FW Rule changes and additions.

Forum dedicated to the frother committee's favourite wargame, Nick Lund's "Fantasy Warriors".

Moderator: FU!UK Committee

Postby Duff » Mon May 01, 2006 7:56 pm

These are house rules, Doc asked me in a drunken moment to post them in case anyone else might like to use them. Nothing official about it in any way.

The Salute idea is for a display game and it's highly unlikely to come off. I can't stand Tournaments anyway, especially as they usually involve small armies. The joy of a tabletop wargame for me is seeing vast numbers of (preferably painted) miniatures having a battle on at least a 8' x 4' table, not a few measly units moving around a 4' x 4'. Lots of decent scenery helps too.

It's very simple Darth and Sergio, I play using the existing English Language rules including all further publications, with the above changes and additions. If you wished to come along and play a game I would expect you to use the same rules, just as I would expect to use your system if i were to visit you in Italy for a game.

For my tastes you naran boys play around with the troop stats too much instead of trying to get the rules to work in the first place. I think these changes go a fair way to doing this.

Roy

PS: I also forgot to say that Fiends and Dragons are banned for being game breakers.

PPS: I should also add that I think the way you guys have kept the whole FW thing going is fantastic and I would love to have a game with you, just bring enough minis to field at least 4000pts :wink:
broney wrote:You weren't there man! How many stiles are there on the Offa's Dyke Walk? You don't know Man!


Image
User avatar
Duff
Associate Member
 
Posts: 5567
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:08 am
Location: Nr Brizel

Postby area23 » Tue May 02, 2006 8:04 am

If I wanted balance I'd go and see a shrink & try to get meds. :)
If you don't believe in lead, you're already dead.
User avatar
area23
Associate Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:14 pm
Location: Limbo

Postby UnclEvl » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:16 pm

Lik I said elsewhere, good call on the ruels changes in my opinion Duff. Simple and expedient, curbing the worse parts of the rule.

Think it would have also been a good idea to include the B n B guidelines as well; ie. 300 to 600 points, army lists from compendium but no undead, whatever else you decided (might want to think about limiting percentage of cavlary/monsters/individuals a player can field maybe would be my only other suggestion), etc.
For jumbo fun, get yerself a (all new downloadable pdf) Strap-On at http://www.frothersunite.com/files/UnclEvl/Lab/
User avatar
UnclEvl
Committee Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 11:01 am
Location: Lost

Re: FW Rule changes and additions.

Postby Doc » Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:21 am

I'll add some thoughts as I'm here. ;)

Duff wrote:New Orders:


I'm not sure you need to state that bloodlust overrides chosen orders in the description of new orders. AFAIK bloodlust always overrides orders.

Duff wrote:Withdraw:
A special order only usable by units with greater movement than its opponent.


Units in combat is the unwritten part of this condition I guess?

Duff wrote:Change: War leaders can issue commands to any units except Allies and Mercenaries

War leaders?
Duff wrote:Influence

The following adjustment has been made to the Influence test:

Using Influence:
Change: Units in OK status can be influenced.

Is this a little easy for something that required a druid spell previously? Also how does a BL:4 ever roll 3 above their leadership on a D6?

Duff wrote:Ranks
Addition: Infantry only. For every full 2 ranks after the first, a unit on attack orders will receive +1 Strength. Units on Hold or Retreat orders instead receive +1 worth. Units under Oppose orders receive no bonuses for ranks.
Only ranks up and equal to the width of the unit?s frontage count towards this bonus.


Is there a top limit on this or could a column plough into an enemy with a +7 STR?
Retreating units get a bonus for being in a deep formation? :?
Duff wrote:Only ranks up and equal to the width of the unit?s frontage count towards this bonus.


eh?

Duff wrote:
Cavalry
Change: All mounted troops with a worth of more than 2 have their worth reduced by 1. Cavalry already with a worth of two or less are unaffected.


Seems like an advantage for Wood Elf cav (WOR 2)? They look a much better buy for 25 pts than Human Men-at-Arms cavalry if you knock a point of Worth of 1 and not the other.
User avatar
Doc
Site Admin
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 2:24 am
Location: London

Re: FW Rule changes and additions.

Postby ddeputy » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:08 am

Doc wrote:
Duff wrote:Change: War leaders can issue commands to any units except Allies and Mercenaries

War leaders?


Substitute for battle leaders/warchiefs I'd imagine.

Doc wrote:
Duff wrote:Ranks
Addition: Infantry only. For every full 2 ranks after the first, a unit on attack orders will receive +1 Strength. Units on Hold or Retreat orders instead receive +1 worth. Units under Oppose orders receive no bonuses for ranks.
Only ranks up and equal to the width of the unit?s frontage count towards this bonus.


Is there a top limit on this or could a column plough into an enemy with a +7 STR?
Retreating units get a bonus for being in a deep formation? :?


Getting a +7 bonus would imply 14 ranks behind the first, which seems unlikely ever to happen IMHO. In theory I guess this could be exploited by having a unit of 30 arranged only 2 models wide and 15 deep but TBH that's just silly (maybe add a rule to say a unit can only gain a bonus for a number of ranks equal to the modem frontage?)

Doc wrote:
Duff wrote:Only ranks up and equal to the width of the unit?s frontage count towards this bonus.

eh?


Oh ok, exactly what I just suggested above? ;)

Doc wrote:
Duff wrote:Cavalry
Change: All mounted troops with a worth of more than 2 have their worth reduced by 1. Cavalry already with a worth of two or less are unaffected.


Seems like an advantage for Wood Elf cav (WOR 2)? They look a much better buy for 25 pts than Human Men-at-Arms cavalry if you knock a point of Worth of 1 and not the other.


Agreed. *All* cavalry should count 1 WOR less than shown in the original lists.
User avatar
ddeputy
Committee Member
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 3:40 pm
Location: London

Postby Duff » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:42 am

Men at Arms get heavy armour and -1 resilience, wood elves get veteran quality but light armour and no resilience. Sounds like a fair trade for the points to me. Any cavalry with a worth of 1 is pointless. Stick with -1 on worth more of 3 or more. It's a compromise but a good one IMO.

Re-read the rank rules Doc, DDep got them. :roll:

War Leader = War Chief, semantics again Doc? :wink:

New Orders, I stated Boodlusted troops always pursue so that it is clear that they pursue the withdrawing unit rather than charge into another close by enemy unit. I should add that units ust have spent at least one melee round in combat before beiong able to withdraw and that pursuing units are moved at the same time and this counts as their move.

The new Influence rule is to make berserkers feasable. The whole idea about the +3 is that leaders of level 4 or 5 are too imposing and effective to ever have a unit they are influencing go horribly wrong but they can still fail to get them worked up. It cancels out the fact that level 3, 4 and 5 leaders have the same chance of things going horribly wrong.

Roy
broney wrote:You weren't there man! How many stiles are there on the Offa's Dyke Walk? You don't know Man!


Image
User avatar
Duff
Associate Member
 
Posts: 5567
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:08 am
Location: Nr Brizel

Postby Doc » Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:49 pm

Duff wrote:Men at Arms get heavy armour and -1 resilience, wood elves get veteran quality but light armour and no resilience. Sounds like a fair trade for the points to me. Any cavalry with a worth of 1 is pointless. Stick with -1 on worth more of 3 or more. It's a compromise but a good one IMO.


Quality is much better than armour and resilience, which only take effect if you get hit by something.

Plus 3" extra MOV, plus no BAD light. I know which I would rather have.

Anyway. Not sure I agree that 1WOR cavalry is pointless, though I guess with no inherent cavalry bonus you might be right.

Duff wrote:
Re-read the rank rules Doc, DDep got them. :roll:

War Leader = War Chief, semantics again Doc? :wink:


OK I think I understand what you are trying to say here now, though writing it in English might give me a fair shot. Up and equal to? :?

OK so a 30 strong unit could get a max of (6x5) +2 STR?

Not convinced that the 4th and 5th ranks add that much to the fighting prowess, I'd go with a simpler +1 for 3 ranks plus.

Duff wrote:New Orders, I stated Boodlusted troops always pursue so that it is clear that they pursue the withdrawing unit rather than charge into another close by enemy unit. I should add that units ust have spent at least one melee round in combat before beiong able to withdraw and that pursuing units are moved at the same time and this counts as their move.


I'm talking about the retreat orders. The withdraw orders make no mention of bloodlust. Combat happens between movement and orders so units will always have spent 1 round in melee before being able to withdraw.

Duff wrote:The new Influence rule is to make berserkers feasable. The whole idea about the +3 is that leaders of level 4 or 5 are too imposing and effective to ever have a unit they are influencing go horribly wrong but they can still fail to get them worked up. It cancels out the fact that level 3, 4 and 5 leaders have the same chance of things going horribly wrong.

Roy


The 1 in 6 rule is inherent in FW, it means no certainty. IMO you've added a few more incentives to taking high leadership when recieved wisdom is that this is already undercosted and you are crazy to take BLs with leadership lower than 4. You might be changing beserkers to a dead cert by that combination of rules.

Maybe I worry too much, its only a game after all. :wink:

Oh, what about the "Small" troops rule (20mm frontage, count 1/2 for threats)?
User avatar
Doc
Site Admin
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 2:24 am
Location: London

Postby Duff » Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:53 pm

Doc wrote:Not convinced that the 4th and 5th ranks add that much to the fighting prowess, I'd go with a simpler +1 for 3 ranks plus.


You're probably right.

Doc wrote:I'm talking about the retreat orders. The withdraw orders make no mention of bloodlust. Combat happens between movement and orders so units will always have spent 1 round in melee before being able to withdraw.


Sorry I thought you had been looking at the Salute rules posted here
http://www.frothersunite.com/phpBB2/vie ... &start=240

I dropped the retreat rules for now as they would not have any use on the day.

Doc wrote:The 1 in 6 rule is inherent in FW, it means no certainty. IMO you've added a few more incentives to taking high leadership when recieved wisdom is that this is already undercosted and you are crazy to take BLs with leadership lower than 4. You might be changing beserkers to a dead cert by that combination of rules.


There still is no certainty, they can still fail to work up the troops, there is just no chance that the troops will rip them to pieces. While it does make it a lot easier in theory to get your berserkers into a frenzy, you now have to move your Battle Leader or Warchief into a unit, often at some risk. I never bothered with berserkers before we came up with this rule as they were a costly unit that would either be cut to pieces by bowfire, wiped out, or run away screaming after the first round of combat. They NEVER went berserk unless I gave a speech, in which case there was a good chance I'd lose control over my whole army. This makes berserker units a practical option. It also allows armies like Orcs to whip up rabble and such like, giving them a better initial chance at doing some damage. We've play tested this rule a fair bit and I think it works rather well.

Doc wrote:Oh, what about the "Small" troops rule (20mm frontage, count 1/2 for threats)?


Good point. Erm, half value for threats, no rank advantages to ST?

Roy
broney wrote:You weren't there man! How many stiles are there on the Offa's Dyke Walk? You don't know Man!


Image
User avatar
Duff
Associate Member
 
Posts: 5567
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:08 am
Location: Nr Brizel

Postby Doc » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:24 am

Not sure what the logic behind the STR bonus is, so I dunno why it wouldn't apply to small troops.
User avatar
Doc
Site Admin
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 2:24 am
Location: London

Postby Duff » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:02 am

The ST bonus is for troops in rear ranks pushing forward, depth of battle line has always given an advantage in massed HtoH combat throughout history. No ST bonus for hobbits is to represent the fact that they are such weak little buggers. Then again, they already have a -1 to ST so we'll just keep it to 1/2 threat value.

Roy
broney wrote:You weren't there man! How many stiles are there on the Offa's Dyke Walk? You don't know Man!


Image
User avatar
Duff
Associate Member
 
Posts: 5567
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:08 am
Location: Nr Brizel

PreviousNext

Return to Fantasy Warriors Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest