Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) | Log in: (), globally (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
Bruno Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user

Registered: 04-2003
Posts: 802
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


Yes that's a good idea. Mix ini will be complicated when you have different set of monsters but if we change the system, we must find a way giving a change that monsters fight first.

---
Bruno
2/Jun/2005, 6:15 pm Link to this post Send PM to Bruno
 
Black Drazon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 217
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


I still have no problem with mixed ini myself, even if we force the warriors to go first on ties. What does everyone else think?
3/Jun/2005, 10:49 am Link to this post Send Email to Black Drazon   Send PM to Black Drazon
 
golembane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 08-2004
Posts: 100
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


It really isn't that bad. It sounds alot worse then what it it simply because it isn't what everyone is used to.

Warhammer 40k, mordheim, Warhammer FB, etc all use that same rule and there are far more involved combats then WHQ and everything rolls along without issue 99% of the time.

It was on a course to be changed anyways... Whats the point of putting mobs down on the table when they are just going to be slaughtered before they even get to raise their axe, sword, whatever?

Might as well just give the warriors a treasure and gold and due away with certain encounters.

I don't think I remember a time where the dwarf, barbarian, elf, elven ranger, and almost any other character didn't deathblow a ton of snotlings before the poor creatures even got a chance to strike.

Later on when theres 1-4 monsters at a time running around then the "I" value really becomes less of an issue since its clear cut Elf, Barbarian, dwarf, wizard(or whatever). If a mob and warrior have the same "I" score then they strike at the same time. If warrior is less then they strike after the mobs and vise versa.
4/Jun/2005, 12:17 pm Link to this post Send Email to golembane   Send PM to golembane
 
BassJam Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 07-2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 539
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


Honestly the only part I would never play at home is the SAME TIME part. Even when there are 8 Goblins with the same Init, I have each of them attack one at a time pretending that they're attacking simultaneously but working out results in a turn-based manner. (Unless 3 bowmen are aiming at one warrior - I roll all attacks at once if there's no need for slowdown.)

So I'd be happy with one of the following three methods:

a) Keep Warrior's and Monster's Phase the same (and don't gyp Snotlings of their Ambush! emoticon )

b) Use a strict mixed Initiative based on the I stat only - either roll off in case of ties or Warrior automatically goes first.

c) D&D-style: At the beginning of each combat all Warriors and Monster groups roll 1d6+ Initiative to determine combat order. I like the idea of this the best right now based on discussion and will play that way in my next WHQ game. Reason being, the Dwarf will get to do stuff once in awhile if he rolls a 6+2=8 and the Imperial Noble rolls 1+5=6 for example :b

---
"Mine is a high art. I wound with cruelty those who would harm me." - Archillicus
5/Jun/2005, 1:50 am Link to this post Send Email to BassJam   Send PM to BassJam
 
Black Drazon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 217
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


I'm a little confused about how you complain about how confusing "same time" combat would be, then suggest a more complex system from D&D... But don't mind me.

Seriously, though, I have nothing more to say on this, I've stated my opinion as to what I like. Somebody else out ther needs to say something.

quote:


I don't think I remember a time where the dwarf, barbarian, elf, elven ranger, and almost any other character didn't deathblow a ton of snotlings before the poor creatures even got a chance to strike.



lol, I have the unfortunate habit of running Snotling/Giant Animal combats like this:

Roll to Hit
If Hit: Monster Dies. Deathblow.
If Miss: Laugh at Warrior
End Action

Last edited by Black Drazon, 5/Jun/2005, 2:48 am
5/Jun/2005, 2:43 am Link to this post Send Email to Black Drazon   Send PM to Black Drazon
 
golembane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 08-2004
Posts: 100
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


quote:

BassJam wrote:

Honestly the only part I would never play at home is the SAME TIME part. Even when there are 8 Goblins with the same Init, I have each of them attack one at a time pretending that they're attacking simultaneously but working out results in a turn-based manner. (Unless 3 bowmen are aiming at one warrior - I roll all attacks at once if there's no need for slowdown.)

So I'd be happy with one of the following three methods:

a) Keep Warrior's and Monster's Phase the same (and don't gyp Snotlings of their Ambush! emoticon )

b) Use a strict mixed Initiative based on the I stat only - either roll off in case of ties or Warrior automatically goes first.

c) D&D-style: At the beginning of each combat all Warriors and Monster groups roll 1d6+ Initiative to determine combat order. I like the idea of this the best right now based on discussion and will play that way in my next WHQ game. Reason being, the Dwarf will get to do stuff once in awhile if he rolls a 6+2=8 and the Imperial Noble rolls 1+5=6 for example :b



I don't think you fully understand what the "I" value works like. I'm not saying every goblin on the table launches an attack at the same time.

It works out more like Elf is fighting an orc.

Elf "I" is 6, Orc "I" is 4. Elf gets to strike his blows first.

Barbarian "I" is 4, Orc "I" is "4". Barbarian and Orc each roll the attack and see how much damage they do to each other. Both might live, both might die, both might miss, but either way both struck out at the same time.

Dwarf "I" is 2, Orc is "I" is 4. Orc strikes first. Dwarf strikes next.

It doesn't work that every mob unleashes a firestorm of attacks on all the players. Its a fight by fight basis.

Sometimes a warrior will have 3 orcs on them. In this case yes all three orcs will strike at the same time, but thats nothing new to the game at all. In todays game you can have 2 orcs piled on the wizard and in the warrior phase if those aren't dead they get to strike out at him.

I believe we said we were doing away with the ambush rules. We can easily replace them with a "Always strikes first on first round of combat" line for those mobs.

Still works out well because of certain skills, items, or what have you will allow the warriors to negeate that through having always strike first weapons, detecting ambushes, etc.

As for the D&D style... It's annoying to always have to roll the "I" value. I stopped doing it. I gave everyone a roll on character creation and thats what it always was going to be. So it worked out pretty much like the system I was describing above.

The point of WHQ is to make combat fun and fast, but to do that you have to get rid of roll after roll. It's not a roll-playing game. Its a ROLE-playing game.
5/Jun/2005, 6:38 am Link to this post Send Email to golembane   Send PM to golembane
 
Sudden Real Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 12-2003
Posts: 104
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


quote:

golembane wrote:

I believe we said we were doing away with the ambush rules. We can easily replace them with a "Always strikes first on first round of combat" line for those mobs.



I don't really agree on doing away with the Ambush rules. Remember that these monsters only get extra 1 set of attacks during their stay on the board, namely on the moment they hit the board. That's what makes them so dangerous, not that they hit first, but that they have extra attacks. Dark Elf Assassins and Skaven Deathmasters have both Ambush and an initiative of 10. They will attack as first anyway, even with the "Always strikes first on the first round of combat" line you suggest, as the only one who has an initiative of 10 is the Wardancer on level 10 (I think, I do know no other warrior has an initiative of 10). So instead of treating them as the threat they really are, you diminish them in power.

Just think that their normal attack is another part of the ambush, as the warriors are too stunned to realise there are monsters on the board.
5/Jun/2005, 1:30 pm Link to this post Send Email to Sudden Real   Send PM to Sudden Real
 
golembane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 08-2004
Posts: 100
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


quote:

Sudden Real wrote:

quote:

golembane wrote:

I believe we said we were doing away with the ambush rules. We can easily replace them with a "Always strikes first on first round of combat" line for those mobs.



I don't really agree on doing away with the Ambush rules. Remember that these monsters only get extra 1 set of attacks during their stay on the board, namely on the moment they hit the board. That's what makes them so dangerous, not that they hit first, but that they have extra attacks. Dark Elf Assassins and Skaven Deathmasters have both Ambush and an initiative of 10. They will attack as first anyway, even with the "Always strikes first on the first round of combat" line you suggest, as the only one who has an initiative of 10 is the Wardancer on level 10 (I think, I do know no other warrior has an initiative of 10). So instead of treating them as the threat they really are, you diminish them in power.

Just think that their normal attack is another part of the ambush, as the warriors are too stunned to realise there are monsters on the board.



You are forgetting one key thing... WE aren't going to have the locked down wardancer, ranger, witch hunter any longer.

Also giving those that should strike first the "always strike first rule in no way diminishes their power". We've been throwing around making magical weapons far more rare then they currently are.

So you might have a warrior who may have a "always strike first" sword, but chances are pretty slim since warriors won't be able to carry a ton of equipment in with them and they only get the advantage from the items they are actually using.

Combat is being totally redone. Deathblow currently is under ahuge rewrite possibly where different weapons do different things. Mobs will get a rewrite to fit their roles better as well. Those few mobs you mentioned could easily get a dodge roll of 5+ and become far more of a problem all of a sudden.

Wouldn't throw out a rule if there wasn't other things in the works behind the scenes.
5/Jun/2005, 11:01 pm Link to this post Send Email to golembane   Send PM to golembane
 
Sudden Real Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 12-2003
Posts: 104
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


In case you didn't notice, I said that the the Dark Elf Assassins and Skaven Deathmasters always strike first due to their high initiative and that ONLY the Wardancer gets so high. I know the Official packs will also be redone, which means none of the warriors will ever strike first against them, making your "always strike first..." redundant. As for giving them Dodge 5+ to compensate this, Assassins already have it and Deathmasters have Dodge 4+.

And why you suddenly bring the warriors into this with an "always strike first sword" I don't know, since, as far as I know, there is no sword like that in the official treasures. None of the warriors can even get it as a skill (except maybe the Pitfighter, but that's a pack warrior), the most anyone gets is the Barbarian, and that's one attack, so as far as I can see, the warriors have no deal in this Ambush section.

And as far as works behind the scenes go, wasn't this forum supposed to ask suggestions from everyone and make rules based on those, letting everyone know what the status is? I don't feel too comfortable hearing that we suddenly might get the answer "thank you for your input, but a long time ago we already decided off board this rule should be..."
6/Jun/2005, 12:01 am Link to this post Send Email to Sudden Real   Send PM to Sudden Real
 
Black Drazon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 217
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


Sudden Real, I can only assume you're complaining about an "always strike first sword", because you didn't mention something else as being "decided off board" which has never happened (neither has this doing away with Ambush stuff, where did that come from?). On the note of the sword, golembane was saying there might be such a sword because the discussion on treasure was looking in the direction of a very solid rewrite. But that is speculation, so I'll have to put a stop to it.

golembane's synopsis of the Inititative system seems closest to what we're going for. Thanks for that!
6/Jun/2005, 4:07 am Link to this post Send Email to Black Drazon   Send PM to Black Drazon
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)