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  5  6 

 
Black Drazon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 217
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


I can't say I completely understand Sudden Real's suggestion or golembane's opposition to it. I guess we all have different pictures of what a "critical" is. Though as far as I can tell, aren't all damage dice supposed to represent the same attack? Would it really matter what "order" the damage was inflicted in? Like I said, it depends on what each board member is considering a "critical".
13/May/2005, 8:24 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 - Armour Issues


I sort of see what you're saying golembane.

If we used solely damage dice as indicators of critical hits, we'd have to forget about using critical hit effects like deathblows and extra hits and so forth, and instead simply have critical hits just add to or multiply the damage inflicted.

Perhaps we could separate the concept of 'critical hits' into critical 'hits' based on the to hit roll and critical 'wounds' based on the damage dice rolls.

Critical 'hits' could be weapon specific abilities like impaling enemies with a spear or a rapier's ability to strike again, and critical 'wounds' would simply be a increase in the amount of damage dealt as the warrior hits a vital area.
 
And just maybe I'm getting a bit too carried away here emoticon
13/May/2005, 8:30 am Link to this post Send Email to Boyinleaves   Send PM to Boyinleaves
 
Black Drazon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 217
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


Hmm, the trouble is that I think spliting it solves a few problems, but at the same time you're right - it is overcomplicating. lol, I don't know!
13/May/2005, 8:56 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 - Armour Issues


It might be easiest for us if you do a complete rewrite of the armor systemand use the mordheim/warhammer rules.

This would simplify they type of armor each member wears(just say light, medium, heavy, and oh my god its a tank walking towards us![thats a joke people emoticon ])

Have addition +1 for helm and +1 for shield.

Depending on the mobs strength the players may need a fully armored warrior up from fighting a greater deamon per se so they at least get some armor save.

Now we just simply throw in the Strength vs Toughness role to see if each wound is nullified or not.

This would means a possible 3 things happening during a battle:

1) you are fighting mobs which don't effect your armor save and you could potentially not take any dmg at all if well equipped(ie a lone snotling)

2) you are fighting a mob that has enough strength to make you feel every blow. You lose the advantage of some of your armor but can still nullify a couple hits(ie an orc or chaos warrior)

3) you are facing a powerful mob that has all reason to bring fear to you and each hit simply is to hard for a piece of metal to protect from(ie a greater deamon or dragon)

with that system you'd still have those that have alot of toughness being the best at taking a hit and should be the first and foremost into the combat.

So what this means. We'd have to rewrite some of the mobs and give every mob a reasonable number of attacks so that they won't insta-kill the warriors, but have enough attacks to make them dangerous.

So what does this means for criticals... Well remember the mordheim critical charts I posted a while ago? The range of those criticals were anywhere from each wound causes two wounds to insta-kill and ran through.

So this means players also wouldn't have a ton of attacks... maybe 4 melee attacks max a turn for those that are specialized in combat(ie the barbarian or elven ranger knight is a melee character where as the elf is more agile and better and launching attacks from afar).

Think this could be a possible fix to both issues?
13/May/2005, 12:28 pm Link to this post Send Email to golembane   Send PM to golembane
 
Boyinleaves Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Hero
Global user

Registered: 05-2005
Posts: 59
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


Thus, like parrying and perhaps dodging if the rules for those are modified as suggested, armour would basically be useless at higher levels? How many monsters would you fight at higher levels that wouldn't completely negate a warrior's armour? (Actually it's not as bad as I thought after having a quick skim through the battle level tables...)

I can see the reasons for that happening, but I don't really like it. (actually now I do...)

Simplifying armour is probably a good idea though, and if you take inspiration for Mordheim, you could have variants of the normal armour like Gromril and Ithilmar as well, which would also help somewhat towards reducing the amount of magical paraphernalia floating about.

Mordheim also has rules for stunning and knocking foes down built in, which could be reflected in special rules for critical hits by weapon types in WHQ.

To make it simple:
Bludgeoning type weapons could have a chance to stun when a 6 to hit is rolled
2 Handed weapons could have a chance to knock down an opponent when a 6 is rolled and so on.

Helmets could negate, or provide a save against stunning, and even perhaps a save against getting a head wound when seriously injured. Gauntlets could prevent hand and finger injuries, etc. etc. etc.

EDIT
Ok, been thinking about this a bit more and I think you're right golembane, we should adopt an armour save system like you suggest, with light, medium and heavy armours, and +1 for a shield (though I think +1 for a helmet might be a bit much). It's amazing what hindsight will do to you. A couple of hours ago I would have been advocating a point based armour system like WHQ already has, but now I think that an armour save that negates all damage might just be the way to go.

You quoted the Mordheim rules, golembane, which I think would adapt perfectly. Add in the couple of extra little rules for alternate materials and you've got a workable armour system that doesn't require magical abilities.

I humbly suggest the following slight variations from what golembane posted earlier

Armour:

Light armour (Leather, Scale mail, Breastplate) 6+ armour save

Medium armour (Chainmail, Half-plate) 5+ armour save, -1 Movement if used with a shield, -1 Initiative, -1 to parry and dodge

Heavy armour (Full plate) 4+ armour save, -1 Movement, -1 Initiative, -2 to parry and dodge

Shield adds +1 to armour saves
Great Shield adds +1 to armour save, +2 to armour save versus missiles, -1 Initiative

Armour variants
Ithilmar: removes any movement and initiative penalties for the armour. If armour save is failed, armour still allows negation of any ones on damage dice

Gromril: adds +1 to armour save, ignores movement penalties for the armour. Grants a 6+ absolute armour save, not in addition to the normal armour save, but his save will never be worse than 6+ when wearing Gromril armour.

I think allowing helmets to contribute to armour saves is a bit much, and a +1 save for every toughness point normal WHQ armour provides is excessive. With these limitations a warrior's maximum possible save would be 2+ (Gromril Heavy armour and a shield) with a 6+ absolute save versus any attack with sufficient strength to reduce his armour to scrap. Anything less than a 2+ save is better than what is possible for non-magical armour in WFB and Mordheim so I think allowing buffer points is going a bit overboard.

If armour is used in this form it needs to be a viable alternative to parrying/dodging throughout the entire game so there needs to be some way for it to be useful against monsters with very high strength, thus the 'absolute' or 'invulnerable' save.

Last edited by Boyinleaves, 13/May/2005, 5:47 pm
13/May/2005, 2:13 pm Link to this post Send Email to Boyinleaves   Send PM to Boyinleaves
 
Boyinleaves Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Hero
Global user

Registered: 05-2005
Posts: 59
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


To respond to the part of your post about wounds golembane:

Are you indicating that warriors should have wounds in the same manner as WFB and that a roll to wound simply compares the combatant's Strength and Toughness?



13/May/2005, 5:56 pm Link to this post Send Email to Boyinleaves   Send PM to Boyinleaves
 
golembane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 08-2004
Posts: 100
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


quote:

Boyinleaves wrote:

To respond to the part of your post about wounds golembane:

Are you indicating that warriors should have wounds in the same manner as WFB and that a roll to wound simply compares the combatant's Strength and Toughness?






Aye. So this way should even mythril armor ever nullified by some attack there is a chance the player(or even the monster) may have a chance to ignore such wound.

So a basic attack would be along the lines of Player attacks monster 1 time.

Player hits monster

Monster has an armor save of 5+, but player has strength 4 so monster armor save is now effectivly 6+(For only that attack due to its high strength, this is not a debuff and would be 5+ save for anything strength 3 or less)

Monster fails amor save

Monster rolls on to wound chart.

Monster failed to be wounded

Monster is happy!

Monster eats warrior(Ok thats a joke but you get the point)

So this way the wizard can have 'ignores armor saves' , but weak S3 attacks(magic missle or whatever) spells so they mob only has to fail a toughness.

Same would routine happen should a mob hit the players.
13/May/2005, 8:50 pm Link to this post Send Email to golembane   Send PM to golembane
 
Black Drazon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 217
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


I like the way this is heading, but disagree with golembane's idea to convert to WHFB's system of wounds. While a Strength vs Toughness roll could be used (and I'm sorry if I'm misinterperating, golembane), the large number of wounds in Quest is the only thing that truly seperates us from Mordheim and WH Skirmish.

It's a matter of principle.
14/May/2005, 3:18 am Link to this post Send Email to Black Drazon   Send PM to Black Drazon
 
thecustodian Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user

Registered: 04-2003
Location: The Temple
Posts: 809
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


My thoughts also.
I like the more hack and slashy nature.

As to armour, I'm still not sure which mode I prefer. In any case, the armour save idea seems to be the favoured. I like what people have come up with so far.

It also leaves room for items that negate wounds- a magical sash that reduces all hits by one wound, or whatever.
14/May/2005, 3:40 am Link to this post Send Email to thecustodian   Send PM to thecustodian
 
Boyinleaves Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Hero
Global user

Registered: 05-2005
Posts: 59
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


I love Golemabane's idea and I agree with Black Drazon about keeping the high wounds and damage dice rolls. We could have both y'know. emoticon

You could use the WFB Strength Vs. Toughness roll to 'wound' idea to see if a monster's attack actually causes any damage, and then if the attack does 'wound' the target, you could roll the damage dice to see how much damage it inflicts, but not add the attacker's strength to the roll and not reduce it by the defender's toughness. Armour could be the straight save that we've discussed.

This way Toughness would actually mean a whole lot more than it does at the moment. Against an end game monster, one or two points of Toughness difference as it stands means practically nothing, whereas using the roll to wound system one or two points could make a huge difference and make Toughness really meaningful. It means adding an extra dice roll into every attack, but I think it would be worth it.

If you adopted the scores required to wound from Mordheim, it would be something like:
Equal Strength and Toughness: 4+ to wound
Strength one greater: 3+ to wound
Strength two or more greater: 2+ to wound
Strength one less: 5+ to wound
Strength two (or more)less: 6+ to wound (In Mordheim it is impossible to wound something with 3 more Toughness than the attack has Strength, but we'd probably have to change that for WHQ)

Critical hits could work off the 'to wound' roll like they do in Mordheim, and a 6 to wound would simply be a critical hit (unless you needed a 6 just to simply wound the target).

I'm very much against going with the wounds system for Mordheim and WFB et al. because I too like the variabiliy in WHQ, so I reckon lets keep the wounds totals as they are, and just add in the roll to wound.

Stuff that negates wounds would still be of great value if you just added in a roll to wound, as they would be a last ditch defense against an attack getting through all of a character's defenses, and modify the damage dice rolls directly which would otherwise not be altered in any way by strength and toughness. You could also have items that allowed a reroll of an opponent's damage die or dice.
14/May/2005, 9:33 am Link to this post Send Email to Boyinleaves   Send PM to Boyinleaves
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6 





You are not logged in (login)