Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.4

Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

Great additions - I like the initiative penalty on multiple attacks in the Who hits first bit.
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

The rule is actually from the 1st edition. We applied it in the "Shadow of Koles Lorr" battle. It does add some overhead to the combat, but it also adds a new tactical factor to it. In a remote game it seems to work quite well.

We did the following in combat:

1. The GM would create a list for each player of the miniatures involved in combat and ask the player for their attack declarations. The number between parentheses are the number of attacks available, and the child nodes under each attacker are the available targets.

Murphy's Stout Dwarves of Regarde vs Larlog Lashers:

Dwarf2
- Orc4 (1)

Dwarf3 (1)
- Orc4
- Orc3

Tendhe Loyne
- Orc3 (3)

Sir Loyne (3)
- Kahn
- Kahn's War Boar

Dwarf6
- Orc1 (1)
Click to expand...

2. The players declare the attacks amongst the available targets like this:

Murphy's Stout Dwarves of Regarde vs Larlog Lashers:

Dwarf2
- Orc4 (1)

Dwarf3
- Orc4 (1)
- Orc3

Tendhe Loyne
- Orc3 (3)

Sir Loyne
- Kahn (3)
- Kahn's War Boar

Dwarf6
- Orc1 (1)
Click to expand...

3. The GM progresses the information and calculates the 'to hit' and 'to wound' dice rolls.

Murphy's Stout Dwarves of Regarde vs Larlog Lashers:

Dwarf2 -> Standard (1)
Dwarf3 -> Standard (1)
Dwarf6 -> Orc1 (1)
WEAPON: HW I: 0 S: 0 SaveMod: 0
TO HIT: 4 (WS5 vs WS3) -1 (hatred) -1 (follow-up) = 1 x 1D6 >= 2
TO WOUND: 4 (S4 vs T4) = h (hits) x 1D6 >= 4

Tendhe Loyne -> Orc3 (3)
WEAPON: HW I: 0 S: 0 SaveMod: 0
TO HIT: 3 (WS6 vs WS3) -1 (hatred) -1 (follow-up) = 3 x 1D6 >= 2
TO WOUND: 4 (S4 vs T4) = h (hits) x 1D6 >= 4

Sir Loyne -> Kahn (3)
WEAPON: 2HW I: -1 S: +1 SaveMod: -1
TO HIT: 4 (WS6 vs WS5) -1 (hatred) -1 (follow-up) = 3 x 1D6 >= 2
TO WOUND: 4 (S4 +1 vs T5) = h (hits) x 1D6 >= 4
Click to expand...

4. The players roll the dice through the use of the dice log. Note, they roll all attacks and save evey wound made.

5. The GM combines the results and progresses the information based on the initiative order. The number between parentheses is the initiative value, dropping by 1 after each attack.

Murphy's Stout Dwarves of Regard vs Larlog Lashers:

Combat modifiers:
Orcs: none
Dwarfs: follow-up

Dwarf2 (3) -> Standard
Dwarf3 (3) -> Standard (wound)
Standard (2) -> Dwarf2

Dwarf6 (3) -> Orc1 (saved)
Orc1 (2) -> Dwarf6

Tendhe Loyne (3) -> Orc3
Tendhe Loyne (2) -> Orc3
Orc3 (2) -> Dwarf3
Tendhe Loyne (1) -> Orc3

Kahn (4) -> Sir Loyne (saved)
Kahn (3) -> Sir Loyne (saved)
Sir Loyne (3) -> Kahn (saved)
Kahn's War Boar (3) -> Sir Loyne
Kahn (2) -> Sir Loyne (wound)
Sir Loyne (2) -> Kahn
Sir Loyne (1) -> Kahn

Combat results:
Orcs: +1 (rank) +1 (standard) +1 (wounds) = 3
Dwarfs: +1 (rank) +1 (army standard) +1 (war banner) +1 (follow-up) +1 (wounds) = 5
Click to expand...

To speed things up, the GM could decide to roll the attacks and saves and only letting the players do the declaration of attacks. I hope this clears things up a bit.
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

Yep I think I follow the shorthand now - one question, if wound/saved doesn't appear next to a combatant in the results bit does that mean no hit was scored against them?

Basically all possible hits and wounds are worked out and saved, then you go back and see which hits occurred first - if opponents make their armour save or aren't hit by an opponent with a higher initiative then their attack is counted, if not they are removed as a casualty.

How does the dice log work again?
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

The dicelog is quite cool...it took me a little time to get the hang of it but I eventually figured it out....kinda... :lol:

It is perfect for remote gaming...but just not as satisfying as dropping 20 D6 on the table all at once! :o

Blue
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

BOYL brought home to me some bits about stone throwers seeming overpowered. More detailed waffling on it on my blog but in short I'm suggesting -

  • Speculative fire also deviates on 13-16 (Thantsants and I thought it was being a bit too accurate in the siege game!)
  • Less nauseatingly named (and slightly less effective) version of the "look out sir" rule from later editions
  • Perhaps also an increase in points values?
I'm not sure about the last point - stone throwers certainly seem too cheap compared to bolt throwers, I've not considered them against the other types though.

Thoughts?
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

Great suggestions. I agree with the speculative fire and the "look our sir" rule. I'm less sure about including the point value change in the document. Better to leave it out as it's not really a rule?

If there are no objections I'll add them to the document.
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

Sounds good to me. The point value thing is more of an observation than a rule, and points values are a bit of a can of worms anyway!
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

I've had similar thoughts based on earlier experiences with large war machines.

I've always thought, however, that one of the best limiters to these things (remember what they would be used for historically) would be to make turning them count as a move (i.e. so they can't turn and fire in the same turn) - it sounds harsh, but it suddenly keeps the devices on track for what they were meant for - to break walls down. It also changes the tactical approach to war machine batteries if you want to use them to target moving units - you'd have to set up firing lines in anticipation of your opponent - with the most target rich option meaning that any deviation would put your own line at risk too.

Anyway, just a thought...
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

weazil":24r5ohlz said:
I've had similar thoughts based on earlier experiences with large war machines.

I've always thought, however, that one of the best limiters to these things (remember what they would be used for historically) would be to make turning them count as a move (i.e. so they can't turn and fire in the same turn) - it sounds harsh, but it suddenly keeps the devices on track for what they were meant for - to break walls down. It also changes the tactical approach to war machine batteries if you want to use them to target moving units - you'd have to set up firing lines in anticipation of your opponent - with the most target rich option meaning that any deviation would put your own line at risk too.

Anyway, just a thought...
Click to expand...
Not sure if I get your point but, according to the great book of all that's holy you cannot move and fire a stone thrower in the same turn. This includes turning. See WFB p. 107.
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

Ah...that's very interesting. I'll bet that wasn't applied in the siege or for many of the games played up until now. Is this how we played them in our remote games?
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

weazil":d6kpnzj9 said:
Ah...that's very interesting. I'll bet that wasn't applied in the siege or for many of the games played up until now. Is this how we played them in our remote games?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe so. When you moved your cannon around in "the shadow of koles lorr" you could not shoot, remember. Moving war machines around is a very costly endeavour and hardly happens on a small table.
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

weazil":2mulspcs said:
Ah...that's very interesting. I'll bet that wasn't applied in the siege...
Click to expand...

It was on our part of the table! The suggestions made for tweaking their use/effectiveness are good, though, and I like 'em :)
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

Maybe narrow the fire arc of large cannons and stonethrowers, or even require them to fire only straight in the way they are facing.
 
Re: Rules: WFB3 - House Rules v1.3

weismonsters":qt5gm5l5 said:
Maybe narrow the fire arc of large cannons and stonethrowers, or even require them to fire only straight in the way they are facing.
Click to expand...
The current set of house rules for Stone Throwers and War Machines should be enough to tone them down considerably. Limiting the fire arc could be another way to limit their destructiveness/effectiveness, however I think this rule fits together with the "point limitation" rule suggested by Grumdril and is subjective to the table size being used. Big tables require war machines to move more in order to acquire targets and consequently waste turns doing so, lowering their effectiveness. With small tables this is less apparent. So whether or not a limitation of the fire arc is in place depends on the point value and/or overall table size used. What do others think, anyone?
 
It was my Unicorn that was taken out by a single rock hurled from over three quarters of a mile away ... so yeah anything to reduce a 40% chance of such deadly accuracy at such long range sounds about right to me. :grin:
 
Harry":obq4dehh said:
It was mu Unicorn that was taken out by a single rock hurled from over three quarters of a mile away ... so year anything to reduce a 40% chance of such deadly accuracy at such long range sound about right to me. :grin:
Click to expand...
An unicorn, really? It must have been asking for it. Acting all mythical with its shiny horn. It could have had a chance with the new "survival of the fittest" rule, but then again you're never sure when it concerns unicorns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top