Anyone Tried the Siege Rules?

[Sharkbelly]

Has anyone tried--or even looked at--the siege rules from the core book yet? What did you think?

[MOMUS]

I'm trying to encourage my club mates to get a siege game in, played any yourself yet?

[Sharkbelly]

Not yet! Very little AoS, to be honest.

[Jamopower]

When I first read that there will be siege rules, I was excited. However the actual rules were quite disappointing with very little Siege in them. although the pre-game tactics sound fun. Having played very good homebrew siege scenarios for Lord of the Rings and Saga the bar is quite high, so haven't even considered the rules in the GHB/core book. If I were to play siege, I would probably modify our Saga siege rules or the LotR scenario for AoS. If someone is interested on the scenarios, they can be found here: http://25yearsofminis.blogspot.com/2015/06/saga-crescent-cross-siege-scenario.html  http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27657

The main points for good sieges (IMO):

-walls should only be crossed by siege equipment: ladders, hooks or siege towers (or by flyers)

-The deployment of attackers should be close enough that the game will be actually about crossing the walls, not about the attackers running across the field taking shots from the defenders

-The attacker should have more troops and the defender should get a proper advantage from the cover, getting on the wall should feel like accomplishment

-It's good idea to have a set condition that the wall will collapse from some point during the game. In the Saga scenario we had a trebuchet that did it and in LotR the Uruks had the bomb. IN both games it required very little rolls to do it, just a bit of uncertainity when it happens.

[Dead Scribe]

The siege rules that they give us are very watered down.  One of our guys has a siege book from games workshop from like twenty years ago that is pretty cool.  I know at our club they were going to do a siege weekend with those.

[Lobeau]

I've got a full blown castle, siege attacker and siege defender equipment along with a siege tower. I was also pretty underwhelmed by the siege rules in the core book. Luckily some peeps at my FLGS are down to run some homebrewed rules in a narrative setting to make it a little more interesting. Main issues I still have are what sizes the attackers and defenders armies should be, what bonus will the defenders have, and how we can spice it it to make it fun and interactive.

In the old WHFB siege book there were examples of reinforcement battles fought as part of a mini-campaign where the winner of small 3-5 unit skirmishes would get certain bonuses. It would be great to have something more intricate than what we currently have. End goal would to have a scenario played out over various weekends where the first battle was on one board, and then the outcome could lead towards either army defending a walled city from assault, and being able to counter attack based on a number of outcomes.

[KHHaunts]

I played them a couple of times. There is nothing wrong with the rules and they are ok. But when I heard Siege rules I was expecting something a little more comprehensive and focusing on the terrain and forts etc.

Me and a friend have a series of house rules that have evolved into an add-on that work really well.

[Sharkbelly]

Care to share them? ?

 

[Kramer]

I agree with @Dead Scribe, the old siege rules really add some depth and are easily converted. 

And like @Lobeau suggested I think sieges really shine when they are part a series of games. 

But good to hear the rules are fun. Hey seem fairly easy to introduce without too much stacking of rules. This thread just inspired me for the theme of the next game day  

[KHHaunts]

On 8/10/2018 at 4:37 AM, Sharkbelly said:

Care to share them? ?

 

Gladly. I'm posting by.phone at the moment but I will post them once I'm at my computer.

I've written a few add on house rules for stuff in AOS and I've tried to always make the modular so that you can either use the whole thing religiously or cherry pick the best bits.

But it covers:

Castle and fortifications profiles.

Siege engines + defence weaponry war scrolls.

Ladders and wall climbing.

And more

[Sharkbelly]

Sounds pretty cool!

[KHHaunts]

On 8/10/2018 at 4:37 AM, Sharkbelly said:

Care to share them? ?

 

 

14 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:

Sounds pretty cool!

Take a look for yourselves.

 

Its is a rough copy however and you may see some abilties and such missing (Including any sort of points costs for the majority of it)

Also i havent proof read completely so i aplogise for any mistakes.

Again the whole thing is meant to be a take it or leave it element. you can use the whole thing for full on siege battle or cherry pick the bits you like.

let me know what you all think.

Siege rules.pdf

[Lobeau]

On 8/12/2018 at 1:03 PM, KHHaunts said:

 

Take a look for yourselves.

 

Its is a rough copy however and you may see some abilties and such missing (Including any sort of points costs for the majority of it)

Also i havent proof read completely so i aplogise for any mistakes.

Again the whole thing is meant to be a take it or leave it element. you can use the whole thing for full on siege battle or cherry pick the bits you like.

let me know what you all think.

Siege rules.pdf

Thanks for sharing!

[terrainguy]

@KHHaunts Cool supplement! I look forward to seeing how it evolves!

[Sharkbelly]

Yes, thanks for sharing!

[nuttyknatty]

One of my first games of AoS2 was a Siege game - we had great fun! Highlights are below?.

 

[Sharkbelly]

Looks like fun!

[Jamopower]

On 8/12/2018 at 8:03 PM, KHHaunts said:

 

Take a look for yourselves.

 

Its is a rough copy however and you may see some abilties and such missing (Including any sort of points costs for the majority of it)

Also i havent proof read completely so i aplogise for any mistakes.

Again the whole thing is meant to be a take it or leave it element. you can use the whole thing for full on siege battle or cherry pick the bits you like.

let me know what you all think.

Siege rules.pdf

Looks like a good start. I have.however some suggestions to some points:

The siege engines are really underpowered. If you start the game 12" from the wall, the battering ram on average doesn't have time to go through even a nornal wooden gate with it's attacks. They should be balanced against each other, so that with battering ram, you would on average go through the gate around turn three in a five round game, or have the breaking of the gate as an objective and have it happen later. On the other hand, the gate can't be so soft that a regular unit of stormcast paladins goes through it in a single combat round. Maybe the gate can be very tough, like 18 wounds with 0+ save, but the battering ram could have a rend - 5 on three attacks with d6 damage. Thus making the ram the go to weapon to break the gate. 

If the walls just give the defenders regular cover and anyone can climb the walls normally, they seem to be very easilly overrun. I don't see the siege towers or ladders having much of value if they just ignore the cover. I would make the ladders or siege tower prerequisite to even have the possobility to scale the walls and add +2 to saves, - 1 to hit and a 4+ save against mortals for the people on the ramparts. Otherwise the defenders are easilly shot out from there by the attackers. This of course should be shown in the price, the defender should be heavily outnumbered. 

The walls are very tough to break with normal attacks. A cannon takes around 18 shots to break one. However, they are pretty easy to break with mortal wounds. Unit of 20 executioners go through the castle wall in 2 combat rounds.  I would make them have lower armour save, maybe 3+, but at the same time make them impossible to damage by other units than war machines, monsters and magic and have a 5+ save against mortal wounds. 

 

Of course this can be tweked according the scenario and what is wanted from the game. If a collapse of wall is wished to be a part of the scenario, design the rules so that it is likely to happen midway to the game. If the objective of the game is to break the gate, make it happen around turn four or five if the attacker is succesful. 

[KHHaunts]

4 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Looks like a good start. I have.however some suggestions to some points:

The siege engines are really underpowered. If you start the game 12" from the wall, the battering ram on average doesn't have time to go through even a nornal wooden gate with it's attacks. They should be balanced against each other, so that with battering ram, you would on average go through the gate around turn three in a five round game, or have the breaking of the gate as an objective and have it happen later. On the other hand, the gate can't be so soft that a regular unit of stormcast paladins goes through it in a single combat round. Maybe the gate can be very tough, like 18 wounds with 0+ save, but the battering ram could have a rend - 5 on three attacks with d6 damage. Thus making the ram the go to weapon to break the gate. 

If the walls just give the defenders regular cover and anyone can climb the walls normally, they seem to be very easilly overrun. I don't see the siege towers or ladders having much of value if they just ignore the cover. I would make the ladders or siege tower prerequisite to even have the possobility to scale the walls and add +2 to saves, - 1 to hit and a 4+ save against mortals for the people on the ramparts. Otherwise the defenders are easilly shot out from there by the attackers. This of course should be shown in the price, the defender should be heavily outnumbered. 

The walls are very tough to break with normal attacks. A cannon takes around 18 shots to break one. However, they are pretty easy to break with mortal wounds. Unit of 20 executioners go through the castle wall in 2 combat rounds.  I would make them have lower armour save, maybe 3+, but at the same time make them impossible to damage by other units than war machines, monsters and magic and have a 5+ save against mortal wounds. 

 

Of course this can be tweked according the scenario and what is wanted from the game. If a collapse of wall is wished to be a part of the scenario, design the rules so that it is likely to happen midway to the game. If the objective of the game is to break the gate, make it happen around turn four or five if the attacker is succesful. 

Thanks for that detailed feedback. Units scalding the walls as normal is something I had eliminated however in had forgotten to mention it in the supplement so good reminder. The idea is that all non flying non monster units HAVE to use a ladder or tower to scale the walls.

I will have a look at the stats suggestions. Its a tricky one because there are quite a few units that I think should be able to damage walls that don't have the relevant keywords

Perhaps increasing the wound counts but having a rule were attacks with units with certain keywords such as Monster and War Machine doubles the damage amount?

However in my mind breaking a wall should be a particularly hard task and should require a concentrated effort. As a breech will completely turn the tables. The "easier"/"standard" options would be or break the gate or over run the walls.

Thanks again for this. This is exactly what is needed to help me improve this. If anyone has anything else please let.me know and I'll post an updated version soon.

[KHHaunts]

14 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Looks like a good start. I have.however some suggestions to some points:

The siege engines are really underpowered. If you start the game 12" from the wall, the battering ram on average doesn't have time to go through even a nornal wooden gate with it's attacks. They should be balanced against each other, so that with battering ram, you would on average go through the gate around turn three in a five round game, or have the breaking of the gate as an objective and have it happen later. On the other hand, the gate can't be so soft that a regular unit of stormcast paladins goes through it in a single combat round. Maybe the gate can be very tough, like 18 wounds with 0+ save, but the battering ram could have a rend - 5 on three attacks with d6 damage. Thus making the ram the go to weapon to break the gate. 

If the walls just give the defenders regular cover and anyone can climb the walls normally, they seem to be very easilly overrun. I don't see the siege towers or ladders having much of value if they just ignore the cover. I would make the ladders or siege tower prerequisite to even have the possobility to scale the walls and add +2 to saves, - 1 to hit and a 4+ save against mortals for the people on the ramparts. Otherwise the defenders are easilly shot out from there by the attackers. This of course should be shown in the price, the defender should be heavily outnumbered. 

The walls are very tough to break with normal attacks. A cannon takes around 18 shots to break one. However, they are pretty easy to break with mortal wounds. Unit of 20 executioners go through the castle wall in 2 combat rounds.  I would make them have lower armour save, maybe 3+, but at the same time make them impossible to damage by other units than war machines, monsters and magic and have a 5+ save against mortal wounds. 

 

Of course this can be tweked according the scenario and what is wanted from the game. If a collapse of wall is wished to be a part of the scenario, design the rules so that it is likely to happen midway to the game. If the objective of the game is to break the gate, make it happen around turn four or five if the attacker is succesful. 

Continueing to review what you have said  I have upped the rams power so that it can reliably get through even the stongest gate in a few turns. However for the largest fortresses i had written the rules with the mind that a ram alone wouldnt be enough to crack the defences in time and the attacking player will need to dedicated other forces to help whittle away the defences.

The However i do not want the ram to be able to get through the stronger walls in a few rounds since as i mentioned before i belive that bringing a fortress wall down should be a very difficult task requiring a concentrated effort. which a felt was a key strategic decision for the attacker. I have therefore added more wounds to each wall and tower for more durability however if a player decides to try and take a wall down they should be able to do so with a sufficent display of magic monsters and war machines.

I have also added a rule that i mentioned which doubles the damage inflicted by monsters and warmachines and also means that only mortal wounds caused be either of these types OR magic can inflict damage. (So nighthaunts cant scare a wall to death) i do however want it to be possible for strong attacks from some smaller units to be able to scratch the wall with enough concentrated effort.

 

Regarding the benefits of ramparts the 1+ save only applies to the smaller walls. the towers and such also include ignoring all wounds and MW from ranged attacks on a roll of 4 or 5. do you think that is sufficent. I personally dont think they should get any major benefits from melee attacks on the ramparts as all attacks will be coming from units that get on the wall, flying attacks or Monsters.

I will however tweak the garrison rules to make them more effective for towers,

as for the 18 cannon shots . . . I have tried my best to add new rules or rules exceptions and not mess around to much with the core rules as i ddint want this to becomes overly complex. but. The double damage rules will obviousy help. The other thought that occured it perhaps reducing or even eliminating the to hit role for walls. certainly it makes sense for close combat and perhaps within a certain range for ranged attacks?

I did a couple of quick roll offs, with these changes i managed to bring the Fortress wall down in 8 Shots. Admitedly tat was some good rolling but again i wouldnt expect a single cannon to be able to take down the wall.

Its certainly a step in the right direction so keep the feedback coming.

[chord]

11 hours ago, Condottiero Magno said:

For those of us lacking the core book, would someone elaborate on how the siege rules are watered down? Is it just a cut and paste from the GH2017?

They were modified from the siege rules in All-Gates which were less structured.  IMO the rules in All-Gates gave you more flexibility then the one in the GHB.  And Flexibility > structured rules when it comes to siege games.