LRB

[Lex]

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!!

[Lex]

Just realized that this forum and its children also hold a LOT of valuable stuff for Ole to delve into   B-)

[Dave]

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.

[Jurisch]

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

[Ole]

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

[Jurisch]

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

[Ole]

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

[Lex]

b) or c)

[Jo]

up to now we have been playing a) but will be immediately jumping to c) with our group.

[jchaos79]

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.

[Ole]

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

[jchaos79]

Yes, when I  play warmaster I use a.
When I play WMA I use c.

best regards

[Dranask1]

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.

[Edmund2011]

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

[Aldhick]

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.