Topic: Small changes to shooting that would help it.

[Siberius]

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

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...

[mottdon]

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

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.

[valmir]

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.

[slobber]

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"

[Baluc]

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.

[mottdon]

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.

[thorimm]

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.

[The Peacemaker]

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.

[Pious XI]

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

[Baluc]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The Detachment shooting rules have been nerfed, and missile detachments gain little to nothing from the buffs.

[Baluc]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[Baluc]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[Baluc]

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

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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. 

[Noght]

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.....

[valmir]

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...

[StealthKnightSteg]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

That would not be disputed. If, however, that is what he meant, he would qualify as a GW FAQ writer. 

[Warlord]

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...

[Furball]

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.

[Warlord]

Not a bad idea Furball. 

IMO, I would say these would only be applicable to parent shooters, and not detachments.

[patsy02]

WHFB in general would benefit from replacing half of its special rules with orders.