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 

 
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


Actually I was complaining on how high initiative ambush critters would loose their ambush since they go first anyway. This ambush is what makes them really dangerous, and that shouldn't be taken away from them, so I would vote for keeping it. Maybe make a new phase (even though we try to reduce the phases), just before the Warrior/Monster phase in a new combat, called Ambush phase in which all (monsters and warriors alike) have their Ambush attacks. As far as the mixed initiative goes, I'm all for it, but not at the cost of dropping a (in my opinion) non-broken rule.

As off these "decisions off the board" I apologise, I may have put it wrong. I just wanted to point out to Golembane that such things are dangerous to say and may be misread. I know nothing is decided behind anyones backs and there are no hidden agenda's, but that's no reason why anyone should suggest something like that, especially for those that don't frequent the boards and don't have a chance to read everything that's been posted.
6/Jun/2005, 4:27 am Link to this post Send Email to Sudden Real   Send PM to Sudden Real
 
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


quote:

golembane wrote:

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.



OK, first of all I understand completely. I do not like simultaneous combat. I do not like it Sam I Am. That's all. Observe how I run the next combat currently.

quote:

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.



When 3 Orcs are piled on Character A, I STILL have them attack one at a time. If the second Orc downs Character A, the third one will use his action to attack Character B or hunt for a non-prone adversary. In this way, the combat is more dynamic when Character A is back on his feet (maybe!) in the next Turn. Orc #3 has switched onto someone else. THis approach sometimes helps and sometimes hurts the players, but it allows the Monsters to act in the same way as the Warriors.


quote:

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.



Hehe, I have to disagree here as well. WHQ is still supposed to be a fast and fun game, but it IS a roll-playing game as opposed to role-playing. The gameplay is far closer to dungeon crawls like Gauntlet and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance than it is to role-playing games like WFRP, D&D and LARPs :b . The only thing I really do to change the game is try to introduce the grittiness from the Warhammer atmosphere, which is very important to this game I love but which has rather silly atmosphere.

That, and updating the Monsters to be more fully in line with the current world lore. For example, it DOES add extra dice rolling to introduce greenskin psychology; but in the current battle game, their Animosity and Fear of Elves (for gobbos) are defining features of the race!



---
"Mine is a high art. I wound with cruelty those who would harm me." - Archillicus
6/Jun/2005, 5:43 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 do the same thing - having monsters on one target attack one at a time, but I'm not sure if we need to make it a rule or disallow it. I personally like it, but it might get a little tied up with init-based combat. Someone should check that out.
6/Jun/2005, 6:29 am Link to this post Send Email to Black Drazon   Send PM to Black Drazon
 
Boyinleaves Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Hero
Global user

Registered: 05-2005
Posts: 59
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - The Warrior's/Monster's Phase


BassJam has got it exactly how I play my games at the moment, and that seems to work fine. Having the monsters in hand to hand combat attack in turn gives them a slightly better chance of being more effective in combat, because they can change targets if their opponent goes down.

I also do ranged attacks simultaneously, mostly just to save time, but for the same reason of making the monsters just that little bit more dangerous, I would make them go in turn in the rules, too. I'm not sure whether it's an official rule or something I saw posted here, but I make all missile troops attack first each turn, if they are unpinned to begin with, regardless of their initiative. This makes it impossible that a fast character can break pinning and get close enough to prevent them shooting, something I think is realistically unlikely.

I think that the slightly randomised initiative system a la D&D is a good idea, but I'm a little concerned about its necessity, and whether it will bog down the game just a little too much. Anyway, we'll see I suppose.
7/Jun/2005, 6:31 pm Link to this post Send Email to Boyinleaves   Send PM to Boyinleaves
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)