Wow really interesting siege thread. I am a bit late but here is my two cents: I heartily agree with this. When a wall/tower is destroyed (by siege weapons, huge monsters, or magic ) the wall is removed and replaced by a ruined wall section =Satisfactory I played many siege scenarios with my brother a long time ago (6th ed? pardon my AOS ignorance) and we had a ton of variations between beastmen, lizardmen, wood elves, and bretonnians. Having ruined wall sections came in handy when they were destroyed (whether by monsters, magic, or siege weapons) so that the destroyed sections could now be crossed over by the attacking troops. This allowed them easy access to the central keep-plaza, BUT it also counted as difficult terrain for them to cross, and they would have to contend with the wall defenders to happened to survive. I believe everyone on the wall before it was destroyed all had to take a mandatory strength 10 hit or something to survive, so not many did unless they were a character (just like in movies, the heroes tend to survive crazy scenarios like falling a 100 foot drop surrounded by falling boulders). Lots of good points. We dealt with damage to walls/towers/buildings by using the strength of an attack: the higher the strength the better the damage, so only really big things could have a chance of destroying them. I don't remember where we drew the line but most monsters could at least damage the gates of a fortress. Artillery (especially cannons) had a better chance of bringing down some fortifications, and I think we used the old RUINATION OF CITIES magic spell a couple times to really bring down the walls This was also a huge issue for us too , we figured out that after a while it was too boring to have siege towers start so far away and not make it to the actual walls until turn 4, plus shooting from the walls nearly wiped out most of the units first. Options to fix this problem were either move them closer than the 24" start (because maybe the siege towers have had time to work their way towards the walls before the battle starts in earnest) or to just allow them to march towards the walls each turn (because they are really putting their backs into it, though this is a bit of a stretch ). I am looking forward to whatever other ideas come out of this thread, this makes me want to go build some more siege equipment! Congrats Lord Slann, I like your new picture!
Are you agreeing with Aginor but disagreeing with me? Cuz w're saying the same thing. I'm confused. For siege equipment I'd do the following: "major" points on the wall (towers, gatehouses) can have heavy siege equipment (e.g. a mounted cannon). How heavy exactly depends on the type of wall (a small village's wall isn't going to have nearly the same capacity as a heavily fortified fortress). The wall segments in between can have throwing weapons stockpiled on them (rocks, javalins, etc.). These throwing weapons can be used by any unit within 3" of the stockpile instad of their regular attack (excluding you know stuff that is too feral/stupid/has no arms to throw things with). The type & effectivness of weapon depending on the race defending. This to balance out squishy and smart human defenders with hulking orruk brutes. As for walls providing a bonus great enough to sustain a 3-1 ratio; a lot of armies, especially at lower point values, will not be able to pull that off without the walls having significant bonusses beyond just being in the way. Walls or no walls a 1000 points of skinks are unlikely to stop 3000 points of stormforged.
Well, of course walls alone are not enough. That's what other fortifications are for, like the towers I mentioned in the first post. Let me explain it on an example that I tried already: I created a terrain piece that is a fighting platform. It has magnets so I can use my spare Stegadon equipment on it. Here it is: http://lustria-online.com/threads/aginors-painting-blog.19114/page-16#post-201638 The rules in the shown configuration are as follows: - if there are two or more models on the platform (they may not have mounts but everyone else is OK) it gains the Stegadon's Sunfire Throwers attack. - otherwise it works with the same rules as the Watch Tower standard scenery. I played it against my good friend @Mesandres and covered it with a few low and barriers. I gave the walls the following simple stats: 3+ save, only melee attacks, 10 wounds. The barriers were standing close to each other in the middle, but on the edges there was open space to attack through. We then played the battle and the Ironjawz attacked that small fort with a 1600 points army, while I defended it with about 1000 points of Seraphon, mainly Skink units. That was before GHB2017 though so our army was a bit weaker and Ironjawz were quite a bit faster. In short: The Ironjawz won, which was the expected result, but that simple platform and a few simple barriers made it a close battle. Had the walls been closed on the sides I am pretty sure I would have won, because then the Gore-Gruntas couldn't have killed my Bastiladon so quickly. With proper fortress walls I could have easily fended off that attack I think. That's what made me think about how it could be fun having such rules for a proper siege battle.
Another idea just as an example: If you had a Bastiladon with a Solar Engine, but it would not be able to move and instead have 30" range with its main attack. Would it cost more or less points? Because that's pretty much what I have in mind for a possible tower.
That'd work relativly well as what I mentioned as the "main" pieces of equipment (towers, gatehouses etc). Just wanted to be clear on this as in real life the mere existance of walls provides a massive advantage. There's examples of mere handfulls of men stopping entire armies simple cuz they have terrific fortifications. Also I would Always do this INSTEAD of its normal attacks. Otherwise you'l get into situations where for example a unit of kurgoth hunters being amazing at melee, amazing at range & heaving freaking extra attacks. Less, unless it's positioned in a manner were it can't really be counterattacked while being able to cover 90% of the battle with it's own attacks. It being stationary reduces it's potential considerably. Also the lack of javalins & melee attack significantly reduce it's reliability. I'd say it should probably be 50-75% unless it's in a perfect position or is extremely difficult to destroy.