Three new rules

[PureSphinx]

My playgroup has been throwing ideas around as a kind of wish list for next edition, rules that they think should have been included from the start, to make a couple of things make a little more sense.

First is a rule about spears. At the moment spears are mediocre, sometimes better than a parry save and sometimes not. Another rule that makes sense to us is that a unit of infantry using spears should get +1 strength on the turn they are charged by cavalry. You've seen it in movies and in history, the only cavalry that can charge through a pike wall to any good effect are the riders of Rohan, and that's only with Gandalf. It makes logical sense and makes spears better as an option for players.

The second rule is being able to walk into combat. It's dumb that you HAVE to charge, and even though this situation would rarely come up, some times it seems more advantageous to not charge, like through terrain or when you are movement hexed. Sure you wouldn't get +1 to combat, but you also wouldn't lose 1/6th of your unit. I am unsure how this would interact with charge reactions, though. Maybe it could count as a charge for flee and stand and shoot purposes but not terrain.

The third is a disengage. Somewhat like fleeing but voluntary and you can do it even if you win. It gives you the option to deal a bit of damage and then reposition in case another unit is incoming or you need your unit somewhere else. The downside would be attacks of opportunity and that you would take an entire movement phase just to disengage, so its a tactical decision still. It could also give units like Cavalry another chance to charge, because if I was on a horse and had another opportunity to swing around for another charge with my lance I sure would.

Opinions?

 

[Nicreap]

I completely agree with your first point, the second removes any tactics from being in or near difficult terrain. I gladly put my slow undead I difficult terrain so you have to take the check to charge, if you don't ill wait another turn.

for point 3 I think it should be a cav/fastcav rule. It would make sense for them to be able to break away from combat, a horde of Orcs or skeletons less so.

 

[PureSphinx]

Well, I totally spaced the tactical part of terrain. You're definitely right about that one lol. And yeah probably Cav and maybe chariots and other big fast mobile type things

 

[Nicreap]

I think cav and especially brettonia would benefit from it. I'm just unsure of what a balanced penalty would be. Would it be your enemy gets a free round of attacks as you disengage with a plus 1 to hit since you aren't going to fight as well as you are disengaging....not to mention it will be high armor units pulling these tricks anyway. Since they hit and run and don't care

 

[PureSphinx]

Yeah, that's what I meant by opportunity attacks. There is also the obvious penalty of losing an entire round of CC, because you spent your movement phase disengaging. Also, if you aren't smart about it, you could get charged before your next phase.

What if a unit of cavalry that charges a unit and wipes at least 50% can do a type of overrun/disengage to represent them riding through a unit? The sheer mass and momentum of a fully armored horse knight lancing through a line shouldn't be halted unless there are sufficient bodies to do so. And of course the remaining models get their attacks of opportunity.

Edit: only able to go through Infantry, and only if they have no spears. Not every unit lol my bad

 

[Sanguinus]

On the rule for spears: I like it, but I think it should only occur if charged from the front. Historically, cavalry charged flanks to disrupt enemy formations. Given that limitation, it could apply when charged by all units, not just cavalry, since spears have a longer reach.

For the third rule: what about a rule similar to 40k's Hit & Run? At the end of the assault phase, you can choose to leave combat, but to do so, you have to pass an initiative test. If failed, nothing happens; if passed, you choose a direction and roll 3D6. If the distance rolled is enough to move the unit more than 1" from the unit it was fighting, they break combat and move the full distance of the roll in the chosen direction. In 40K, the enemy unit gets to consolidate D6"; for Fantasy, the unit could get a free reform. I think something like that should apply to beasts as well as fast cav.

 

[Count Vashra]

I like the look of these rules. For hit and run yes the unit you leave should get a single free Attack.

 

[Sanguinus]

I'm not sure the enemy unit should automatically get a free attack. Perhaps an initiative test and then a number of attacks equal to the number of models engaged in the combat. This would mean that low I hordes are less likely to respond quickly enough to the fleeing unit, but could potentially drown them in attacks, while the typically small units of high I are more likely to get attacks in, but won't land as many. Of course, elves would benefit from this most, but I think everyone is used to them being strong.

 

[Count Vashra]

That is a good solution.

 

[GDD]

You will go crazy if you start to look for realism in warhammer rules. "Hand weapon" is one of the biggest offenders to me. There is a huuuge difference between using a sword, an axe, a hammer, a dagger etc. How armor works is another. Shields should also be more important.

Cavalry makes absolutely fu*k all sense in warhammer. You have three rows of heavily armored horses charging your infantry. They politely stop in front of you, and laugh as their horses are immortal and you have to hit them through their vantage point and armor to wound them. What?

Makes me wonder if they sat down for a second and thought about how cavalry even works.

 

[PureSphinx]

I agree with the cav thing which is why the Hit and Run rule is good. The horse thing to me is that even if I just stab your horse out from under you the likelihood of you landing perfectly balanced on your feet is small, so I will just coup de grace you, hence removing the whole model.

The swords vs axes vs daggers etc thing is also true, but aside from the weapons they have listed most weapons aren't so much different that anything stat wise is affected. Just my opinion though.

I get that its fantasy but for me realism is different than being realistic. A mutated dinosaur being ridden by an elven knight is fantasy, and so not real. A candle lighting an entire cave (Skyrim reference here) is not fantasy, it's idiocy. If you're using regular old candles make then regular candles.

 

[najo]

First off, the spear rule is awesome. I agree it should be to the front.

The walk into combat thing isn't necessarily worth it. I'd leave it as is.

As for disengaging, what about this. During the movement phase you can choose to disengage. If you do, make a leadership check. If successful, they move like running from combat. The enemy unit pursues. If they get away, then they successful disengage. if they don't, they count as being charged again (but not ran down). Basing the disengaging around 2d6/ and swiftstride movement means that mounted troops can catch and disengage easier. It uses the systems already in place. It doesn't throw attacks in their but grants charging benefits again instead.

Any rate, just an idea. Use what you like.

 

[PureSphinx]

That's a cool idea, and if you used another unit to lock the enemy down then your cav basically gets a free disengage because opponents can't pursue in combat. The real downside is that if you're fleeing you have to take a turn to rally, so no charge until the turn after.

 

[GDD]

I am about to go on a weapon rant. Note that almost nothing of what I am about to say can apply to whfb's rules because of the way the system is designed. (Yes I do get that this is a fantasy setting). This rant is purely to went my frustration, and demonstrate why "hand weapons" is a rubbish term. I do not take responsibility for any psychological turmoil you gain after this.

Dual Wielding does NOT make it more likely to attack twice. This is complete bogus, and anyone that has ever trained with a hand weapon can see why. If anything it should make it easier to parry than when using a two handed weapon, but not more than using a hand weapon and a shield.

Two Handed Weapons do not necessarily strike you slower when the engagement starts, but you may strike fewer times with it than a smaller weapon. If anything ASL should apply after the first round.

Reach should/could be represented with a to hit modifier, depending on the weapon, if striking or being struck.

Daggers are never used as a main weapon in warfare. The most commonly used dagger is probably the ballock dagger, used to sneak into, and puncture armor. Daggers in general are good because you can use them as fast as you can move your arm, and they do not encumber movement. It's good at making stuff bleed. If there is any weapon that should be able to grant the user an extra attack it should be the dagger.

Axes to start things of, do not come with two heads. Double headed axes never existed in the real world, and is a construct of the fantasy genre.(Yes they are, sorry to crush your dreams). They make the already unwieldy weapon completely useless.

Axes in general are good for wounding stuff, and do work against chain mail. They have both punching power like a hammer, and a sharp edge to boot. It smashes through your bones, and makes you bleed. It's a common tool, and is great for throwing. It's biggest weakness is short range, and being slightly unwieldy.

Swords are the easiest to wield weapons there are. They are good at hitting stuff. You can thrust and cut stuff. Nuff said. Their biggest weakness is their disability to deal with armor, unless you use the cross-guard and pommel like a hammer (can't remember what that is called).

Spears are not great 1v1, but shine in large formations. Often used en-mass by farmers as they are cheap to make, and soldiers are easy to train in spear formations. A single spear is easy to parry, but a defensive formation is extremely difficult to breach. Each man supports his neighbor, and this can be done in several ranks to make an intimidating wall of blades following the aggressor. Other benefits have already been discussed.

Finally HAMMERS do more damage the more armor your opponent is wearing. With the exception of chainmail metal armor is designed to fit the wearer personally. A hammer blow gauges and bruises your flesh, and crushes your bones. A hammer blow hitting armor does the same, but it also BENDS the metal into the wound. They are shock weapons as it is arguably harder to recover from a hammer blow than a sword cut. They suffer from the same unwieldy-ness as axes, but can get away with having longer reach.

So no I don't agree with them not being different enough to affect stats differently :tongue: HOWEVER imagine how complicated the rules would be to reflect all of that.. If it was a video game it would be no problem, but I'd rather my combat phases be without more math, and time consumption. If I would go full nazi mode here I'd talk about armor, to hit/wound, shield etc. But I think you get my point. I still enjoy the look of my two headed axe, even though I know how stupid it actually is.

People should stop thinking fighting in movies and games look anything like the real thing. I do HEMA (historical longsword fighting) myself, so this is a topic that touches me the wrong way when I see it in games. (Not to point out anything any of you did, just to make a point).

 

[PureSphinx]

Lol yeah you are right. But I agree that's too much in this game that already has a lot. One day though