Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: Rowsdower on December 31, 2017, 01:50:50 AM
-
Hey guys
I'm working on my war wagon and i'm having a bit of trouble [i've built the crew and the wagon itself out of odds and ends i've accumilated and i dont know how to arm the crew]
I cant seem to find specific rules for it and all google is doing is taking me to some glitchy wiki's.
Any help would be appreciated :smile2:
-
The rules for the War Wagon can be found on 5th edition empire armybook or 6th ravening hordes booklet. :happy:
-
or you could go to SOL and look at the picture:
(http://www.solegends.com/citcat1999/c1999p0389-01.jpg)
That will show you what weapons the crew had and what they look like.
The individual stats for the weapons might be a bit trickier.
-
Thanks guys
I had the old rule book but I must have misread or missed the rules. I'll just assemble the new crew to look like the old ones. If I can get a decent camera, i'll show pics when i'm done with it
-
The fact that they've never included this thing in latter editions of the game is a Sigmar-damned travesty. Such a cool concept, much better and fitting the Empire's theme, than the giant battle-chickens and magical altars. :dry:
-
@Xathrox86
I made my one out of parts of the celestial hurricanum thingy [or whatever its called] and city ruins kits. I pieced the crew together from swordsmen parts. I'm not to sure on how to use it on the tabletop, so i'll be using it as a chariot.
-
There are rules for it around somewhere. And suspect could be adapted if need be for a different edition than when it came out.
-
I think that the last rules for it were in the Warhammer Chronicles, for the 6th edition. Fidelis could probably say something more on that topic.
-
Rules for War Wagon taken from Warhammer Ravening Hordes.
War Wagon 120 points, crew of 6 and 2 war horses.
Wagon S5 T4 W5
Crew WS3 BS3 I3 Ld7
Warhorse M8 WS3 S3 I3 A1
Special Rules.
War wagon is a chariot with armour save 3+ and does d6 impact hits when charges.
For the crew, each combat round roll 1d6, that is the number of attacks the crew make, resolved at d3+2 strength.
-
^ Thanks, Scrubber
-
I like the old model, but is it worth it's points. Yes you get the nice impact charge, but for a crew of six models you only get 1d6 worth of combat miniatures.
That's bad when 3 of the miniatures have firing weapons. OK when the model was made we could not get Hochland Longrifle or Repeating Muskets, so that's 4 shots just there, both with armour piercing.
Not sure on the Blunderbuss, remember there being rules in a White Dwarf and it taking a turn to reload.
The other 3 weapons are combat. Ball and Chain, same rules as flail, +2 strength in the fire round of combat. Hooked Halberd, no rules, but at minimum same rules as halberd +1 strength. Man Catcher ? any one's guess.
So sorry in my humble opinion I would rather take a Master Engineer with either of the ranged weapons.
-
Man catcher was killing blow.
-
the blunderbuss you used the teardrop template. I believe everything under the template took a str 3 hit??
-
When I was showing my niece the old war wagon pictures, she asked me what the 'grabby weapon' was; to which I replied "Why that's a nose pincher; it pinches the enemies nose's at a distance of up two meters"
-
the blunderbuss you used the teardrop template. I believe everything under the template took a str 3 hit??
Yeah, but wasn't it for the 5th edition? Or did they released the Ravening Hordes around that time as well?
-
I think it was 4th edition. The 6th edition Steam Tank had the following rules for a blunderbuss: (move or fire, Flame template, S3, armour piercing).
-
Ravening Hordes did have the War Wagon, but not the blunderbuss.
-
The War Wagon if I'm correct had gone by 6th edition, and the Von Zeppel Steam Tank appeared, crewed by 6 Trainee Engineers. Rules in Warhammer Annual 2002.
As for the War Wagon it would not matter what a weapon was capable of as you roll 1d6 and that's the number of attacks that the total crew of the wagon made, not each figure.
Perhaps we should re-raise the war wagon with other less known engineer weapons as neither the Hochland long rifle and the repeater hand gun are that rare anymore.
-
Ravening Hordes did have the War Wagon, but not the blunderbuss.
Ravening hordes was a dumb down version where all the guys were treated the same with no exotic weaponry? ...am I right?
-
question: is the warwagon back in 9th age? .... I have three and would love to be able to use it lol
-
Ravening hordes was a dumb down version where all the guys were treated the same with no exotic weaponry? ...am I right?
Yes, as srubber said. The 4th edition War Wagon had the same array of experimental weapons as the 6th edition Steam Tank rules (although with different wording).
-
Games workshop rules for War Wagon.
Ravening Hordes rules is as Zak said, a dumbed down version of the rules. This supplement was only for quick play and to get people started in the hobby.
Final set of full rules, that allows you to fire the weapons is in the Warhammer Armies book "The Empire." It's the one with bright wizard and character in black armour using a foot-mans maul. [Help Fidelis, I never know which book is attached to which set of rules.]
The last set of rules I can find with the Steam Tank version of the War-Wagon is in 2002 Annual.
Perhaps one of the Mods can tell us if it's OK to copy and show the rules here without upsetting GW.
PS. In the book Uniforms and Heraldry of The Empire, it shows a picture of an Engineer with, quote "Grenade Launching Blunderbuss". Now this would make more sense on the War-Wagon than a plain old blunderbuss. Heaven knows how an outriders is supposed to hold that thing one handed. Fire it and still ride and control a horse.
Here is another thought. Since it's experimental how about the mechanical horse to pull it instead of warhorse's in armour.
-
As I said, it is the 4th edition Empire Army Book. The 6th Edition BRB was released in 2000, and all army books were initially replaced by the get-by list in Ravening Hordes (for free!). The 2002 Annual is what I called the 6th edition Steam Tank, because it contains offical rules for the Steam Tank during the 6th edition. The Heraldry of the Empire is part of the 7th edition, where only Engineers where able to take the Grenade Lauching Blunderbuss, even though the Outrider models did indeed have a similarly shaped weapon. Only in 8th edition, the Outrider Sharpshooter was allowed to get the GLB. The fact that the GLB is a "Move or Fire" weapon helps the verismilitude for including that option.
-
I know the rule book you speak of. It was the one I took inspiration from to build the war wagon. I just had trouble finding the rules for it. I collect Empire rule books. I have pretty much everyone released in the past 20-something years. The one from 2007 [or is it 2008] I dislike the most as it has too much focus on special characters.
Not to veer off topic too much
But what Scrubber said about the grenade launcher carried by a horseman raises the question of all those other weapons which would be near impossible to wield. Halberdiers with shields in one hand, etc. The empire is an OH&S nightmare
-
I would not overestimate the problem. As I indicated, the Outriders can only fire the GLB, if they have not moved. Using two hands to fire a weapon should not be an issue from a standing horse. Indeed, in reality, expert riders should be able to do it even on the move.
And as the "Requires Two hands" special rule says (BRB p.75):
"If a weapon requires two hands to use, it is not possible for a model to use a shield or an additional hand weapon alongside it in close combat (although a shield can still be used against wounds caused by shooting or magic). We assume that the warrior in question slings the spare wargear on his back, or simply drops it, until the fight is done."
-
As it happens:
(https://i.imgur.com/JZtdnXo.jpg)
Mariano Taccola: De ingeneis. Ca. 1440. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München, Clm 197.
-
I had not seen that picture before, and the idea that they were firing these early gunpowder weapons from the saddle in 1440 is quite interesting. Suspect it was rare, but obviously it was being considered, if not outright attempted.
-
The historical hand mortar first appears in the 16th century, but reached its peak around 1700. It was never used in large numbers, and had the reputation to be more lethal to its user than the enemy. I am not sure if it was ever in official use with any cavalry unit.
Hellebardier and shield:
(https://i.imgur.com/tVm90we.jpg)
Germany, 16th Century. Bayerisches Armeemuseum, Ingolstadt.
-
Any idea which town or city's coat of arms that is?
-
It is one of the Imperial banners during the Habsburg dynasty. The double-headed eagle stands for the Holy Roman Empire, the central shield contains the colours of the HR Emperor (black and gold) and the colours of Austria.
-
Excellent. :icon_cool:
-
On the subject of that guy on the horse with the early powder weapon
Armies have been using powder weapons longer than we believe they have [I'm not sure on exact dates as modern military history is my forte] but they were used in lesser numbers as they were more expensive, cumbersome and not as accurate. I guess nobles in the renaissance gave troops bows and crossbows over firearms as they were easier to produce and could fire at a faster rate.
-
The earliest known depictions in Europe of a powder weapon are from 1326, in works by Walter de Milemete:
- De secretis secretorum, 1326, Bodleian Library Oxford, ms 458( the "Holkham ms"):
- De nobilitatibus, sapientiis, et prudentiis regum, 1326-7, Christ Church Oxford (‘de Milemete ms’).
The earliest powder weapon found in Europe (the Loshult gun) dates from ca. 1330/40 (Statens historiska Museum, Stockholm, Inv.-Nr. 2891).
The Mary Rose (which sank at Portsmouth in 1545) had 91 cannon (of various types), but it also had 250 longbows on board.
-
Interesting thing on the Mary Rose cannon's. Some on display at Portsmouth are not what I expected of a navel gun, but had a carriage of an artillery gun used on land, as per the Empire cannon.
-
The Mary Rose was built in a transitional period. She herself was re-equipped a number of times. By the time of the Armada (1588), the English navy was well ahead of the Spanish in naval artillery, with better standardisation and a more general inroduction of gun carriages adapted to naval warfare.
-
I saw a documentary about the conquistadors taking crossbows with them. That's interesting as we associate the conquistadors with early guns
-
It is also the case that they did not wear the Morion helmets. :icon_wink:
Neither the firearms nor the crossbows were particularly suited against lightly armed opponents (like the Indians). At least, the firearms had a psychological effect.
-
As it happens:
(https://i.imgur.com/JZtdnXo.jpg)
Mariano Taccola: De ingeneis. Ca. 1440. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München, Clm 197.
I know of one Victorian era recreation based on this fantastic image and at least one rulebook containing an handgun mounted knight, though this combination probably never existed, as I've haven't come across a reference beyond this drawing. Even if the horse was trained not to spook at the sound and smell of gunfire, it wouldn't be fired on the move with any accuracy it couldn't be reloaded easily, hence pre-wheelock/firelock/flintock mounted gunmen, would dismount to fire.
Back on topic, anyone used the alternate war wagon rules in UK WD 146/147? This version had a light cannon and additional crewmen armed with arquebuses.
-
The Mary Rose was built in a transitional period. She herself was re-equipped a number of times. By the time of the Armada (1588), the English navy was well ahead of the Spanish in naval artillery, with better standardisation and a more general inroduction of gun carriages adapted to naval warfare.
No such difference in naval artillery quality between the English and Spanish navies. The Navy Royal's ships while making use of the four wheeled carriage, relied on a variety of guns, new and obsolete, with gunners of various quality and a shortage of ammunition. Spanish naval doctrine relied more on boarding actions, so wouldn't have made a difference if they used two or four wheeled carriages. In the end, long range gunfire didn't have that significant and effect in breaking up the Spanish formations - all three armadas failed due to the weather.
-
On the subject of that guy on the horse with the early powder weapon
Armies have been using powder weapons longer than we believe they have [I'm not sure on exact dates as modern military history is my forte] but they were used in lesser numbers as they were more expensive, cumbersome and not as accurate. I guess nobles in the renaissance gave troops bows and crossbows over firearms as they were easier to produce and could fire at a faster rate.
Increasingly centralized states, not nobles, had a monopoly on guns during the Renaissance and crossbows were phased out by ~1550. By the end of the 15th Century, guns were cheap and ubiquitous throughout Europe in a variety of calibers - the Italians led the way. Unlike the arquebus, the crossbow could be used and reloaded mounted with the aid of a crannequin, though large groups tended to be employed like dragoons.
-
So far I've finished most of the wagon [I need find something to make the side panels with] and I've made three crew members from swordsmen kits. One has a repeater gun, another has a halberd and the third has a blunderbuss. I'll make the others when I can get the right parts. I've also painted them to look like the crew from the 199x rule book.
Oh and in regards to our other discussion, I just finished a book about the Jacobite rebellion. It states that the post war Edinburgh royalist militia, patrolled the streets with halberds; in 1746.
-
I may have something for you for the sides? I think I owe you something anyway?
-
I may have something for you for the sides? I think I owe you something anyway?
The wagon I have I made from city ruins parts and celestial hurricanum bits. I'm not sure if the old pewter war wagon parts would fit to well to what I have. I was going to improvise side panels out of cavalry bases
-
Oh fair enough then. It is fun DIY.
I have two side panels with parts of the bottom struts cut off from when I built my War Altar years and years back, but have never found a use for them. Up to you - offer is there :happy:
-
Oh fair enough then. It is fun DIY.
I have two side panels with parts of the bottom struts cut off from when I built my War Altar years and years back, but have never found a use for them. Up to you - offer is there :happy:
Thanks for the offer though, Warlord.
-
No such difference in naval artillery quality between the English and Spanish navies. The Navy Royal's ships while making use of the four wheeled carriage, relied on a variety of guns, new and obsolete, with gunners of various quality and a shortage of ammunition. Spanish naval doctrine relied more on boarding actions, so wouldn't have made a difference if they used two or four wheeled carriages. In the end, long range gunfire didn't have that significant and effect in breaking up the Spanish formations - all three armadas failed due to the weather.
Of course, there was. The Englsih sailing qualities and tactics were superior to the Spanish. As you say: the Spanish relied on boarding - a doctrine that is unlikely to succeed against a faster and more agile opponent. The number of different types of cannon of the English fleet was smaller, and thus, they needed less different types of shot. The Englsih bcannon crew consisted of sailors too, and there was a single command on a ship. Having clumsy two-wheeled carriages was a major disadvantage for the Spanish: inboard loading was very difficult; outboard loading suicidal. As a result, in most cases, the Spanish were able to fire only the pre-loaded shot of te heavier guns. The fast firing of the English meant that they actually run out of ammunition (which they also had too little of).
That said, the Spanish mission was not to defeat the English fleet, but to be able to transport and land the invasion force from Flanders to England. As you say, the English were not able to break up the Spanish formation. From a strategic point of view, Gravelingen as such was not a Spanish defeat.
-
No such difference in naval artillery quality between the English and Spanish navies. The Navy Royal's ships while making use of the four wheeled carriage, relied on a variety of guns, new and obsolete, with gunners of various quality and a shortage of ammunition. Spanish naval doctrine relied more on boarding actions, so wouldn't have made a difference if they used two or four wheeled carriages. In the end, long range gunfire didn't have that significant and effect in breaking up the Spanish formations - all three armadas failed due to the weather.
Of course, there was. The Englsih sailing qualities and tactics were superior to the Spanish. As you say: the Spanish relied on boarding - a doctrine that is unlikely to succeed against a faster and more agile opponent. The number of different types of cannon of the English fleet was smaller, and thus, they needed less different types of shot. The Englsih bcannon crew consisted of sailors too, and there was a single command on a ship. Having clumsy two-wheeled carriages was a major disadvantage for the Spanish: inboard loading was very difficult; outboard loading suicidal. As a result, in most cases, the Spanish were able to fire only the pre-loaded shot of te heavier guns. The fast firing of the English meant that they actually run out of ammunition (which they also had too little of).
That said, the Spanish mission was not to defeat the English fleet, but to be able to transport and land the invasion force from Flanders to England. As you say, the English were not able to break up the Spanish formation. From a strategic point of view, Gravelingen as such was not a Spanish defeat.
There wasn't a significant difference...
If the English sailing qualities and tactics were superior to the Spanish, then they wouldn't have had to change things during the campaign, by dividing the fleet into 4 squadrons. In addition to a shortage of ammunition, the English lacked enough sufficiently trained gunners, explaining the rapid ineffectual long range firing, in contrast with the better trained close range orientated Spanish sea soldiers, who had to make do with badly cast ammunition, insufficient to penetrate hulls. It was only after engaging in close range gunnery, were the English able to inflict some damage, but it wasn't enough to break apart the formation, so they had to resort to fireships. Much has been made of the small number of race built galleons in the past, derived from French and Spanish galleys, in some cases converted ones from Henry VIII's reign, but the agility didn't have a sufficient impact in the campaign.
-
Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.
But you do not have to take my word for it:
We found that many of the enemy’s ships held great advantage over us in combat, both in their design and in their guns, gunners and crews ... so that they could do with us as they wished.
Don Francisco de Bobadilla, the Armada’s senior military officer.
-
Do not take my word for it:
We found that many of the enemy’s ships held great advantage over us in combat, both in their design and in their guns, gunners and crews ... so that they could do with us as they wished.
Don Francisco de Bobadilla, the Armada’s senior military officer.
So what's so onerous about my responses?
Maybe I should cherry-pick stuff too...
"In fact, in 1588, while one English gunner complained about the lack of skilled gunnners in the fleet, Spanish observers claimed that the English fired their guns as frequently as the Spanish could fire a musket." (p. 43, Tudor Warships v. 2)
Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.
You're grasping at straws now...
-
Maybe I should cherry-pick stuff too...
"In fact, in 1588, while one English gunner complained about the lack of skilled gunnners in the fleet, Spanish observers claimed that the English fired their guns as frequently as the Spanish could fire a musket." (p. 43, Tudor Warships v. 2)
There is no contradiction. It depends on the level of skill you would expect.
Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.
You're grasping at straws now...
The shoe seems rather on the other foot.
-
Maybe I should cherry-pick stuff too...
"In fact, in 1588, while one English gunner complained about the lack of skilled gunnners in the fleet, Spanish observers claimed that the English fired their guns as frequently as the Spanish could fire a musket." (p. 43, Tudor Warships v. 2)
There is no contradiction. It depends on the level of skill you would expect.
It's not what you said originally...
Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.
You're grasping at straws now...
The shoe seems rather on the other foot.
Is something wrong with you?
-
Maybe I should cherry-pick stuff too...
"In fact, in 1588, while one English gunner complained about the lack of skilled gunnners in the fleet, Spanish observers claimed that the English fired their guns as frequently as the Spanish could fire a musket." (p. 43, Tudor Warships v. 2)
There is no contradiction. It depends on the level of skill you would expect.
It's not what you said originally...
Yes, it is. The assumed difference between the quotes is explained by the different level of skill each side is accustomed to.
Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.
You're grasping at straws now...
The shoe seems rather on the other foot.
Is something wrong with you?
No, I am perfectly fine, thank you.
-
Time for Tea and stickies.
-
Before tea and stickies, allow me to quote the full paragraph Condottiero Magno himself referred to:
While the demi-cannons were still 10ft (3m) long, culverins ranged from 7 to 8Vzft (2.1 to 2.6m) long, demi-culverins were 8ft (204m), while sakeus and falcons were listed as being 7ft (2.1m) long. Once these guns were mounted on compact four-wheeled carriages with small truck wheels, they would take up considerably less deck space than earlier, longer guns, and would consequently be easier to reload and to fire. While the Spanish still mounted their guns on two-wheeled carriages essentially solid-wheeled and slightly shortened versions of those employed on land - the English had developed their own form of gun carriage. The carriages recovered from the Mary Rose which sank in 1545 show that this process was already underway during Henry VIII's reign, and a combination of accounts and a few scant pictorial records suggest that by 1580 the NavyRoyal had fully adopted the four-wheeled carriage. The combination of shorter guns and more manoeuvrable carriages was as important to the success of the Elizabethan warship as the design of her hull. In fact, in 1588, while one English gunner complained about the lack of skilled gunners in the fleet, Spanish observers claimed that the English fired their guns as frequently as the Spanish could fire a musket. The gun and carriage were perfectly designed for the business of naval gunnery, and consequently they easily outdid the Spanish in terms of rate of fire if not in accuracy. The effect this gunnery advantage had on English naval tactics has already been examined in some detail in Elizabethan Sea Dogs (Osprey Elite Series 70). However, it is worth repeating that while the Spanish based their tactics on boarding the enemy, the English preferred to keep their distance and rely on their ordnance. This is exactly why Drake altered the ordnance carried on board the Elizabeth Bonaventure in 1585. Royal warships were issued with boarding weapons, muskets and other close-range weapons, but it was much safer to keep the better-trained Spanish sea soldiers at a safe distance. If the English fleet closed to within point-blank range of the enemy - just as they did during the final stages of the Armada campaign - then the effect could be devastating.
Whose position is actually supported here? But now I will hold my tongue on this subject.