Forum Replies Created
Would it be correct t say that HoD is basically the direction Hammer is going in and the current active version of the system?
‘Beaming down’ is kind of how the TFL ‘Chain of Command’ rules did it, although there are deployment points and troops have to be within a certain distance of those points.
“Maybe treat Assault troops as bombers so they can use their sacks of grenades, with a limited firing capability, but bonus over bombers in assault with their sexy MP-18’s”
That was the solution I came up with after thinking about it – Bombers and Assault squads both ignore trenches/shellholes *and* get +1 damage when assaulting. Bomber squads are otherwise treated as Rifle squads. Assault squads can’t fire beyond firefight range, and then only with 1D3 damage, but in assault they roll 2D6 for damage and picke the best one (and get a +1 as well).
Thus Bombers are a normal squad with extra assault capability, whilst Assault squads are less good at shooting but deadly in close combat.
Thanks. The issue I still have is with how good Bomber squads are, especially in assault. Not only do they stand more chance of hitting targets in common forms of cover (trenches or shellholes), but they score an additional point of damage as well and get to shoot like a normal Rifle squad. Assault squads are much worse at shooting, make assaults no differently to Rifle squads, and, on average, don’t really score many more hits than the Bombers.
Basically if you need a squad for assault purposes, you should always choose Bombers. Assault squads don’t seem to have any viable role.
I played another ad hoc game yesterday. Strangely it ended up similar to the last one, but this time the Germans were trying to capture a ruined farmhouse and having to cross open ground to do it. What could possibly go wrong?
I modified the assault rules so that the loser only inflicts half damage (assuming that they hit). It seemed to give a game that avoided squads wiping each other out in assaults.
Thanks. I mean I can adapt Trench Hammer for my own use to include elements from Core, but it’s useful to know where things are going ‘officially’.
OK, got the One Hour Skirmish Wargames rules and read through them. I seem to have missed the place where they explain taking prisoners. I assume that moving into contact with a downed enemy does the trick?
I think that’s the gist of it. It is covered in the basic rules somewhere.
Seems the opportune moment for shrill shouts of ….well, you know how it goes. Kudos for doing Day of the Daleks btw, one of the often over-looked Who stories I think.
I have fond memories of it to be honest, probably because it’s the first Dalek story I remember watching.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Kaptain Kobold.
Looks like a blast! I like the order limitation on the Daleks, very clever and characterful.
Thanks. I didn’t like the idea of them simply retreating or going to ground in order to remove damage that was hard to inflict on them The fact that they are insanely armoured suggests that they are ridiculously confident in its protection 🙂
Question for the group. What do you play as “concealed”? And how to you compare concealed vs bad shot?
I just go old-school gamer: -1 for soft cover (bushes, rocks and so on), -2 for hard cover (rubble, ruins or light buidings) and -3 for proper hard cover.
Darn! I just picked up the original Squad-Hammer a couple of weeks ago. I guess it’s worthwhile to upgrade.
It’s worth getting. Whilst it’s just the core parts of the full-fat Squad Hammer you’ve got, they seem to be cleaner than the original. And you can bolt on bits from the original rules with little difficulty by the looks of it.
I thought ‘armoured’ stepped down the damage dice (from D6 to D3 or D3 to 1) but I haven’t checked that in the newer rules.
The Core rules don’t have much to say regarding armoured vehicles (and don’t cover the stepping-down effect), but that wasn’t really what I’m after. It’s more troops that are ‘hardened’ above the norm, but which aren’t so heavily armoured as to count as a fully-armoured target. Think Space Marines compared to, say, an Imperial Guardsman; they have some protection, but are still affected by small-arms. Is it better to make them harder to hit, but with them taking the full damage if they are, or have them equally easy to hit as the Guardsmen, but with them taking reduced damage?
One thing I am wondering about in the system is how troops being armoured affects shooting/combat. Sometimes protection seems to be a modifier to the roll to hit and sometimes it’s something which affects the damage roll.
Whilst I know that the rules are designed such that you make your own game, I wondered what the intent was. For example if I have Space Knights in armour, is it better to have the armour giving a -1 to be hit, or have it cause a -1 to damage.
(I can see cover being a minus to hit because of the concealment factor. And I can see high/fanatical morale or pig-headedness maybe reducing damage, since damage reflects a whole range of things. But armour seems to sit in a middle ground.)
Bought my copy. Having the original rules gives a nice head-start on adapting things, but from a read through I like the changes; seems a little bit smoother now.
Are the miniatures the same for each ‘faction’?
I love your square grid – very understated!
We’ve been testing out an opposed roll assault system, where the assault is 1D6+/- modifiers and the loser takes the difference in damage. I am not 100% certain of exactly how Jozi is applying it. The way it’ll work in Hammer of Democracy (and be back-ported in, down the road) is that each unit takes 1 damage automatically, then you roll and the loser takes the difference. No hit rolls or anything.
So cover counts for nothing unless it’s things like trenches where damage is halved?28/12/2018 at 02:05 in reply to: Solo Squad-Hammer: Space Orcs vs. Gothic Space Knights in a Cyberpunk Warzone! #106458
Oooh, thank you very much!
Another game of Trench Hammer. I went back to the assault on the entrenched MG position scenario, but this time I was playing against another person (all of my games thus far have been solo). He took the attacking British and after a shaky start eventually ousted the Germans from their position. His platoon knew it had been in a fight though.
Hey guys, apologies for being late to the party again… I am doing some consulting work on the side and it is eating up my evenings. Trench Hammer has no ideological party line (October Hammer might…) but what I use is the factors on my tank quick reference cards located here: https://sites.google.com/view/tinmanwargaming/the-great-war
Thanks for that – those damage effects make a certain amount of sense. How does an AT Rifle team function in combat not involving a tank? Treat as a Heavy Weapon for movement allow normal firing but only ever inflict 1 point of Damage?*
I notice your QRS includes an alternate Assault combat system that doesn’t have a To Hit roll. How does that work please (I mean I can get the gist of it from the QRS but wondered how stuff like cover is factored in).
*Everything I’ve read abut the Mauser AT Rifle suggests that its recoil was hideous and caused bruising and worse to the shoulder of the firer. I like the idea of adding the following – when an AT Rifle fires, if either of the To Hit dice are a ‘1’ the AT rifle team takes a point of damage, regardless of whether the shot hits or not.
I blogged mine, but basically it was one of Bob Cordery Portable Wargames boos, a couple of histories of the English Civil War and a couple of boardgames.
I think the hit mods were posted to be used in place of the +3 that the book sets as default. So a field gun fires at +0, the MG with AP rounds at +1 and regular rifles at +3.
Tanks have 3 points of Armour (firer takes a +3 penalty)
Field Gun/Tank Cannon – Negates 1 point of Cover or 3 points of Armour – 1 D6 damage
Flame – Negates 3 points of Armour – 1D6 damage
K-Bullets – Negate 1 point of Armour – 1D6 damage
A/T Rifle – Negates 2 points of Armour – 1D3 damage
Rifles, etc – Negate 0 points of Armour – 1pt damage
Rifle-Grenades – Negate 1 point of Armour – 1pt damage
Grenades – Negate 1 point of Armour – 1D3 damage
That’s how I read it yeah. I don’t really have any books on hand that discuss efficiency of armor piercing small arms ammo in the era, but it looks good to me I imagine at “trench” distances, a belt’s worth of steel cored ammo would be cause for concern.
That’s my point – +1 To Hit in Trench Hammer is a penalty, not a bonus.
I fought through the post-Christmas food coma yesterday to try some more Trench Hammer, this time focusing on the trench assault scenario. The Germans were attacking with a heavily reinforced platoon, whilst the British defenders had a half-platoon in the front line and a few more squads in reserve.
The first game saw the Germans stall in front of the British defences and then the British reserve show up on the first turn it was possible to do so, pretty much halting any further attack. The second game was closer, with the Germans able to push into the trenches before losing their foothold to a counterattack in one sector of the board and the timely arrival of reserves on the other.
OK, it wasn’t Ivan, but here’s the post:
I wasn’t sure about this bit: “German machine guns with a belt of armor piercing K bullets, one shot per gun per game: +1 to hit and D6 damage”
MG’s with K-Bullets take a To Hit penaly of 1, yes? (In Trench Hammer, positive To Hit modifiers are bad).
Ivan posted notes on AT-Rifles and K-bullets somewhere else on this forum as well. Just can’t find it at the moment …
I played a second game, this time according to the actual set-up with the Germans in trenches and some support for the British platoon. The results were similar but, as you’d expect, not so decisive. And I made fewer mistakes with the rules as well.
Read about it here: https://hordesofthethings.blogspot.com/2018/12/trench-hammer-with-trenches.html
Thanks for the inspiration Kaptain. Since you posted, I decided to take a look at Squad Hammer. I picked them up and plan on running a game soon.
I look forward to seeing your take on it. I think it has a small enough unit-count for you 😀
(It’s a very toolkit type of game, so you can have great fun stripping bits out and creating your own take on it. I can recommend getting Trench Hammer, and doing a comparison, to see how Squad Hammer can be turned into a game for a specific Thing.)
That is awesome! Thanks! At first I was shocked by how huge it was, then I realized it was on a plinth/platform. Beautiful pictures.
It is still pretty big though. Unfortunately they’d displayed it in such a way that it was difficult to get a long-shot of it such that you could appreciate the length.
I took quite a few pictures of Mephisto when it was on display in Canberra a few years ago. I blogged them here:
I made my first solo game yesterday using old 6mm Epic 40K models. I had a mirror match between Space Marines and their chaotic counterparts. Every side had two Tactical Squads in Rhinos, one Terminator Squad in a Land Raider, two Predators and one Cybot.
I’m coming to this party a little late, but I don’t suppose you still have your unit definitions available anywhere do you? I’d be interested in seeing how you classified everything, especially the interactions between infantry and vehicles.
What sized table did you use please?
Not doing it as a video.
[quote quote=62080]Just getting into Fantasy gaming as I am I have come across a few torture miniatures which quite frankly I do not care for and would not play any games with torture models.
There was an era when just about every DBA/DBM camp element seemed to have a model of someone being executed or tortured on it, which I always found a bit disturbing as a trend. But I say that as the guy who has a HOTT general’s element which features Hitler supervising a human sacrifice, so I accept that my moral high-ground probably isn’t that high.
Ya, until not just print quality and cost, but SPEED of print all come to a point where a “perfect” quality figure can be printed up in less than an hour there isn’t much impact on miniatures companies. Honestly, the proliferation of Kickstarters is the MUCH bigger threat, as we are at least 10 years off from fast quality home printing.
Yes, speed is certainly an issue. Obviously it depends on printer, materials, the nature of the model and settings, but three 28mm dwarves will take five hours to print. A warmachine I printed the other day took fourteen hours. Yes, it’s still quicker than ordering them, but it’s not the ‘instant gratifiation’ that people assume. And bear in mind that those speeds are for the rough and ready quality as well.