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 

 
BassJam Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 07-2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 538
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


Reactions to Boyinleaves:

1)Rolling crits off of Hit rolls instead of Damage does two things: Rewards "finesse" fighters such as Elves and Imperial Nobles, and avoids mucking about with WHICH '6'counts for crits when characters have multiple Damage Dice. Also, a critical hit by it's very nature is more likely to be caused by a character with better Weapon or Ballistic skill. Mordheim's rules do not represent that.

2) I DO incorporate Wounding 6s doing additional damage for those with the Killing Blow Feat.

3) Just for the record, I believe in WHQ being a Monty Haul game on purpose... But I realize the consensus is to bring the rewards in line with more serious role-playing games...



---
"Mine is a high art. I wound with cruelty those who would harm me." - Archillicus
7/Jun/2005, 10:03 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 - Armour Issues


You've both got good points... but I'm going to throw in my own, just because.

I don't think that allowing only superior WS models to cause crits is a good idea, because the purpose of crits is to let poorly equipped warriors/low level monster have the slightest chance of surviving an unlucky enounter against a superiour foe.
7/Jun/2005, 1:47 pm 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


BassJam,

I think you've mistaken what I was proposing here about criticals occurring on 6s to wound. It has been discussed here whether a roll to wound in the style of WFB Mordheim and other WH games should be adopted for use in WHQ. In terms of determining whether a critical occurs, my opinion is that the 'to wound' roll relative to the strengths and toughnesses of opponents, rather than the damage dice, should be used. Black Drazon has started playtesting some of the concepts discussed here, including using rolls to wound. (Give me another week and a half and my exams will all be over and then I can give some serious time to helping you out with that too)


In my opinion, using a roll to wound gives much more meaning to the strength and toughness statistics, because as they are, they improve or mitigate damage in only a very miniscule fashion. Unfortunately, WHQ being intended to be a fast and furious game, having extra rolls to determine the outcome of a combat is not necessarily a good thing and there has been a lot of divided opinion about it. If we were to adopt both a roll to wound and an armour save roll, the duration of combats would be substantially increased, so, while I am in favour of trying to make a system that is balanced, interesting and realistic, I also want to try to make sure the enjoyment of the game is not impaired due to slower combats. Whether or not we change the armour system, I do think a roll to wound an opponent is a necessary alteration because it would make Strength and Toughness much more important statistics.

While this thought is with me too, weapons should not give a bonus to strength unless they are magical. Instead, they should be reagarded as causing additional wounds or doing additional points of damage, that is, if a 'to wound' roll is adopted.

BassJam, I totally agree with you that weapon skill should play a part in determining either the likelihood and/or the effectiveness of criticals, yet there is also a good case for strength versus toughness being the important factor. In all Warhammer games I've played, any critical hits have been determined by the roll to wound rather than the roll to hit. Indeed, a blow made at strength 10 is incredibly likely to cleave in twain a measly 2 or three toughness, but a blow made at strength 2 against a toughness of 9 or 10, isn't really even going to make a scratch, unless the power of the blow isn't an issue.

In my mind, weapon skill mostly reflects the ability of a combatant to get beyond the frontline defenses of his opponent, i.e his own weapon skill, parrying, dodging, and evading abilties, to strike at the opponent's body. Yes, there is also room for weapon skill to determine the placement of a blow and thus the likelihood of a critical hit, but I believe it secondary to the effectiveness of strength versus toughness. It should still play a part however. I would perhaps allow a character with sufficiently greater weapon skill the chance to cause a critical hit regardless of his opponent's toughness. Also, as I mentioned in my last post, I would maybe give characters with a high weapon skill a bonus to their roll on a critical hit table. If we use both this and a 'to wound' roll, characters with a higher strength would have a better chance to cause a critical hit, but characters with a high weapon skill would be more effective with their criticals when they do get them, and still be able to cause a critical whenever they otherwise wouldn't due to insufficient strength (in situations where they couldn't otherwise cause a critical because they would need a 6 simply to wound their enemy), which to me seems like an appropriate tradeoff.

Black Drazon makes a good point that criticals should allow weaker characters or monsters to have a chance against their superiors, so for that reason, I would suggest that a higher weapon skill give a bonus to the effectiveness of a critical hit, but that there be no penalty for having an inferior weapon skill, so that lesser creatures are not wholly incapable of causing damage.



7/Jun/2005, 5:40 pm 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


Now a bonus I can approve of. I can't promise it'll be in the simulation, mind, but if you all approve of it, I'm cool too.

(Wow, you would not believe how many of those words I mispelled first time through. Freaky.)
8/Jun/2005, 7:41 am Link to this post Send Email to Black Drazon   Send PM to Black Drazon
 
Sudden Real Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord
Global user

Registered: 12-2003
Posts: 104
Reply | Quote
Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Armour Issues


Since the discusion drifted back to Critical hits/wounds/whatever, I would like to suggest a system that I tought off by looking at some of the posts here in this thread.

I personally think that a critical hit shouldn't be based on the to hit roll, since some monsters can only be hit by a 6 (due to fear, terror or just a high weapon skill), so if all those blows would be criticals then that diminished the threat a bit. Also, if you roll a 6 to hit, and then a 1 on your damage roll, no matter what bonus you add (no extra damage die, that's only for warhammers, they put it in for a reason), you still won't do much damage.

For the moment you have three kind of weapons you can buy at the Weaponsmith, namely piercing (bladed weapons), slashing (axes) and bashing (maces and hammers). After you hit, you roll your damage di(c)e. If you score a 6 to wound, you then do an extra wound (or two, that can be tested out later). The effect of this is depended on the type of weapon. The extra damage of piercing weapons ignore that much points of toughness, slashing weapons ignore that much points of armour and bashing gets 2 extra damage. Before you start asking "what about multiple damage dice", it's simple, you do 1 point of extra damage for EACH damage die that is a six.

To summarize and to give an example:
For each damage die that is a 6:
Piercing: +1 damage that ignores 1 toughness
Slashing: +1 damage that ignores armour
Bashing: +2 damage, ignoring nothing

Example: the Elf fights with a sword (piercing) while the Trollslayer fights with his axe (slashing). They are fighting on lvl 4 some Black Orc Champions (with toughness 4 and armour 2). They hit and roll to wound. The Elf rolls a 6 and does 11 damage (6+1+strenght of 4), of which 1 ignores toughness, so 6 goes through (11-5). The Trollslayer is really lucky and rolls two 6's to wound (he has 2 damage dice at lvl 4) and does 16 damage (6+6+1+1+strength of 4) of which 2 ignore armour, so 14 goes through (16-4).

This makes of course swords more interesting than axes in the beginning since fewer monsters wear armour. The extra damage of 1 (as I said in the beginning of the post) could turn into 2 (and of course, for bashing weapons, the 2 becomes a 3, I think 4 is a bit too much), all depending on how things go when this is tested more profoundly.
8/Jun/2005, 12:27 pm Link to this post Send Email to Sudden Real   Send PM to Sudden Real
 
Boyinleaves Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Hero
Global user

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


Sudden Real, you've brought up a point about critical hits that I think is very important, being that different weapon types would be effective in different ways upon causing a critical. The system you present encapsulates exactly the sort of things I'd like criticals to cause. Although simple, I think at least this much should be adopted in terms of the variety of critical hits that can occur.

However, I would like to go even further, and propose more in depth critical effects as well, determined by weapon types. I would perhaps divide weapon types into 6 categories, similar to those outlined in the ancient Deathblow article: Swords (and daggers etc.) Axes, Bludgeons, Polearms, 2 Handed Weapons, and Missile Weapons, each with their own critical hit effects.

Similar to what you're suggesting, weapons would have effects on a critical hit in keeping with their natural characteristics; Axes would be more likely to ignore armour and cause deathblows; Swords would be more likely to ignore toughness; Bludgeons could have effects like dazing, stunning or concussing their targets; Polearms could attack targets behind the initial opponent; 2 handed weapons would be a combination of Axe, Bludgeon and Sword effects, such that they could ignore armour, cause more powerful wounds, and stun; and missile weapons would ignore armour to some extent and also go through enemies.

If anyone has played MERP (Middle Earth Role-playing), they might recall the copious amounts of critical hit information that game had. Each individual weapon (Dagger, Battle Axe, Hand Axe, War Axe, 2 Handed Axe etc. etc.) had an entire critical hit table devoted to it, with excess of 100 entries in each. Certainly, this was a bit extreme, but the descriptions of each individual critical hit provided many a laugh for my gaming group:

"Your sword ruptures your opponent's carotid artery, covering the immediate area (including yourself) with steaming gore, and causing your enemy to dance around in shock like a headless chicken. Opponent dies"


In any case, I think that critical hits should have at least some variety above that which the individual weapons provide by their very nature. The type of weapon used should be something of a tactical consideration, so that warriors do indeed use axes for the purpose of fighting heavily armoured enemies, or use bludgeons to stun, slow and incapacitate enemies. It would also give the monsters that little bit extra interest.

Like a few people have already suggested, I would prefer to see a critical hit table like the one from Mordheim adopted for each weapon category, with potentially 6 to 9 different entries, each of which would cause progressively more damage, ignore more armour, or cause more debilitating effects like making targets lose attacks, suffer penalties to hit, or be knocked prone. Combat is pretty much the mainstay of this game, so in my opinion, anything that makes it more interesting (provided it doesn't slow the game down too much) is a good thing. I'd also like to see WHQ become a bit more tactical, and force players to give more consideration to their equipment and combat strategy, something I'm continually trying to get my own players to accomplish.

Here's the sort of thing I envision, this being for Axes. I suggested earlier, and Black Drazon seemed to like the idea at least, that superior weapon skill could give a bonus to the effectiveness of a critical hit, so treat this 'table' as a d6 + x table, where x would perhaps be the difference in weapon skill between the attacker and defender.

Roll, Name, Extra Damage, Armour Save, Other Effects

1 Severe Wound, 1d6, No Save Penalty, None

2 Biting Blow, 1d6, -1, None

3 Biting Blow, 1d6, -1, None
 
4 Cleaving Blow, 2d6, -2, Attack may cause a Deathblow if it kills the target.

5 Cleaving Blow, 2d6, -2, Attack may cause a Deathblow if it kills the target.

6 Penetrating Blow, 2d6, No Save, Attack may cause a Deathblow if it kills the target.

7 Penetrating Blow, 2d6, No Save, Attack may cause a Deathblow if it kills the target.

8 Rending Blow, 3d6, No Save, Attack may cause a Deathblow if it kills the target. Target suffers -1 Toughness until healed at least 10 wounds.

9 Rending Blow, 3d6, No Save, Attack may cause a Deathblow if it kills the target. Target suffers -1 Toughness until healed at least 10 wounds.

If we do adopt a 'to wound' roll, and base the chances of a critical hit off it, and use the standard chances to wound, then critical hits would not really be a very common occurrence. I've proposed extra damage here based on extra d6, but it could also be a multiplication of damage, or a straight bonus like Sudden suggests, as extra damage in this way might be too much.

Effects for Bludgeon type weapons could be things like Dazing: temporarily reducing target's initiative, forcing their turn to come later; Stunning, causing them to be at a penalty to hit; Concussion; causing them to be at an Attacks and to hit penalty. Swords would cause more wounds perhaps, but not ignore armour as well as an axe, 2 Handed Weapons would cause the most extra damage, ignore armour as well as axes, and also daze or stun opponents like Bludgeons. Polearms would be able to cause a 'deathblow' if their opponent is killed, but against a target behind, rather than one adjacent.

Well, as you can see, I'm making a lot of assumptions here. Please, If you guys don't like what I'm suggesting for whatever reason, let me know so that I don't keep wasting our time here.


Also, a suggestion; can we have some feedback on who thinks adopting armour saves and/or to wound rolls is a good idea or not? Just so that I've got some idea on what the general opinion of people here. I've based my ideas on the inclusion of both of these which might not be the consensus. emoticon
8/Jun/2005, 1:18 pm 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)