Ulthuan

Ulthuan, Home of the Asur
It is currently Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:18 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:04 am
Posts: 414
Location: Norway
Hi,

I have made a new fantasy wargame called Savage Wars. The rules are still in the beta phase, but they are socalled "living rules" where I will update them if there are any balance issues or if I feel like adding new content. I'm looking for playtesters that can give me some feedback.

About the game:
- You can design your own units using a point buy system. You can buy stats, equipment, abilities and spells.
- You can use all unit types that are in Warhammer, except swarms.
- Infantry units are good.
- Terrain actually matter.
- Each unit type is given a different height value that determines what they can see.
- Minimal with random effects. No misfire, miscast or random charges.
- Spells are good, but relatively balanced. No uber killing spells.
- The game is based on unit activation instead of different phases.
- No premeasuring.
- Each general can choose a special ability that can be used once per game.
- Warmachines uses ballistic skill to hit.
- Shooting has shorter range, but does a little more damage than in Warhammer.
- Focus on maneuverability and close combat.
- Lots of synergies between abilities and spells.
- Statlines affect to hit rolls and damage rolls more than in Warhammer.

Rules that will be added later:
- Characters on chariots
- Scenarios
- Combined unit types (large infantry/infantry)
- Beasts & handlers

I will also make "army books" that contains premade units (for all those lazy people out there :P ).

You can download the rules by joining my facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/880422755376932/
It's a closed group so you have to wait for my approval first.

A nicer looking pdf will come later. :P

Chayal.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:20 am
Posts: 174
Location: Germany
Sounds interesting. I sent you a request for the group.

_________________
Lantheya, Princess of House Niathym


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:04 am
Posts: 414
Location: Norway
Cool, I've added you. I appreciate any feedback I can get.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 761
Location: Winterfell
interesting indeed. sounds like warmachine + warhammer having a baby;) -> Machinehammer

I don't use facebook at all, but if you ever post rules on some other instance I am happy to read them and give you my thoughs ;)

_________________
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1

Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:07 am
Posts: 1077
I'd love to have a read of the rules :)

_________________
Bring me my bow of burning gold, bring me my arrows of desire, bring me my spear O' Clouds unfold, bring me my chariot of FIRE!

Check out my rather slow caledor themed painting log and my dragon project... also my faster moving nurgle themed Warriors of Chaos themed painting log


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:04 am
Posts: 414
Location: Norway
Loriel wrote:
interesting indeed. sounds like warmachine + warhammer having a baby;) -> Machinehammer

I don't use facebook at all, but if you ever post rules on some other instance I am happy to read them and give you my thoughs ;)


Hehe, indeed. I can send you the rules when I get home from work. Just send me a PM with your email address. :)

@Andrew_uk: I've added you to the group. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 761
Location: Winterfell
Hello! I finally got time to just read and read. Ididn’t want to do quick scimmering over the subject (and truth be told I briefly even forgot this ;) ) I will comment as I read as it is much more easier that way for me. Additionally as one would expect I will compare this to other table top wargames I have played, mostly for Warhammer, but there are some others also. ;)

  • Title: I like it Savage Wars! Primal and energetic. It gives me the feeling that I am going to play skirmish game, but well. Warhammer probably wouldn’t give you the idea of armies unless that has evolved around it.
  • Simple text style thing, I find it harder to read centered text compared to left alighment or the…. i have no idea what it is in english, but the one where the text are equal width on column. This propably is due the fact I have mostly read stuff with left aligment ;) I would go for 2 column approach.
  • Unit creation? Interesting indeed. I would change the (don’t use BS) so that it would be for example simple - for the sake of clarity [oh you actually did it, was mainly talking about the section where you introduce the creation ;) ]. My intuition is that 5 point per any stat is dangerous approach as not all stats are equal (well, haven’t read the rules so this is just a hunch) But overall really interesting feature
  • I like the rule book statement that infantry is on 20x20 or 25x25 square etc. This should have being implemented in WHFB rulebook so that unless otherwise stated (or the model package has other bases use this)
  • I think 8’’ inch skirmishing rule between models in skirmishing is way too big.
  • WM on bases absolutely good rule.
  • Personal retinue for characters.I like it. Grimgor all the way ;)
  • Stubborn ability so that it isn’t enough to get stubborn if character is stubborn is good (or actually I don’t know how stubborn works in your game, but that would be good in WHFB)
  • Champion giving look out sirs, seems legit.
  • I don’t comment much on the weapons nor their cost. Seems rather ok.
  • Spell, I would probably for the sake of clarity make it so that being a spell caster you must pay 100 points and gain spellpower 3 and knowledge 1. Then any additional upgrade cost 25. Small thing but in the text it is easier written down and doesn’t cause mix ups so often.
  • Spell casting cost table? I might be stupid or something but truly now I didn’t get this even after reading this multiple times. do you mean that if you are better caster, each spell cost more to buy, or you have more spells they cost more to buy?
  • I don’t comment much on spells and their cost etc. They seemed rather ok. I like the Lore of 4 elemements approach
  • Again items, not much commenting on the point cost, rather than they seem to be little low, (mainly comparing to the idea that stat increase is 5 points and resilient is 2 points. for example, or hat of archmage is 25 points where as normal upgrade for the same effect is 50 points) Perhaps I am missing some crucial part here ;)
  • Asymmetric deployment sizes. really interesting mechanic. As first player get choice which side deploy, but with less room.
  • I am not sure how I feel on personal level about this activation of units.
  • Wide formation, interesting alteration to the horde rule, however it seems that 50x50 large infantry will have perhaps too easy time to gain this. I would personally prefer the wider horde formation as it also significantly hinders movement because of wheels. If you seek mechanic to represent the wider formation "spreading on the flanks" I envisioned that the front rank that are not in base contact can make support attack instead (representing idea that they are enclosing the unit) and to deny exploiting the rule make hard rule that the total support attack from front rank can be 5 or something like this. dunno.
  • Allthough i complete understand what you mean about a roll of six always hits etc. I would personally add keyword "natural roll of 6". Simple thing, not really important ;) Additionally introduce terminology that dice score is the roll + modifier etc. Using specific terms saves a lot of time ;)
  • If I understood correctly about the skirmish rules, if there were some models that didn’t move enough to charge, they stayed still. Now removing casualties at raw allows player to still remove the skirmishers that are not in the close combat.
  • Flanking seems really good… as it should be ;)
  • Technical line of sight is welcome ;)
  • shooting in close combat… I do get the idea that you wish to have shooters BS affecting the hitting of enemy unit. I think that is your intention. I don’t know I would prolly go for simple 50/50 distribution on hits… allthough that would be rather stupid if other unit is really large and fighting some small unit instead.
----------------------

Ok, interesting read. It seems to mix rules from WHFB, KoW and Warmachine

I think one of the main problem to play this game is that it will be really hard to begin with. With the complex (I like it) army building that can be hard for people to actually check. However probably the easiest and simplest way to solve this is to do a army building software for it. I don’t know if you plan of doing some premade army books featuring some basic troops (that for example are easy to buy in local fantasy gamesshops ;) ), but i strongly suggest doing it. It doesn’t have to be too big, for example for elves spearmen, archer, cavalry, some elite troops, dragon rider, for orcs some orc / goblin unit, war machine etc.

This is my personal take that one really appealing feature in Warhammer is that army books are very flavourful. You have certain style models, with certain style rules and it made them interesting. Naturally this approach can cause power balance issues, but as casual gamer I don’t mind small power issues. Your approach is in sense really really balanced, but can cause rather bland armies instead. You could mimic this feature to add racial traits (and value them in points) like… All dwarfs are like this, all elves like that etc. Perhaps it could be that dwarfs get discount to some abilities as lizards to some.

Another thing I suggest doing is bookmarks for the PDF, makes it tons easier to follow.

In general the text was easy to read and not too many inconsistencies (naturally i didn’t browse it with magnifier ;) )

Hope this helps you to get some ideas and keep on writing these stuff. Evolution of games is really harsh as most of them are going to be discarded by gamers selection ;)

_________________
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1

Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:04 am
Posts: 414
Location: Norway
Hi, thanks for your feedback! :)

Loriel wrote:
Simple text style thing, I find it harder to read centered text compared to left alighment or the…. i have no idea what it is in english, but the one where the text are equal width on column. This propably is due the fact I have mostly read stuff with left aligment ;) I would go for 2 column approach.


Noted. The text was originally left aligned, but I changed it to center as it looked nicer :P

Loriel wrote:
Unit creation? Interesting indeed. I would change the (don’t use BS) so that it would be for example simple - for the sake of clarity [oh you actually did it, was mainly talking about the section where you introduce the creation ;) ]. My intuition is that 5 point per any stat is dangerous approach as not all stats are equal (well, haven’t read the rules so this is just a hunch) But overall really interesting feature


Hmm, I think you have misread this part. The whole basic stat line costs five points. So you pay five points for this stat line:

M5 MS3 BS3 S4 DEF7 ARM7 HP1 A1 D7

If you want to increase one stat by one point, the point cost of the model increases by one, not five ;)

Loriel wrote:
I think 8’’ inch skirmishing rule between models in skirmishing is way too big.


I disagree since you can have skirmish units with a unit size of 20 models.


Loriel wrote:
Spell, I would probably for the sake of clarity make it so that being a spell caster you must pay 100 points and gain spellpower 3 and knowledge 1. Then any additional upgrade cost 25. Small thing but in the text it is easier written down and doesn’t cause mix ups so often.

Spell casting cost table? I might be stupid or something but truly now I didn’t get this even after reading this multiple times. do you mean that if you are better caster, each spell cost more to buy, or you have more spells they cost more to buy?


If you want to be a spellcaster, you have to have at least spellpower 3 and knowledge 1. This costs 50 points (25 for spellpower 3 and 25 for knowledge 1). You can use the table to see how much each spellpower value and knowledge value costs. For example, if you want a spellcaster with high spellpower but only one spell, you can give him spellpower 6 which costs 100pts and knowledge 1 which costs 25pts.

Loriel wrote:
Again items, not much commenting on the point cost, rather than they seem to be little low, (mainly comparing to the idea that stat increase is 5 points and resilient is 2 points. for example, or hat of archmage is 25 points where as normal upgrade for the same effect is 50 points) Perhaps I am missing some crucial part here ;)


Remember that the cost of all stats, magic items, abilities and equipment is multiplied by the hit point of the model. So if you have a spellcaster with HP2, the hat of the archmage would cost 50pts. HP2 is the minimum requirement for a character.

Loriel wrote:
Wide formation, interesting alteration to the horde rule, however it seems that 50x50 large infantry will have perhaps too easy time to gain this. I would personally prefer the wider horde formation as it also significantly hinders movement because of wheels. If you seek mechanic to represent the wider formation "spreading on the flanks" I envisioned that the front rank that are not in base contact can make support attack instead (representing idea that they are enclosing the unit) and to deny exploiting the rule make hard rule that the total support attack from front rank can be 5 or something like this. dunno.


I don't think this will be an issue since you can only have a maximum of 13 large infantry models in a unit. You can just buy a spear anyways and get the same effect.

Loriel wrote:
Allthough i complete understand what you mean about a roll of six always hits etc. I would personally add keyword "natural roll of 6". Simple thing, not really important ;) Additionally introduce terminology that dice score is the roll + modifier etc. Using specific terms saves a lot of time ;)


Noted. I will change the wording of the rule ;)

Loriel wrote:
If I understood correctly about the skirmish rules, if there were some models that didn’t move enough to charge, they stayed still. Now removing casualties at raw allows player to still remove the skirmishers that are not in the close combat.


Hmm, I guess I have to explain it better. The models are moved to the rear ranks, they don't stand still if their charge fails.

Loriel wrote:
shooting in close combat… I do get the idea that you wish to have shooters BS affecting the hitting of enemy unit. I think that is your intention. I don’t know I would prolly go for simple 50/50 distribution on hits… allthough that would be rather stupid if other unit is really large and fighting some small unit instead.


I think splitting it 50/50 would be unfair to units with high DEF. Otherwise, I would have gone for it. But I might remove the rule alltogether.

Loriel wrote:
I think one of the main problem to play this game is that it will be really hard to begin with. With the complex (I like it) army building that can be hard for people to actually check. However probably the easiest and simplest way to solve this is to do a army building software for it. I don’t know if you plan of doing some premade army books featuring some basic troops (that for example are easy to buy in local fantasy gamesshops ;) ), but i strongly suggest doing it. It doesn’t have to be too big, for example for elves spearmen, archer, cavalry, some elite troops, dragon rider, for orcs some orc / goblin unit, war machine etc.


I'm going to create a website that will contain an army builder. I'll also make some premade army books. I have included examples for making units in the rules such as Elven Drake Riders ;)

Loriel wrote:
This is my personal take that one really appealing feature in Warhammer is that army books are very flavourful. You have certain style models, with certain style rules and it made them interesting. Naturally this approach can cause power balance issues, but as casual gamer I don’t mind small power issues. Your approach is in sense really really balanced, but can cause rather bland armies instead. You could mimic this feature to add racial traits (and value them in points) like… All dwarfs are like this, all elves like that etc. Perhaps it could be that dwarfs get discount to some abilities as lizards to some.


It might seem that it would create bland armies, but I disagree on that part. All armies in Warhammer can be recreated with my rules, and all armies will act differently based on how you create them and which special ability you have given to your general. It is up to you how you make your units and which background you want to base your units on. If I make premade army books then each army will also be unique.

Loriel wrote:
Another thing I suggest doing is bookmarks for the PDF, makes it tons easier to follow.


Will do! :)

Chayal


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 761
Location: Winterfell
Chayal wrote:
Loriel wrote:
I think 8’’ inch skirmishing rule between models in skirmishing is way too big.


I disagree since you can have skirmish units with a unit size of 20 models.


with 8 icnh rule that 20 model unit could spread acrross 160 inch on table. still be called a unit ;)

Chayal wrote:
Loriel wrote:
Spell, I would probably for the sake of clarity make it so that being a spell caster you must pay 100 points and gain spellpower 3 and knowledge 1. Then any additional upgrade cost 25. Small thing but in the text it is easier written down and doesn’t cause mix ups so often.

Spell casting cost table? I might be stupid or something but truly now I didn’t get this even after reading this multiple times. do you mean that if you are better caster, each spell cost more to buy, or you have more spells they cost more to buy?


If you want to be a spellcaster, you have to have at least spellpower 3 and knowledge 1. This costs 50 points (25 for spellpower 3 and 25 for knowledge 1). You can use the table to see how much each spellpower value and knowledge value costs. For example, if you want a spellcaster with high spellpower but only one spell, you can give him spellpower 6 which costs 100pts and knowledge 1 which costs 25pts.


I have probably some trouble reading english ( not my native langue), or it is said somewhat oddly imo. So you have to be spellpowe 3 and 1 knowlegdge. So you have it spreaded on the rules (now i realize that there was this "starting at spell power 3" My original read was that I have to buy 3 power and 1 knowledge 25 per cost hence the 100 point what I suggested.

I think this particular section where you talk about spells the first sentence could( or should be ).

"To be a spellcaster, a unit must have at least Spellpower 3 and Knowledge 1. This cost 50 points that are not multipied model's hp......"

And then tell what the levels mean and say that any additional level of spellpower or knowledge cost 25 points. Now when the rule is splintered in three paragraphs it will cause many rereads, misconceptions and even errors.

Chayal wrote:
Loriel wrote:
Again items, not much commenting on the point cost, rather than they seem to be little low, (mainly comparing to the idea that stat increase is 5 points and resilient is 2 points. for example, or hat of archmage is 25 points where as normal upgrade for the same effect is 50 points) Perhaps I am missing some crucial part here ;)


Remember that the cost of all stats, magic items, abilities and equipment is multiplied by the hit point of the model. So if you have a spellcaster with HP2, the hat of the archmage would cost 50pts. HP2 is the minimum requirement for a character.

And there is the crucial part missing. Thanks for clear up ;) Not everything catches on first read.

[quote"Chayal"]
Loriel wrote:
This is my personal take that one really appealing feature in Warhammer is that army books are very flavourful. You have certain style models, with certain style rules and it made them interesting. Naturally this approach can cause power balance issues, but as casual gamer I don’t mind small power issues. Your approach is in sense really really balanced, but can cause rather bland armies instead. You could mimic this feature to add racial traits (and value them in points) like… All dwarfs are like this, all elves like that etc. Perhaps it could be that dwarfs get discount to some abilities as lizards to some.


It might seem that it would create bland armies, but I disagree on that part. All armies in Warhammer can be recreated with my rules, and all armies will act differently based on how you create them and which special ability you have given to your general. It is up to you how you make your units and which background you want to base your units on. If I make premade army books then each army will also be unique.
[/Quote]

This is true, it is all up to players (as it is in warhammer, as many players do play the game as a game) The overall fluff is common nominator, that say I play against High elves and genericly can be considered that they have these kind of strengths and weaknessses and their story is roughly this. Now as there isn't any common nominator I can be facing a elves from lotr or some other universe. That can be also enrichening experience so I probably wouldn't have much to worry about.

Perhaps the reason is that I could be facing a custom made undead that are exactly same as my custom made elves in game mechanical sense. Perhaps that is the one thing what I fell off in this game.

_________________
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1

Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:04 am
Posts: 414
Location: Norway
Loriel wrote:
with 8 icnh rule that 20 model unit could spread acrross 160 inch on table. still be called a unit ;)


Ah, I think you misread this part or I need to explain it better. :P All models in the unit must be within 8 inches of each other. So the max width of the unit is 8 inches.


Loriel wrote:
I have probably some trouble reading english ( not my native langue), or it is said somewhat oddly imo. So you have to be spellpowe 3 and 1 knowlegdge. So you have it spreaded on the rules (now i realize that there was this "starting at spell power 3" My original read was that I have to buy 3 power and 1 knowledge 25 per cost hence the 100 point what I suggested.

I think this particular section where you talk about spells the first sentence could( or should be ).

"To be a spellcaster, a unit must have at least Spellpower 3 and Knowledge 1. This cost 50 points that are not multipied model's hp......"

And then tell what the levels mean and say that any additional level of spellpower or knowledge cost 25 points. Now when the rule is splintered in three paragraphs it will cause many rereads, misconceptions and even errors.


I will clarify the rules and explain it better.

Loriel wrote:
Perhaps the reason is that I could be facing a custom made undead that are exactly same as my custom made elves in game mechanical sense. Perhaps that is the one thing what I fell off in this game.


Yeah, that would be lame, but I've designed the game to give the player as much freedom as possible and still maintain balance. :P But as mentioned before, I'm going to make premade army books so each book will be unique.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 5:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 761
Location: Winterfell
Chayal wrote:
Loriel wrote:
with 8 icnh rule that 20 model unit could spread acrross 160 inch on table. still be called a unit ;)


Ah, I think you misread this part or I need to explain it better. :P All models in the unit must be within 8 inches of each other. So the max width of the unit is 8 inches.


;) k, makes sense. carry on. I asked couple of my gaming buddies if they would like to test this out. I probably get answer tonight or tomorrow

_________________
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1

Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group