Dogs of War: WFRP Weapons vs WFB Weapons

[Hyarion]

As I mentioned in a different thread, my next campaign is going to be a fusion of WFRP rules and WFB rules.

At this point, I'm leaning towards WFRP 2e with Only War combat mechanics combined with WFB 7e rules. My current difficulty is how to move between the different weapon rules for the two rulesets. In WFRP, characters have ~12 wounds and are supposed to be able to take 2-3 hits before dying (less if you're unlucky, etc). In WFB, human-sized troop models have one wound (heroes generally have 2, Lords have 3), the idea being that it's war, there are lots of casualties. But you aren't supposed to get attached to each individual rank-and-file model in the same way you get attached to a WFRP PC.

In WFRP, a successful hit deals Str + 1d10 wounds, toughness (along with armor) provide a damage soak.
In WFB, all successful hits deal 1 wound. Str (crossreferenced against Toughness) merely influences how easy it is to deal a wound, and armor provides a chance to avoid a wound (called a save).

In WFB, quarterstaves aren't an option. One option is to try to incorporate Mordheim rules, but I fear that might be overly complex.
Another example is Great Weapons, in WFRP they have Impact and Slow, in WFB it's +2S and they strike last.

Have I just bitten off more than I can chew? What would you all do?

[Orin J.]

my advice is to go with what's fun over keeping translation perfectly smooth. settle with what you can justify and accept there's disconnects.

[makrellen]

Wouldn't it be easier to use 1st ed stats together with WFB? As far as I recall there was even a WFB to WFRP conversion table in the rule book for 1st ed.

[FasterThanJesus]

Is the intention that the players will be playing rank and file troops or 'heroes'? If they're just infantry, distribution of damage would be the trickiest thing as you'll have to create some rules for that; WFB just accumulates damage against a unit.

Also, did you ever play Mighty Empires? It was a game that allowed players to create a campaign where individual battles could be fought either on the tabletop or quickly resolved. That had a rules for recovering casualties, as it is not necessarily the case that everyone who falls in the battlefield will die, a lot will just be incapacitated and can be treated.

I'm not sure that weapon rule differences matter too much. Play the WFRP rules when roleplaying and WFB when battling.

[Totsuzenheni Yukimi]

As far as I recall there was even a WFB to WFRP conversion table in the rule book for 1st ed.

There was, but as i recall it wasn't very good and mainly served to show how incompatible the two systems were.

[Hyarion]

@makrellen That locks me into using WFB 2e or 3e rules which would be a huge step backwards in terms of playability (and also finding resources for my players). Great idea though.

@FasterThanJesus I am familiar with Mighty Empires, but the flip side of the coin here is that WFRP characters have ~12 wounds, WFB Dragons have 6. Some stats can be imported wholesale from one to the other (Just use your WS Bonus from WFRP when you get to WFB, Strength and Toughness are even easier). Having 1 wound seems too severe/restricting for my players, but having them walking around with double the wounds of a Dragon or Treeman seems equally problematic.

Right now, I'm leaning towards giving everybody WFRP wound levels, and all WFB wounds (resolved in the usual WFB way) deal 1d10 WFRP wounds.
WFRP combat then still works the same, injuries and wounds move well between "narrative time" and "combat time", St/To/WS/W all still feel like they have their place, and the increased volume of attacks means that the battlefield is still a deadly place.

[Braddoc]

You can always run it full WHFRP, have the movmenet of the untis and battlefield be like WFB, but when regiments clash, switch to WHFRP battle? Regiments strenght are still a thing, but when you get down and dirty to it, each models have 12 wounds average, just that a single turn of WFB might be worth...30 minutes of real WHFRP time?

Similar to Rogue Trader; normal combat is 10 sec a round, while Void combat is 30 minutes per round.

[Hyarion]

This is why I love posting my ideas here, because you all give me such good fodder to think about. A very sincere thank you to all of you.

Braddoc, excellent ideas. Here's what I'm thinking right now,
PCs in a unit would act as a second unit champion, and any combats with a PC would be resolved as a one-round WFRP combat with results as a WFB Challenge/Duel and then WFB Combat Resolution.
PCs in a challenge would not face an outnumbering penalty, but would face extra attacks (spears, special rules like Bite) from 'bystanders'.

[Braddoc]

I'll have to recheck the duelligng rules form last edition, but it sounds good. Would combat resolution be affected by the PCs' round of 'Duel' in anyway? Doesn't t gives a bonus to Ld or something?

[Hyarion]

Yes, wounds and excess wounds (up to +5) caused in a Duel count as points for Combat Resolution.
Combat resolution is:
Wounds Scored (including Wounds inflicted in a Duel)
Unit Banner
Battle Standard
Rank Bonus
And (a nice addition from 8th edition) +1 to the side that charged in that turn (if any).

Add those up, the side with the lower total (Musician's break ties) applies the difference to a Ld check (2d6, roll under your leadership).
I'm also leaning towards allowing the PC (if present in that combat) a chance to use Inspire/Intimidate to further modify things.

[Braddoc]

Yeah, good call..else it's gonna be 3-4 PCs agaisnt a regiment of Marauders, since everyone ran away...

''Retreat? But we're PCs!''

And Flanking negates rank bonus IIRC as well, so just charging head first may not be always the best move...got to suck up some melee before having the friendly regiment flank the opposition..

[Hyarion]

Correct about Flanking (which also provides +1 Combat Resolution. Rear charges give +2 and also break ranks).

[Theo]

Another thing to consider, regarding different damage / wound levels etc, is the different scale. A single combat roll in WFB, unlike WFRP, doesn't mean a single blow but fighting over a longer time. A whole WFRP combat would probably take place within one combat turn in WFB. So I wouldn't sweat trying to make things too closely analogous.

If I were going to fuse the WFRP rules with some variant of WFB, I'd look at Warhammer Skirmish or perhaps even the Lord of the Rings miniatures rules, where each figure represents just one guy and you're dealing with more or less the same scale as in an RPG.

[Hyarion]

Warhammer Skirmish is basically WFB 6e with some of the unit mechanics taken away. But I already use those concepts (and from LotR SBG) for WFRP combat as it is, what I find lacking is large massed unit combat in 4e (and 2e, if I'm being honest) which neither game really delves into. What each lacks are the unit mechanics that make large scale combats interesting that I find WFB captures so well (especially as my next campaign will be a military-centric campaign).

I'm already planning on making extensive use of Skirmish and LotR scenarios to help set individual scenes.

[Dreadaxe]

Some links
WFRP2 to WFB6-7
http://www.warhammer-forum.com/index.ph ... wfb-wjdr2/

WFRP1 to WFB4-5
WFRP1 Apocrypha Now - Conversion Rules

WFB to WQ
WD 199 - "Getting Out Once In A While" article: part 1 of an article on converting your warriors for use within Warhammer Fantasy.
WD 200 - "Getting a Breath of Fresh Air" article: part 2 of an article on converting your warriors for use within Warhammer Fantasy.

WFB to White Dwarf version's Mordheim

ABOUT WARBANDS
By Tommy Punk

What do I base my points on when I make a Warband list? I take the points value from an Armybook and deduct the value of any equipment such as light armour or extra weapons. Then I multiply the points by 4 or 5 and look at the existing warbands in WD 225 to make sure I don't have a model with better characteristics but with lower or equal cost. A leader is 10-12 times the cost of the basic WFB model and have WS, BS, I and LD +1. When I have a rough sketch of the points I playtest them to see if they can be exploited or if they are too expensive. Special rules are valued on how effective they are. The points are modified alot, especially with new warbands that have no corresponding models or statline in WD 225. Basically 1 point of characterstic is worth 3-5 GC or points.

However special abilities are hard to calculate correctly. When I designed the Undead Warband lists I had problems with how the psyhology rules worked and if magic would be used. So I wrote my own rules, worked out a new psychology section and adjusted my magic system. If you are using these rules the Undead list is balanced, if not it may be either overpriced or underpriced depending on how you play the game.