Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: Johann Q Peasant on April 01, 2014, 04:27:52 PM
-
Hey all,
I would like to start a thread on possible house rules on shooting you might like. I hate gunlines, but I dislike the current state of shooting. Its weird, because there is a fine line between too little and too much shooting.
Some ideas in my head, just toying around with them. .
1. Units above a certain size count as a large target, or just +1 to hit units above a certain size. - varies depending on base size (infantry on 20mm bases with more than 25 members are easy to hit. cavalry bases 10+,etc.
2. Stand and shoot requires a leadership test in order to shoot, or only 3d6 members are allowed to shoot, and never beyond the first two ranks.
3.all warmachines fire every other turn.
4. Possible ranged unit limits. 0-2, etc.
Thoughts?
-
Hey all,
I would like to start a thread on possible house rules on shooting you might like. I hate gunlines, but I dislike the current state of shooting. Its weird, because there is a fine line between too little and too much shooting.
Some ideas in my head, just toying around with them. .
1. Units above a certain size count as a large target, or just +1 to hit units above a certain size. - varies depending on base size (infantry on 20mm bases with more than 25 members are easy to hit. cavalry bases 10+,etc.
2. Stand and shoot requires a leadership test in order to shoot, or only 3d6 members are allowed to shoot, and never beyond the first two ranks.
3.all warmachines fire every other turn.
4. Possible ranged unit limits. 0-2, etc.
Thoughts?
Before I reply to this or not proper, is this intended as an April's Fools of some kind?
-
Don't think so. BS shooting sucks.
Having war machines fire every other round is too harsh.
Suggested rule after fixing BS shooting: An army may never have more points invested in war machines and units with missile weapons, than in units without.
-
The fact that an archer can only fire his bow as fast as an artillery crew can load, aim and fire a cannon (or stone thrower) is a bit ridiculous. I don't think the solution is to make warmachines worse, but to make shooting better.
Handguns and crossbows should be able to fire 2 shots with no penalty.
-
Handguns and crossbows should be able to fire 2 shots with no penalty.
I think that would go against the flow of the game mechanics, as infantry can generally only make one attack with a melee weapon (with exceptions).
I would suggest removing the long range penalty and replace it with a bonus for shooting at close range. Instead of a 4+/5+ we would need a 3+/4+. I think that would make a significant, although not overpowering, effect in the efficiency of shooting.
-
Liquedust, this is not an April Fool's joke, just some ideas to look over here in a non serious light. I wouldn't enact every rule I put up, they are just ideas. I'm not trying to make a petition, just an idea to make ranged units more common outside war machines.
The ideas I put up were just ideas to
1. Make bs shooting more powerful
2. Discourage gun lines at the same time.
Multiple shots , with the ensuing penalties might be good.
-
I like Philhelm's suggestions.
-
Liquedust, this is not an April Fool's joke, just some ideas to look over here in a non serious light. I wouldn't enact every rule I put up, they are just ideas. I'm not trying to make a petition, just an idea to make ranged units more common outside war machines.
The ideas I put up were just ideas to
1. Make bs shooting more powerful
2. Discourage gun lines at the same time.
Multiple shots , with the ensuing penalties might be good.
The problem with BS shooting is that they already are lackluster, and are very inefficient use of points as-is. While non BS shooting on the other hand is about as effective as most shooting should be.
And most of your above suggestions actually make BS shooting worse than before.
-
Liquedust, this is not an April Fool's joke, just some ideas to look over here in a non serious light. I wouldn't enact every rule I put up, they are just ideas. I'm not trying to make a petition, just an idea to make ranged units more common outside war machines.
The ideas I put up were just ideas to
1. Make bs shooting more powerful
2. Discourage gun lines at the same time.
Multiple shots , with the ensuing penalties might be good.
The problem with BS shooting is that they already are lackluster, and are very inefficient use of points as-is. While non BS shooting on the other hand is about as effective as most shooting should be.
And most of your above suggestions actually make BS shooting worse than before.
True, but I would like to go down the path of balance. If BS shooting was more combat effective, and having a large unit of crossbowmen/handgunners effective, I would like to also put rules in place to keep things from happening
1. Restricted amount of ranged units, so that noone can take a gunline army. (gunlines are not fun to play against)
2. Large ranged units might make stand and shoot too powerful, but now that I look at it the "only first rank fire" or "only 2d6 can shoot" is poorly thought out.
As you say, BS shooting is not an efficient way to use points. I'm trying to figure out a way to make them an efficient use of points, without being the only way to use points.
What if there was a mechanic for allowing units to shoot at charged units prior to combat? A "softening barrage" only allowed to BS shooting?
MOVEMENT PHASE
Halbs declare charge on Orc boys
halb charge successeful
SHOOTING PHASE
Crossbow unit in range is allowed a "softening volley" giving them a -1 modifier to hit in addition to other shooting modifiers.
Any and all casualties count towards combat resolution, indicating the enemy trying to block arrow fire as they are charged.
COMBAT PHASE
normal fight. However, if the charged unit is wiped out by BS shooting, the charging unit can only consolidate, NOT advance.
-
That's very similar to how S&S works now, and its not enough. But that's completely logical. A missile unit is not generally going to emerge victorious from a melee...
The crux isn't that BS-based shooting is wiped by combat. Its that it isn't an efficient use of points in general.
-
Its that it isn't an efficient use of points in general
Would giving the ability for BS shooting to fire prior to offensive combat, in addition to a negation of long range modifiers, and or a better chance to hit large units raise the efficiency of BS shooting in your opinion?
-
The biggest issue come from other armies. The dark elves have some very useful bs shooters, that can easily be put in competitive lists, and I fully believe that the new dwarves are a incredibly deadly shooter army. Any changes to boost bs shooting make those armies broken. On the other side is how badly nerfing any part of shooting destroys wood elves. Without a heavy shooting army wood elves can't compete in my missions. At the same time the army special rules would heavily change what changes would actually cause. I like the boosted aim against hordes, but fear much the rest of what could be changed would be very, very bad.
-
Generally speaking, yes; most any improvement(s) would raise the efficiency of BS-based shooting.
But I'm not sure that it would help Empire. Hitting can be a problem, that much is true. The negation of the long-range modifier, and as Philhelm said, a bonus for short range firing, would go a long way towards bringing back the popularity of our missile troops. However, I firmly believe that handguns and crossbows should be able to move and fire. That, combined with an overall points decrease for our state troops would make them viable again without turning us back into a gunline army.
I bring this up because while I do agree that BS-based shooting is inefficient and lacking, it isn't always the case. Elves can have a wonderful shooting phase. Dwarfs can have a nice shooting phase. The difference is that their troops are often more elite. ASF HE Archers and multiple shots from ASF Repeater Crossbowmen (I refuse to call them Derpshards, or whatever it is now) can be devastating. And they'll hand out quite a few wounds if you aren't careful with the unit that gets into combat with them. Same with those GW-toting Quarrellers.
It's more that we humans, well, suck. Nine points for a model that gets to shoot maybe twice at a target he needs to fire at? And, in all probability, missing both shots? Bleh. Combat ensues, you die to a man or break and flee and are run down. It just doesn't work. If you have one of the above-mentioned units and it takes a couple of potshots and then performs in melee, even to a small degree, you have an efficient unit.
EDIT:
Lecfast brings up a great point.
-
The biggest issue come from other armies. The dark elves have some very useful bs shooters, that can easily be put in competitive lists, and I fully believe that the new dwarves are a incredibly deadly shooter army. Any changes to boost bs shooting make those armies broken. On the other side is how badly nerfing any part of shooting destroys wood elves. Without a heavy shooting army wood elves can't compete in my missions. At the same time the army special rules would heavily change what changes would actually cause. I like the boosted aim against hordes, but fear much the rest of what could be changed would be very, very bad.
That's a fair point. Perhaps the best thing would be to lower the cost of Empire ranged units. For two crossbowmen, I could get three halberdiers and almost four spearmen.
-
Honestly making Crossbowmen and Handgunners 5 points each would satisfy me. Sounds drastic, but I've never seen them accomplish much sadly.
Compare it to shooty units in other armies, and you'll often find better BS and strangely better combat prowess. Even Tomb King Archers have their advantages, and our guys not being able to Move and Fire, fight well, or shoot with any kind of accuracy puts some serious penalty on them.
-
Handguns and crossbows should be able to fire 2 shots with no penalty.
I think that would go against the flow of the game mechanics, as infantry can generally only make one attack with a melee weapon (with exceptions).
I would suggest removing the long range penalty and replace it with a bonus for shooting at close range. Instead of a 4+/5+ we would need a 3+/4+. I think that would make a significant, although not overpowering, effect in the efficiency of shooting.
Also while this is a good suggestion, imagine what this does to for example Dark Elf Dark Riders that have marched and does a multiple shots within short range at BS4; or a unit of shades that does the same at BS5.
a unit of 5 Dark Riders would pump out 10 shots that hits at 4+, a unit of 6 shades 12 shots at 3+. Now sure their shooting tend not to kill anything but chaff at best. But this small change would really change the meta for them significantly.
Edit: also note that the champions in these units are a bit diffrent from normal champ stats, since they have +1 BS instead of +1 A
-
The other thing to consider is how this would affect chaff. If there were universal changes to BS shooting, chaff would no longer be effective. Currently most chaff units (Great Eagles, Warhounds, etc.) are functional because they can withstand basic BS shooting. Concentrated fire or lucky rolls will of course clear them, but for the most part they do ok. If everyone shoots more accurately then suddenly these units disappear from lists.
-
What I miss on the current core BS shooting is how points are calculated..
Basic empire dude = 5 add a point per thingy extra and you get our combat dudes (except spearmen those are by this 1 point short).
Basic empire dude only handling either a xbow or Handgun is +4 points.. like what?!?
Either put them at +1 or maybe even +2 points (to not offset archers), at those point costs people might take them more.
Archers for that matter are correctly priced 5 for basic, +1 for bow +1 for skirmish
-
the way I see it BS shooting just can't do enough wounds to make an impact on the bigger blocks of troops you see since 8th.
It can be great against small units where killing just 5 guys is wonderfull but it sucks against hordes of 40 slaves/zombies/halberdiers/....
The reason dark elves and high elves shooting is so good is because they fire a lot of shots, at decent BS and can get enough hits through
to 'fix' this I see three options: (building on on some of the ideas launched here)
- lower points costs on x-bows and handguns so you can take more for the same price (but this is only a fix for empire, I don't know what would work for other armies)
- give a to hit bonus against large infantry block/large monstrous block (maybe only against units in 'horde formation'?)
- get rid of long range penalty, add a +1 to hit for short range (eg. within 1/4 of maximum range).
as an option to this last rule I would consider the following to prevent that shooty units become immobile blocks, and reduce the fact that players with a lot of shooting are forced into a gunline army: remove the penalty on shooting and moving and replace all 'move or fire' rules by 'can move and fire at -1 to hit'
oh and maybe add a -1 to hit penalty for shooting single models(except large targets)/units of five or less models/... to keep chaff units a viable option?
-
Yeah, I actually like the idea of getting to-hit bonuses based on unit size.
-
I've always thought that you could help out shooting a little by introducing this:
Armour piercing -1 if shot in your flank
Armour piercing -2 if shot in your rear
That seems to make sense in that they are that much harder to defend whilst also encouraging you to move your shooters rather than just have them sit infront of your war machines or whatnot. It would also make your opponent have to be a bit more worried about ignoring that huntsmen unit behind his lines :P
-
the way I see it BS shooting just can't do enough wounds to make an impact on the bigger blocks of troops you see since 8th.
It can be great against small units where killing just 5 guys is wonderfull but it sucks against hordes of 40 slaves/zombies/halberdiers/....
The reason dark elves and high elves shooting is so good is because they fire a lot of shots, at decent BS and can get enough hits through
to 'fix' this I see three options: (building on on some of the ideas launched here)
- lower points costs on x-bows and handguns so you can take more for the same price (but this is only a fix for empire, I don't know what would work for other armies)
- give a to hit bonus against large infantry block/large monstrous block (maybe only against units in 'horde formation'?)
- get rid of long range penalty, add a +1 to hit for short range (eg. within 1/4 of maximum range).
as an option to this last rule I would consider the following to prevent that shooty units become immobile blocks, and reduce the fact that players with a lot of shooting are forced into a gunline army: remove the penalty on shooting and moving and replace all 'move or fire' rules by 'can move and fire at -1 to hit'
oh and maybe add a -1 to hit penalty for shooting single models(except large targets)/units of five or less models/... to keep chaff units a viable option?
Us dark elf players would actually be happy if we could actually kill something beyond chaff with our crossbowelves as well ;)
On average 12 crossbowmen shooting multiple shots at long range will hit with 8, and cause 4 wounds vs. T3 and at max 6+ armour.
Now lets say the above scenario but we add cover as well, and 5+ armour and we will only cause 1.67 wounds after saves.
Basically our shooting units are great chaff clearers, but that is about it. And its also our most expensive core infantry to top it off.
Yes we have Dark Riders and Shades as well, but they will pump out less shots and are useful for other stuff besides shooting (and cost way too much to be dedicated to shooting).
Lets say we take something silly like 60 crossbowmen and do multiple shots at long range (and no cover): e.g. 120 shots
T3 6+ or no armour -> 20 wounds
T3 5+ armour -> 16.67 wounds
T3 4+ armour -> 13.33 wounds
T3 3+ armour -> 10 wounds
T3 2+ armour -> 6.67 wounds
T3 1+ armour -> 3.33 wounds
These numbers might seem awesome, but you have to remember this is 700+ points models worth of shooting also. And under ideal conditions.
-
most, but not all, ofyou are way overthinking this.
the problem isnt with bs shooting rules, it's withcrappy army book costings.
-
most, but not all, ofyou are way overthinking this.
the problem isnt with bs shooting rules, it's withcrappy army book costings.
Maybe, but when there are certain units that are more likely to pull off kills in combat than they are by shooting, that says there is something a little amiss with shooting itself.
I suspect that if you just reduce the cost, you'll just see BS units used as cheap steadfast, rather than for their shooting ability.
The problem is with the relative hierarchicalisation of various aspects of the game. 8th makes BS shooting close to unimportant.
-
I really like the +1 to hit vs units of 25 or more idea.
What if instead of changing the BS, the changed the weapon's effectiveness. Say something like the handgun, instead of just giving it AP, it also can pierce ranks, reducing the likelihood (much like a bolt thrower) with each rank and amount of armor. Or the crossbow keeping the 30" range but also adding +1S for firing at units within half range.
-
most, but not all, ofyou are way overthinking this.
the problem isnt with bs shooting rules, it's withcrappy army book costings.
Overthinking things is part of the fun isn't it? If people didn't overthink things the forum would be empty :P
I think sometimes points change makes sense, but other times tweeking rules can be a viable option. For instance, giving armour piercing in flanks would mean it wasn't just as straight forward a calculation as to whether shooting was goos or not. It would encourage playing differently. Not saying that's a good idea but it does give other options at least...
-
most, but not all, ofyou are way overthinking this.
the problem isnt with bs shooting rules, it's withcrappy army book costings.
Overthinking things is part of the fun isn't it? If people didn't overthink things the forum would be empty :P
I think sometimes points change makes sense, but other times tweeking rules can be a viable option. For instance, giving armour piercing in flanks would mean it wasn't just as straight forward a calculation as to whether shooting was goos or not. It would encourage playing differently. Not saying that's a good idea but it does give other options at least...
I could see that if they could move and shoot.
-
I also like stuff not necessarily being able to move and shoot. They shouldn't be able to. It should just be a bit more devastating when they do unload.
-
So coming from having played Woodies for the past year, I can tell you that any major improvement to BS based shooting will skew the game towards gun-lines. These missile heavy lists are not much fun to play against. I'd say buffing hand gunners is the way to go. Give them a special rule like "While preventing gunners from moving and shooting, the gun rests greatly improve a gunners accuracy giving them +1 to hit"
-
I think it mostly comes down to number of shots, which is difficult to change. Making crossbows cheaper won't make me take more than one or two units of 12, instead I'll use the point savings elsewhere.
Units like Leadbelchers and Flamers are taken and work just fine. Bows are excellent at clearing chaff, and plinking a wound here or there. I think it will be more important to adjust your expectations for shooting. In 7th with small unit sizes each shot was brought more value over all, when compared to the first 2 years of 8th edition. I would argue a lot of the value of s4 and S4 AP shooting has returned with chaff taking a major role again, and low model count units with 1+, or T4 currently imposing themselves in the meta. If your meta is still 3x big blocks of course you aren't getting value from 12 crossbow shots a turn, and if that is how you are playing well to be honest too bad the core rules and army books don't support that type of play at all.
-
I think it mostly comes down to number of shots, which is difficult to change. Making crossbows cheaper won't make me take more than one or two units of 12, instead I'll use the point savings elsewhere.
Units like Leadbelchers and Flamers are taken and work just fine. Bows are excellent at clearing chaff, and plinking a wound here or there. I think it will be more important to adjust your expectations for shooting. In 7th with small unit sizes each shot was brought more value over all, when compared to the first 2 years of 8th edition. I would argue a lot of the value of s4 and S4 AP shooting has returned with chaff taking a major role again, and low model count units with 1+, or T4 currently imposing themselves in the meta. If your meta is still 3x big blocks of course you aren't getting value from 12 crossbow shots a turn, and if that is how you are playing well to be honest too bad the core rules and army books don't support that type of play at all.
Huh? I'm sorry, I didn't follow that at all.
-
There isn't much wrong with BS based shooting actually, now we see less hordes. Sure, for Empire handguns and crossbows are a bit expensive. Besides that it works okay.
Making war machines only shoot once every two turns makes em useless, as you usually only get two turns before the scary stuff is in your face. Besides that, it can blow up. It would also nerf Dwarfs, as war machines are their form of magic.
I do like the idea of making shooting at large units easier.
-
I have to agree that Empire is the only army that is gimped for BS shooting. All the elves and dwarves do great with it. Their models are higher in points but their statline, gear, or special rules allow their ranged units to be back up combat units as well.
Empire BS units are 1pt over priced AND the 3 statline with no extra equipment or special rules makes the unit useless in combat. Bretonnian archers are better.
All because of cruddface.
-
Agreed Empire BS shooting is gimped.
What if you take the marksmen upgrade and he has a special rule:
Special rule: volley fire
The experience of the marksmen in battle let them lead there men to make the most of the situation on the battlefield, instructing the men to shoot at the best time to maximise hits.
If the unit has a marksmen they can re roll there to hit roll.
Further the marksmen is equipped with sword, pistol and a large codpiece.
Resulting in stand and shoot been short range(not sure of this) and 2 attacks In combat.
Or
The marksmen organises his unit.
Unit lead by marksmen can shoot in 3 ranks the front rank kneels allowing the 2nd and 3rd rank to fire unrestricted.
My 2 cents
-
I have to agree that Empire is the only army that is gimped for BS shooting. All the elves and dwarves do great with it. Their models are higher in points but their statline, gear, or special rules allow their ranged units to be back up combat units as well.
Empire BS units are 1pt over priced AND the 3 statline with no extra equipment or special rules makes the unit useless in combat. Bretonnian archers are better.
All because of cruddface.
You realize of course the whole development team works on the books right?
Part of the cost of the bs based shooting also includes the detachment rules. The detachment shooting rules are actually quite good, they give me an opportunity to shoot chaff, and still get a turn of shooting at combat units charging my own combat blocks.
-
The Detachment shooting rules have been nerfed, and missile detachments gain little to nothing from the buffs.
-
The Detachment shooting rules have been nerfed, and missile detachments gain little to nothing from the buffs.
Where does this idea that they need to get buffed by being a detachment? I don't need the shooting to be buffed, I'll take out of turn shots at units charging my halberdiers though. They also gained the parent units Steadfast(or Stubborn), and I've made excellent use of blocking with the detachment with a secondary effect out of Shield of Sigmar. Primary use out of Soulfire as lets be honest no one is taking a bsb for banner of eternal flame.
There are two disadvantages, deployment flexibility and losing command.
If you have a little imagination the detachment rules work quite well, and like most 7th-8th edition cross overs they got toned down, get over it.
-
Where does this idea that they need to get buffed by being a detachment?
Duh. Perhaps form here:
Part of the cost of the bs based shooting also includes the detachment rules.
If their point cost has been raised to include the detachment rules, the least one can expect that they have a bit more benefit from it, because shooting Detachments have been seriously nerfed. I do not need them to be steadfast, as their place is not in close combat. I would rather have them not causing panic, and not have the -1 for S&S for Support Fire.
-
Where does this idea that they need to get buffed by being a detachment?
Duh. Perhaps form here:
Part of the cost of the bs based shooting also includes the detachment rules.
If their point cost has been raised to include the detachment rules, the least one can expect that they have a bit more benefit from it, because shooting Detachments have been seriously nerfed. I do not need them to be steadfast, as their place is not in close combat. I would rather have them not causing panic, and not have the -1 for S&S for Support Fire.
You do get a buff, and extra out of turn round of shooting, you also get extended use out of your warrior priest powers. If you aren't willing to use all the advantages given you will never be satisfied with any unit. I've used crossbow detachments to hold up units people thought would blow through and fight a second round of combat. Also remember the enemy cannot bypass your support fire, and you can use multiple support reactions in one phase.
As to the panic, with the buff to battle standard bearers made it an unnecessary addition, not to mention how unfluffy it was. These are your brothers in arms, not a sacrificial lambs. I don't blame people for using them that way because the rules permitted it. There use has changed, if you try to make them function like they used to you will almost always fail.
-
You do get a buff, and extra out of turn round of shooting, you also get extended use out of your warrior priest powers. If you aren't willing to use all the advantages given you will never be satisfied with any unit. I've used crossbow detachments to hold up units people thought would blow through and fight a second round of combat.
The points increase of our missile troops certainly did not warrant the buffs that may or may not happen. If you want to use Detachment to hold, even spearmen are a better and chaeper choice.
Also remember the enemy cannot bypass your support fire, and you can use multiple support reactions in one phase.
Their benefit, of course, does increase, if you do not play by the rules.
Empire AB, p. 30: "Additionally, a Detachment can only declare one Support Fire action, one Stand and Shoot reaction or one CounterCharge action per turn."
As to the panic, with the buff to battle standard bearers made it an unnecessary addition, not to mention how unfluffy it was. These are your brothers in arms, not a sacrificial lambs. I don't blame people for using them that way because the rules permitted it.
On the contrary: it is not just that the rules permitted it, it is in fact the most fluffy thing there is, as this was the historical tactic used, with missile detachments firing on the enemy and then falling back to reload.
-
It isn't about cost its about use, spearmen provide less uses than a shooting unit does. Like I said if you want to use your detachments as sacrificial lambs feel free, but there are more uses. If the only thing the shooting detachments do is kill some reavers/dark riders/dogs, they have done a good job. Not to mention that BS shooting is one the best methods of killing units like Warlocks stars. I'd rather pay too much for something than a little for nothing.
I declared one support fire (per phase), and one counter charge (per phase), the language used doesn't prohibit that. Let's assume you are correct though you have still yet to rebut or follow up the benefits and disadvantages I've presented.
This isn't some historical roleplay game battles, it is Warhammer Fantasy Battles. There is a a rule set and accompanying fluff neither supports a "historical" perspective. I can't get mad if my historical game doesn't support monsters because it isn't (as has never been) sold as such. That goes without saying ow perilous fleeing as a charge reaction is in 8th edition.
Either way the internet approved knight spam has been basically one of the worst list on the competitive scene. So either it and by extension group thought on the web is wrong, or competitive Empire players are amongst the worst competitive players globally. Regardless something else has got to be tried
-
It isn't about cost its about use, spearmen provide less uses than a shooting unit does. Like I said if you want to use your detachments as sacrificial lambs feel free, but there are more uses.
My whole point is exactly not to use them as sacrificial lambs, especially not at 9 pts per model - that rather seems to be your game.
I declared one support fire (per phase), and one counter charge (per phase), the language used doesn't prohibit that.
The language used does prohibit exactly that.
This isn't some historical roleplay game battles, it is Warhammer Fantasy Battles. There is a a rule set and accompanying fluff neither supports a "historical" perspective. I can't get mad if my historical game doesn't support monsters because it isn't (as has never been) sold as such. That goes without saying ow perilous fleeing as a charge reaction is in 8th edition.
It is WFB, but the Empire is modelled on the HRE around 1500. Why wouldn't the Warhammer fluff support the historical perspective? Regiment and Detachments train and fight together. What could be more fluffy than a missile Detachment firing at the enemy and retreating behind the regiment, whithout causing panic? Not that fluff has really much bearing on the rules.
-
Wait for the new Wood Elf book. That will give you a "template" on how to fix shooting. I predict somewhere between awesome and brutal for WE players.....
-
There was a rumour (read: 'story') about how the WE book was already finished, and was going to be released after Dark Elves. But the were too overpowered, because they supposedly had the "best shooting in the game". So they had to go back to the drawing board to nerf it a little...
I really like playing with the current, underpowered Woodie book, because I know that when I win, I've earned it. But part of me can't wait until the first time I smash face with my 'new hotness' wood elves...
-
I declared one support fire (per phase), and one counter charge (per phase), the language used doesn't prohibit that.
The language used does prohibit exactly that.
Depends if he uses the rules on 2 detachments, one doing the support fire and the other counter charged.
-
That would not be disputed. If, however, that is what he meant, he would qualify as a GW FAQ writer. :closed-eyes:
-
Crossbowmen and Handgunners should be 7 pts.
That was the fix they needed in 7th, and instead they went up to 9 pts.
Not causing panic worth just as much as all the other stuff that immobile shooting detachments now get from parent units within 3 inches.
And if you try to argue with me on that, produce the costing chart GW use to balance the game. Oh wait...
-
If the issue is not shooting in general, but Empire shooting (and at that, Handgunners and Crossbows), then a simple change for Empire would be in order. Like others have said, making them cheap could help, but it is more likely people will go "Awesome, 25 more points to spend." You could steal rules from the Imperial Guard to represent the regimented tactics of the Empire.
First Row Fire, Second Row Fire
If a leadership test is passed, the unit may fire twice in a single shooting phase. The unit must fire at the same unit, but are treated as separate actions for all other purposes. May not be used in the same phase as Take Aim, Fire.
Take Aim, Fire
If a leadership test is passed, the unit has +1 to hit for that phase. May not be used in the same phase as First Row Fire, Second Row Fire.
These would show how the Empire are meant to be the only professional army, whilst still being human. The leadership test represents the fact that it is training and something you cannot 100% rely upon. Although, it all depends on how much else changes in the book.
-
Not a bad idea Furball. :-D
IMO, I would say these would only be applicable to parent shooters, and not detachments.
-
WHFB in general would benefit from replacing half of its special rules with orders.
-
Adds yet more randomness with leadership tests just to be value for the points. No thanks.
Just tweak the points costs. Scenario design and terrain rules should keep BS shooting in check, not yet more special rules creep be it orders or whatever. Price the State troop shooters at 6.5 points or whatever. Warhammer could benefit from having victory conditions based on capturing and holding ground as well as just casualties, to encourage more movement and less static forces to offset the BS shooting being effective. Make it worth the points, but make a general want to take other stuff too basically.
-
First Row Fire, Second Row Fire
If a leadership test is passed, the unit may fire twice in a single shooting phase. The unit must fire at the same unit, but are treated as separate actions for all other purposes. May not be used in the same phase as Take Aim, Fire.
Take Aim, Fire
If a leadership test is passed, the unit has +1 to hit for that phase. May not be used in the same phase as First Row Fire, Second Row Fire.
I realise now that this idea is flawed - First Row Fire is always better than Take Aim (besides when you need to roll 7, when they are identical). I would therefore suggest changing Take Aim with:
Double Time
If a leadership test is passed, the unit may ignore the "Move or Fire" special rule for this turn. May not be used....
-
Adds yet more randomness with leadership tests just to be value for the points. No thanks.
True. I take it back. The volatility of leadership tests is a problem. That and magic. One bad roll/good roll and a unit is wiped out.
-
Adds yet more randomness with leadership tests just to be value for the points. No thanks.
True. I take it back. The volatility of leadership tests is a problem. That and magic. One bad roll/good roll and a unit is wiped out.
that's why we have BSB's
-
My 5 cents.
Handgunners:
"Volley fire and bayonets"
Handgunners may fire in three ranks and fights as having spears.
Crossbows lowered by 1 point for 8 points per model.