New spells, equipment, monsters, heroes and a few new rules

[Von Necron]

How come everyone is against fighting with a spear and shield. I hear that often in other games to. Warhammer is an example. Pikes I understand but ancient warriors fought with shield and spear.

[cynthialee]

How come everyone is against fighting with a spear and shield. I hear that often in other games to. Warhammer is an example. Pikes I understand but ancient warriors fought with shield and spear.

Thats because most war gamers have never been within a mile of a real melee weapon.

[Templar]

How come everyone is against fighting with a spear and shield. I hear that often in other games to. Warhammer is an example. Pikes I understand but ancient warriors fought with shield and spear.

Thats because most war gamers have never been within a mile of a real melee weapon.

Not in my case though, I'm too much of a history nerd to not know about hoplites, triarii and Viking spearmen.

In this case, I just compared the dagger and the spear. The dagger costs 150 gold, allows for 2 dice attacks and can be used diagonally. Meanwhile, the spear is the same, EXCEPT that it also can be thrown. This option should, in my opinion add to the cost of the spear...alternatively, the spear could have a drawback and keep the same cost. I went with the second option and imagined it to be a spear of the larger kind...don't really know why right now. I think I will change the cost instead.

However, I still think the staff need two hands. More of a swinging weapon than a poking weapon...also, it does the same thing as the dagger for 50 gold less otherwise...

And you can have spears and shields in warhammer. I love my Saurus Spearmen

[cynthialee]

Love my Hoplites.
I have never had a group of Heroes (D&D, AD&D, HQ or SAGA) dumb enough to chalenge the authority of a Prince with a formation of spearmen at his back.

[Templar]

When I started to look over the prices of the weapons (base weapons + my own, see first posts) to figure out what cost the spear would have, I started thinking like this:

A: There should be a base cost for a weapon with a certain attack value for one hand use.
B: If you can not use a shield, the item should be cheaper.
C: Diagonal attack possible? More expensive.
D: Can you throw it? Also more expensive.

We have two fixed values...
1) Hand axe. One handed, may be thrown, 150 gold
2) Dagger. One handed, may attack diagonally, 150 gold

This indicates that C and D should be the same cost. But it seems to me (as I've made the staff a two handed weapon), and Ethica also raised this point, that not being able to use a shield [B] is a more important factor than C and D. But I'm not sure by how much...

This Is what I'm thinking now. (and this is also why the club costs 125 gold. It is the base cost of a one handed 2 AD weapon)
Base cost 125 gold
Two handed -40%
Diagonal +20%
Throwable +20%

This makes the staff cost 100 gold and makes the spear cost 175 gold. Does this seem reasonable? I could really use some help here What do you think?

[Daedalus]

I don't think the base prices are working yet. While the 125 gc base price for a 2-handed weapon (no shield) fits for a staff and spear, it doesn't jibe with a 1-handed weapon (may use a shield) like the hand axe. At 150 gc and a thrown weapon, the base price of the hand axe also comes out to 125 gc- yet it may be combined with a shield, so it should be more expensive.
As the logic stands now, I think you could up the price of the hand axe (and others?) or lower the price of 2-handed weapons, but then prices will drift further from the equipment cards (maybe not so bad). The 20%/20%/40% probably needs tweaking, as well. It's a slippery slope to try to quantify all this and approximate what the original equipment cards gave us. I'm trying something similar with the NA Armory and other weapons from the expansion packs. My take is to throw in values that step up, but my approximations are less specific than what you are attempting.
Sorry I'm being so critical- I know what your are doing isn't easy. If I can manage any suggestions that are more concrete, I'll try to post them. Problem is, my mind tends to go down the NA HQ paths. I imagine I can try your ideas out with my work as it stands, and see if I can gain any insight. No promises though, this is a tough nut to crack.

[Templar]

Sorry I'm being so critical- I know what your are doing isn't easy. If I can manage any suggestions that are more concrete, I'll try to post them.

Critisism is what I need!! I tend to get stuck in my ideas, and it always helps to get someone to change my thougth patterns. Thank you for beign honest and sharing your thoughts on this, dude!

At 150 gc and a thrown weapon, the base price of the hand axe also comes out to 125 gc- yet it may be combined with a shield, so it should be more expensive.

I think you may have misunderstood my "base cost" principle...by my math and a base cost of 125 gold [club], a thrown weapon [handaxe] should cost 125 x (1+0,2) = 150 gold, a two handed, diagonal weapon [my version of the staff] should cost 125 x (1-0,4+0,2) = 100 gold. I was very careful to make sure that the dagger, the staff and the handaxe would work out to be same cost as normal. However, this may be the wrong approach as you mention here...

...but then prices will drift further from the equipment cards (maybe not so bad). The 20%/20%/40% probably needs tweaking, as well. It's a slippery slope to try to quantify all this and approximate what the original equipment cards gave us. I'm trying something similar with the NA Armory and other weapons from the expansion packs. My take is to throw in values that step up, but my approximations are less specific than what you are attempting.

It is probably very difficult to get a clean set of prices with my system. Especially if you want to have the same level on the prices...I'm starting to lean towards your thing, when you have set steps between weapon prices. Maybe I can have a combination of that with my percentage system, by rounding off to the nearest price step? Still, 20%/20%/40% should probably be reworked...and weapons that takes away defence dice need their own percentage.

I need to work on this

[torilen]

quite a well-thought out concept and design for pricing weapons - could probably use the same line of thought for
armors, as well.

I might ask, though...why is your starting base price for a 2 AD weapon? the dagger, staff, club, and such are all
1 AD.

Thought - what is going to be your price increase for each AD increase? 25%? 50%? 100%?
Thought - What would be your price increase for magical weapons? 100%? 150%? 200%?

I might suggest a closer range for price differences...maybe 20% up or down, or 25% up or down for each difference.
Can't use shield = -25%
Diagonal attack = +25%
Throw attack = +25%

I like the work thought - I'm extremely interested in seeing how you work this all out.

[Templar]

quite a well-thought out concept and design for pricing weapons - could probably use the same line of thought for
armors, as well.

I might ask, though...why is your starting base price for a 2 AD weapon? the dagger, staff, club, and such are all
1 AD.

Thought - what is going to be your price increase for each AD increase? 25%? 50%? 100%?
Thought - What would be your price increase for magical weapons? 100%? 150%? 200%?

First, thanx very much, always fun when people show interest for an idea
Second, in the european version, the dagger and hand axe (150g) and so on allows you to attack with 2 AD, not +1. The sword gives you a basic attack of 3 AD (250g) , battle axe 4 but no shield (400g). This is why I currently base the prices ofmy new/modified weapons in different groups, calculated from these values. So each group of 2/3/4 attack dice weapons have a respective basic cost which I use for modification. I am not planning to have magic weapons in the armoury, so this is mot an issue.

I might suggest a closer range for price differences...maybe 20% up or down, or 25% up or down for each difference.
Can't use shield = -25%
Diagonal attack = +25%
Throw attack = +25%

This is where it gets interesting!! I have no idea which would be a good set of modifyers, but I have to disagree with you that no shield is compensated by diagonal attack. Still, thats just my personal opinion.

I have made an XL-document where I can play a bit with the modification factors. I will attach it here, so that you can play with it yourselves, and check if you come up with something good. I think most things are self explanatory, but if you have a question about it, please don't hesitate to ask!

[torilen]

Hmmm....yeah...I don't know if no shield would be a good equal to attacking diagonal or not, either.
I mean...attacking diagonal is nice and all, but giving up the ability to have an extra defense die or two
is quite a loss.
Or is that what you were saying...that no shield should have a better price, since you're giving up more?

Also - would you differentiate between a thrown weapon and a simple range weapon (crossbow, sling, bow, etc.)
I would say that a range weapon should have a higher price that a thrown weapon...but that is just me.

I'll check out your excel file - you've got me quite intrigued right now.