December 07, 2019, 04:01:01 PM

Author Topic: Warmaster Terrain Revolution  (Read 5235 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cjbennett22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« on: November 25, 2016, 06:15:50 PM »
I have attached a compilations of the Warmaster Ancients terrain rules in a 2 page pdf.  The text is adapted to match Warmaster Fantasy troop types so no elephants etc.
Also attached is a jpg of a diagram of one of my question(s).

My other questions found below stem from a long list of other rules that I have seen over a long while of playing.  Though the Ancients rules are great, I can't help but feel like maybe some of the rules I have seen are "House" rules or just plain made up.  Others have been from Games Workshop battle reports found in the Warmaster magazine and the original rulebook itself.  My goal is to get our community to decide on a solid set of terrain rules if possible.  These rules, I hope, would get released as a sub set of rules with the new "Warmaster Revolution" rules currently being ironed out with our international players.

1.) -1 command penalty while moving along a road through dense terrain....why cant we get rid of the -1 for being on a road?  Any other rules for roads?  I have seen a rule to give an automatic first order from a character touching a road that a unit is in column and traveling along.
2.) Other than troops, what terrain pieces can I shoot over head of if any?  I have seen where "towns" can be shot overhead.
3.) The attached rules state that anyone and everyone can cross over shallow rivers, I thought it was just infantry.  I have been using rules of ordering infantry only up to the river and only then could you order them again to cross it at a full pace move and no terrain penalties.  Also, I have never seen a defended position actually taken up on the edge of a creek in anything officially games workshop so I have never used that rule.
4.) no mention of losing the charging bonus when a troop type is at the top and flat part of a hill model and chargers start at the bottom of the hill model on the ground as I have known from the original warmaster rulebook (flyers being exempt and gain their usual charge bonus).
5.) See attached pdf for the technical questions I have for deploying the rules for 3D hill models.  Warmaster terrain refer to the "BODY" of the hill as blocking line of sight, what is the "BODY"?  Imagine the hill in the attached image as having the flat ground at the top instead of a full domed curve all around.  If the flat top of the hill is the body then if you had a fully rounded out hill how would you determine blocked LOS?

Thank you everyone, Happy Holidays!

Offline Aldhick

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 477
  • The End is nigh
    • Loc: Czech Republic
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2016, 03:00:08 PM »
Great job CJ! I'll think how and in which form it could be possibly added when I have enough time for it.

Regarding the questions

1.) Definitely for getting rid of -1 cmd penalty on roads in dense terrain. It's roads, right?So I'd use road rules no matter what type of terrain it goes through.
2.)  We need to differentiate whether e.g. villages are treated as bordered patch or as individual buildings - different communities play it different ways. In the first case I'd say "no", in the second it depends on line of sight.
3.) For rivers I'd use rules written in Appendix in WM original rulebook - if it's fordable, then all can cross it except chariots and artillery. If it's deep unfordable river,only infantry can cross it. We have always played that units are defended when standing on the edge against troops in the river.
4.)Though it seem interesting, but if I'm getting it right, it was obviously not intended in the original rules, and I can see why. We use "broken ground" as areas without charge bonus (e.g. fields). They present extremly good defensive positions. Accepting this for hills would make them super strong positions.
5.) To keep things simple I'd say the "body" means the "ground plan" or the feature.
WM - Toomb Kings
My Mordheim guys (and gals)
http://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t2734-aldhick-s-gangs

Offline cjbennett22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2016, 03:49:27 PM »
Thank you for a response.  a few follow up questions of course.

1.)  To be clear, what are "road rules" then, other than just allowing all troops to travel through dense terrain such as woods?

2.)  Villages/Cities or "built up" areas block LOS and that of "shooting overhead" but now, what are the rules for individual buildings?  I have always played them as blocked LOS and impenetrable to all troop types.  Could you "shoot overhead" of the individual buildings?

3.)  I'm starting to feel like there is three different river terrain types.....
             a.) Creek=all troops can move freely over with no blocked LOS of any kind and defended to infantry
             b.) River=blocked movement of all but infantry......see original post for the infantry only rule questions/suggestions.  Then the River fords allowing passage to all but Machines/Artillery and chariots.  Defended to infantry still?
              c.) Deep River=Just your usual body of water that nothing can cross or go in like a Lake or ocean. Defended position to infantry only again?

4.)  Just to be clear then, fully rounded out hill models seem to be the best as the special "defended" status, that can only be given to infantry, will be given to the highest stand during combat. 
i.)  Would flyers still need to attack a "defended" stand?
ii.)  Does any flat area on a hill's model count as open ground, keeping in mind that a stand needs to be more than 2cm away from the slope/crest?
iii.)  Is the defended status only for combat or does it come into play when being shot at?
I will agree that the entire footprint of the hill would block line of sight and count as the "Body" of the hill in the rules.

I have started on some revisions of the terrain rules to re-submit when all rules are clarified and finished  :)
Thank you Aldhick.  I am typing them up in a Microsoft word document if you want that later on so no re-typing for you.
Anyone with other terrain types or rules please feel free to make suggestions.  If I never thought about it, doesn't mean it should exist  ;)

Offline Ole

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • TTT
    • Loc: Hamburg
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2016, 07:24:02 PM »
great Work.

My 2 cents about terrain are.

Terrain in Warmaster is quite simple and complicated in one.

Because you have only the status an unit can be open defended and fortified your are kind of limited.

Then there is only Dense terrain with the -1Command penalty and the LOS of 2cm.

And of course impassable terrain with can be flat or LOS blocking.

Lex was playing around with a fourth status "non open" witch is not defended and not open. The Problem how ever is the way the rules are written. If you aren't defended or fortified your are always in the open.

The other thing I like to add is something like a suggestion about the amount of terrain on the table. The Epic Armageddon community some such a thing written in in tournament scenario. One thing most newbies are doing wrong is the putting not enough stuff on the board.

Cheers

Ole

But our princess is in another castle!

Offline cjbennett22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2016, 11:13:44 PM »
My thoughts exactly Ole

Terrain is a huge part of this game as in any real war, a small random fence COULD decide the fate of a nation sometimes  :)

As for the amount of terrain I agree again, having no terrain in a large area of a table will give the advantage to cavalry every day of the week, as it should.  I like sectioning off the table into 2x2 foot squares and rolling for the number of terrain pieces like what is suggested for Man O'War but what I find is that most of the time it still doesn't feel like enough terrain for warmaster.  I had an idea of increasing the number of terrain equal to the roll but with 5 terrain pieces being the maximum. So 1 is no terrain and 6 is 5 terrain pieces etc.  But I have forgotten that deploying the terrain is a whole other game in itself.

My personal opinion in deploying terrain, and obviously everyone can throw in their two cents, during regular, or non-scenario driven games, roll for attacker-defender and then the defender rolls for the amount of terrain and places it per the above description.  Then, the attacker has the opportunity to "challenge" the terrain with a dice off if the defender cares to object.  The number of challenges might be limited easily enough to something if we wanted to.  If the terrain is to be redeployed just roll a scatter dice and see if it does move "X" inches or stays where it is, or "on target".  When the terrain stays where it is then it can only be rotated.  With this deployment the attacker of course deploys their army first so the defender doesn't want to stack the terrain in a certain way and the players best scenario is to just place it as randomly as they can so as not to give an advantage to the attacker and in turn, picks the terrain to do battle on.  Sometimes forests will move on top of hills or vise versa so having terrain capable of doing that is a challenge.  If the defender messes up and actually gives an opportunity to the attacker, well, that's war right?

As another side note, if the terrain is scattered off the table then it would just stop at the tables edge and never leave the table.  Most rolls are a 3 or 4 statistically so an average of 18-24 terrain pieces likely on a 6x4 table (average man o'war terrain is 6-12).  I have experimented with that much terrain and it makes it very difficult for cannons to line up shots and to be able to wipe out entire brigades.  Any cavalry, acting as cannons with 2 order attacks (60cm range), also not able to put out a large focused attack.  Lastly it all but kills a flyers ability to launch any flanking attack but merely fly to the back of an assault.  All of this might make it too much terrain for some players though.

Any thoughts on deploying terrain and figuring out how much terrain, etc. please let me know.
Thank you for reminding me Ole, as this step is just as crucial as figuring out what terrain even does.

Offline CrankyDragon

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • Loc: Clawson, MI, USA
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2016, 02:09:22 AM »
I think the terrain itself is rather simple.
For the most part its all dense, gives defended, blocks LOS to 2cm.
What my brother CJ seems to have trouble with is hills. He keeps trying to figure out crests and flat tops vs. rounded and such.  I prefer the simple method of hills blocking LOS unless you are on it, and a unit not on the hill charging a unit on the hill uses defended rules. That and he wants to create a bunch of new terrain with crazy rules.
I think deploying the terrain is the real trick. Too much vs too little, too big vs too small, clumps of dense terrain vs wide open areas. Haven't really found a good solution yet.

Ole to piggy back off of the non-open thing, I have been playing around with the concept of hindered units. If a unit charges through dense terrain then it is hindered and suffers a -1 to hit. If a unit charges up a hill or over small obstacles it would also be hindered.
I haven't had time to test this much. It gives shooters a bit of an advantage.  They would only be hindered if they are attacking into dense terrain. They would be able to shoot at units on a hill with no penalty. Flyers also wouldn't be hindered by hills.

Offline Ole

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • TTT
    • Loc: Hamburg
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2016, 07:03:36 AM »
If a unit charges through dense terrain then it is hindered and suffers a -1 to hit.

that wouldn't be much of a problem, because most of the dense terrain is blocking LOS and because you need to see the unit you would like to charge before the move starts you can't charge it.

Ole

But our princess is in another castle!

Offline Aldhick

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 477
  • The End is nigh
    • Loc: Czech Republic
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2016, 01:12:43 PM »
Great to see such insight into the issue guys.

CJ, more to your questions

1.) I strongly think the roads diserve some tactical aspect. On the last international playtes meeting the guys came up with the suggestion, that when you move whole your movement on the road, you'll get "+1" to your next command roll on that unit. We use it, though it rarely comes in aciton. 
 Also there are two different ways how you can move infantry on roads - either it typical column formation (as described in WMA) or sideways in long thin column (as described in WM appendix). Differet players use different roads of different width and therefore prefer different ways - this sould be taken into accont. I don't see any problem in using both ways if described propperly.

2.)The rules state that you can only shoot "overhead" your own troops. I'd stay with this. So no shooting overhead any featrue, that blocks line of sight.

3.) Well I don't see any reason, why any river/creek, that can be entered by infantry should prevent cavalry or monsters to enter it at the same time (againt, this is what WM appendix on terrain says). So I would merge a.) and b.) together. Infantry should be defended if lined up along the edge against any unit charging from within/acccros the river/creek. Agree on fords, but not sure wheter unit should be defended when facing charge through a ford. I'd say rather no. Agree on c.)

4.) If we combine original rules for hills with what is in the terrain appendix, I think we can get some answers.
i.) There is no word about flyers being an exception to the rules regarding charging up the slope against infantry. Though it makes sense to me, is it necessary to add this exception freely?
ii.) They are many ways how to model a hill and you can hardly make rules for all of them. I think the best way how to deal with the most often used flat tops hills is again presented in the terrain appendix - agree on one point (usualy the middle) considered as summit. Charging up/down the slope should be regarding it.
iii.) strictly rulewise I think "yes it does". But maybe there are different interpretaions. I'd like to hear how other groups play it.

We also use the idea of "not in the open yet not defended" status for fields for example. However I'm sure this advantage should go only to infantry and artillery as all other defended/fortified rules do.

About number of terrain pieces - using WMA combat system, the supremacy of cavalry is strongly diminshed. First there are new support rules making infantry much stronger and at the same time there are only two rounds of combat, that prevent your shock cavalry charges to sweep over half of your units in just one turn. So I dare to say, that with this system you are able to play relatively balanced game completely withou any terrain - it's just gonna be boring.

Regarding WMR I'm thinking about "Advanced terrain rules" sub-section in" Optional rules" section. However the point is to build it on existing rules, not to make parallel ones. It would be very hlepful if you type it down CJ. Much appreciated :-)
WM - Toomb Kings
My Mordheim guys (and gals)
http://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t2734-aldhick-s-gangs

Offline cjbennett22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2016, 05:57:47 PM »
Alright, I think I am about set now.

I am satisfied with the hill descriptions and rules with the final addition of "open" on a hill against a flyer's charge.  Should I add an image or diagram of sorts to explain the hill's summit for anyone?  I use flat plywood for the hills so I am a good candidate for showing it.

The rivers are ironed out and finished.  I have seen so many different rules from all over and have now narrowed it down.

Do we want me to separate out the fields as a terrain type and add the "not open, not defended" rules?

My other final suggestion.....Should monsters be able to enter broken ground such as Ruins or swamps?  Harpies or eagles come to mind as a bad example, being flyers.  I wanted to make the suggestion though because a chaos spawn living in the ruins of a city seems down right natural to me.

I'm sure everyone has a way of deploying terrain to their liking etc. etc. so I wont add any of that here.

Offline Stormwind

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2648
  • Ben Sibbald | Newcastle, UK
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2016, 08:12:48 PM »
This reminds me of the rules for SAGA terrain placement.
My Personal & Modelling Blog >>http://theancienttrack.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline cjbennett22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2016, 02:59:23 AM »
I don't know that one, just looked it up but found a lot of info for a Japanese SIM game.  Oh and something with Vikings in it that might be what you are talking about.  What is it?

Offline Aldhick

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 477
  • The End is nigh
    • Loc: Czech Republic
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2016, 02:58:38 PM »
CJ - If you it's necessary, go ahead, but it would have to fit into the rules graphics - so maybe the hills from scenario section of original WM rules might be usefull.

I'm still thinking about the basic concept - as an optional superstructure over basic terrain rules I think we can afford little diversity.

So I'd go for the fields or stony planes (you have to think about some nice encompassing word :-) )being separate feature, where there is no charge bonus against infantry.

I see your point and I like it. But if we opt to go this way, I'd split ruins and marsehes - I see why cavalry cannot enter ruins in coherent formation, but I don't see why cavalry cannot enter marshes if soldiers on foot can.

One more remark on the rivers/creeks (the fordable ones) - units being confused when being driven back or forced to retreat throug the river (taking into account chariots and artillery who cannot cross it ever) seems nice tactical add to this terrain feature.
WM - Toomb Kings
My Mordheim guys (and gals)
http://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t2734-aldhick-s-gangs

Offline CrankyDragon

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • Loc: Clawson, MI, USA
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2016, 03:53:56 PM »
The rules pretty much leave it up to the players to decide how they want to do hills.  Mostly because there are several different ways of modeling hills.  I think it's best to leave it that way.

Me and CJ have come to a degree of consensus on terrain.
We mostly agree that their should be Dense terrain with a -1 command penalty and close terrain that restricts Line of sight.
We were bouncing around the idea of a third type that would allow infantry, cavalry, and monsters to pass through but attackers wouldn't get the bonus for target in the open.  Hindering terrain maybe?
You could mix the three terrain types together how ever you like.

I like the idea of sticking to the original rules in regards to rivers, except I like the idea of units forced back into the river by drive backs or retreats would get confused.

Offline Stormwind

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2648
  • Ben Sibbald | Newcastle, UK
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2016, 09:54:13 PM »
Sorry! I was trying to figure out how to describe Saga's rules concisely but my brain melted.

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/Saga.html

It's a dark ages 28mm game, but the terrain is crucial, as the game is played on a small 3` by 4` table and some actions rely on terrain.

In essence, both players choose a number between 1 and 5 on a D6, secretly.

They simultaneously reveal it.  The numbers are added together and then averaged (rounding up halves).  That total is the amount of terrain pieces that will be on the board.

So I as a Norman player who favours clean lines of sight for my archers and open ground for my cavarly will always pick 1, but an opponent playing Irish or Anglo Danes would favour lots of cover with an infantry force so would usually pick 5.  In that case the total would be 1+5 / 2 = 3.  You would divide those between the two players but it's an uneven number.

In that case, the guy who picked a higher number gets the lions share.  So in this case my opponent gets 2 pieces to choose from and I only get 1.

Then you take it turns to look at a chart of scenery, so, for example, most things have a limit of 2 or 3 per game so you couldn't put like... 6 buildings on a table, only 3, maximum.  You pick a different piece of sceney each then you take it in turns to put them on the table.

For each piece you have to rolla a D6, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 telling you where it's going to go, whether it's around the corners, towards the middle or bang in the centre.  If there's already something in the way or it's impossible to place it, TOUGH, it's discarded.

It sounds complicated but it is a way of making sure that the board is pretty clean and not too cluttered.

My Personal & Modelling Blog >>http://theancienttrack.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline cjbennett22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Re: Warmaster Terrain Revolution
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2016, 03:07:27 AM »
very close to done with terrain now.  I will post when finished for final remarks.  Thank you all.