Should we try and implement mechanics from total war warhammer.

Wanting to catch up on all the latest army gossip as it happens? Our Army Community Support team shares glimpses of the incoming army books!

  • duxbuse wrote:

    The Beninator wrote:

    This is less a rules complexity as it is an clerical complexity of keeping track.
    Not really much different to keeping track of wounds. couple of D8 or D20's
    You wouldn't necessarily need to do this either - you can build modifiers to leadership that aren't permanent, similar to the fear mechanic. This way you'd only have to count wounds sustained each turn as the stating unit sizes should be written onto your army list.

    So you could have
    -1 Morale for being in base to base contact with a fear causing enemy.
    -2 Morale for being within 6" of a terror causing enemy (stacks with Fear for -3 if in b2b contact).
    -1 Morale for being engaged in the flank
    -2 Morale for being engaged in the rear
    -1 Morale for each enemy unit within 6"
    +1 Morale for each friendly unit within 6"
    +1 Morale for being in a combat with more friendly units than enemy units (ganging up)
    +1 Morale for charging that turn
    +1 Morale for each inspiring presence influencing this unit
    +5 Morale for having more complete ranks than any single enemy unit in this combat (replaces steadfast).
    -1 Morale for each wound taken this turn unless the unit is Stubborn
    -2 Morale for less than 50% of starting size (should be on lists)
    etc.

    ITP units ignore all modifiers (including positives) and unbreakable units have no change - they'd stay unbreakable. I've always thought that ITP should be better than Stubborn but you can switch this up if this isn't considered fair or stuff.

    At the end of each players turn, every unit (except unbreakable units) on the table takes a morale test. To do this they take their base Morale subtract the number of wounds taken and apply any further modifiers and add their current moral to their LD (so -4 morale gives -4 to leadership).

    BSB can still provide a reroll or grant inspiring preasance (or both).

    I think this would add a lot of complexity but would be a much better (and certainty more realistic) mechanic than the current one. Both generals would be able to see where the lines are weakest and gives meaningful tactical options to both sides. Panic tests could stay as a one off test in specific circumstances.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Grimbold Blackhammer wrote:

    There are some interesting ideas there but the current concept would slow the game down significantly and is rather complex. You'd need to streamline it quite a bit I think.
    I'd be in favour of that. So long as the end result is better than the very binary nature that we have now.

    There were also suggestions for a wavering status (also inspired by Total War) between fleeing and happy (for lack of a better word). This could also be better than the on/off version we have now.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • duxbuse wrote:

    The Beninator wrote:

    This is less a rules complexity as it is an clerical complexity of keeping track.
    Not really much different to keeping track of wounds. couple of D8 or D20's
    I disagree. The problem with dice on the battlefield, especially something like d12s and d20s, is that they are subject to tons of flying d6 dice, bumps, measuring tape pushes, ect. This causes any information about that unit to suddenly be lost. D6's are somewhat stable, but also have the problem of being overly common on the playing field. Often players have 1-2 colors of dice, and are also counting partial wounds on characters with dice. This all starts to muddle together.

    Yes, using dice seems like a reasonable way to do this, but in reality bumps and things happen a lot in a 3 hour game of dice tossing.

    Keeping track if wounds has the benefit of using models as temporary counters (models removed). Since this does not persist turn to turn, the markers can be cleared off the table to no detriment.

    I think the idea is still good, it just needs a more elegant way of implementation on the battlefield.

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    duxbuse wrote:

    The Beninator wrote:

    This is less a rules complexity as it is an clerical complexity of keeping track.
    Not really much different to keeping track of wounds. couple of D8 or D20's
    You wouldn't necessarily need to do this either - you can build modifiers to leadership that aren't permanent, similar to the fear mechanic. This way you'd only have to count wounds sustained each turn as the stating unit sizes should be written onto your army list.
    So you could have
    -1 Morale for being in base to base contact with a fear causing enemy.
    -2 Morale for being within 6" of a terror causing enemy (stacks with Fear for -3 if in b2b contact).
    -1 Morale for being engaged in the flank
    -2 Morale for being engaged in the rear
    -1 Morale for each enemy unit within 6"
    +1 Morale for each friendly unit within 6"
    +1 Morale for being in a combat with more friendly units than enemy units (ganging up)
    +1 Morale for charging that turn
    +1 Morale for each inspiring presence influencing this unit
    +5 Morale for having more complete ranks than any single enemy unit in this combat (replaces steadfast).
    -1 Morale for each wound taken this turn unless the unit is Stubborn
    -2 Morale for less than 50% of starting size (should be on lists)
    etc.

    ITP units ignore all modifiers (including positives) and unbreakable units have no change - they'd stay unbreakable. I've always thought that ITP should be better than Stubborn but you can switch this up if this isn't considered fair or stuff.

    At the end of each players turn, every unit (except unbreakable units) on the table takes a morale test. To do this they take their base Morale subtract the number of wounds taken and apply any further modifiers and add their current moral to their LD (so -4 morale gives -4 to leadership).

    BSB can still provide a reroll or grant inspiring preasance (or both).

    I think this would add a lot of complexity but would be a much better (and certainty more realistic) mechanic than the current one. Both generals would be able to see where the lines are weakest and gives meaningful tactical options to both sides. Panic tests could stay as a one off test in specific circumstances.
    Sounds like you are still pushing for a 2d6 roll. That keeps the random element to LD checks, where units that are on the brink of breaking stick, and units that are in a good spot break from combat.
  • What if we had leadership "hit points" the way we have wounds now. Failing a leadership test takes away from that pool, maybe passing a test at the beginning of the turn heals the pool. Or a general/bsb can pass out a certain amount of leadership points per turn?

    I think in this scenario we see leadership be really low for most/all units and you might have to pass several checks at once if things are going badly. Like, you got flanked take a leadership check, lost a combat take a leadership check. Lost it by a lot. Take another check. Run out of leadership points? Fall back.
  • The Beninator wrote:

    Sounds like you are still pushing for a 2d6 roll. That keeps the random element to LD checks, where units that are on the brink of breaking stick, and units that are in a good spot break from combat.
    I don't really want to lose the random element. That's part of the game and it's actually quite realistic.

    The point for me is to try and make leadership tests more immersive and remove the on / off nature of fleeing with wavering. Total war does good stuff with morale and clearly their mechanics are too complicated to adopt on the tabletop, but that doesn't mean that we can't have something that feels similar.

    The wavering discussion was about having a status between Fine and Fleeing, which came with an in built de-buff. If you fail a first leadership test you become wavering until you pass a leadership test. Failing a test while wavering would result in the unit fleeing. There was a lot more to the discussion but that was the gist of it.

    Certain things could force you to flee regardless of your current status (e.g. fail a terror test). This would definitely increase complexity but I also feel that the game would be much better for it. It's a matter of finding the balance between it being complex enough to be immersive and fun but simple enough that it doesn't slow the game down too much or become confusing. I don't envy RT that task!
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Sir_Sully ().

  • Darken wrote:

    What if we had leadership "hit points" the way we have wounds now. Failing a leadership test takes away from that pool, maybe passing a test at the beginning of the turn heals the pool. Or a general/bsb can pass out a certain amount of leadership points per turn?

    I think in this scenario we see leadership be really low for most/all units and you might have to pass several checks at once if things are going badly. Like, you got flanked take a leadership check, lost a combat take a leadership check. Lost it by a lot. Take another check. Run out of leadership points? Fall back.
    Absolutely! I think the idea is great, but the issue is still keeping track of something like this which is elegant (not using dice as counters). We are unfortunately somewhat limited by not having a computer handy to keep track of everything. This could be solved with the creation of LD sliders, but nobody is going to want to go out and buy a couple dozen sliders just to allow for some new LD mechanics. Heck, nobody has had to buy anything new for 10 years in order to play this game.

    Im not saying dice would not work, it just might be a mess IRL.

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    The Beninator wrote:

    Sounds like you are still pushing for a 2d6 roll. That keeps the random element to LD checks, where units that are on the brink of breaking stick, and units that are in a good spot break from combat.
    I don't really want to lose the random element. That's part of the game and it's actually quite realistic.
    The point for me is to try and make leadership tests more immersive and remove the on / off nature of fleeing with wavering. Total war does good stuff with morale and clearly their mechanics are too complicated to adopt on the tabletop, but that doesn't mean that we can't have something that feels similar.

    The wavering discussion was about having a status between Fine and Fleeing, which came with an in built de-buff. If you fail a first leadership test you become wavering until you pass a leadership test. Failing a test while wavering would result in the unit fleeing. There was a lot more to the discussion but that was the gist of it.

    Certain things could force you to flee regardless of your current status (e.g. fail a terror test). This would definitely increase complexity but I also feel that the game would be much better for it. It's a matter of finding the balance between it being complex enough to be immersive and fun but simple enough that it doesn't slow the game down too much or become confusing. I don't envy RT that task!
    Sounds like a good idea. I totally agree the fine/flee system is a bit too all or nothing. Your proposal also does not add additional record keeping complexity, which is good.

    What if failing your first LD test with a BSB caused a permanent -1 LD. Or even just losing the combat by X or more CR causes -1 LD. This does introduce counters, but it would keep the number small. This is then a persistent effect where a unit who gets beat every turn starts to lose moral, not this "I lose by whatever, steadfast with a reroll suckka".

    My own critique to this is that it makes core even worse.