +1 point. Only the really
old
> Orcs (smaller and more human sized) are now plain orcs with 3 strength.
The
> smaller orcs are known as lesser orcs and can still be fielded by those
who
> have some.
>
> 2. The Old beastmen must also be stronger than a human, and are increased
in
> str to 4 also at a +1 point cost. Only the really old 1st edition beastmen
> (human sized) have 3 str.
While they already have big'uns and bestigors? Not in my point of view! And
never with that point cost!
> 3. The outnumbering rule only applies if one side unit strength is twice
as
> many or more than the other. This stops crazy situations where 31 humans
> fight 30 orcs and gain a +1 bonus, the same bonus for defending a hill,
when
> in reality would the fighting parties even notice 1 additional human?
What if 59 humans are fighting 30 orcs? Same problem. Units in Whfb are
usually small so its natural to emphasize on small differences.
> 4. A unit or character only needs to make a break test if they have
suffered
> a casualty or wound in battle. In a situation where a force of chaos
> warriors gets attacked by a large group of goblins, and the goblins fail
to
> inflict any casualties, the Chaos warriors might loose the combat, but
with
> no losses will probably fight on anyway, and won't be forced to make a
break
> test where they might have to run away from a foe who has not harmed them.
> This rule is also obvious and needs inclusion to make 6th edition a
complete
> game rather than a stepping stone to 7th edition.
Sometimes the sheer mass of the charger is enough to push the defender off
formation and cause them to run like hell. Knights weren't that effective in
killing their opponent with lances than crushing them with speed and weight.
In reality overkills were relatively rare and holding the line crucial
(yeah, Gladiator).
> 5. The rules on Page 76 to do with pursuit need some work. The way we play
> these rules, the unit following up the charge with pursuit can only move
> directly forward, and if it clipps a different unit or character then it
can
> turn to face them and bring maximum number of figures into combat. This is
a
> new charge as per the normal rules (no reaction except stand and fight, no
> test when charging fear or terror causing creatures etc).
Hmm, maybe...
> We are going to playtest these changes and see how they go.
>
> Like I said, any comments are welcome.
Burn baby, burn!
Reiner Zetsche
"Robert McDonald" wrote:
> 1. Orcs must have a higher strength than a human or goblin.
Therefor the
> majority of Orcs have a Str of 4 at a cost of +1 point. Only
the really old
> Orcs (smaller and more human sized) are now plain orcs with 3
strength. The
> smaller orcs are known as lesser orcs and can still be fielded
by those who
> have some.
I think you are trying to fix rules, which are not broken. With
6th edition, and this is hard to admit for me, GW did a thorough
and diligent job with respect to rules and gameplay balance. So
far, at least! Empire, Dwarves and Orcs& Goblins seem reasonably
balanced to me. The rule you propose here is a major threat to
this balance of power! If you want orcs with Str 4, take big'uns
or/and blackorcs. Also the cost is ridiculously low, 1 point for
+1 Str would be much too cheap.
I can understand why you come up
with these rules. It is the notion that miniatures look better
than their stats give them credit. It is, however, important we
always keep appearance of miniatures, fluff and gameplay balance
seperated. Saying: "Orcs look so much stronger, they must be
stronger than humans!", is as good as saying: "These Elves do not
look like good fighters, really. They should have a lower weapon
skill!". Take into account that every cost and stat is bound to
the big picture of all costs and stats in the whole WHFB game.
> 2. The Old beastmen must also be stronger than a human, and are
increased in
> str to 4 also at a +1 point cost. Only the really old 1st
edition beastmen
> (human sized) have 3 str.
Likewise!
Look, I really cannot force you to stop using houserules. And I
do not wish to! If you think these rules ammendments will work
for you go ahead and try them out. It is my opinion,
nevertheless, that we should not break the rules of WHF 6th
edition before GW does ;^D! Gameplay balance is important to keep
the game fun for everyone. I think your rules hurt this fragile
balance.
--
Reiner, last normal resident of Santa Mira
Little Al
>reasonably realistic in a fanatsy environment.
>The changes are fairly minor, and just a bit of a revision to the old
>edition(s) anyway (with a couple of changes).
>All rules systems need some revision when they are shown to be a little
>unrealistic/wrong, so maybe we should call it WFB Version 6.1
>The basic rules structure etc, is pretty good as it is.
Most of the above rule changes made it into my group, except we cut out
the outnumber rule completely (which is a shame (for me at least), since
it was normally the way I won the combat). And as for musicians, well,
we are arguing that rule.
Another one I would add to the list is that cannon balls cannot bounce
up hills. Just because it is sensible, and stops cheesy people from
firing everything at the opponents artillery crews. Not that we have
cheesy players in my group.
Little Al
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I get enough exercise just pushing my luck"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Warhammer 6th Edition Fanboy, RGMW Chief Lackey and Events Organiser, StPF
member, Short Priest of the church of Jimi and holder of Green Hat #2
Warmaster e-group - GW_Warmaste...@egroups.com
Epic 40,000 e-group - e40k-list...@egroups.com
RGMW FAQ: http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Avoid my fantasy site at all costs : http://www.browse.to/ye_olde_world
Robert McDonald
>
> Another one I would add to the list is that cannon balls cannot bounce
> up hills. Just because it is sensible, and stops cheesy people from
> firing everything at the opponents artillery crews. Not that we have
> cheesy players in my group.
> Little Al
This is an example of an excellent rule modificatioin which makes sence and
should be adopted.
Cheers
Rob
Robert McDonald
>
> I can understand why you come up
> with these rules. It is the notion that miniatures look better
> than their stats give them credit. It is, however, important we
> always keep appearance of miniatures, fluff and gameplay balance
> seperated. Saying: "Orcs look so much stronger, they must be
> stronger than humans!", is as good as saying: "These Elves do not
> look like good fighters, really. They should have a lower weapon
> skill!". Take into account that every cost and stat is bound to
> the big picture of all costs and stats in the whole WHFB game.
How could anyone justify "they do not look like good fighters"
This argument is stupid.
However strength is obvious from the actual figure, and since we collect
figures and fight them in battles against each other, isn't it
understandable that if a figure stands about 8ft tall, has massive frame and
muscles would be stronger than a goblin or human.
Orcs are not that strong an army in any event, and the +1 str for +1 point
is to allow Orc commanders to field large unites of Orcs and still be
competitive. After all biguns are +1 WS and +1 Str and cost +2 points.
Its not as if GW now provides normal sized orcs for Orc players to collect
and field as normal human strengthed version of the race. All their Orcs are
massive, even the archers.
The old smaller orcs (which some people still have) can be the lesser orcs
with the basic stats, and the orcs which are now sold can be basic Orcs with
higher strength.
>
> Look, I really cannot force you to stop using houserules. And I
> do not wish to! If you think these rules ammendments will work
> for you go ahead and try them out. It is my opinion,
> nevertheless, that we should not break the rules of WHF 6th
> edition before GW does ;^D! Gameplay balance is important to keep
> the game fun for everyone. I think your rules hurt this fragile
> balance.
Thats the problem, game balance and realism.
Like I said, the rules are pretty good, they just need a slight adjustment
to make them better (in some ways, using elements of previous editions).
BTW, fragile balance is not correct term for a game where luck is such an
important element. Chess definately, but warhammer no.
Cheers
Rob
Reiner Zetsche
"Robert McDonald" wrote:
> How could anyone justify "they do not look like good fighters"
> This argument is stupid.
It is! And it is as arbitrary as the other one.
> However strength is obvious from the actual figure, and since
we collect
> figures and fight them in battles against each other, isn't it
> understandable that if a figure stands about 8ft tall, has
massive frame and
> muscles would be stronger than a goblin or human.
Collecting figures and playing are two aspects of our hobby. For
game-design they have to be kept apart, however. The designers do
not tailor the rules around the figure's appearance! These are
two seperate processes.
> Orcs are not that strong an army in any event, and the +1 str
for +1 point
> is to allow Orc commanders to field large unites of Orcs and
still be
> competitive.
Well, I beg to differ. I do play Orcs and I am satisfied with
their performance so far.
> After all biguns are +1 WS and +1 Str and cost +2 points.
Yes, but you can field only one unit of them. And you have to
field an equal number of normal Orcs from the corresponding race.
<snip>
> > Look, I really cannot force you to stop using houserules. And
I
> > do not wish to! If you think these rules ammendments will
work
> > for you go ahead and try them out. It is my opinion,
> > nevertheless, that we should not break the rules of WHF 6th
> > edition before GW does ;^D! Gameplay balance is important to
keep
> > the game fun for everyone. I think your rules hurt this
fragile
> > balance.
>
> Thats the problem, game balance and realism.
> Like I said, the rules are pretty good, they just need a slight
adjustment
> to make them better (in some ways, using elements of previous
editions).
Game balance always takes precedence over realism. In a perfect
world, they are brought to unity.
> BTW, fragile balance is not correct term for a game where luck
is such an
> important element. Chess definately, but warhammer no.
Luck is overrated by many players. Statistics and probability are
more fitting. With hundreds of dice rolls, luck should even out
between players. Moreover, balance (which is always fragile, such
is the nature of balance), was used here with respect to the
tactical equality of all the armylists in the WFB game compared
among themselves. That is gameplay balance. Anything else is
performance
But look, here is what I am going to do for you ;-). Give me a
couple of hours and I will assemble a complete 2000pts. army
roster. This list will be designed to be competetive (probably
cheesy) and it will take into account your love of Str. 4 Orcs.
Plus, it is going to stick with the current rules ;-)!
Funny you mentioned chess, because chess takes place in a perfect
world (well, realism plays almost no role here). The balance of
power is perfect in the beginning, everything is in perfect
harmony. Warhammer should strive for that harmony as well, at
least in the beginning (the armybook). As the game unfolds both
players try to disturb that balance and swing the odds in their
favour. The skills to archieve this objective are called strategy
and tactics. IMHO your rules disturb that balance, because GW,
for once, did a decent job.
Qrab
>
> We are going to trial a couple of rule changes which will "fix" the 6th
> edition rules and make them more reasonable. I would welcome any comments.
>
> 1. Orcs must have a higher strength than a human or goblin. Therefor the
> majority of Orcs have a Str of 4 at a cost of +1 point. Only the really old
> Orcs (smaller and more human sized) are now plain orcs with 3 strength. The
> smaller orcs are known as lesser orcs and can still be fielded by those who
> have some.
>
> 2. The Old beastmen must also be stronger than a human, and are increased in
> str to 4 also at a +1 point cost. Only the really old 1st edition beastmen
> (human sized) have 3 str.
1 point is way too cheap for a 1 point increase in strength. Orcs and
Beastmen are fine the way they are. As a side note, wait until the
Beastman book comes out before you start 'fixing' the rules, you have no
idea what they're final incarnation will be.
> 3. The outnumbering rule only applies if one side unit strength is twice as
> many or more than the other. This stops crazy situations where 31 humans
> fight 30 orcs and gain a +1 bonus, the same bonus for defending a hill, when
> in reality would the fighting parties even notice 1 additional human?
>
> 4. A unit or character only needs to make a break test if they have suffered
> a casualty or wound in battle. In a situation where a force of chaos
> warriors gets attacked by a large group of goblins, and the goblins fail to
> inflict any casualties, the Chaos warriors might loose the combat, but with
> no losses will probably fight on anyway, and won't be forced to make a break
> test where they might have to run away from a foe who has not harmed them.
> This rule is also obvious and needs inclusion to make 6th edition a complete
> game rather than a stepping stone to 7th edition.
You don't seem to grasp what the rules for unit size and ranks & banners
are supposed to replicate. Number of troops should matter. Simply
outnumbering an opponent by 1 model might seem silly, but is no less
silly than your proposed 2:1 ratio (as was pointed out with the 30 Orks
vs 59 Humans).
As for the no break test if not wounded rule. Treemen have this ability.
Giving this ability lessens the special nature of Treemen and (IMO)
doesn't reflect the way fantasy combat should be depicted. We are
obviously on the opposite side of the fence about this one, because I
think it's totally ridiculous for 1 large model or a small elite unit to
be able to break a unit that outnumbers it by a large margin. Your
proposed changes are a step back towards 5th edition, a game that
favored supercharacters, monsters and small elite units.
In your example with the Goblins vs Chaos Warriors the Warriors LD is
high enough that their failing a break test will not happen often enough
for this to be a problem. Shouldn't the impetus of the Goblins' charge,
combined with their superior numbers count for anything? Even the
bravest, most foolhardy warriors will occasionally be unnerved by a wave
of Goblins waving sharp pointy things.
Unless I miss my guess, you'd prefer a Warhammer environment where the
generic trooper has no chance against an elite
opponent/monster/supercharacter. An environments where flukes never
occur and Chaos Warriors will always beat Goblins. In that case, what is
the point of playing. Frankly, I prefer the uncertainty that the current
rules allow.
> 5. The rules on Page 76 to do with pursuit need some work. The way we play
> these rules, the unit following up the charge with pursuit can only move
> directly forward, and if it clipps a different unit or character then it can
> turn to face them and bring maximum number of figures into combat. This is a
> new charge as per the normal rules (no reaction except stand and fight, no
> test when charging fear or terror causing creatures etc).
>
> This combat is carried out immediately and not in the next combat round. If
> it is carried forward then the system has to make sence of all kinds of
> different situations like when the chargers are charged in return in the
> next combat phase etc. Better to resolve it immediately as a bonus combat
> except a unit can never pursue twice. Thus if they win against the enemy in
> the "charge against fresh enemy rule" they cannot pursue. If the fresh enemy
> beat them in combat they can pursue normally, and this can cause a domino
> effect (rarely does however).
This is a bad idea. Cavalry, Chariots and any other unit that outruns
its support units should be vulnerable to countercharging. The simple
solution is for the two charging units to strike simultaneously.
> We are going to playtest these changes and see how they go.
Please do. I believe you'll find the game to be less enjoyable, unless
you are somebody who fields lots of monstes or small units of Chaos Knights.
> Like I said, any comments are welcome.
You asked for it...
Be seeing you-
Qrab
Insane Ranter
"Little Al" <alex...@oscars.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KFYMijAT...@oscars.demon.co.uk...
> Another one I would add to the list is that cannon balls cannot bounce
> up hills. Just because it is sensible, and stops cheesy people from
> firing everything at the opponents artillery crews. Not that we have
> cheesy players in my group.
> Little Al
Why couldn't a cannon ball bounce up a hill?
Insane Ranter
> BTW, fragile balance is not correct term for a game where luck is such an
> important element. Chess definately, but warhammer no.
I think you mean chance not luck
RT Maitreya
>
> "Little Al" <alex...@oscars.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:KFYMijAT...@oscars.demon.co.uk...
> > Another one I would add to the list is that cannon balls cannot bounce
> > up hills. Just because it is sensible, and stops cheesy people from
> Why couldn't a cannon ball bounce up a hill?
I don't know. Maybe for game balance, I suppose.
REALLY steep hills, yes, but unless it was modeled
as a cliff-facing, then I'd say sure, let them bounce.
RTM
Kylie Hall
any war would not want to knock out the enemy arty so he can then safely use
his ground forces to send enemy troops troops into a bottleneck where he has
adjusted his arty fire to then wipe out the enemy.
God knows I did enough counter battery fire drills and fire missions on "the
enemy" whilst I was in artillery
Kane
"Little Al" <alex...@oscars.demon.co.uk> wrote in is pretty good as it is.
Robert McDonald
>
> 1 point is way too cheap for a 1 point increase in strength. Orcs and
> Beastmen are fine the way they are. As a side note, wait until the
> Beastman book comes out before you start 'fixing' the rules, you have no
> idea what they're final incarnation will be.
>
Lets wait and see then.
In normal warhammer games regiments are rarely over 20-30 figures (at least
in the game I have played anyway). At 30 humans against 16 orcs they will
not receive the bonus for outnumbering but they will gain the normal bonus
for extra ranks. Lets say the orcs and humans are in 5 wide ranks, the
humans have 6 ranks and the Orcs only 3, giving the humans a +1 bonus for
more troops. The general makes a decision about how he ranks up his troops
(and thus has control over the ability to outnumber).
Having said that, a simpler and better +1 bonus would be if both sides have
the maximum rank bonus, and one side has more actual ranks, then
outnumbering is important but not by a single figure.
I can see your point of view, and I suppose I can only hope you can see both
the reason why the present rules seem a little out of kilter , and a
possible solution.
>
> As for the no break test if not wounded rule. Treemen have this ability.
> Giving this ability lessens the special nature of Treemen and (IMO)
> doesn't reflect the way fantasy combat should be depicted. We are
> obviously on the opposite side of the fence about this one, because I
> think it's totally ridiculous for 1 large model or a small elite unit to
> be able to break a unit that outnumbers it by a large margin. Your
> proposed changes are a step back towards 5th edition, a game that
> favored supercharacters, monsters and small elite units.
I think the game has swung too much the other way. As I said, I have never
seriously played 5th edition but its looking better and better. However I do
like the core/special/rare choices and limits on character in 6th edition.
>
> In your example with the Goblins vs Chaos Warriors the Warriors LD is
> high enough that their failing a break test will not happen often enough
> for this to be a problem. Shouldn't the impetus of the Goblins' charge,
> combined with their superior numbers count for anything? Even the
> bravest, most foolhardy warriors will occasionally be unnerved by a wave
> of Goblins waving sharp pointy things.
Lets just agree to disagree.
This last rules has been used in 5 or our last games (mainly due to learning
the rules) and seems to work fairly well at replicating historical battles
where the commander hasn't always got the time to have gods command ability
on the battlefield.
Warhammer with fussy turn lengths and limited turns of combat, this is a big
bonus for a successful player.
Cheers
Rob
Robert McDonald
> > How could anyone justify "they do not look like good fighters"
> > This argument is stupid.
>
> It is! And it is as arbitrary as the other one.
>
> > However strength is obvious from the actual figure, and since
> we collect
> > figures and fight them in battles against each other, isn't it
> > understandable that if a figure stands about 8ft tall, has
> massive frame and
> > muscles would be stronger than a goblin or human.
>
> Collecting figures and playing are two aspects of our hobby. For
> game-design they have to be kept apart, however. The designers do
> not tailor the rules around the figure's appearance! These are
> two seperate processes.
The game designers must be true to the figures and not the other way around.
Otherwise we may as well play with cardboard counters.
>
> > Orcs are not that strong an army in any event, and the +1 str
> for +1 point
> > is to allow Orc commanders to field large unites of Orcs and
> still be
> > competitive.
>
> Well, I beg to differ. I do play Orcs and I am satisfied with
> their performance so far.
>
> > After all biguns are +1 WS and +1 Str and cost +2 points.
>
> Yes, but you can field only one unit of them. And you have to
> field an equal number of normal Orcs from the corresponding race.
>
Why don't GW bring out a range or orcs which look more human sized? (like
the old ones). There has to be some sort of correlation between the figures
and the rules.
> > Thats the problem, game balance and realism.
> > Like I said, the rules are pretty good, they just need a slight
> adjustment
> > to make them better (in some ways, using elements of previous
> editions).
>
> Game balance always takes precedence over realism. In a perfect
> world, they are brought to unity.
>
> > BTW, fragile balance is not correct term for a game where luck
> is such an
> > important element. Chess definately, but warhammer no.
>
> Luck is overrated by many players. Statistics and probability are
> more fitting. With hundreds of dice rolls, luck should even out
> between players. Moreover, balance (which is always fragile, such
> is the nature of balance), was used here with respect to the
> tactical equality of all the armylists in the WFB game compared
> among themselves. That is gameplay balance. Anything else is
> performance
>
> But look, here is what I am going to do for you ;-). Give me a
> couple of hours and I will assemble a complete 2000pts. army
> roster. This list will be designed to be competetive (probably
> cheesy) and it will take into account your love of Str. 4 Orcs.
> Plus, it is going to stick with the current rules ;-)!
Sounds interesting. I know my Orc oponent is going to play the 6.1 Orc army
next game also, so that should be a challenge.
>
> Funny you mentioned chess, because chess takes place in a perfect
> world (well, realism plays almost no role here). The balance of
> power is perfect in the beginning, everything is in perfect
> harmony. Warhammer should strive for that harmony as well, at
> least in the beginning (the armybook). As the game unfolds both
> players try to disturb that balance and swing the odds in their
> favour. The skills to archieve this objective are called strategy
> and tactics. IMHO your rules disturb that balance, because GW,
> for once, did a decent job.
I'm not disputing that GW did a fairly good job with 6th edition, I just
feel it needs some work. Version 6.1 should fine tune the game so its both
more realistic, more interesting and all together a better game.
WFB is a robust system in which luck (or if you prefer chance) has a big
part to play. There are not many wargames (and I have been playing
Napoleonic, ancients, WW2 for over 20 years) where success and failure can
hinge on a single moral check or magic roll, and the results of a single
dice roll can be such stunning success or total failure.
In a Napoleonic battle, when you fire your artillery you have a fairly good
idea of how many casualties it will cause, and you can be fairly sure than
your Tiger II can stand up to 5 shermans at long range, but these known and
understandable results are not part of the warhammer battle. In every
battle report I have read and just about every battle I have played, a
single point of chance makes or breaks the battle.
I ask you to take a step back and make an objective view, and while fantasy
gaming is supposed to be bizaare and unusual, it should be reasonably based
on medieval battles, and push it slightly towards the realms of an actual
battle rather than the snakes and ladders type of games we can end up with.
Don't get me wrong, I like the 6th edition, I just think it needs fine
tunning to work perfectly.
Cheers
Rob
Little Al
>> up hills. Just because it is sensible, and stops cheesy people from
>> firing everything at the opponents artillery crews. Not that we have
>> cheesy players in my group.
>> Little Al
>
>Why couldn't a cannon ball bounce up a hill?
Because it defies the laws of Physics for one, it would not make it
uphill, and even if it did, it would have such pressures on it that
either:
1.it would do nothing of worth
2.it would roll back down the hill
Jim M
>
<snip>
> The game designers must be true to the figures and not the other way
around.
> Otherwise we may as well play with cardboard counters.
> >
25mm figures. If you insist on using the old Orcs, then you have to be
prepared to have them look weaker...
<snip>
> Why don't GW bring out a range or orcs which look more human sized? (like
> the old ones). There has to be some sort of correlation between the
figures
> and the rules.
>
Again, it is a problem of scale, the orcs are bigger true, but they are not
a disiplined as humans, that is what I contribute to thier having equal
strength...
<snip>
> I'm not disputing that GW did a fairly good job with 6th edition, I just
> feel it needs some work. Version 6.1 should fine tune the game so its both
> more realistic, more interesting and all together a better game.
> WFB is a robust system in which luck (or if you prefer chance) has a big
> part to play. There are not many wargames (and I have been playing
> Napoleonic, ancients, WW2 for over 20 years) where success and failure can
> hinge on a single moral check or magic roll, and the results of a single
> dice roll can be such stunning success or total failure.
>
If you want realism why are you playing a FANTASY game?
Robert McDonald
> > The game designers must be true to the figures and not the other way
> around.
> > Otherwise we may as well play with cardboard counters.
> > >
> Actually they did the game is designed around 28mm figures, the old orcs
are
> 25mm figures. If you insist on using the old Orcs, then you have to be
> prepared to have them look weaker...
I don't insist on using the old orcs. You have misunderstood me completely.
The actual point is that if GW put out a range of orcs which are very big
and strong, how come the rules give them the same strength as a goblin?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Why don't GW bring out a range or orcs which look more human sized?
(like
> > the old ones). There has to be some sort of correlation between the
> figures
> > and the rules.
> >
> Again, it is a problem of scale, the orcs are bigger true, but they are
not
> a disiplined as humans, that is what I contribute to thier having equal
> strength...
Wouldn't that be a moral factor and isn't discipline already taken into
account with animosity?
>
> <snip>
> > I'm not disputing that GW did a fairly good job with 6th edition, I just
> > feel it needs some work. Version 6.1 should fine tune the game so its
both
> > more realistic, more interesting and all together a better game.
> > WFB is a robust system in which luck (or if you prefer chance) has a big
> > part to play. There are not many wargames (and I have been playing
> > Napoleonic, ancients, WW2 for over 20 years) where success and failure
can
> > hinge on a single moral check or magic roll, and the results of a single
> > dice roll can be such stunning success or total failure.
> >
> If you want realism why are you playing a FANTASY game?
The fantasy game, like all fantasy games (including AD&D etc) are based on a
quasi reality where the general laws which govern our world occur in theirs
too. To this has been added magic and other factors which add to but don't
replace normal realism.
WFB and its predessors are based on medievil war with fantasy elements
thrown in for fun, but still based in reality (or a rough attempt to
simulate reality), otherwise it does end up being a game like chess or
snakes and ladders, no realism but still games.
The idea of a warGAME in comparison to a SIMULATION is that its a contest
between players who make decisions and are also effected by chance and luck.
I don't know if you have ever designed a wargame, but the idea is to place
the player in a situation where the decisions which are to be made are
similar to the decisions a real commander would have to make.
Warhammer does this fairly well, but since the players have full control of
their unites and characters (Orc animosity excepted), when in a real fantasy
battle, the actual commander will have only limited ability to control all
his unites, especially far flung troops on the flank or rear of the enemy.
(Warmaster gives a player a good idea of the problems involved).
The idea of 6.1 is to make the game more realistic in that combats can carry
over into a new round of combat (which is already a rule anyway for
overruns), and some of the profiles for the figures are more true to their
actual appearance. The changes I propose are slight but important, and do
help to make the game more fun and also make the players make decisions
based on real decisions they would have to make. (my role playing background
is coming out here).
Like I said, the rules as they stand are pretty good. Much of 6th edition is
better than 5th edition, and the army organization is also good. WFB is a
very luck driven game but that doesn't change much with these modifications.
In any event, its unlikely that GW is going to turn around and clean up its
rules, and change some of the profiles for its troops because of anything
you or I or anyone on this channel say, so its a moot point. My enemies
(Orc, wood elf etc) and I shall try out the 6.1 rules and see how they go,
but its really not worth a huge argument about because it doesn't effect you
unless you want to try it yourself.
Cheers
Rob
Jim M
>
>
Okay, that pretty much answered my question, I am still going to wait until
I know the rules completely (only played one small battle of WFB6 so far.
most of the people around here are hooked on 40K) before I make any changes
in it.
As to writing games, I am working on several now, and happen to agree with
your perspective, the problem is every time I start working on what I think
is a fresh approach someone ups and says "Oh that's just like (insert game
system here)", and I end up starting over again...
John L. Martin
news:2yut6.97$SR1.3...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> As to writing games, I am working on several now, and happen to agree with
> your perspective, the problem is every time I start working on what I
think
> is a fresh approach someone ups and says "Oh that's just like (insert game
> system here)", and I end up starting over again...
>
the best mechanics from various rule sets. This thing is completely
plagiarized and uses the Epic 40K firepower chart for small arms, the AT
shooting from CDII, etc. It is a fun game tho.
Most rule sets are the same tho...so much so that I should write one titled
"MSM" for "Move, Shoot, Morale" since 90% of the rules out there use the
same sequence. It could be like a miniatures GURPS or something.
Rambling over,
--
John
E-mail: jlma...@excel.spamblock.net
URL: http://www.excel.net/~jlmartin
ICQ: 9738000
"And they had over them a king, an angel of this abyss; his name is
Abaddon."
Rev. 9:11
Insane Ranter
>
>
> > > The game designers must be true to the figures and not the other way
> > around.
> > > Otherwise we may as well play with cardboard counters.
> > > >
> > Actually they did the game is designed around 28mm figures, the old orcs
> are
> > 25mm figures. If you insist on using the old Orcs, then you have to be
> > prepared to have them look weaker...
>
> I don't insist on using the old orcs. You have misunderstood me
completely.
> The actual point is that if GW put out a range of orcs which are very big
> and strong, how come the rules give them the same strength as a goblin?
So were I read once went something like.... A given stat is given to all of
a certain group of troops with the knowledge that some of them are stronger,
faster, better shots, etc. than there some of there troopers and also some
of them are weaker in other areas. It more or less averages out.
How do you know that orcs are big and strong? I've never seen one.... =)p
You have to realize that the scale at which WFB is using that some things
are going to have the same stat number even though they may be slightly
stronger or want not.. plus you have to figure in an average for that race.
I think the point that your missing is that you really shouldn't just change
things in armies or rules just because you think that they'd be better.. By
changing this you affect that... and need to play test everything again
RT Maitreya
>
> >> Another one I would add to the list is that cannon balls cannot bounce
> >> up hills. Just because it is sensible, and stops cheesy people from
> >> firing everything at the opponents artillery crews. Not that we have
> >> cheesy players in my group.
> >> Little Al
> >
> >Why couldn't a cannon ball bounce up a hill?
>
> Because it defies the laws of Physics for one, it would not make it
> uphill, and even if it did, it would have such pressures on it that
> either:
>
> 1.it would do nothing of worth
> 2.it would roll back down the hill
Erm. No. Conservation of momentum would
largely dominate the actions of the ball
in this case. A slight slope has absolutely
no effect on something hurled with an
explosion. The only time you have to be
worried about is when it strikes an angle
that deflects it either up or down into the
dirt, or encounters a flat enough surface
(like a cliff) wherein the ball will drive
itself into the cliff.
A cannonball is not a bowling ball, it is
a whole lot more. The rules for "it fires
up and then down and bounces and rolls
through it's target" are created for game
play, not realism. Realistically, cannonballs
would all be explosive, and kill everything
in it's path until it exploded. But even
with the GW approximation, I don't see the
balls being lobbed with sufficiently low
energy that a small hill will slow them
down. If they were that low in energy in
the first place, they would strike with ST2
instead of ST10.
RTM
RTM
Little Al
>largely dominate the actions of the ball
>in this case. A slight slope has absolutely
>no effect on something hurled with an
>explosion. The only time you have to be
>worried about is when it strikes an angle
>that deflects it either up or down into the
>dirt, or encounters a flat enough surface
>(like a cliff) wherein the ball will drive
>itself into the cliff.
Conservation of momentum alone is not enough, energy must also be
conserved, without which, momentum would mean nothing.
>A cannonball is not a bowling ball, it is
>a whole lot more. The rules for "it fires
>up and then down and bounces and rolls
>through it's target" are created for game
>play, not realism.
OK, it may just be me, but small hills with small inclines don't happen
that often where I usually play. However if you look at other wargames,
the simulation is such as to represent a real cannon ball, and it reacts
like so.
Little Al
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I get enough exercise just pushing my luck"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Warhammer 6th Edition Fanboy, RGMW Chief Lackey and Events Organiser, StPF
member, Short Priest of the church of Jimi and holder of Green Hat #2
Warmaster e-group - GW_Warmaste...@yahoogroups.com
Epic 40,000 e-group - e40k-list...@yahoogroups.com
Inquisitor e-group - GW_Inquisit...@yahoogroups.com
Daniel J. Hyman
> Conservation of momentum alone is not enough, energy must also be
> conserved, without which, momentum would mean nothing.
energy: 0.5 M V^2 vs. M g H
ignore M on both sides
V is 200-300ft/sec, we'll pick 200 to be nice.
That's 20000 vs 32*H
That hill has to be 625 feet high in order to equate.
A noticeable drop in firepower wouldn't be seen until 100 feet.
> OK, it may just be me, but small hills with small inclines don't happen
> that often where I usually play.
You play with some MIGHTY large hills at your local club.
A hundred foot cliff is about 20 inches high.
> However if you look at other wargames,
> the simulation is such as to represent a real cannon ball, and it reacts
> like so.
?
Are you implying here that you believe GW's
rules for cannon firing to have any basis
in reality? I'm not quite sure if you meant
to say that, as I'm having trouble following
your sentence structure. I apologize.
RTM
Gordon
news:3AB7F5B5...@speakeasy.org...
> Little Al wrote:
> > However if you look at other wargames,
> > the simulation is such as to represent a real cannon ball, and it reacts
> > like so.
>
> ?
> Are you implying here that you believe GW's
> rules for cannon firing to have any basis
> in reality? I'm not quite sure if you meant
> to say that, as I'm having trouble following
> your sentence structure. I apologize.
I always figured that the "bounce" represented the portion of the
cannonball's arc that would pass through a height of, say, six feet to zero
feet-- the zone in which it will actually hit troops rather than passing
over their heads or striking the ground and spraying them with dirt and
gravel.
That's not due to experience with cannons, no. Just my wild-ass guess.
-------
Gordon
"I have as much authority as the Pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
RT Maitreya
> I always figured that the "bounce" represented the portion of the
> cannonball's arc that would pass through a height of, say, six feet to zero
> feet-- the zone in which it will actually hit troops rather than passing
> over their heads or striking the ground and spraying them with dirt and
> gravel.
>
> That's not due to experience with cannons, no. Just my wild-ass guess.
The hard reality of cannonballs is that they are
awfully straight when they fire. They don't
move in an appreciable arc except over tremendous
distances. If warhammer were played with the
concept of "50 to 1" or "100 to 1" troop unit
representations, then I don't see the bounce=
lethal arc span argument as being particularly
fallatious. If we really are looking for
realism over game play, then there's no contest.
If we want to play a game that's fun with some
wacky rules in it to give the non-blackpowders
a sporting chance, then the GW way is fine.
I just want to make sure that people don't
think real cannonballs drop 6 feet in 60.
RTM
Jim M
news:3AB86842...@speakeasy.org...
> Gordon wrote:
>
<snip>
> The hard reality of cannonballs is that they are
> awfully straight when they fire. They don't
> move in an appreciable arc except over tremendous
> distances. If warhammer were played with the
> concept of "50 to 1" or "100 to 1" troop unit
> representations, then I don't see the bounce=
> lethal arc span argument as being particularly
> fallatious. If we really are looking for
> realism over game play, then there's no contest.
> If we want to play a game that's fun with some
> wacky rules in it to give the non-blackpowders
> a sporting chance, then the GW way is fine.
>
> I just want to make sure that people don't
> think real cannonballs drop 6 feet in 60.
>
barrel (talking black powder not cordite) could reach a velocity in excess
of 300 MPH, now I do not know how accurate this is. I do know that it
depends on the amount of black powder used and the weight of the ball...
--
Jim
j...@hnjcomics.com
http://www.hnjcomics.com
remove the " hat." if you want to e-mail me
For my latest list of on sale gaming items go to
http://www.thegrid.net/hnjcomics/rgmw/Salelist2.htm
You can read the "RGMW Gospel according to Myrmidon" at
http://www.thegrid.net/hnjcomics/rgmw/gospel.htm
You can see some of the miniatures I have painted at
http://www.thegrid.net/hnjcomics/gallery/Gallery.htm
Insane Ranter
"Gordon" <moi...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:X6Wt6.5603$8O6.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> I always figured that the "bounce" represented the portion of the
> cannonball's arc that would pass through a height of, say, six feet to
zero
> feet-- the zone in which it will actually hit troops rather than passing
> over their heads or striking the ground and spraying them with dirt and
> gravel.
Cannnon balls do "pounce" if they hit the ground right... It's more like a
skip like when rockes skip on the surface of the water.
Edvamp
>and strong, how come the rules give them the same strength as a goblin?
Well, there is a limited range of point options. Most stats are between 2 and
6. Average humans are 3, weak things are strength 2, strong things are
strength 4 and the really tough stuff is 5 and up. That's not a huge range to
play with and you have to think that there is probably a range within each
point.
In a game that uses percentile stats, you could have goblins with a 30 strength
and orcs with a 40 or 50. But in a game where 3 is a normal human or skink,
and only 2 points more is a kroxigor or some such, having orcs and goblins in
the same strength category for game purposes isn't that extreme.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Not Perky Today
Little Al
>A noticeable drop in firepower wouldn't be seen until 100 feet.
Bloody hell, you used an equation on me. I concede.
>> OK, it may just be me, but small hills with small inclines don't happen
>> that often where I usually play.
>
>You play with some MIGHTY large hills at your local club.
>A hundred foot cliff is about 20 inches high.
you haven't seen Mount Ug.
>> However if you look at other wargames,
>> the simulation is such as to represent a real cannon ball, and it reacts
>> like so.
>
>?
>Are you implying here that you believe GW's
>rules for cannon firing to have any basis
>in reality? I'm not quite sure if you meant
>to say that, as I'm having trouble following
>your sentence structure. I apologize.
Much the opposite, in the fact that many of GW's ideas on ballistics are
flawed. The point I was trying to make was a more realistic situation
happening in other wargames.
RT Maitreya
> Bloody hell, you used an equation on me. I concede.
I started out without them, but you asked for it!
> >You play with some MIGHTY large hills at your local club.
> >A hundred foot cliff is about 20 inches high.
>
> you haven't seen Mount Ug.
LOL! I've seen some good ones, though.
> Much the opposite, in the fact that many of GW's ideas on ballistics are
> flawed. The point I was trying to make was a more realistic situation
> happening in other wargames.
Exactly.
RTM
Little Al
>> >A hundred foot cliff is about 20 inches high.
>>
>> you haven't seen Mount Ug.
>
>LOL! I've seen some good ones, though.
mount Ug is a compulsory choice of terrain for games in our group, no
matter how stupid it would be considering the armies involved (like my
win against empire yesterday, when Mount Ug secured a flank).