Right, this space has been relatively quiet for a bit too long, so for those still tuning in to check for updates, this post is to let you know I am still very much cranking stuff into completion (its just not at an "upload-worthy" format yet).
I had to put the "Mordheim Roleplay rules (social interactions)" a bit on ice for now, as its quite a deviation from what the game normally runs on, and I'd like it look at it soon again with a fresh set of eyes to see if I missed anything.
Meanwhile here's a list of what I''m currently cooking up, and what it consists of:
"Theaters of War" Warhammer Fantasy Battle Mission Generator
(currently in playtesting) still experimenting with it
- Usable with both pick-up games or to generate campaign-appropriate scenarios
- Uses scenarios from 6th to 8th edition (mostly), with some appropriate for multiplayer. Much material adapted from White Dwarf magazines.
- Different scenario types: Pitched Battles, Capture the Objective, Ambush, Defensive Stand/Siege, etc. Each of these types lists over 20+ different scenarios, all published by GW.
- Balanced approach to scenario vs terrain selection: "attacking" player
selects scenario and "defender" selects Terrain environment.
- Composition of the army (units of particular types) influences probability of players to get the scenario type they want. Some scenarios are specific for use by (or against) certain armies.
- Additional balance to scenarios by means of Stratagems which can be selected by the underdog player.
- Adaptable army list preparation: bring 3 prepared army lists, play with the most suited to the scenario generated.
- Support for scenarios with unbalanced points armies, via add-on contigents of Mercenaries (from Triumph and Treachery) and/or Bound Monsters (from Storm of Magic), prepared in advance. Instantly boost your army's points on the fly without changing original list.
"Empire Burning" adaptation for Mordheim Empire in Flames Supplement
Easily the laziest title in the world. Better name is pending.
Campaign currently in playtesting.
- Expanding the original Empire in Flames setting with material from Town Cryer magazines (by GW) and the Border Town Burning and Munity in Marienburg unofficial supplements (by Christian Templin and Stuart Cresswell, and many other members of the Mordheim Community).
- Objective-based campaign progression (as in Border Town Burning).
- New expanded scenarios list, including themed scenarios for different warbands/objectives that grant Campaign Points upon victory.
- Access to different Settlements during the Trading Phase, depending on the type of warband, based on the Encampments articles from Town Cryer and their adaptation in Mutiny in Marienburg. Heroes can visit different locations in search of additional resources, find a bargain on items or Hired Swords, get help locate rare items or just go look for trouble in the drinking dens.
"Nutters and Negotiations" social interaction rules for Mordheim roleplay adaptation
(in development)
- Adaptation of Core Mordheim rules for Pen and Paper Roleplay purposes.
- The Leadership "mental" characteristic broken down into personality characteristics: Generosity, Forgiveness, Logic, Willpower, etc.
- Base mental characteristics vary with each race, but otherwise each is randomly generated when making a character.
- Warriors must make tests against their mental characteristics to be able to perform actions not in line with their personality (in the spirit of Warhammer/Mordheim randomness and "bad things happen to your warriors" all the time).
- The game challenges players with trying to get the most out of their character while adhering to its personality skills and roleplaying them as such.
- Social Exchanges between a warrior and an NPC pit one of their mental characteristics (depending on what they are trying to argue) against one of the NPC's mental characteristics, with further circumstantial modifiers (ie. how much the NPC finds the warrior dodgy or hates his race's guts).
Narrative rules options for Age of Sigmar, Warhammer Fantasy and Mordheim. Generate instant stories in your games.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Rules patch: Monster Mounts v8.1 (and chariots)
Much discussion has been had recently regarding the new "End Times" combined profile of models mounted on monsters. Here I wish to address how to re-balance the existing split profile mounted models, which, in conjunction with my previous patch on cannons, should render these models fully attractive for fielding and for the right reasons.
But before, I will rant. I'm so sorry. (please scroll down for actual rules patch please)
RANT START:
Many have applauded that changing to combined profiles of monster mounts + riders is a good idea that streamlines the game. With the increased numbers of wounds, it is now easier for these important models to survive the first turns of cannon-fire, and thus justify their points worth in the game. However, I put forward that the problem was never in the mounts themselves, but in the rules for cannons (which affect both rider and mount unlike other ranged attacks, as I addressed here). Therefore, trying to fix the problem by changing something which was not the problem itself is bound to cause further disruption of the rules.
First, combined profile models induce two major changes in how mounts behave: they benefit from all the defenses (armor & wards) of the rider, and (most aggravating) their attacks benefit from the bonuses of the rider. This is best seen on Karl Franz Ascendant's griffon attacks benefiting from Ghal Maraz's power, or Mortach Manfred von Carstein's dread abyssal's attacks being used to fuel the Magic phase. From my "roleplay-y point of view", this is quite unrealistic, and feels far too forced.
Secondly, because combined profiles blend the defenses and attacks of the rider and mount, this creates unmanageable balance issues which invariably require these models to be pre-designed (such as special characters) and therefore limit customization (which is one of the key features of character creation in Warhammer). In this way, it will become impossible (at least under the current ruleset) to merge profiles as they exist in current rulebooks, as the threat of expanding the attack and defense benefits of the rider to the mount itself will make the game unplayable (10 attack vampire lord on zombie dragon with Red Fury, a 4+ ward and a 1+ armor?... and 9 wounds).
In my humble opinion, the rules were just fine, but I will try to address them a bit further.
RANT END
PROBLEM: Characters mounted on monsters (or chariots, which fall under the same rules) can be significantly vulnerable to be taken down directly (cannons, massed close combat attacks), which contradicts their high points investment. Characters mounted on monstrous mounts (such as elves on Great Eagles or Chaos Knights on Juggernauts) are more protected: they always use the highest of the characteristics between the two (rider or mounts) in addition to increasing the armor save as normal for a mount. On the other hand, riders of monsters/chariots gain no additional benefit other than an increase in armor, becoming more vulnerable and can be targeted freely in close combat by any model that can attack them.
SOLUTION: when models attack a ridden monster model (or ridden chariot), if they wish to direct their attacks at the rider they must first succeed on a roll of 3+ to get past the mount (or the chariot which is in the way). Roll once for each attack that you wish to target at the rider (even if they come from the same model). If they succeed they may target the rider normally, otherwise they must direct their attacks at the mount. Note that this only applies to attack allocation in close combat: abilities which affect a unit in base contact (such as the The Other Trickster's Shard) would still affect the entire mounted model (both rider and mount).
This makes the mount(or chariot) an effective defense for the rider, but the chance of attacks getting through is higher in close combat (3+ to hit the rider) than when the model is targeted by ranged attacks (5+ to hit the rider). This keeps close combat still the best chance to strike directly at the rider, as before, but helps the rider stay protected, as he is on a high vantage point and a huge monster is blocking the way.
The patch is incredibly simple, and the monster can still be taken down first (which tends to actually be easier than taking down some characters, what with armor and ward saves). This will leave the (previously mounted) character very unprotected and (if facing a ranked unit) mostly lacking in attack output to counteract the static CR such a unit can put out (and invariably might force the character to break).
Put together with the patch "cannons only hit the rider+mount on a 5+, otherwise only the mount is hit", which is also incredibly simple, I believe this puts these expensive but very cool looking models back as the centerpieces of your army.
There you go. Simple patches (hopefully) that tackle the initial issue at its heart (instead of switching the rules of mounted characters on their heads).
But before, I will rant. I'm so sorry. (please scroll down for actual rules patch please)
RANT START:
Many have applauded that changing to combined profiles of monster mounts + riders is a good idea that streamlines the game. With the increased numbers of wounds, it is now easier for these important models to survive the first turns of cannon-fire, and thus justify their points worth in the game. However, I put forward that the problem was never in the mounts themselves, but in the rules for cannons (which affect both rider and mount unlike other ranged attacks, as I addressed here). Therefore, trying to fix the problem by changing something which was not the problem itself is bound to cause further disruption of the rules.
First, combined profile models induce two major changes in how mounts behave: they benefit from all the defenses (armor & wards) of the rider, and (most aggravating) their attacks benefit from the bonuses of the rider. This is best seen on Karl Franz Ascendant's griffon attacks benefiting from Ghal Maraz's power, or Mortach Manfred von Carstein's dread abyssal's attacks being used to fuel the Magic phase. From my "roleplay-y point of view", this is quite unrealistic, and feels far too forced.
Secondly, because combined profiles blend the defenses and attacks of the rider and mount, this creates unmanageable balance issues which invariably require these models to be pre-designed (such as special characters) and therefore limit customization (which is one of the key features of character creation in Warhammer). In this way, it will become impossible (at least under the current ruleset) to merge profiles as they exist in current rulebooks, as the threat of expanding the attack and defense benefits of the rider to the mount itself will make the game unplayable (10 attack vampire lord on zombie dragon with Red Fury, a 4+ ward and a 1+ armor?... and 9 wounds).
In my humble opinion, the rules were just fine, but I will try to address them a bit further.
RANT END
PROBLEM: Characters mounted on monsters (or chariots, which fall under the same rules) can be significantly vulnerable to be taken down directly (cannons, massed close combat attacks), which contradicts their high points investment. Characters mounted on monstrous mounts (such as elves on Great Eagles or Chaos Knights on Juggernauts) are more protected: they always use the highest of the characteristics between the two (rider or mounts) in addition to increasing the armor save as normal for a mount. On the other hand, riders of monsters/chariots gain no additional benefit other than an increase in armor, becoming more vulnerable and can be targeted freely in close combat by any model that can attack them.
SOLUTION: when models attack a ridden monster model (or ridden chariot), if they wish to direct their attacks at the rider they must first succeed on a roll of 3+ to get past the mount (or the chariot which is in the way). Roll once for each attack that you wish to target at the rider (even if they come from the same model). If they succeed they may target the rider normally, otherwise they must direct their attacks at the mount. Note that this only applies to attack allocation in close combat: abilities which affect a unit in base contact (such as the The Other Trickster's Shard) would still affect the entire mounted model (both rider and mount).
This makes the mount(or chariot) an effective defense for the rider, but the chance of attacks getting through is higher in close combat (3+ to hit the rider) than when the model is targeted by ranged attacks (5+ to hit the rider). This keeps close combat still the best chance to strike directly at the rider, as before, but helps the rider stay protected, as he is on a high vantage point and a huge monster is blocking the way.
The patch is incredibly simple, and the monster can still be taken down first (which tends to actually be easier than taking down some characters, what with armor and ward saves). This will leave the (previously mounted) character very unprotected and (if facing a ranked unit) mostly lacking in attack output to counteract the static CR such a unit can put out (and invariably might force the character to break).
Put together with the patch "cannons only hit the rider+mount on a 5+, otherwise only the mount is hit", which is also incredibly simple, I believe this puts these expensive but very cool looking models back as the centerpieces of your army.
There you go. Simple patches (hopefully) that tackle the initial issue at its heart (instead of switching the rules of mounted characters on their heads).
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Mordheim as a Roleplay Game: part 1
In this series of posts I will be discussing how to harness the Mordheim rules to run an RPG game. First I will discuss its benefits and flexibility (and how they can be applied), and in following posts I will discuss how to adapt rules and elements to flesh out the game for roleplay purposes.
Mordheim has a solid game engine: simple and intuitive stats, logical combat procedure, and easy-to-incorporate special rules. The game is very well-suited to be adapted for a pen-and-paper RPG format.
First, the stats (Characteristics): each is obvious and straightforward, and especially define a models key attributes: WS and BS describe combat ability, while M, S, T, I and Ld define physical and (one) mental attributes. W is the rough equivalent of HP. These define a character quite well for RPG game mechanics.
Initiative sees a lot of use, as it not only determines reaction speed in combat, but is used to evade attacks and hazards, as well as to climb and land safely from falling.
Strength and Toughness may see less varied use, but they are so crucial to survivability that they take a very key role in any adventure. Strength also comes in for purpose of pushing/pulling, and Toughness is used as a health/endurance defense (against diseases).
Leadership is more complicated though, because it encompasses all of a model's mental attributes, and is slightly too limited for a proper RPG (but I'll come back to it later).
Strength and Toughness may see less varied use, but they are so crucial to survivability that they take a very key role in any adventure. Strength also comes in for purpose of pushing/pulling, and Toughness is used as a health/endurance defense (against diseases).
Leadership is more complicated though, because it encompasses all of a model's mental attributes, and is slightly too limited for a proper RPG (but I'll come back to it later).
Attacks however is an attribute that specifically only contributes to
Close Combat (which it does immensely), but has zero value for anyone
who specializes at range. There may be space for development here (I'll
get to it later).
Movement is movement, and running is at double speed limiting your ability to shoot (intuitive). The way charging mechanics works does put some strange quirks into combat movement, but these are not too severe. But the fact that jumping and climbing mechanics are fleshed out, together with good movement measurement practices (distance in space as opposed to a square/hex grid) makes fully 3d movement very easy. Because of this, you can play on any terrain surface (even or uneven) and props, with no problem.
Wounds and the Injury table put a nice spin on HP, doing away with larger numerical bookkeeping of damage and putting emphasis on saves that prevent wounds. The injury table also adds a LOT of uncertainty to combat, making it very dangerous and hyping drama. And finally, the game is deadly: it is not that difficult to get knocked out of combat, which increases realism and definitely makes it NOT a good game engine for" heroic fantasy". There is a mitigating factor on the deadliness, which is the Serious Injury table: you only have a certain probability of dying outright after being knocked out, but chances are you will end up with nasty battle wounds and handicaps. There are no resurrection spells, and many risky things (including exploration) can get you hurt. This makes the game engine very suited to gritty dark fantasy settings (which Warhammer is).
Movement is movement, and running is at double speed limiting your ability to shoot (intuitive). The way charging mechanics works does put some strange quirks into combat movement, but these are not too severe. But the fact that jumping and climbing mechanics are fleshed out, together with good movement measurement practices (distance in space as opposed to a square/hex grid) makes fully 3d movement very easy. Because of this, you can play on any terrain surface (even or uneven) and props, with no problem.
Wounds and the Injury table put a nice spin on HP, doing away with larger numerical bookkeeping of damage and putting emphasis on saves that prevent wounds. The injury table also adds a LOT of uncertainty to combat, making it very dangerous and hyping drama. And finally, the game is deadly: it is not that difficult to get knocked out of combat, which increases realism and definitely makes it NOT a good game engine for" heroic fantasy". There is a mitigating factor on the deadliness, which is the Serious Injury table: you only have a certain probability of dying outright after being knocked out, but chances are you will end up with nasty battle wounds and handicaps. There are no resurrection spells, and many risky things (including exploration) can get you hurt. This makes the game engine very suited to gritty dark fantasy settings (which Warhammer is).
In terms of character progression, the Experience and skills system of Mordheim have it covered. By default your upgrades are somewhat random (except in choice of skills), but this could be adapted. But most importantly, it is VERY EASY to generate a new character, making it less of a burden to get back into the game if your character dies. But the randomness helps ensure that a player will not do the same character twice. Another hidden perk of the system is that this ALSO makes it easy for the Games Master to create new NPCs (anyone who has spent hours optimizing an NPC with class levels, in D&D/Pathfinder, know exactly how painful and time-wasting this is).
The skills list offer mostly a choice of combat-oriented abilities (as eexpected but not dissimilar to many other rpgs). Yet there are many skills devoted to movement, and also exploration and relating to purchase of goods. It really only lacks "social" skills, because the game runs otherwise with no role play interaction. But for the most part, existing skills cover everything you'd want.
The skills list offer mostly a choice of combat-oriented abilities (as eexpected but not dissimilar to many other rpgs). Yet there are many skills devoted to movement, and also exploration and relating to purchase of goods. It really only lacks "social" skills, because the game runs otherwise with no role play interaction. But for the most part, existing skills cover everything you'd want.
Mordheim also offers a very good equipment inventory list, and includes already a rarity/availability roll, and skills that interact with it. It is low-magic oriented, so again, well suited to a gritty campaign. The weapons system has a good level of complexity, but their characteristics are well modeled and have a significant effect on a character's combat output and strategy. On top of this, the Hired Swords and henchmen rules provides all costs required for additional recruitment of NPCs into the warband.
The Exploration system of Mordheim is simplified and appropriate for a behind-the-scenes scavenging and resource gathering. However, the exploration mechanics play a large role in the game (especially as a source of income) and have a lot of skill support, so they will always weight significantly in character choices. But good news: the rules mechanics of Exploration dice can very well be adapted to on-the-spot exploration (I will tackle this later on).
The Exploration system of Mordheim is simplified and appropriate for a behind-the-scenes scavenging and resource gathering. However, the exploration mechanics play a large role in the game (especially as a source of income) and have a lot of skill support, so they will always weight significantly in character choices. But good news: the rules mechanics of Exploration dice can very well be adapted to on-the-spot exploration (I will tackle this later on).
Furthermore, the scalability is very good. The game rules power just as easily a regimental army-based game (WHFB) as well as an team skirmish-based game (Mordheim) so scaling up the number of models does not complicate the game too much. Again, this is a boon to Games Masters, as it becomes simple to just throw more enemies at the group without making the fight last forever. Also, the level of threat of multiple enemies increases more realistically, and the characters can be in considerable danger from this (anyone who has tried to stage a combat against many weak enemies, in other RPG games systems, knows how frustrating this situation normally is).
On top of this, because the characteristics system is so intuitive and it is relatively easy to design new special rules, it becomes very flexible for the Games Master to design new creatures and monsters.
So, in summary, the rules are well fleshed out and support most of the aspects required to run an RPG fantasy game. The rules are all there in the internet, for FREE as the product has been discontinued (so distribution between players will NEVER be an issue), and a lot of great material is available online. Check Liber Malefic: these guys produce amazing, professional-quality material, and are responsible (in part) for bringing the much acclaimed "Border Town Burning" supplement for Mordheim.
Watch out for the next part in this series of posts, where I will try to supplement and adapt the Mordheim rules for general everyday RPG use.
UPDATE: The releases about Mordheim RPG can be found in later posts, click HERE.
So, in summary, the rules are well fleshed out and support most of the aspects required to run an RPG fantasy game. The rules are all there in the internet, for FREE as the product has been discontinued (so distribution between players will NEVER be an issue), and a lot of great material is available online. Check Liber Malefic: these guys produce amazing, professional-quality material, and are responsible (in part) for bringing the much acclaimed "Border Town Burning" supplement for Mordheim.
Watch out for the next part in this series of posts, where I will try to supplement and adapt the Mordheim rules for general everyday RPG use.
UPDATE: The releases about Mordheim RPG can be found in later posts, click HERE.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Want "The General's Compendium"?
Check the Scenario Sources page for the link.
As the book has been out of print for several years now, and you can't actually buy it from GW, I see no problem in spreading this information. The book is amazing, and if GW still sold it, I am sure people would buy it (even if the rules relate to 6th Edition).
I do not host the book file itself. If anyone has a problem with me linking for the file, please let me know.
Enjoy
As the book has been out of print for several years now, and you can't actually buy it from GW, I see no problem in spreading this information. The book is amazing, and if GW still sold it, I am sure people would buy it (even if the rules relate to 6th Edition).
I do not host the book file itself. If anyone has a problem with me linking for the file, please let me know.
Enjoy
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Rules Patch: Charges v8.2 (I'm gonna enjoy this one)
Charging mechanics suffered a significant amount of change from 7th to 8th edition, and I'd have to say definitely for the better: no range guessing, work out each charge and response at a time, etc etc.
However, some things went away, and other things have crept up that make the charge mechanics odd and somewhat reality-defying.
Here are a few suggestions, use them together or one at a time (depending on which rules aggravate you more), hope they serve you well.
PROBLEM: 2D6" of charge range added to Movement characteristic, even on an average roll, can be significantly farther than what a unit could otherwise cover during a march move (especially units that are slow). Dwarves in particular stick out, being able to shoot out on a charge, but otherwise being extremely slow.
SOLUTION: the roll for charge range is M + D6 + D3" (EDITED from +D4"). Models with the Swiftstride rule roll an additional D6 (as before) and discard the lowest D6 of the two (not the D3).
This makes charges slightly shorter, and make the Movement characteristic of the model more relevant. On average, and considering Swiftstride, each unit will still charge roughly equivalent to their march move, and only to a maximum of M + 10 on the highest roll.
PROBLEM: distance between chargers and chargees (thats a word, right?) is measured by the shortest point between them, causing some situations with chargers which are not directly facing the target measuring from their closest front corner, and gaining a very wide wheeling move completely for free because full movement covered during charge is not counted for, only closest distance).
SOLUTION: distance between charger and target is measured from the center of the front rank of the charger, and the middle point of the face of the target unit (be it the front, side or rear of it).
Measuring from the center is the most balanced compromise I could find. Although I considered measuring from the farthest front corner of the charger, if you then have to measure to the farthest front corner of the chargee, that would be complicated, or the wording would have to be "the corresponding corner facing the farthest corner of the charger"... and rules argument over wording would ensue, I would need a diagram to explain... this way is simpler.
PROBLEM: charging, as opposed to being charged, provides as benefits only a +1 to CR, +S bonuses if wielding certain weapons, +1A if you have Devastating charge, and the fact that you can enhance your unit during your own magic phase (which you know its going to see combat immediately). However, it provides little intrinsic benefit for the combat itself (in 7th chargers used to strike first), other than the +1 CR.
SOLUTION: chargers gain +D3 Initiative in the round of combat during which they charged.
This is a middle ground solution between 7th edition "Chargers strike first" and 8th edition "everyone strikes at Initiative". This counterbalances slightly some of the issues caused by models that will always strike first (even if they dont have the rule), and gives more reason to players to commit their units to charge instead of being charged. Undead, for instance, gain little benefit from charging, as they almost always get hit first, and have to endure 2 rounds of combat before they can heal their units back up.
PROBLEM: the charging unit always 'closes the door' first to its target (even if the target is significantly smaller), often making it swing around significantly and cause it to be redirected (to great effect).
SOLUTION: the smaller unit between charger and chargee is the one that 'closes the door'. To decide which unit is larger, it will be the one with more full ranks (of 5+ models, 3+ for monstrous units, or 1 for monsters). Units of Cavalry, Monstrous Cavalry/Infantry/Beasts, Chariots and Monsters always count as having +1 rank for this purpose, to represent their added ability to break formations. If both units have equal number of ranks, then they both close in into each other by the same amount until they are in contact. The exception to this rule are Frenzied units: they will always 'close the door' first to their target.
However, some things went away, and other things have crept up that make the charge mechanics odd and somewhat reality-defying.
Here are a few suggestions, use them together or one at a time (depending on which rules aggravate you more), hope they serve you well.
PROBLEM: 2D6" of charge range added to Movement characteristic, even on an average roll, can be significantly farther than what a unit could otherwise cover during a march move (especially units that are slow). Dwarves in particular stick out, being able to shoot out on a charge, but otherwise being extremely slow.
SOLUTION: the roll for charge range is M + D6 + D3" (EDITED from +D4"). Models with the Swiftstride rule roll an additional D6 (as before) and discard the lowest D6 of the two (not the D3).
This makes charges slightly shorter, and make the Movement characteristic of the model more relevant. On average, and considering Swiftstride, each unit will still charge roughly equivalent to their march move, and only to a maximum of M + 10 on the highest roll.
PROBLEM: distance between chargers and chargees (thats a word, right?) is measured by the shortest point between them, causing some situations with chargers which are not directly facing the target measuring from their closest front corner, and gaining a very wide wheeling move completely for free because full movement covered during charge is not counted for, only closest distance).
SOLUTION: distance between charger and target is measured from the center of the front rank of the charger, and the middle point of the face of the target unit (be it the front, side or rear of it).
Measuring from the center is the most balanced compromise I could find. Although I considered measuring from the farthest front corner of the charger, if you then have to measure to the farthest front corner of the chargee, that would be complicated, or the wording would have to be "the corresponding corner facing the farthest corner of the charger"... and rules argument over wording would ensue, I would need a diagram to explain... this way is simpler.
PROBLEM: charging, as opposed to being charged, provides as benefits only a +1 to CR, +S bonuses if wielding certain weapons, +1A if you have Devastating charge, and the fact that you can enhance your unit during your own magic phase (which you know its going to see combat immediately). However, it provides little intrinsic benefit for the combat itself (in 7th chargers used to strike first), other than the +1 CR.
SOLUTION: chargers gain +D3 Initiative in the round of combat during which they charged.
This is a middle ground solution between 7th edition "Chargers strike first" and 8th edition "everyone strikes at Initiative". This counterbalances slightly some of the issues caused by models that will always strike first (even if they dont have the rule), and gives more reason to players to commit their units to charge instead of being charged. Undead, for instance, gain little benefit from charging, as they almost always get hit first, and have to endure 2 rounds of combat before they can heal their units back up.
PROBLEM: the charging unit always 'closes the door' first to its target (even if the target is significantly smaller), often making it swing around significantly and cause it to be redirected (to great effect).
SOLUTION: the smaller unit between charger and chargee is the one that 'closes the door'. To decide which unit is larger, it will be the one with more full ranks (of 5+ models, 3+ for monstrous units, or 1 for monsters). Units of Cavalry, Monstrous Cavalry/Infantry/Beasts, Chariots and Monsters always count as having +1 rank for this purpose, to represent their added ability to break formations. If both units have equal number of ranks, then they both close in into each other by the same amount until they are in contact. The exception to this rule are Frenzied units: they will always 'close the door' first to their target.
(EDITED 3-12-15: added +1 bonus for monstrous inf, beasts and chariots, and monsters always count as being 1 full rank)
This rule gets rid of the unrealistic situations where a tiny small unit redirects a huge unit by a significant angle. It will still allow Frenzied units to be baited and redirected around, so this weakness can still be exploited. It significantly limits the strategy of redirecting, but its renders the game more realistic.
This rule gets rid of the unrealistic situations where a tiny small unit redirects a huge unit by a significant angle. It will still allow Frenzied units to be baited and redirected around, so this weakness can still be exploited. It significantly limits the strategy of redirecting, but its renders the game more realistic.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Rules patch: Steadfast v8.1 (so many things that can be changed...)
Oh, this one has been aggravating me personally, ehehe, and it's surprising how much people disagree with how GW made the rule in this edition, but nobody seems to be willing to address it in a practical manner. At least as a gentleman's agreement in casual games.
PROBLEM: charging a ranked unit on its flank or rear with another unit (with at least 2 or more ranks of five or more models) disrupts the first unit's ranks. This negates that unit's rank bonus (GOOD!) but does not negate steadfast (REALLY!?).
SOLUTION: disruption negates steadfast. (I can't make this any simpler.) EDIT(6/06/15) A unit cannot be steadfast against any model that can Thunderstomp them.
This rebalances the steadfast mechanic, especially considering the significance of flank charges in a combat. Furthermore, it grants more stability to Monsters, which can struggle severely against large blocks of infantry, and have the odds stacked against them in terms of breaking the opponent.
PROBLEM: undead units gain no benefit from being steadfast, which is a huge benefit to most other races in Warhammer, and often the reason why many terrain pieces (such as buildings) are beneficially exploited by generals.
SOLUTION: undead units that are steadfast suffer 2 less wounds due to Unstable. This stacks with any other effects that modify the Unstable rule (such as a -1 to Unstable wounds granted by a BSB).
Despite the fact that undead are mindless, and the strength of their numbers should not impact their capacity to fight effectively, the combat pressure a large body of corpses provides should be taken into account. Generally, this will mostly come into play with units such as skeletons and zombies, which are easily destroyed anyway, so it simply mitigates how crippling this mechanic is to such units.
Hopefully, neither of these two changes are too powerful, but make the game more logical and coherent, and ensure that some races don't get the short end of the stick when it comes to certain situations, SIMPLY due to a game mechanic particularity (such as undead gaining no benefit from steadfast from being inside buildings).
PROBLEM: charging a ranked unit on its flank or rear with another unit (with at least 2 or more ranks of five or more models) disrupts the first unit's ranks. This negates that unit's rank bonus (GOOD!) but does not negate steadfast (REALLY!?).
SOLUTION: disruption negates steadfast. (I can't make this any simpler.) EDIT(6/06/15) A unit cannot be steadfast against any model that can Thunderstomp them.
This rebalances the steadfast mechanic, especially considering the significance of flank charges in a combat. Furthermore, it grants more stability to Monsters, which can struggle severely against large blocks of infantry, and have the odds stacked against them in terms of breaking the opponent.
PROBLEM: undead units gain no benefit from being steadfast, which is a huge benefit to most other races in Warhammer, and often the reason why many terrain pieces (such as buildings) are beneficially exploited by generals.
SOLUTION: undead units that are steadfast suffer 2 less wounds due to Unstable. This stacks with any other effects that modify the Unstable rule (such as a -1 to Unstable wounds granted by a BSB).
Despite the fact that undead are mindless, and the strength of their numbers should not impact their capacity to fight effectively, the combat pressure a large body of corpses provides should be taken into account. Generally, this will mostly come into play with units such as skeletons and zombies, which are easily destroyed anyway, so it simply mitigates how crippling this mechanic is to such units.
Hopefully, neither of these two changes are too powerful, but make the game more logical and coherent, and ensure that some races don't get the short end of the stick when it comes to certain situations, SIMPLY due to a game mechanic particularity (such as undead gaining no benefit from steadfast from being inside buildings).
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Warhammer Fantasy revised Terrain generator (8th edition)
This is the Terrain generator I use in my games.
Revised 8th Edition Terrain Generator: download here.
I took the 6th edition terrain generation tables, with the diverse environments such as Realms of Men, Badlands, Mountains, etc, and rammed in them the 8th edition terrain options, and changed things up a bit as well.
I also curbed a bit the probability of a terrain piece to be mysterious: only some forests have a chance to be mysterious, and then only on a D6 roll of a 6. No more deathtrap tabletop: terrain is to be used to a general's advantage without (too) much of a surprise.
I tweaked a bit the options you can get if you are a defender in the specific scenario you're playing, and if you're a native of the environment.
For example, Empire and Bretonnia can turn 'walls' and 'fences' they roll on the table into 'Blessed Bulwarks' if the battle is fought in the Realms of Men, and High Elves can turn them into 'Blazing Barricades' if the battle takes place in the shores of Ulthuan.
Also, I included what I call 'shrines': if a defending, native player rolls a settlement or encampment (can be anything from a few houses to a double-building Elven Hall), this includes not only obstacles but also a shrine, which is a magical focus which benefits the defender. Empire defenders can pick 'Sigmarite shrines', Bretonnians can pick 'Grail Chapels', Dwarves can pick 'Dwarven Brewhouse', Undead can pick 'Charnel Pit' and Dark Elves of course can pick ' Altar of Khaine'. The list goes on.
As a little bonus, the last page includes a quick reference of all the terrain pieces from the table, so you don't have to flip through the Rulebook. Some of these include small changes I made, such as the 'Sorcerous Portal' having a max of 24" on its spells, and they can be dispelled as normal.
Enjoy!
Revised 8th Edition Terrain Generator: download here.
I took the 6th edition terrain generation tables, with the diverse environments such as Realms of Men, Badlands, Mountains, etc, and rammed in them the 8th edition terrain options, and changed things up a bit as well.
I also curbed a bit the probability of a terrain piece to be mysterious: only some forests have a chance to be mysterious, and then only on a D6 roll of a 6. No more deathtrap tabletop: terrain is to be used to a general's advantage without (too) much of a surprise.
I tweaked a bit the options you can get if you are a defender in the specific scenario you're playing, and if you're a native of the environment.
For example, Empire and Bretonnia can turn 'walls' and 'fences' they roll on the table into 'Blessed Bulwarks' if the battle is fought in the Realms of Men, and High Elves can turn them into 'Blazing Barricades' if the battle takes place in the shores of Ulthuan.
Also, I included what I call 'shrines': if a defending, native player rolls a settlement or encampment (can be anything from a few houses to a double-building Elven Hall), this includes not only obstacles but also a shrine, which is a magical focus which benefits the defender. Empire defenders can pick 'Sigmarite shrines', Bretonnians can pick 'Grail Chapels', Dwarves can pick 'Dwarven Brewhouse', Undead can pick 'Charnel Pit' and Dark Elves of course can pick ' Altar of Khaine'. The list goes on.
As a little bonus, the last page includes a quick reference of all the terrain pieces from the table, so you don't have to flip through the Rulebook. Some of these include small changes I made, such as the 'Sorcerous Portal' having a max of 24" on its spells, and they can be dispelled as normal.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)