|
|
Post by KevinC on Jan 9, 2016 23:45:52 GMT
05/30/17, UPDATE: Go to this thread: eefl.freeforums.net/thread/497/warhammer-siege-draft-iiA new EEFL expansion we will be working on is Warhammer: Siege. I have always been a huge fan of Siege games and the 5th edition Siege book was one of the most exciting supplements for WFB. In fact, a proper siege game is my favorite way to play Warhammer. While the sieges rules described in Blood in the Badlands are neat and simple, they do not capture the epic, violent, and tactical challenges of siege warfare. The EEFL Siege supplement will be based on the 5th edition book, which translates very well into 8th edition. Even so, there are changes, clarity, organization, and additions that could really enhance the entire siege experience in 8th edition. Over the coming months, I will post a draft of siege rules. For now, I recommend using the 5th edition siege book, along with the amendments and errata I have written in the Dark Tidings campaign rules, which can be downloaded here: eefl.freeforums.net/thread/121/dark-tidings-campaign-rulesTheREALricksalamone is designing EEFL siege equipment for 3D printers. See his work here: eefl.freeforums.net/thread/128/share-3d-printed-stuffAnyone that plays any type of siege game, please tell us about your games, either here or in the battle reports forum. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Jan 17, 2016 23:29:43 GMT
I just found a Warhammer: Siege book from e-bay yesterday. I'm excited for it to come in!
|
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Jan 18, 2016 1:21:00 GMT
Awesome! You won the bid?
|
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Jan 21, 2016 1:12:15 GMT
It was a buy it now. $6 base plus $4 shipping. I was happy with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Jan 21, 2016 3:18:30 GMT
That's a deal! And totally worth it!
|
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Feb 14, 2016 12:24:30 GMT
Kevin, I finished reading through the Warhammer: Siege book and have reviewed your rules updates/changes in the Appendix of the campaign rules and just had a few comments to make and a few items I was looking for clarification on.
On page 12 of the book there is a part about how if the central hole of a stone thrower is not over the castle but other parts of the template are the castle is hit on a 4+. Should this be amended to be similar to the current building and template rules which would be the castle is hit but at the stonethrower's lower strength.
With flyers, I see you add a few rules to try and balance them out (need 6's to hit, walls are dangerous terrain, etc.). But in the book on page 17 flyers are made to cost double points and I don't see where you eliminate this. So do flyers cost double plus these rules you added?
At page 25 there is text about siege towers charging at double speed. This would have been because of the way charges worked prior to 8th edition. Is this still the intent for siege towers or should this be modified to siege towers charge as normal (2d6 plus move)?
|
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Feb 14, 2016 14:02:57 GMT
One more thing, in your rules updates in regards to the spells I think the large version of The Amber Spear (15+ to cast) should also be able to damage the castle. This is a strength 10 spell so would make sense to me.
Also, why did you choose Urannon Thunderbolt? The spell is strength 6 hits so just seems strange that when targeted at a building it would do strength 10 hits.
|
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 14, 2016 15:51:50 GMT
Dan, your thoughts are correct on all points, meaning templates hit auto (on lower Strength), not 4+; Siege Tower charges 2D6.
Rich and I discussed at great length about flyer being double. We decided under the errata they cost their normal points (not double) but still need 6s to hit and must always test for dangerous terrain when moving about the castle (including charging).
Regarding spells I thought there should be a variety of spells available that can cause damage to the castle.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 16, 2016 16:40:36 GMT
One issue is that the original Siege rules were written pre-Ogres. As the rules stand I have a very low percentage chance of taking our holding a wall section in attack or defense. If I have ogres edge to edge on the wall and you have regular infantry you outnumber me auto. I am being encouraged to never go into nor build a castle hex
|
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Feb 16, 2016 17:37:24 GMT
avatarofbugman I played a Siege game with a huge squad of Ushabti. IMHO, Monstrous Infantry are at a HUGE advantage when attacking.Your attacks/model ratio makes an attack very likely to be a win for you, I think. I would assume that translates naturally to Ogres, yes? I do sympathize with having to take Ogres edge to edge on the walls... The high cost is one thing. Perhaps the Gnoblars sit between small units of Ogres? A live body is a live body.
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 16, 2016 21:16:21 GMT
Will, ushtabi are not Ogres. They have a better WS, better Ld, better base armor, and get the GW upgrade for free, if I recall correctly. The WS, AS and Ld alone would account a lot for the increase success.
Against many armies they can 2 attacks to my 3, I only hit on 6s in the Siege rules when attacking the walls, so the total hit ratio is not nearly as much in the MIs advantage as you make it out to be.
What am I missing here?
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 16, 2016 21:17:33 GMT
Also, gnoblars are great speed bumps and misdirectors, but in combat are wasted combat res to the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Feb 16, 2016 21:44:25 GMT
Also, gnoblars are great speed bumps and misdirectors, but in combat are wasted combat res to the enemy. I would want to play it out to see... but 6's to hit make even the lowliest infantry (which Gnoblars certainly are) a valid warm body on a wall. |
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 16, 2016 22:08:38 GMT
You said attacking, and gnoblars are also only S2.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Feb 16, 2016 23:33:38 GMT
OK, then don't attack or defend a castle ever.
|
|
