home

Author Topic: Mortar Metagaming?  (Read 16246 times)

Offline Von Breden

  • Posts: 1104
  • Remembering the Eccentric
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #75 on: December 15, 2008, 03:14:47 PM »
not looking like a fool is overrated too.
Quote from: Siberius
I never noticed your height on account of your fabulous manly imperial beard.

He who has such amazing facial hair will never be short in the eyes of his comrades!

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33357
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #76 on: December 15, 2008, 03:17:50 PM »
Anyway, returning to what I said earlier:

Quote
Wasn't there a rule in 6th edition that stone throwers were allowed to overguess, so long as they had line of sight to at least one unit in the direction of fire? I think it's what Siberius was alluding to on the first page of this thread, but I forgot about it until now. Is that still there?

It turns out there was, but there isn't in 7th edition. So that was another useful post.
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline Crimsonsphinx

  • Posts: 7098
  • A mind without purpose walks in dark places
    • marcwalpole
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #77 on: December 15, 2008, 05:34:55 PM »
I think the point needs to be made, why would you try to shoot the orcs anyway?

The whole point of the rule allowing screening of units is to prevent people just targetting at will.  The current game rules allow you to set tables up as you see fit, so just make sure both sides have a hill on them, then you can place your mortar on there.
Stare into the Abyss and the Abyss stares back.

Visit my 40k blog http://2plusdispel.blogspot.com/ updated four or more times a month and offers painting advice and gaming advice for warhammer 40,000

Offline ZehKaiser

  • Posts: 262
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #78 on: December 15, 2008, 08:09:25 PM »
I don't see the problem with over-guessing at all.  Perhaps if it is more than 12", but really I don't care a bit.  There is no weapon in the game that is powerful enough for that to matter, and also, If the rulebook said "its totally legal to over guess, we encourage it!", then none of the guess weapons of the game would be under priced either.  There are far more underhanded and unrealistic tactics and "uses" of the rules as written in this game to get riled up about.

Also it  seems odd to me that most of the people posting are more accepting of a cannon over-guessing or "accidentally" hitting an unintended target than if a mortar or helstorm does it.  The last two are indirect fire weapons, if either family of weapons were entitled more slack in this department I would have naturally assumed it was the indirect fire weapons, but ok. 

And even if the models are kicking up dust and there is all the din of battle working to 100% obscure the army behind them, if I'm an experienced empire commander or artilleryman (in the fluff) I know that the goblins can be dealt with by the state troops and that usually there are much more scary and brutal creatures lurking behind them, so It would make sense to use my precious time and ammunition firing just behind them knowing it is their transparent (pun intended) tactic at screening the real nasties of their force which are inevitably part of a waaagh (seeing as how orcs don't have a penchant for tactics).

Bottom line, this isn't so black and white, its not really cheating, and its not really legal, its a matter of whether or not you find it acceptable.  Philly is right that you know an over guess when you see one,  but I think that any within reason is perfectly acceptable.  Just my opinion though, I hope its not going to get me killed... :icon_rolleyes:
Veteran of the Storm of Chaos, Lustria, and Nemesis Crown Campaigns.
Podhammer - The Warhammer Podcast

Offline Lord Tilioth

  • Posts: 313
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #79 on: December 15, 2008, 10:57:44 PM »
ZehKaiser

You made your point well, i would have to agree with you and conclude that this is the proper answer...Well done!
"To Honor and Glory we march, but death is still inevitable" - Grand Master Lord Tilioth of The Knights of the Golden Realm
Empire Score Sheet:
Win/Draw/Lose
64/8/11
Tournaments played and won ratio - 3:3

Offline Siberius

  • Posts: 6831
  • The Minotaur Cat
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #80 on: December 15, 2008, 11:08:37 PM »
Anyway, returning to what I said earlier:

Quote
Wasn't there a rule in 6th edition that stone throwers were allowed to overguess, so long as they had line of sight to at least one unit in the direction of fire? I think it's what Siberius was alluding to on the first page of this thread, but I forgot about it until now. Is that still there?

It turns out there was, but there isn't in 7th edition. So that was another useful post.

Yes, yes! It was what I was alluding to! I saw some kinda tactica or one of those things in a White Dwarf where they explained that mortars and the like could over shoot if there was something to shoot there but not cannons. And I guess I was saying that maybe a lot of people's opinions on the matter are a hangover from that time, when it was ok to do so.

 :happy:

Whew.  :-P
Quote from: PhillyT
Magic does not have nearly the same problems with power levels as magic. 

Offline PhillyT

  • The Old Ones
  • Posts: 18748
  • Watching... always watching...
    • https://www.facebook.com/philip.estabrook.1
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #81 on: December 15, 2008, 11:58:29 PM »
Christ, you do not need to see the model you are shooting at, if you can see the UNIT you can shoot it.  Any part of it you like.  YOu have seen the UNIT.

Is it really that difficult to understand?  Honestly?

Phil
Where did she touch you Eight? Show us on the doll.

Offline Padre

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 4033
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #82 on: December 16, 2008, 12:13:45 AM »
The war machine targetting rules have changed over and over again. I can recall the WD article Siberius was on about. I have also just found my 2002 annual and read the old, bizarre rules in there - it says Stone Throwers can shoot over models they can see at targets beyond (i.e. they only need enemy in the line of fire) BUT mortars cannot do so. The mortar rules have a bit about deliberate overguessing being unfair - but this is just after having allowing it, albeit in a limited way, for stone throwers.

So yup, this game does frustrate a tad at times. I try to stick to the current rules, and slip up only when I have a senior moment and start re-enacting some wargame from years ago! People usually remind me pretty quick that my rules are drifting through the space-time continuum.

In terms of sense, however, it does seem weird at times that when an enemy army has a light screen of whatever out front, then the huge blocks of horn blowing, drum bashing, flag waving dudes behind can't be seen. Perhaps one should presume it is due to the need for the crew to guestimate distance with mathematical tools and such which don't work if you can't really see the enemy properly, or something?

My friends and I always end up having to use house rules, such as that buildings are not actually taller than hills (which in terms of models they usually are) or that small units immediately behind buildings cannot be targeted from hills on the other side of the building, but if the unit is big enough, or not touching the building, then it can be seen. This latter kind of house rule needs a good spirit of sportsmanship between players, as it is not a precise rule, but tries to fit circumstances.

As for gamers playing to win, I know the kind, and it is a cruelly frustrating and often uncomfortable way to play. I play (childishly) to make up a little story in my head. (Thus my recent post where I write the little stories down afterwards!!)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 02:30:02 PM by Padre »
Photobucket has now re-destroyed my pictures, so the first half of my collected works thread is no longer working again. To see my website version of the campaign thread, with fully functioning pictures, please go to https://bigsmallworlds.com/

Offline Twiggle

  • Posts: 39
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #83 on: December 16, 2008, 01:36:18 PM »
The reason I was so frustrated at the time and why I didn't let him use his screen is the fact that 1) all of there army ( except maybe 400pts on the left side of the battlefield) was situated in a 12'' radius behind the goblins or in the forest next to them. The dumbest general in the world would know that an army of orcs and wood elves was in that sector ( especially if there was a cloud of dust and a forest of spears and banners behind 4 feet goblins). 2) I have a relatively modern view of using artillery. Artillery( mortars, catapults,etc) are psychological weapons more then anything else. There shooting in the GENERAL area of the enemy to make them duck for covert or protect there valuables ( important people or objects... not the other valuable thing) denying them the ability to defend there position effectively ( in warhammer terms, there numbers and row bonus). There designed for indirect fire, and in that sense , warhammer does an excellent job at recreating that.

I agree that forests, buildings, hills,etc block line of sight for artilery. If you don't even know what is behind the object, you don't really have a reason to aim there ( except if somebody told you by radio or...pigeon messaging... that there is something to aim there). But 4 feet goblins... I think this is the kind of situation that warhammer lets you bend the rules a bit.

Personally
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 01:41:10 PM by Twiggle »
-Twiggle: common name for goblin-slaves at the service of an orc

-To Twiggle : To tickle ones balls with the end of ones fingers

Offline cisse

  • Posts: 3905
  • let the wookie win!
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #84 on: December 16, 2008, 03:19:40 PM »
not looking like a fool is overrated too.
We know. You are a constant reminder of that.
cisse

No matter how fast you run, your ass will always be in front of me...

Offline PhillyT

  • The Old Ones
  • Posts: 18748
  • Watching... always watching...
    • https://www.facebook.com/philip.estabrook.1
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #85 on: December 16, 2008, 03:26:41 PM »
Twiggle:  There is no bending the rules in that case.  It blocks line of sight.  Additionally, catapults and such were not exactly area attack weapons.  Their effectivenss verses troops is already overstated.  They just weren't that good in their game terms.

The line of sight rules are thankfully easy to know and follow.  If you and your friends want to 'bend' them, so be it.  In a store, expect to need to, you know, actually follow the rules.

Phil
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 08:39:27 PM by PhillyT »
Where did she touch you Eight? Show us on the doll.

Offline Mathi Alfblut

  • Posts: 6508
  • intres cum fixura sine misericordia
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #86 on: December 16, 2008, 04:15:04 PM »
Indeed, the way catapults works in Warhammer is VERY fictious. In Warhammer, stone throwers works like the equivalent of modern day artillery.
The mortar could work like that, since it was designed to have a shell that explodes and sent shrapnel flying. But catapults mostly threw rocks. Indeed, experiments have shown that you can fire a bucket of smaller stones, instead of the big one, and there is even some archaeological observations from Eketorp fort at Íland indicating a possible use of a light stone thrower as an indirect area weapon to help cover a gateway in an outer wall.
But it is very limited in that sense. It was most likely prepared and aimed at the gate as preparation for an eventual attack, not in the heat of the moment. It was a fixed weapon, not a field weapon.

You could throw fire and such, and the romans did on occasions, but it was rare to have heavy catapults in the field. Bolt throwers, yes, rock throwing catapults and trebuchets, no.
They where siege weapons, not battlefield weapons. And in sieges, their main task was to throw large blocks of rock, aiming to destroy structures rather than targetting personnell, weakening walls for example.
And wether a rock would shatter or not on impact depends heavily upon what it impacts upon.
The only rock type I think would shatter and with pretty lethal result, is flint/firestone, and that would send razorsharp splinters in every direction, but I have no clear evidence for it┤s use as a specific ammunition in a historical context.

So, you cannot really look at history to judge the use of catapults and mortars in warhammer, since they are used in a very made-up way akin to modern day artillery.
Pretty odd is it. You can use catapults in a rather bizzare way in warhammer, but hell no, you cannot have your archers fire a proper arrowhail in several ranks.
Well, everything to make strange gizmos needed, I guess. The warhammer races are all to stupid to use archery in an effective way. :icon_razz:
Oh, and remember GW made it personal, not you!

Offline Twiggle

  • Posts: 39
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #87 on: December 16, 2008, 08:15:13 PM »
What's up with that Phillyt guy... he's not what I would call '' pleasant''.
-Twiggle: common name for goblin-slaves at the service of an orc

-To Twiggle : To tickle ones balls with the end of ones fingers

Offline Perambulator

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 4876
  • Much Less Dense Than Other Lawyers!
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #88 on: December 16, 2008, 08:20:30 PM »
What's up with that Phillyt guy... he's not what I would call '' pleasant''.

 :biggriin: :biggriin: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: EPIC!

( :engel: Sorry PhillyT - I couldn't resist - at least he's polite about it!)

EDIT - BTW, I agree with PhillyT.
Quote from: Johan Willhelm
Quote from: Dendo Star
Muppets do not have Hatred!
I bet "Animal" has Frenzy . . .

Offline PhillyT

  • The Old Ones
  • Posts: 18748
  • Watching... always watching...
    • https://www.facebook.com/philip.estabrook.1
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #89 on: December 16, 2008, 08:22:24 PM »
My ex-wife would give two thumbs WAY up! 

Have one on me Twiggle.  Your alright, except for when you're not.

 :::cheers:::

Phil
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 08:38:26 PM by PhillyT »
Where did she touch you Eight? Show us on the doll.

Offline Obi

  • Posts: 6225
  • Rest in peace Nate
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #90 on: December 16, 2008, 08:33:56 PM »
What's up with that Phillyt guy... he's not what I would call '' pleasant''.
That is indeed epic. But he's just a little annoyed because people keep on bending the rules and then try to defend doing that, whilst we all know that it isn't the sportiest thing to do.
Hello Athiuen and welcome to the Back Table.

caveat lector
I killed a duck with a spear, can't read train timetables though
"To be is to do"-Socrates;
"To do is to be"-Sartre;
"Do Be Do Be Do"-Sinatra

Offline Shadowlord

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 6058
  • ...
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #91 on: December 16, 2008, 09:12:36 PM »
What's up with that Phillyt guy... he's not what I would call '' pleasant''.

In bed he is!

On this forum, I think he do quite well.
My hood is my castle...

Offline Captain Tineal

  • Posts: 2419
  • You will join me or die! Could you do any less?
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #92 on: December 16, 2008, 09:34:53 PM »

I thought games were about having fun :?


Um, no. They are about crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.



023, you win the thread!
I don't know what a pisolires is but it sounds like a musical instrument you play with urine...

Offline Perambulator

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 4876
  • Much Less Dense Than Other Lawyers!
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #93 on: December 16, 2008, 09:38:16 PM »
I thought games were about having fun :?
Um, no. They are about crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.
023, you win the thread!

You've seen his paint work right? 023 just wins.  :::cheers:::
Quote from: Johan Willhelm
Quote from: Dendo Star
Muppets do not have Hatred!
I bet "Animal" has Frenzy . . .

Offline warhammerlord_soth

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 10458
  • Eurobash : Looking for the right date. Be there !
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #94 on: December 17, 2008, 06:31:21 AM »
I thought games were about having fun :?
Um, no. They are about crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.
023, you win the thread!

You've seen his paint work right? 023 just wins.  :::cheers:::

I concur...
Have one  on Midaski's tab.  :::cheers:::
Famous last words. R.I.P.

Offline Kaptajn_Congoboy

  • Posts: 67
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2008, 08:52:05 AM »
Historically, field artillery was a relatively rare bird until the 16th-17th century in Europe. Light torsion-powered bolt throwers appear in roman and medieval times, yes, but even then they were rather thin on the ground. When cannon appeared in the 14th century, it made the occasional appearance in field battles, as at Crecy and Flodden and whatnot, and became increasingly more common.

As Mathi notes, catapults, trebuchets and by extension the larger torsion engines were primarily fixed-defense positions or attacks on defensive positions. Trebuchets had small wheels, but these were there to improve the accuracy and strength of shot (the horizontal energy needs somewhere to go or the trebuchet will "buck") - all larger throwing engines had to be packed down for transportation.

But that debate really matters little to Warhammer (and indeed most fantasy miniatures rules systems), because, let's face it, the games are incredibly unrealistic - and not only in terms of the supernatural elements. One needs only start with the "Eye in the sky" general that actually can see all his troops and see all movement by the enemy! That's quite fine - I find Fields of Glory and similar games attempts at realism (which still use EitS) often makes the games static and quite boring - even if their realism often is only skin deep. So much better Warhammer/Warmachine/etc - focus on the game, fluff and fun, rather than realism.

Offline Obi

  • Posts: 6225
  • Rest in peace Nate
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #96 on: December 17, 2008, 09:56:26 AM »
I thought games were about having fun :?
Um, no. They are about crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.
023, you win the thread!

You've seen his paint work right? 023 just wins.  :::cheers:::
Please, do mention the word 'epic'.
Hello Athiuen and welcome to the Back Table.

caveat lector
I killed a duck with a spear, can't read train timetables though
"To be is to do"-Socrates;
"To do is to be"-Sartre;
"Do Be Do Be Do"-Sinatra

Offline Folken

  • Posts: 2736
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #97 on: December 17, 2008, 10:42:40 AM »
The warhammer races are all to stupid to use archery in an effective way. :icon_razz:
Hey! I have never had a problem getting all my archers in a unit to be able to fire.

Offline Endgame

  • Posts: 174
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #98 on: December 17, 2008, 05:09:15 PM »
But that debate really matters little to Warhammer (and indeed most fantasy miniatures rules systems), because, let's face it, the games are incredibly unrealistic - and not only in terms of the supernatural elements. One needs only start with the "Eye in the sky" general that actually can see all his troops and see all movement by the enemy! That's quite fine - I find Fields of Glory and similar games attempts at realism (which still use EitS) often makes the games static and quite boring - even if their realism often is only skin deep. So much better Warhammer/Warmachine/etc - focus on the game, fluff and fun, rather than realism.

While I agree with most of what you say, the big thing for me that Historicals (like FoG) have over Warhammer is the way that troops break.  One round of combat does not normally send a unit running in FoG while it frequently does in Warhammer.  Additionally, you (almost) always have a game in Field of Glory, while in Warhammer, one bad string of terror rolls can send your whole army running without a fight (see Slannesh deamons for more information).

Offline Kaptajn_Congoboy

  • Posts: 67
Re: Mortar Metagaming?
« Reply #99 on: December 17, 2008, 05:16:58 PM »
But that debate really matters little to Warhammer (and indeed most fantasy miniatures rules systems), because, let's face it, the games are incredibly unrealistic - and not only in terms of the supernatural elements. One needs only start with the "Eye in the sky" general that actually can see all his troops and see all movement by the enemy! That's quite fine - I find Fields of Glory and similar games attempts at realism (which still use EitS) often makes the games static and quite boring - even if their realism often is only skin deep. So much better Warhammer/Warmachine/etc - focus on the game, fluff and fun, rather than realism.

While I agree with most of what you say, the big thing for me that Historicals (like FoG) have over Warhammer is the way that troops break.  One round of combat does not normally send a unit running in FoG while it frequently does in Warhammer.  Additionally, you (almost) always have a game in Field of Glory, while in Warhammer, one bad string of terror rolls can send your whole army running without a fight (see Slannesh deamons for more information).

True enough, but in my view that is a problem (if more realistic); the games become more static, with battlegroups locked together for several rounds.