Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I hear the term "hero hammer" a lot, so my friends and I decided to make rules for a game-type called "Hero-Hammer".

You select an hq, and 5 troops. individual models.
each troop will be his/her own unit
Kit them up any way that you would like, but the point max is 200. (you can escalate as high as you want, by just doubling, but anything over 400pts isn't going to be very fun, in terms of the rules)

Now designate corners 1-4.
roll a d6, roll a 1 your hq lands on 1,a 2 your hq lands on 2 etc. if you get a 5 pick a corner.
on a 6, you may choose where on the board to land, then just use deep strike rules.
do the same with your troops.
after deployment, initiative as normal

now, have some fun. The objective of the game is to a) kill all of your opponents troops and surround his hq
b) capture his hq by defeating it in close combat
or c) capture and hold his starting corner for two turns with your hq.

you have 5 turns to complete any one of the objectives.

You may not shoot at hqs,

Have fun! and enjoy "Hero-Hammer"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wasn't sure where to post this, sorry if this is in the wrong place



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any concerns about this? anything need to be fixed? let me know.
playtest at your leisure

"You may not shoot at HQ's"

Why not? That kinda makes shooty heroes, you know, useless.

Well maybe that could be reworked into "only hqs may shoot at eachother"?
I needed to try to make it fair for nids and orks. Seeing as they aren't very shooty


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the Hq dies, the game is over. On a lucky roll, then the Hq is dead. That's not fun.

 aapch45 wrote:
Well maybe that could be reworked into "only hqs may shoot at eachother"?
I needed to try to make it fair for nids and orks. Seeing as they aren't very shooty

But the issue is that if you get into CC with a full-wound Bikerboss or Swarmlord, you die. No matter what.

If the Hq dies, the game is over. On a lucky roll, then the Hq is dead. That's not fun.

That's the same way as in assault, so instead of lucky mishaps going down in shooting AND assault, its just in assault this way.

Which kinda cripples shooty and even balanced HQ's. Only dedicated assault HQ's would excel here.

"Only HQ's may shoot at eachother" doesn't sound bad, though.

 aapch45 wrote:
If the Hq dies, the game is over. On a lucky roll, then the Hq is dead. That's not fun.

But somehow it is fun if you play a shooting army and all you can do is wait helplessly for the assault HQ to charge you and wipe you out effortlessly?

I see the point.

Okay, so does "only hqs may shoot eachother"sound good then?

I want it to be balanced, so give me feedback.

 aapch45 wrote:
I see the point.

Okay, so does "only hqs may shoot eachother"sound good then?

I want it to be balanced, so give me feedback.

But what do your troops do then?

Troops kill eachother, and bodyguard the hq


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remember, one objective is to leave the opponent troopless to surround the Hq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What could I do to fix the troop dilemma, without unbalancing the game?

 aapch45 wrote:
Troops kill eachother, and bodyguard the hq

But the whole point of this seems to be "get your HQ into assault with the other HQ" with all the other rules designed to avoid any chance of this failing to happen. So why have troops at all? Just start the HQs 1" apart and roll to see who gets to charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aapch45 wrote:
What could I do to fix the troop dilemma, without unbalancing the game?

Remove all restrictions on what each model can do.

Peregrine: this does seem to be the point doesn't it?
Wasn't what we were going for though.
This is just the beta of the game type.

I appreciate the criticism, but it could be a tad more constructive.

What do you suggest?

 aapch45 wrote:
What do you suggest?

Remove all restrictions on model actions. Each side starts in their designated spot, then the game plays normally. If an HQ dies to a random bolter shot too bad for that HQ.

I see as I was typing, you offered a suggestion.

I guess if you were to remove restrictions that would help.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe then make hero-hammer a tournie style game, so you can just set right back up and play again, and best 2-3 wins or something

 aapch45 wrote:
I see as I was typing, you offered a suggestion.

I guess if you were to remove restrictions that would help.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe then make hero-hammer a tournie style game, so you can just set right back up and play again, and best 2-3 wins or something

How do you define "surround your opponent's HQ"?

That sounds impossible. HQ's will just shred right through any troop near it.

I'll give you an example of an Hq being surrounded

Say you have a captain and 5 marines and I have an arching and 5 kabs

My warriors get lucky and kill your marines, and next turn they fleet near your hq

Your Hq attacks my warriors, but doesn't kill them all.

Say hes up against a wall, or my Hq is behind him, hes surrounded. And then "captured"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Archon **
My keyboard autocorrects

But that makes no sense. Why should a HQ suddenly be 'captured' just because they're temporarily backed against a wall by weak troops they will slaughter effortlessly when they charge next turn?

Well if there weren't some rule like that, it wouldn't be a special scenario.

 aapch45 wrote:
Well if there weren't some rule like that, it wouldn't be a special scenario.

Why do special scenarios require rules that don't make any sense? You've already got a special scenario just by having non-standard forces and a victory condition of "kill the HQ". You don't need to add rules just for the sake of having rules, especially when those rules are bad ones.

Its supposed to be like a game of chess. In the sense that your Hq is the most valuable piece
except your Hq is also really op.
in order to prevent the nothing but combat scenario, there needs to be away to neutralize the opponent.

Maybe make it a points game instead of kill the Hq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although I agree with you 100% peregrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrap the points idea.

 aapch45 wrote:
Its supposed to be like a game of chess. In the sense that your Hq is the most valuable piece
except your Hq is also really op.
in order to prevent the nothing but combat scenario, there needs to be away to neutralize the opponent.

So allow shooting the HQ to death. You're starting with a bad rule (no shooting) and then adding another bad rule (capturing by surrounding) to compensate for the first bad rule. Just remove both of them and let the normal game mechanics take care of balancing.

Play Warma/hordes but use 40k models and rename everything?

Ok peregrine, sounds good, basic mechanics, with the other 2 victory conditions

*extends hand* we good?
Thekbob....what?

 aapch45 wrote:
Ok peregrine, sounds good, basic mechanics, with the other 2 victory conditions

*extends hand* we good?
Thekbob....what?

Warmachine / Hordes basically is this. You get a warcaster special-character hero, and then he has buddies. By killing the warcaster, you win the game.

That wasn't my goal at all!
I didn't even know about that


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't forget the other objective is to capture the opponents starting corner.... so it's not entirely like warmachine/hordes... unless theres a game mode like that.