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'm working on a set of siege rules for my fantasy game and I'd like to hear how people approach this scenario.

The starting point for my draft rules (and concepts) was GW's Warhammer Siege. When it first came out, I loved it (in large part because of the limits on characters, magic and flyers). This was near the tail-end of WHFB 5th Edition, and many of the restrictions used in Siege found their way into the 6th edition rules.

However, as with all GW designs, there were many problems. This isn't the place to get into specifics, but conceptually GW wasn't clear on what they were trying to do. They had rules for siege scenarios, linked campaigns, but because of their chronic inconsistency with time and space scaling, troops were sent toward the walls with the hopes that by the time they got there, maybe some breaches would be made. This was nuts.

The victory conditions were also a bit off. One way to win was to clear wall sections, but the other was to "take" the courtyard (or move off board if the castle was only partial).

To avoid these problems, I am focusing purely on the assault itself. I may later come up with a decision matrix, but I'll build it backwards - after I have everything else nailed down.

Thus, whether the wall is breached is part of the scenario, as is the use of siege towers, assault ladders, etc.

The next issue is defining victory. Mass combat rules are not built for taking keeps or corner towers, yet here we are. Typically these things were fought to the finish, so the turn limits appropriate in field battles don't apply. I'm thinking with reduced model counts, more turns won't add too much time, but only playtesting will tell.

An alternative approach is too use the "shaken" mechanic to determine when one side's morale collapses. If the attackers take enough losses, they will recoil, while the defenders may seek quarter. This is consistent with Conqueror's focus on morale as the centerpiece of combat.

Anyhow, that's what I have for now, let me know your thoughts.