Specialist Arms Forum
Warmaster => [WM] Warmaster Fantasy Discussion => Topic started by: Ole on November 06, 2014, 07:06:58 PM
-
Hi,
me and my gaming group wondered the other day why there is no living rule book of warmaster.
Is it because no one did ever all of the writing?
It can't be an legal issue because the epic community hasn't stopped after 2009. And the french Warmaster stuff is there as well.
And the big question is what would you change if the community is coming to a mutual agreement about it?
Cheers
Ole
-
I would like to change the wording of the units move off table chart. The wording of WMA is more explicit.
3-4 The unit reappears at the table edge at the same point it left. The unit cannot move further that command phase.
5-6 The unit repairs at the table edge at the same point it left. If it is reappearing at the beginning of a command phase, it may be given orders in that command phase but my not use initiative that turn.
-
The problem is, that the community is never going to come to any mutual agreement :-) You are not the first who came up with this :)
-
I have been trying to (re)direct attention and energy towards that, but there are to many meta-environments now that it is almost impossible to get things organized.
There is however a LRB, but that is more or less in cryogenic statis.
Stuff like the additional armies are the closest we came to gettin consensus, and even there for a handfull of suggestions
-
Not really in the topic but related....
still Getlord, SpiritusX,machina and other warmaster gurus out there?
-
The problem is, that the community is never going to come to any mutual agreement :-) You are not the first who came up with this :)
You might be right about this. But I believe if there is a shiny new paper, quite a lot people would jump the train.
I have been trying to (re)direct attention and energy towards that, but there are to many meta-environments now that it is almost impossible to get things organized.
There is however a LRB, but that is more or less in cryogenic statis.
Stuff like the additional armies are the closest we came to gettin consensus, and even there for a handfull of suggestions
The first question is about the legal part of copying the Rulebook and transforming it into a LRB. It's working for Epic so why not for Warmaster.
Let's just say I know someone who is willing to do the footwork so some of the rule brains in here just have to get the input/change and let's see what father Christmas has got in his pockets.
Some of the changes are rather common like the Flyer Charge distance.
Ole
-
The first question is about the legal part of copying the Rulebook and transforming it into a LRB. It's working for Epic so why not for Warmaster.
There actual is a electronic version already
Let's just say I know someone who is willing to do the footwork so some of the rule brains in here just have to get the input/change and let's see what father Christmas has got in his pockets.
If you want to do the "legwork" then I suggest you start with making an overview of what (house)rules the various groups in "skandinavia" play with and what is used at events.
Including an overview of (fan/alternative) armies played and the adjustments there
Put the results in a Google document and share it (so not just here, put it in a place where we can have everyone access that
Some of the changes are rather common like the Flyer Charge distance.
Ole
-
There actual is a electronic version already
Is that document just readable or writeable? If it is readable then the footwork would start in compiling the whole thing, wouldn't it?
If you want to do the "legwork" then I suggest you start with making an overview of what (house)rules the various groups in "skandinavia" play with and what is used at events.
Including an overview of (fan/alternative) armies played and the adjustments there
Put the results in a Google document and share it (so not just here, put it in a place where we can have everyone access that
That would be a start. But why in scandinavia?
Ole
-
It is compiled already I think
That would be a start. But why in scandinavia?
Because we have the french version already, most UK and US players are more or less vanilla and we we had swedes, germans and danes?? in a tournament last week, so issues on houserules and interpretation are bound to have come up
you can also look into Polisch and Check communities
and talk with Alexey on the Siberian set...
But you need to start somewhere!
-
Only Swedes and Germans in the tournament, but yes there were some (friendly) discussions about house rules. One could of course argue that the Scanians are almost Danes but that would be trolling and I don't do that. 😄
-
The french ruleset would indeed be a great start I think.
It's mainly a compilation of WMA with the errata from Rick. I could assemble the text (english and french are both ok) but don't have sufficient time to spend on layout - I'ld rather spend it on reducing my lead mountain.
-
Jo, the French set has its pro's and con's, otherwise we would have all been using it by now..... B-)
I suggested that we use the "basic/vanilla" rule-book as the base document and "insert" the various amended/house-rules in the relevant sections, identifiable.
That way we create a document based on the "official" published rules with all additional stuff recognizably included and use that as a basis to seek community agreement.
-
Jo, the French set has its pro's and con's, otherwise we would have all been using it by now..... B-)
I suggested that we use the "basic/vanilla" rule-book as the base document and "insert" the various amended/house-rules in the relevant sections, identifiable.
That way we create a document based on the "official" published rules with all additional stuff recognizably included and use that as a basis to seek community agreement.
This sounds excellent! As a rather new player I am not too set in my ways and I think this could be an interesting way of trying to approach consensus. I played a game just last night where we tried some suggestions from the Germans that visited us last weekend. Worked pretty well in my opinion :)
Doing the layout like so:
Generic Rule:
basic/vanilla basic/vanilla basic/vanilla basic/vanilla basic/vanilla basic/vanilla basic/vanilla
[Swedish - this how they do it. this how they do it. this how they do it. this how they do it.)
[French - this how they do it. this how they do it. this how they do it. this how they do it.)
and so on...
That would be an interesting read at the least :)
/Marcus
-
Ok, I do not want to sound negative, but hope it does not became a Babel Tower, so ambitious than once you read the document you do not know even the language that is speaking your opponent.
-
First Things First. I would like to see a document with the vanila rules plus q&a included like the epic armagedon rules.
I can make a Collection of House rules. And we see how large the difference realy is.
-
One option would be to eventually go on a restricted Wiki..... but I looked at what Ole and Hans have already done and I am happy to have that as a starting point!!
-
Just realized that this forum and its children also hold a LOT of valuable stuff for Ole to delve into B-)
-
I'm hoping to have the NetEA Tournament Pack website out this week. I'm using a static site generator to make webpages and PDFs for the Epic rulebook, army lists and FAQs all from the same files.
The code's on github if anyone knows what that is and is interested: https://github.com/dsusco/tp.net-armageddon.org
Once the dust has settled there I could do the same thing for Warmaster.
-
Hi,
We tested several rules over the last months and found it good to change it:
Rules used:
Command: First command of each commander within first turn gives a bonus +1. That means, first order for a general with command 9 is working on a 10. Second order on the same unit will work as usual on 8. The same thing for the wizards and heroes. Works well and helps to get armies sooner in combats.
45 degree rule:
We play this rule since years and won't get back to the origin rule.
Flyers: can attack only on 60 cm - this makes fully sense and works best during all games we did. over the past years.
Support:
Counted support before taking off dead bases - good change will keep playing. You have now with infantery a chance to play.
Bonus:
We used the rule of bonus for units which are only partial in terrain. Like the idea that charging gets it bonus and defender gets it bonus. Makes combat rules smooth. Will keep playing.
Additional we need to clarify how to handle units leaving the battlefield: end of the game Hey shoud be counted as destroyed units. If units come back and the place they left is blocked by other units they shoud be placed next where it is possible.
I still would support to setup a new playtest team as the old is mostly not playing anymore.
Regards,
Jürgen
-
I'm hoping to have the NetEA Tournament Pack website out this week. I'm using a static site generator to make webpages and PDFs for the Epic rulebook, army lists and FAQs all from the same files.
The code's on github if anyone knows what that is and is interested: https://github.com/dsusco/tp.net-armageddon.org
Once the dust has settled there I could do the same thing for Warmaster.
Me being interested in epic myself looking forward to this. Let's see how far we get, so you are not distracted form Epic ;)
Hi,
We tested several rules over the last months and found it good to change it:
Rules used:
Command: First command of each commander within first turn gives a bonus +1. That means, first order for a general with command 9 is working on a 10. Second order on the same unit will work as usual on 8. The same thing for the wizards and heroes. Works well and helps to get armies sooner in combats.
45 degree rule:
We play this rule since years and won't get back to the origin rule.
Flyers: can attack only on 60 cm - this makes fully sense and works best during all games we did. over the past years.
Support:
Counted support before taking off dead bases - good change will keep playing. You have now with infantery a chance to play.
Bonus:
We used the rule of bonus for units which are only partial in terrain. Like the idea that charging gets it bonus and defender gets it bonus. Makes combat rules smooth. Will keep playing.
Additional we need to clarify how to handle units leaving the battlefield: end of the game Hey shoud be counted as destroyed units. If units come back and the place they left is blocked by other units they shoud be placed next where it is possible.
I still would support to setup a new playtest team as the old is mostly not playing anymore.
Regards,
Jürgen
Thanks for the input Jürgen, there are quite a lot of changes in your book. Let's tackle them one at a time, so we can feel the difference a bit better, shall we?
I'm asking some people (about 10) around the world how they play the first four "issues". I will then present the results here and we will see. What do you think?
Ole
-
I don't think these are a lot of changes. Especially they don't change the game play really.
45 degree and flyer rule is played in mostly all tournaments I played over Europe over the last 6 years - it just hasn't fixed in a LRB
Support is very easy to handle during the game - we played it with nearly all available armies during the last months (Groups in Erfurt, Karlsruhe and Graz) - I think the Swedish players test it now, too.
Command bonus: Easy to manage - all armies move a bit better within first move, so combats happens faster.
The bonus idea is easy to avoid discussions about in or outside terrain
I am happy support to write a LRB, this was already on my to do list for 2015
-
Hi,
last weekend I asked the following small house rules to some players around the world.
1) How do you play the flyer charge distance?
a) 100cm b) 60cm c) something else
Why has your group chosen to do so?
2) How do you play the GAP rule?
a) when the Base fits the Gap the stand can go there.
b) It has do be larger than the front edge length (vanilla Warmaster)
c) defined length plus the length of the front edge, like 1cm on both sides plus front edge.
d) something else
Why has your group chosen to do so?
3) Charging distance inside a wood?
a) 2cm (vanilla Warmaster)
b) 4cm
c) something else
Why has your group chosen to do so?
I got eight responses out of ten. Thanks for the Support.
Question 1 2 3
Answer A 3 1 6
Answer B 5 5 2
Answer C 0 2 0
So there is an accordance how they are being played right now.
So we could include these house rules could we not?
Next thing would be how support is being handelt?
Do you use:
a) plain vanila?
b) count support before removing casualties?
c) count support before removing casualties and allow them to advance fallback etc.?
Cheers?
Ole
-
b) or c)
-
up to now we have been playing a) but will be immediately jumping to c) with our group.
-
Hi, In my opinion there are two rulesets, made by the same header author: Rick priestley with different purpouses. They are similiar but not the same.
WM warmaster for fantasy, infantry, cavalry, machines, monsters, big battles in a easy way, more brutal and fast.
WMA warmaster ancient, mainly infantry + cavalry. Including skirmish to simulate not fantasy battles, a little bit more complicated. Different Game for different goal.
WMM (I am not talking about this by now)
My humble opinion I think mixing flavours lead to something odd. To talk clar: I do not like fish n chips with choloclate, my taste is vanilla.
So what I porpuse is using a set of rules, but not mixing it. WM or WMA.
Use WMA from page 3 to 80.
Then use WM (do not have here my english version so I could not say accurate the pages) the follwing : Magic, siege, umpire and ex'peroence, campaign, , ships, armylist (aprox 72 to 150 pages)
Specials like skirmishers, shock and the other things belong to the armylist, so the engine of the game is not compromise.
This will make that all the people who had the two original copies are playing the same game.
So if some people want to use WMA rules should they take the whole package of rules. It is that simple, but this implies:
Is not playing WM with some house rules.
It is needed the effort to read a whole ruleset, very similar but different.
It is needed to read it carefully (it is normal the thought I know I know and skip the parragraph.
It is needed the idea of playing another game WMA. And accept the things that have changed.
WM and WMA are two different game engines design with different purpouses, so if some rules are accepted, in my opinion the whole thing should be taken.
why are not talking about command modifiers?, that is what really change the game.
I would ask to the people who adapt rules for WMA, have you ever read the whole book and have ever played WMA?
I am sorry if I make direct questions, but that is how I feel this issue.
Sorry again for my english, maybe as a not native I could not express totally the whole thing or sometimes could sound not as polite as I wished.
I promote and accept houserules for specific games, including some new unit in specific games and scenarios. It is part of the game, preparing the game and playing it.
-
Hi, In my opinion there are two rulesets, made by the same header author: Rick priestley with different purpouses. They are similiar but not the same.
WM warmaster for fantasy, infantry, cavalry, machines, monsters, big battles in a easy way, more brutal and fast.
WMA warmaster ancient, mainly infantry + cavalry. Including skirmish to simulate not fantasy battles, a little bit more complicated. Different Game for different goal.
WMM (I am not talking about this by now)
My humble opinion I think mixing flavours lead to something odd. To talk clar: I do not like fish n chips with choloclate, my taste is vanilla.
So what I porpuse is using a set of rules, but not mixing it. WM or WMA.
Use WMA from page 3 to 80.
Then use WM (do not have here my english version so I could not say accurate the pages) the follwing : Magic, siege, umpire and ex'peroence, campaign, , ships, armylist (aprox 72 to 150 pages)
Specials like skirmishers, shock and the other things belong to the armylist, so the engine of the game is not compromise.
This will make that all the people who had the two original copies are playing the same game.
So if some people want to use WMA rules should they take the whole package of rules. It is that simple, but this implies:
Is not playing WM with some house rules.
It is needed the effort to read a whole ruleset, very similar but different.
It is needed to read it carefully (it is normal the thought I know I know and skip the parragraph.
It is needed the idea of playing another game WMA. And accept the things that have changed.
WM and WMA are two different game engines design with different purpouses, so if some rules are accepted, in my opinion the whole thing should be taken.
why are not talking about command modifiers?, that is what really change the game.
I would ask to the people who adapt rules for WMA, have you ever read the whole book and have ever played WMA?
I am sorry if I make direct questions, but that is how I feel this issue.
Sorry again for my english, maybe as a not native I could not express totally the whole thing or sometimes could sound not as polite as I wished.
I promote and accept houserules for specific games, including some new unit in specific games and scenarios. It is part of the game, preparing the game and playing it.
Hi,
don't worry now offense taken. I read both rulesets and played both, but it doesn't made me an expert.
And this is not about using WMA rules for Fantasy. The French Guys did that. It is just collection of very common house rules, wich different groups all over the world are already playing. merely for balance reasons but as an option not carved in stone.
I guess your answer would be a then, would it not?
Ole
-
Yes, when I play warmaster I use a.
When I play WMA I use c.
best regards
-
Very much a newbie here, but if you start to cherry pick bits you like from one rule set and put it in another then you are changing the game you play, you don't know the intent of the author and may be unaware of any counter balance he put into the game.
Yes I know it is harder to win a combat if you count support after removing casualties, but it demonstrates the shock of losing heavily and the lack of desire on the part of the watchers to take part. Would they be counted as support in real life or would they be hastily preparing defences?
I'd say learn how to win within the rules don't change them to make them easier. For example have units nearby to take advantage of the enemy's isolated position.
-
In WM Fantasy games I play a) for support bonus
So, when I play WM I play current LRB rules, when I play BOFA I use its rules, when playing WMA I use WMA rules, etc
I am happy with current rulesets and I am not interested in changing them as I don't see the need of changes :)
-
In our group we play B to decrease the inadequate power of cavalry (regarding point values compared to infantry) as discussed many times before. It helps a lot.
-
Hi,
we play b to reduce the power of cavalary and get a more balanced game.
Regards,
Jurisch
-
Me being interested in epic myself looking forward to this. Let's see how far we get, so you are not distracted form Epic ;)
Doing something like this for Warmaster would be doable:
http://tp.net-armageddon.org/
-
Do you use:
a) plain vanila?
b) count support before removing casualties?
c) count support before removing casualties and allow them to advance fallback etc.?
Our group uses b)
-
still Getlord, SpiritusX,machina and other warmaster gurus out there?
Nice to hear my name again.
Now and then I am silently haunting this place. But to be honest I more or less retired Warmastering.
In the years gone by it was harder and harder to get new players around here into Warmaster while veteran players focussed their attention on other games. So in the end I gave up. I still have my Warmaster collection and would not give it away but I am too rusty to even play let alone being a Warmaster guru.
b) sounds interesting enough to playtest it.
Greetings,
Gerald
-
:-\ sorry for hearing about lack of players.
;D Good to reading you.
Getlord also pop up around here, so good for reading from b both of you again. I learned a lot of your posts
-
Hey Gerald,
Thanks for writing after this long time. Hope you find an opponent for playing WM!
Take care
-
Thank you gentlemen!
I'll update the results in the first post later on.
My next one on the list is a sapid little one:
How do you guys handle how close an enemy can be placed next to your unit?
The Vanilla Rulebook likes to keep that very dim.
a) 1cm
b) 0,5cm
c) as long as it is not touching
You all are very helpful, indeed.
Ole
-
You can get as close as you want unless it's movement under one of these circumstances (where you have to stay 1cm away):
Falling back
Evade
Making Way
Drive Back (into enemy or combat)
I'd be surprised if this was played differently across the world, it's pretty clear when you have to stay 1cm away. The rest of the time we've always assumed no restriction as the rules don't forbid it.
-
Always 1cm, unless charging or in combat.
Never had any questions or discussions about this one.
-
We play always 1 cm distance