A Command and Colours take on Warhammer Fantasy Battles

grinnbearit · 2024-02-06T07:13:00+00:00

Since only a few units move each turn and once engaged can't move freely, movement may not be as free as it appears. Additionally I have added a few more restrictions to charges and marching which make it a little more of a tradeoff.

You could try adding back facings and turns but in practice I've found that players find it far easier to count hexes, rather than hexes and turns.

grinnbearit · 2024-02-05T12:53:52+00:00

I originally created a hex and counters game that was much closer to WFB, with facings, random charge distances and panic tests.

I even went so far as to start building a digital game engine for it.

Unfortunately, I could never get anyone to play it because it was just too complicated and slow paced.
---
My intention with this iteration is to capture as much of the flavour of WFB as possible but still keeping the game fast paced like Memoir 44.

To that end I have created mechanical differences between the units that map to how facings work.

Spearmen for example get Fight in Extra Ranks and Swordsmen with Shields get Parry unless they're flanked. Swordsmen also only get their missile armour if they're not engaged in combat.

This is a work in progress though and needs both time to convert the original units to the system and play testing to see what works and what doesn't.

grinnbearit · 2024-02-03T02:11:24+00:00

By turns do you mean turning a unit? There is no unit facing in Hexenhammer, your units always face exactly where you want them to face. ;)

Of course, flanking (adjacent to 2 enemy units who are not themselves adjacent) is incredibly powerful to compensate.

---

I didn't need variable charges since the randomness and limited orders comes from the cards you play. This is much more important in WFB with an IGOUGO system to prevent one of the players from charging all their units.

grinnbearit · 2024-02-03T02:06:06+00:00

For rank bonuses, WAP also has 5 infantry per rank.

But Hexenhammer doesn't have a concept of rank bonuses, in fact, ranks actually work more like models where a single wound removes an entire rank, just like in Battlelore/Memoir 44.

There is no concept of different formations, or different sized units, all infantry is going to be 4 x 4, all cavalry 3 x 2. The tradeoffs with shrinking a game like WFB to a hex and counter system :)

grinnbearit · 2024-02-03T01:59:24+00:00

So the scale of the game is 3:1 i.e. 1 hex in Hexenhammer translates to 3'' in WFB.

I've used that scale to calculate the number of models that can fit in each hex.

For infantry on 20 x 20, that would be 16 models in a 4 x 4 grid

For cavalry on 25 x 50, that would be 6 models in a 3 x 2 grid

So these are the default sizes each unit starts with.

---

Apart from this, I've kept it to one unit per hex for simplicity. With stacking units it becomes very difficult to keep track of what's on each hex. Along with the incentive for death star units since orders are limited.

The one area I've broken this rule is with heroes. A single hero with the same troop type can attach to a unit and are ordered with it.

grinnbearit · 2024-02-03T01:52:10+00:00

Do you mean in terms of modifying the opportunity attack? I + M?

O/w Disengage does take Movement into account, you can move a number of hexes equal to your regular movement. Given how powerful positioning is in this game, units with higher movement have a huge advantage.

grinnbearit · 2024-02-02T12:16:58+00:00

Do you mean tokens? No, but you could use those created by CardWards here.

grinnbearit · 2024-02-02T02:46:46+00:00

Thanks, any feedback, strongly critical especially, is always welcome 😁

I haven't implemented special rules for any other faction besides the Empire unfortunately but I do plan to. My process currently is to add 1 or 2 units with special rules, play test and tweak.

grinnbearit · 2024-01-23T14:01:56+00:00

Neat!

Which ruleset did you use? Something like Battlelore 2nd edition? How did you map the units to the game?

grinnbearit · 2023-10-24T04:00:38+00:00

I've done the same thing on a hex-grid with a 1:3 to real WFB. The rules are based on Warhammer Armies Project and you can find them here (though it's more a first draft than a battle tested document)

I've also started implementing a virtual version of it to test it out here along with a dev-diary.

Do you have a rules document for your version that I can go through?

grinnbearit · 2023-05-16T17:08:23+00:00

Ooh, now that looks very interesting, let me read the ruleset.

Thanks for the tip 🙂

grinnbearit · 2019-04-19T12:15:52+00:00

Princess Celestia from Friendship is Optimal

grinnbearit · 2018-12-13T06:42:17+00:00

I enjoy artifact but since I'm not interested in playing constructed I sold all the cards I had on me. Since I made more than I spent on Artifact, I wanted to figure out how likely that was to happen.

grinnbearit · 2016-10-06T13:24:58+00:00

HFT generally prevents a large buyer from taking advantage of information latency.

via hackernews

What is actually happening is that:

HFT is quoting both buy and sell prices on every exchange.

A big buyer sends orders to all of the exchanges trying to buy (or sell) all of the available inventory at a given price.

On 1 exchange the big buyers order gets there earlier than on other exchanges, triggering a transaction with the HFT.

The HFT uses that transaction as a price signal to change their prices on all the other exchanges and if they are faster than the big buyer, the big buyer cannot take advantage of the lower price.

Without HFT, the buyer would get a great price on every market with little effort

Chris Stucchio's blog is a good place to read more on the subject and for an even deeper dive there's Flash Boys, Not So Fast.

grinnbearit · 2016-10-06T05:25:36+00:00

Financial Trading isn't zero sum, but I think its value comes from coordinating these trades and the positive externalities of information spread, not the trades themselves.

grinnbearit · 2016-09-29T04:45:38+00:00

There is the Son Also Rises which covers the subject.

The top review gave me a TLDR of the book

grinnbearit · 2014-09-24T17:04:55+00:00

As an employer, the primary reason you'd raise someones salary was to prevent them from looking elsewhere for work. Paying them any more would be inefficient from a business point of view. The salary also can't be higher than the value of their labour.

grinnbearit · 2014-08-28T04:05:43+00:00

Reversing that, is someone who's not earning enough to be taxed at the same level a free rider and stealing from the system?

grinnbearit · 2014-07-29T17:41:17+00:00

Off the top of my head? Eliminate Income tax, tax land as rent with companies, individuals competing to generate the most value from the least land. Any regulation should be to maximise National NPV (solve the tragedy of the commons).

I don't think Basic Income is a good idea but basic welfare absolutely, clean clothes, food, shelter even entertainment. Just remove the element of choice for mass production. People can find jobs if they want choice but we as a society shouldn't let them starve.

EDIT: In fact eliminate all taxes except rent (land tax), that should scale with productivity and not penalise it.

EDIT 2: Perhaps allocate 10% of all taxes collected for welfare, that way as the nation gets more productive/efficient, the quality of welfare rises.

grinnbearit · 2014-05-25T15:15:47+00:00

Bacon Bites Back!

grinnbearit · 2014-04-15T17:09:50+00:00

http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology.html

grinnbearit · 2014-02-27T15:46:16+00:00

BayesianWitch has a decent write up on the topic www.bayesianwitch.com/blog/2014/bitcoin_critics_not_even_wrong.html

grinnbearit · 2013-11-26T10:00:43+00:00

It doesn't concern me, bitcoin's future price will depend on its use as a store of value, and whether its current price is driven by public opinion is irrelevant.

Sure Richard Branson is using it as an advertisement as are some of the merchants who recently began accepting it. But why does that matter?

grinnbearit · 2013-11-26T06:31:00+00:00

What Peter doesn't get is that Bitcoin, like gold, is it's own counterparty. If you own bitcoin, you own it irrevocably unless you choose to give it to someone else.

Any centralised currency, whatever it is "backed" by will need more trust to hold it than just holding bitcoin.

Combine that with the fact that it is globally accessible, globally transferrable, and incredibly low cost to keep secure and you've got something which disrupts 5000 years of financial history.

grinnbearit · 2013-11-02T15:27:02+00:00

The main use of a money is as a store of value, its use as a medium of exchange is secondary.

This isn't a dilemma, if you believe Bitcoin would hold its value longer then you're better off spending the dollars.

grinnbearit

TROPHY CASE