Your Move Games

Battleground: Fantasy and Historical Warfare => House Rules, Unofficial Variants and Proposals => Topic started by: gornhorror on September 11, 2015, 01:58:18 PM

Title: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on September 11, 2015, 01:58:18 PM
What if we could do this?

If a defending unit receives at least one damage from an engaged attack and one damage from a ranged attack on the same turn, it receives some kind of penalty (either less courage or an extra damage, or maybe a hit dice penalty).

If must be really scary to be charged by an enemy unit AND get pelted with arrows as it charges in.

This would make moving with ranged units AND engaging units a bit more effective and not increase the power of stand and shoot.  Perhaps you could also say that the bonus does not apply if the engaged unit was originally on hold.

Just a thought.  This would help armies that have one or two ranged units that are moving and shooting.

Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Zelc on September 11, 2015, 02:10:16 PM
Certainly an interesting idea. Why don't you test out various bonuses and submit it to my challenge thread? :)
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on September 11, 2015, 04:32:46 PM
Marcus and I will be getting together tonight and we will discuss this.  Perhaps we will play with some changed rules and see if anything seems to work.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gull2112 on September 11, 2015, 04:57:24 PM
Well, give it a try. Seems putsey as hell, to me.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on September 11, 2015, 06:35:15 PM
Well, give it a try. Seems putsey as hell, to me.

Heh, he said....."Putsey"  Whatever that means...
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Zelc on September 11, 2015, 07:09:05 PM
Well, give it a try. Seems putsey as hell, to me.
It's a bit weird, but maybe think of it this way. If you get bonuses for attacking a unit from two sides with melee units, maybe attacking a unit from two sides (front and top) should also give bonuses.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gull2112 on September 13, 2015, 02:38:50 PM
Here is my less putsey idea:
1) If a missile unit would ordinarily suffer the (-)-2/-2 penalty when engaged, instead ignore that penalty, but those units may not be given the Close SO.

IOW, all missile units that don't use the Javelin or pila rule are now more viable if they find themselves in melee, but it is still not within their tactical doctrine to seek to engage the enemy on those terms. Since almost all (I don't immediately recall any exceptions) missile units attck with only 4 dice and have less armor, they aren't going to be any more than accidental melee troops, but you avoid the almost certain needing of 1s and 1s in a melee that they currently suffer.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Kevin on September 13, 2015, 09:56:03 PM
Quote
If a missile unit would ordinarily suffer the (-)-2/-2 penalty when engaged, instead ignore that penalty, but those units may not be given the Close SO.

I'd spam archers and have a really hard time imagining ever losing, except maybe vs High Elves.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gull2112 on September 14, 2015, 09:16:33 AM
Well Kevin, if you would get on the TSS bandwagon I'd love to see you put your theory where your ego is!  ;D

"Through the fine pink mist of archers we strode galantly to victory."
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on November 29, 2015, 01:18:17 PM
This website has been dead for quite some time so I'll throw this out there. 

What if we said that ranged units fire defaults to the closest unit unless you take direct control.  This would hinder stand and shoot a bit and help people that like to play with support fire ranged units that move and shoot.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: RushAss on December 02, 2015, 12:24:27 AM
I see how it hinders Stand & Shoot, but how does it help anywhere else?
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on December 04, 2015, 01:57:42 PM
I see how it hinders Stand & Shoot, but how does it help anywhere else?

Well my thinking is that if your having your ranged units on move and shoot then they can move into position to fire on the unit that they want to without a command action where as if you are stand and shoot you must use a command action to fire on a specific target if it happens not to be the closest unit.  Standing orders for ranged would not be used in this case.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 07, 2015, 01:19:18 PM
This website has been dead for quite some time so I'll throw this out there. 

What if we said that ranged units fire defaults to the closest unit unless you take direct control.  This would hinder stand and shoot a bit and help people that like to play with support fire ranged units that move and shoot.

Just a thought.


Awhile back when I was talking with Chad about shooting, he mentioned basically this idea.  The way he phrased it was to not allow Unit Objective modifiers for the Ranged or Hold standing order.  I was reticent about it at the time, but there is precedent for that sort of thing.  In fact having complete control of where your unit shoots (as in BGFW) is the exception, not the rule.

That sort of thing would hinder (if not outright kill) S&S builds, which is probably for the best IMO.  However, I think it would also means that we'd go from having ranged units occasionally on the table (i.e. for S&S builds) to never ever being on the table.  This is why I think it's important that any shooting rules changes be a package of rules. 


When it comes to things like this I like to work backwards:  start with the desired outcome, and then create a proposal that achieves that goal.

My goal is to encourage players to take 1-2 ranged units (aka "Support Shooting") as part of a close & hose build but not encourage players to take Stand & Shoot builds any more than they currently would[1]

I accept that any rules change that encourages Support Shooting is going boost Stand & Shoots as well.  In essence, any boost to shooting will be a rising tide that lifts both boats and thus make S&S better than the status quo.  Therefore, I'd like any boost to shooting come with a nerf to S&S (and if possible degenerate endgames).


One idea for a nerf that Scott & I worked out a couple months ago was something between Brook/Chad's idea and the status quo.  Instead of banning Unit Modifiers for Ranged/Hold, we attach a penalty of (-0)-1/-0. 


When it comes to boosting shooting that helps Support Shooting but not S&S, we've run into issues.  The long and short is that if you have 1 ranged unit and the enemy has none, by and large you should S&S in any game without turn limits.  Because that damage you inflict while the other guy advances is in essence "free."  When you combine that with the damage done in the endgame, it's obvious that you pretty much should never advance if you have 1-2 shooters and he has none.


Out of this conversation, we came up with an idea to address specifically that problem:  having shooters run out of ammo.  At first this sound crazy, but archers actually had fewer arrows that we might imagine.  Early Renaissance ordonnances called for longbowmen to be equipped with 30 arrows.  Given a rate of fire of between 6-12 arrows per minute, you're talking enough ammo for 5 minutes of continuing fire.  Some accounts have bowmen with between 60-72 arrows per man, but that was supposed to last all day, and specifically notes that this was assuming runners giving then men reloads (or the archers retiring from the battlefield and restocking at camp).

While time is fluid in BGFW games, I'm willing to contend that it lasts longer than the 5-12 minutes it would take archers to completely run out of ammo (and the restock they might have available by runners).  Even if you say they only shoot actively about half the battle, you're still talking a length of 10-24 minutes.  I'm willing to believe most battles run longer than that.

In doing the cursory research on it, we found the idea plausible.  Essentially, ranged units would have finite ammo.  That would put a limitation on the degenerate endgame, and it would attach a "cost" for taking those early long range shots.  The upside of getting those early shots to weaken his line would be balanced by that fact that your finite ammo was spent on a shot where you had the long range & probably move & shoot penalty.



Our idea came down, roughly, to this:  your average (range 14") archer unit would have 6 shots[2].  You could reload 1 shot for 1 CA (like pilas).  The boost to shooting would be also simple:  ranged units shoot every turn.  So in essence we're not adjusting the amount of damage ranged units do (in fact, with ammo we're putting a soft cap on it).  What we're doing is adjusting when the damage happens.  Instead of a unit have 6 shots over 6 turns, it would have 6 shots over 3 turns.  That in and of itself is a significant boost[3].   

(Also it gave LOS shooters like Crossbows "point blank shot while the enemy charges" feel, which we thought Mike would like!  ;D)


Scott & I playtested it several times, and if people are interested, I'd be happy to post them up.  I also had one of our local newer players try it out and asked Marcus & Brook to try it out a couple of times.  The interesting effect is that the newer player had no problem adjusting to shooting every turn, whereas Scott & I had greater problems (we kept forgetting the shoot) but eventually adjusted.  Marcus & Brook had real problems with it. 

All of which made me very concerned and I think ultimately the idea will go nowhere, but I thought I'd mention it for you here to see what people thought.  Like I said, if people want to see the pictures from the games we did, I'd be happy to post them up.




[1] A lesser, but still real concern is that I want to avoid making shooting too good in the degenerate endgame.  Although most people don't play to degenerate endgames, it can still be unfun and it does encourage taking a S&S.


[2]  The actually amount of ammo would be adjusted up or down based on the max range.  LOS shooters would have fewer shots than IF weapons.  We came up with a simple table that was basically this:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/654/23590069775_e2abefa0fe_o.png)


[3]  We had some working ideas on things like javelins/pila and spells, but nothing solid.  We wanted to hammer down the main idea before we started dealing with the edge issues that come up.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: elgin_j on December 07, 2015, 03:59:28 PM
It's an interesting idea.  I presume the advantage is that it allows a focus of fire to try and create holes before melee...

Without commenting on the merits as such it is worth noting that it contradicts the game's design ethos of marking cards in clearly defined areas.  It obviously can be achieved by marking existing faction cards regardless but it should impact on future factions' graphic design.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: GoIndy on December 07, 2015, 06:00:31 PM
So, assuming I'm reading this right, here is what I envision.  (and I might not be reading this right)

Opponent makes his army whatever. 
I make a total stand and shoot.  Doesn't really matter what race, just a reasonable iteration.  Lets say two good shooters, 2 welfare ones, and the rest line units. 

Now normally, this would just be a 'bad' build, since stand and shoot is pretty weak, but instead of firing 3-4 times, I get to fire 6 for sure.  Also, if opponent approaching slowly,  I would totally be paying for the good ones to keep shooting from day one. 

Lets say I have two longbowmen, and 2 regular archers.  (Or two catapults, or elementalists, bombchuckers, whatever)
Let's assume I go second, since this works better for my cheesy brain.

Turn 1, him.  I fire.  Now down to 5 shots.
Turn 1, me, I pay to reload, fire....still at 5 shots.  (I prob dont reload welfare shooters)
Turn 2, him, I fire, down to 4.
Turn 2, me, reload, fire...still at 4....
You get the drift.  My longbowman and going to wreck freaking havok before the enemy arrives.  At least that's how I see it.

Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 08, 2015, 02:02:12 AM
You get the drift.  My longbowman and going to wreck freaking havok before the enemy arrives.  At least that's how I see it.

Yeah, and the very first thing we tried was the 2 Longbowmen build (admittedly not with 2 weak archers).  We didn't find it broken because concentrating fire is painful at (-0)-1/-0 for Unit Objectives.  Yeah two of the units end up getting beat up, but the Hawk line eventually gets flanked, because you have 700pts behind the line.

Also, those reloads become costly very quickly.  Each reload costs 1 CA.  So if you reloaded both Longbowmen every turn, you're drawing 2 less cards per turn.  Playing a lot of Persia has show us that being down 2 CAs every turn really hurts when it comes to command cards.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Karasu on December 08, 2015, 09:46:34 AM
A long time ago I had the Ancients ruleset from the Wargames Research Group.  I don't remember much about it, but there is something I've just been reminded of.

Doing anything exceptional with a unit gave it Fatigue.  Fatigue was basically the unit's health and they would flee if they got too much.  Force March: get Fatigue.  Fight: get Fatigue.  Lose a Fight: get more Fatigue.  Be shot at: get Fatigue.  And the important one: Fire bows: gain Shooting Fatigue.

Shooting Fatigue only counted when calculating ranged combat and it represented exactly the archers running out of ammunition.  It never affected close combat.

So, where does this rambling actually lead?  If you are wanting an easy way to track ammunition and reduce effectiveness on existing cards without having to modify them, here is an idea.
Each time a unit makes a ranged attack, mark the leftmost empty box on their damage track with a dot.  When marking normal damage, simply overwrite them.  This dot is only counted when determining whether the a ranged attack suffers the dice penalties for being in the yellow or red.  A unit that has no unmarked boxes cannot make ranged attacks at all.

I haven't worked out all of the knock-on effects of this, but my initial thoughts appear supportive.
H/w Bowmen have a total of 25 dice-worth of archery in them, Dwarf Bowmen have 27, but crossbows 24.
Damaging archers early could be quite effective, since it reduces their ammo as well.
Healing appears to re-supply archers, but I think I'm okay with that.

Of course, you'd need to include this as part of a package of tweaks, so as not to nerf archery entirely.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: GoIndy on December 08, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
Hannibal:
I doubt I'd specifically target anyone, just let them fire pell mell at whatever.  I mean, even if they only got 6 shots, they'd at least be getting six freaking shots. 

The way I'd be looking at that CA is this...is it worth to fire a (4) 6/6 unit an extra time?  Holy smokes, that's a yeah.  Would I spend 2 CA's to fire a (4) 6/6 2 extra times?  Oh yeah.  Hard to believe any CA I save is gonna be worth a (4) 6/6 blast. 

Regardless, while I don't think the idea is horrible, I do think you are making stand and shoot better, which if I understand the premise, is not what you're trying to do. 
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 09, 2015, 11:39:49 AM
Hannibal:
I doubt I'd specifically target anyone, just let them fire pell mell at whatever.  I mean, even if they only got 6 shots, they'd at least be getting six freaking shots. 

When I playtested it, I came to the same conclusion about targeting.  I just let the longbowmen shoot.  However, remember it's not like they're getting 6 extra shots.  A S&S build will get 5 shots before the line engages, and then you'll get way more than 1 additional shot on the following turns.  So in point of fact the number of shots a S&S will get for free is cut down, which is balanced by the fact that they get all 6 of those shots early in the game instead of spread out.


Quote
The way I'd be looking at that CA is this...is it worth to fire a (4) 6/6 unit an extra time?  Holy smokes, that's a yeah.  Would I spend 2 CA's to fire a (4) 6/6 2 extra times?  Oh yeah.  Hard to believe any CA I save is gonna be worth a (4) 6/6 blast. 

Depends.  There are many games where I'll take a Cge bailout over a blast.   ;D


Quote
Regardless, while I don't think the idea is horrible, I do think you are making stand and shoot better, which if I understand the premise, is not what you're trying to do. 

Well, this was basically what we started testing specifically for this reason.  What we found is that the Longbow S&S didn't feel powerful on the whole (because, remember, this was a package of changes that would include nerfs for the bonuses we give S&S).    If there's interest, I can post up the session reports along with the full package of rules we hashed out so you can examine it.  I wasn't eager to do this because I feel like this idea is DOA because when Marcus & Brook tried it out they found it clunky and they kept forgetting to take shots in the enemy's turn.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: BubblePig on December 09, 2015, 07:13:55 PM
I am wondering not about longbowmen but about crossbowmen (and to a lesser extent WHA) because they are getting a lot of extra value and they certainly are not going to mind having to shoot whatever is in front of them.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 09, 2015, 09:39:29 PM
Yeah, we never got to test LOS shooters because we stopped playtesting before it got that far.  At the outset though, we tried to address that very issue by giving LOS fewer shots.  Crossbowmen get 4 shots, which is what they'd get now with a S&S.  And like now, it'd all happen before combat.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 16, 2015, 12:18:53 PM
Marcus suggested I post the whole idea, so that folks can get a clearer picture of it.  Mind you, it's a rough draft at this point, so there might be some obvious unintended consequence that we never noticed.  Consequently I'll break this down into the changes we were Pretty Sure of, the changes were Somewhat Sure of, and the changes that Flat Out Unsure of.

Pretty Sure:  These changes are in essence the core of the idea.  Not to say we were 100% settled, but these were the major ones that if you tweaked alter the dynamic of this package.

1)  Ammo:  Units get a fixed number of shots for the game, depending on if they were Indirect Fire or Direct Fire.   See the below chart:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/654/23590069775_e2abefa0fe_o.png)

This works out to a LOS unit gets 1 shot per 3.5" of max range.  An IF shooters gets 1 per 3.5" + 2.

After every shot you mark the unit, once the unit has expended all their shots, you can erase 1 mark on 1 unit by spending 1 CA.


2)  Shooting:  Ranged units shoot on both turns as per their standing order.


3)  M+S Standing Order Modifier:  Deleted from the rules.  This modifier is an unholy creation of the last time there was a serious attempt to boost Support Shooting.  In addition to being complex it gives a bigger boost to S&S by allowing those builds to scoot sideways to a position where they can castle in the corner (using the board edge to protect a flank) at no penalty.


4)  Unit Objective Modifier:  Having this causes a penalty to shooting.  If you have a Unit Objective Modifier, the unit suffers (-0)-1/-0 for shooting.  We thought about making it that they suffer it only if they're not shooting at the closest enemy, but this way was simpler for game play.  



Somewhat Sure:  These rules are pretty much byproducts of the above changes affecting some other part of the game in what we considered a negative way.  Its something that we figured we'd work out if it was really an issue during playtesting.

A)  [Ranged] Standing Orders:  Units will only shoot when they reach the range band specified by their standing order.  Otherwise they will hold their fire.  That would like this:

The idea behind this is to not force shooters to waste shots.  It gives the player some control over how to use the finite Ammo.  It also provides a little decision tension:  do you hold your fire to get the good shots or do you go for the early damage with the penalty?


B)  Point Objective Modifier: A unit with a Point Objective Modifier will hold its fire until it reaches that objective.  Then it will fire according to its standing order.

Again the idea here is to not force ranged units to shoot and waste Ammo if the player doesn't want to.  I'm really on the fence about this once (and it should probably be moved down to the Note Sure category), because I could see people wanting to shoot as a unit advanced.


C)  Skirmisher Ammo:  Skirmishers have unlimited Ammo.  This isn't a change so much as extending the unlimited javelin ammo to all Skirmishers.  We felt that bow/sling skirmishers are such pants that the little boost would be okay.



Flat Out Unsure:  These were the ideas that were consequences of the main idea, but I'm less confident of the solutions we had.  Over time I'm sure we would've found the better answer with help from the forum.

I)  Spells:  Because spells are sort-of ranged attacks and sort-of not, and sometimes they're both (looking at you, Dark Elves), we decided on a simple distinction.

Attack Spells:  If the spell had the Attack keyword (any nothing else) or was just a ranged attack, then it had Ammo and followed the above ranged rules (or it's own rules, if it was the freaking Siren Song).  Pure Vancian magic.

Bless/Heal/Curse Spells:  If the spell had the Bless, Heal, and/or Curse keyword, it had unlimited ammo but could only be cast in the owning player's turn.  In essence we'd preserve the current rules on these.  Spells that had the Attack and another keyword (e.g. Curse) followed these rules, not the Vancian Ammo rules.


II)  Umenzi Death Curse:  this spell gets errata'd have the Curse keyword.  That sucker is waaaay too powerful to give it 4 shots over 2 turns.  (Then again, part of the reason it was here was because that might not be the case)


III) Pila/Javelin:  Javelins/Pilas basically get a carve-out to keep them functioning like the status quo:  they only shoot on your turn (unless charged from further than their range), you throw them when you charge, and they have 2 Ammo.

Originally I wanted to fold the Javelin/Pila into the regular Ammo rules.  It simply became a LOS attack that happened on both player's turns.  De facto that would preserve the number of shots as the lines closed:  you move into charge range on your turn and throw the pila.  On his turn he charges, and you don't get a shot.  Or he moves into final rush range on his turn, at which point you got a shot.  Then on your turn you charged in.  But you don't get the pila shot on the charge.  So it works out to 1 shot by the time round 1 of combat happens.  The historical guy (who plays Romans) didn't like the feel of this and so we came up with this carve out.  At the time we did our last playtest I was unsure of this carve out and felt we should consider trying out Javelins/Pila using the above rules.  As few carve-outs as possible was my idea.


Anyway, there's the full bevy of rules as we had when we last discussed it.  Maybe this will be of use to somebody some day.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: RushAss on December 16, 2015, 01:11:31 PM
Thanks for posting this.  2 Questions below:

After every shot you mark the unit, once the unit has expended all their shots, you can erase 1 mark on 1 unit by spending 1 CA.

After all shots are expended can you spend multiple command actions during a single turn to remove multiple marks so that the unit could still fire on both player's attack turns?

A)  [Ranged] Standing Orders:  Units will only shoot when they reach the range band specified by their standing order.  Otherwise they will hold their fire....

The idea behind this is to not force shooters to waste shots.  It gives the player some control over how to use the finite Ammo.  It also provides a little decision tension:  do you hold your fire to get the good shots or do you go for the early damage with the penalty?
It should be noted that if you choose to, you can always direct control a unit to have it fire on a turn where it's standing order would otherwise render it unable to do so.  I'm thinking you would only get the shot on your attack turn, though.  Am I right in this?
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 16, 2015, 01:42:15 PM
After every shot you mark the unit, once the unit has expended all their shots, you can erase 1 mark on 1 unit by spending 1 CA.

After all shots are expended can you spend multiple command actions during a single turn to remove multiple marks so that the unit could still fire on both player's attack turns?

That was the idea.  You could spend all 4 CAs erasing Ammo marks if you wanted.  And of course, you don't have to wait until all shots are expended to reload.


Quote
A)  [Ranged] Standing Orders:  Units will only shoot when they reach the range band specified by their standing order.  Otherwise they will hold their fire....

The idea behind this is to not force shooters to waste shots.  It gives the player some control over how to use the finite Ammo.  It also provides a little decision tension:  do you hold your fire to get the good shots or do you go for the early damage with the penalty?
It should be noted that if you choose to, you can always direct control a unit to have it fire on a turn where it's standing order would otherwise render it unable to do so.  I'm thinking you would only get the shot on your attack turn, though.  Am I right in this?

Yeah, 1 CA for direct control lets you shoot on your turn. 
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: GoIndy on December 16, 2015, 02:16:35 PM
So the elementalist gets 5 fireballs, or 7 lightning bolts?  7 shots total, but two have to be lightning?

The lash gets used on both?  The person is pulled in 7?  That would be humorous, actually. 

Can the dragon elect not to shoot?  I assume dragonfire is grandfathered, but just asking.

Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 16, 2015, 03:12:36 PM
So the elementalist gets 5 fireballs, or 7 lightning bolts?  7 shots total, but two have to be lightning?

We never got that far to have a definitive answer.  I think we went with the unit have 7 total shots or something like that.


Quote
The lash gets used on both?  The person is pulled in 7?  That would be humorous, actually. 

I believe we let the specific wording on the card have precedence. 


Quote
Can the dragon elect not to shoot?  I assume dragonfire is grandfathered, but just asking.

Yeah, that was our thought as well.  Like I said, the idea was still in the early stages and so there was a fair bit of "what about this case" that still needed to be worked out.  We never really made it past a generic special rule like Javelins.

btw, we do have a couple of session reports if you're interested.


Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: elgin_j on December 17, 2015, 03:56:03 AM
Yeah, 1 CA for direct control lets you shoot on your turn. 

Does that not negate any purpose to removing marks through CA expenditure?  You can direct control each shooter to get the same benefit with the additional advantage of moving them precisely where you wish.

Has there been any consideration to allowing the removal of two marks per CA expenditure?
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 17, 2015, 11:45:20 AM
Yeah, 1 CA for direct control lets you shoot on your turn. 

Does that not negate any purpose to removing marks through CA expenditure?  You can direct control each shooter to get the same benefit with the additional advantage of moving them precisely where you wish.


Perhaps I misspoke:  direct control lets you move the unit and shoot at any target you wish.  However the shot still counts against the unit's Ammo.  (and if you moved you'd suffer the penalty for move and shoot).  Direct control lets you target not-the-closest unit at no penalty, and move if you wish  There's a context where that is worth doing, but usually its not a great expenditure of CAs.


Quote
Has there been any consideration to allowing the removal of two marks per CA expenditure?

Yeah, we gave it some thought.  Never ruled for or against it definitively.  We started with 1 CA = erase 1 mark because it gave a lesser ROI for S&S builds.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: elgin_j on December 21, 2015, 10:19:00 PM
That makes more sense. I wonder if it is underpowered at 1 CA for 1 reload but I don't speak from any experience.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on April 19, 2016, 10:18:33 PM
What about if we gave an offensive bonus (like an extra two hit dice) to ranged units that can fire line of site against units that are within short range.  It would reward moving archers more than archers that just sit behind a stand and shoot line.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on May 06, 2016, 03:55:23 PM
What if we allowed ranged units on move and shoot to fire every turn with a -1/-0 and ranged units on just ranged(i.e. not moving) to only fire on their turn without penalty.

This I think helps moving and shooting without making stand and shooting more powerful. 

Just another thought.

Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on October 08, 2016, 07:29:58 AM
So this is a house rule that Marcus and I have been using for ranged.  It's simple and seems to work and most importantly is fun and not too clunky.


1.) No move and shoot penalty but a maneuver and shoot penalty(Units with no move and shoot penalty or units with no penalty for manuever(i.e. maneuver mastery) do not suffer this penalty)
2.) No ranged penalty for any range
3.) No bonus for firing at large units
4.) +1 dice if target is 3.5" or closer (addlatlmen do not get this bonus)
5.) (+0) -1/+0 if firing on anything but the closest target

Oh and this is with firing only on the owning players turn.  

Here's another idea that I have been thinking about and could be tried out in the near future.

(-1) dice when firing at large/colossal units to simulate their tough hide instead of +1 to hit.  I was also thinking about (+0)+0/-1.  This helps the 1/3 or 2/3 large units but makes the 1/4 to immune I think.










Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: NegativeZer0 on October 08, 2016, 10:49:42 AM
I hate # 4.

The rest seems okay
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on October 26, 2016, 12:48:50 PM
So here is an updated version that we've been playing with and it's seems work.

1.) No move and shoot penalty but a maneuver and shoot penalty(Units with no move and shoot penalty or units with no penalty for manuever(i.e. maneuver mastery) do not suffer this penalty)
2.) No ranged penalty for any range
3.) No bonus for firing at large units
4.) (+0) -1/+0 if firing on anything but the closest target

Oh and this is with firing only on the owning players turn.

We may revisit giving a bonus to firing when the target is closer than 3.5".  It seems that the new rules are strong enough without this change.

When we played last weekend at Time Warp, Ostegun suggested that ranged units could get the +1 bonus to hit dice if they were specifically on hold and within 3/5" to their targets.  This is something that could be tried in the future.

Looks like we are playing again this Saturday and we will be using these rules again.

 
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Ostegun on October 27, 2016, 08:24:51 AM
Have to say I loved the new rules since they made the use of range units more appealing in a small sized battlefield like BFW and BHW does.

The idea of the bonus die was for 3.5" away as a way to cause the player to reflect on the option of having range moving or holding since holding would offer that bonus when units are close enough to charge them.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Kevin on October 27, 2016, 09:05:36 AM
From a game-stays-balanced-but-archers-become-better perspective it's definitely worth exploring.

From a "these-rules-simulate-battles" prespective (as opposed to "and if horse archers are attacked by fast-moving-spearmen the Giant Space Squid comes down from the heavens to do two point of damage to the spearmen in order to keep things balanced") not so much.  i'd be hard pressed to explain why archers can leg it forward top-speed with no penalty but shufflng a few feet to the right doesn't work.  Or why it's no harder to hit a far-away target when ever kid who's been to summer camp has had a harder time hitting  a farther target with an arrow.   Or for that matter why it's suddenly harder to shoot at the guys over there on the left when there are some slightly closer guys over there on the right.

(No bonus for shooting at Large, on the other hand, strikes me as reasonable.  I figure Large units being bigger targets already is accounted for by their typical 1/x defense.)

But back to the rules.  Have you tried placing an archer unit directly behind another?  With no range penalty it seems that would get you the same brutal concentration of fire that the fourth rule was trying to prevent.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on October 30, 2016, 07:24:15 PM
Here is a new version of my ranged rules.  Some changes were made after my discussion with Marcus last night.


1. (+0) -1/+0 at extreme range
2. (+0) -1/+0 the turn your target changes (whether you are assigning a new target or taking direct control and changing the target for the turn)  
3. (+0) -1/+0 when moving and shooting unless you are moving one movement class slower than your top speed
4. No bonus for firing on large/colossal units.  

( The # 4 rule is currently being discussed in my playing group, I would like it to become official but there are some who think it will make Large too powerful because of the discount for large units)


There is also talk of re-introducing an automatic (-1) die when being final rushed against Large/Colossal) in addition to rolling for a fear check which would give the additional -1/-1 if failed.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Ostegun on October 30, 2016, 07:26:14 PM
Agree with Kevin on realism. Range should matter if we are looking at a realistic set of rules. If we want to keep it real I guess we need to look at a different approach to fixing range. An easy fix for me would be to increase how far units can shoot before saying it's long range. Maybe normal range up to 10 or 14. Long up to 16 or 18. Extreme beyond that...

I mean just a thought XD
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Ostegun on October 30, 2016, 07:27:48 PM
Gornhorror that sounds really clever would love to try it.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Kevin on October 30, 2016, 07:34:42 PM
Quote
1. (+0) -1/+0 at extreme range
2. (+0) -1/+0 the turn you change your target with a command action
3. (+0) -1/+0 when moving and shooting unless you are moving one movement class slower than your top speed

Definitely looks better, but regarding #2 should the penalty also apply when taking Direct Control to shoot at a unit other than the normal target?
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on October 30, 2016, 07:51:13 PM
I would lean towards yes.  Make your ranged assignments count.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Kevin on October 30, 2016, 08:05:53 PM
Cool.

Is the bonus vs. Large still there or is it gone?  If it's there, big guys are going to get even more hurt by these rules than the status quo.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on October 30, 2016, 08:26:02 PM
If it was only up to me, yes, I would take away the bonus for firing on large.  Sure, realistically it's easier to hit them but the arrows should do less damage.  That being said I don't see any buff to defensive toughness.  So I'm thinking taking away the bonus to hit can account for that in a round about way.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: RushAss on November 01, 2016, 09:30:33 PM

Definitely looks better, but regarding #2 should the penalty also apply when taking Direct Control to shoot at a unit other than the normal target?
Well taking direct control does require a command action, so yeah.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on November 04, 2016, 01:12:04 PM
Looks like we will have another opportunity to play this coming weekend.  We will be employing the newest incarnation of the ranged rules.

Once again, they are as follows:


1. (+0) -1/+0 at extreme range
2. (+0) -1/+0 the turn you change your target (whether you are assigning a new target or taking direct control and changing the target for the turn)  
3. (+0) -1/+0 when moving and shooting unless you are moving one movement class slower than your top speed, this includes maneuvers (i.e. sideways, backwards, etc)
4. No bonus for firing on large/colossal units.  (I like this rule and will try to convince others to include it)



Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: RushAss on November 08, 2016, 11:36:17 AM
So far so good with the ranged rule set Brook has proposed so far.  Ranged fire is better, but not blowing opponents to smitherines unless it's a really good ranged unit.  And that's what you're paying for, right?  My only point of contrition is #4 and that's because I'm working on a small upgrade (fix?) to Fearsome that might help Large units out just a touch if it ever gets passed.  Otherwise, it's all good.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Fingolfin on November 23, 2016, 05:30:06 PM
Looks like we will have another opportunity to play this coming weekend.  We will be employing the newest incarnation of the ranged rules.

Once again, they are as follows:


1. (+0) -1/+0 at extreme range
2. (+0) -1/+0 the turn you change your target (whether you are assigning a new target or taking direct control and changing the target for the turn)  
3. (+0) -1/+0 when moving and shooting unless you are moving one movement class slower than your top speed, this includes maneuvers (i.e. sideways, backwards, etc)
4. No bonus for firing on large/colossal units.  (I like this rule and will try to convince others to include it)





Given that I am not comfortable with the idea of archers having perfect accuracy at the end of their range, may I suggest eliminating the Extreme Range rule altogether and having Long Range start at 10.5"?
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on November 25, 2016, 01:25:00 PM
They don't have perfect accuracy.  Even with the long range penalty taken away, the units still miss.  My idea to keep the rules as simple as possible.  The first incarnation of my rule suggestion didn't even have a penalty for shooting at extreme range.  Within my play group and from some others I received too many objections so I reinstated it.  My thinking was that there are a few select units that can fire beyond range 14" and we shouldn't give them a penalty.  When you have a 6/6 longbowmen unit and all of a sudden they become a 4/6 unit on turn one when they can fire, I'm like what's the point?  It's almost a wasted shot for a unit you paid good points for. 

 
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Ostegun on November 28, 2016, 02:58:26 PM
Can't wait to try the new rules.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Fingolfin on December 01, 2016, 10:36:05 AM
They don't have perfect accuracy.  Even with the long range penalty taken away, the units still miss.  My idea to keep the rules as simple as possible.  The first incarnation of my rule suggestion didn't even have a penalty for shooting at extreme range.  Within my play group and from some others I received too many objections so I reinstated it.  My thinking was that there are a few select units that can fire beyond range 14" and we shouldn't give them a penalty.  When you have a 6/6 longbowmen unit and all of a sudden they become a 4/6 unit on turn one when they can fire, I'm like what's the point?  It's almost a wasted shot for a unit you paid good points for. 

No, they don't have perfect accuracy, if by that you mean that they sometimes miss. But the idea of archers who are as effective at shooting at 20 yards as they are at 100 yards completely throws reality away. One of the strengths of Battleground is that, despite the elves, orcs, magic, and giant elephants, things make sense from a real world perspective. It makes sense that impact hits are a thing. It makes sense that people run away. It makes not sense that archers can hit a target on the edge of their range as well as they can hit a target 10 feet away. I fully support making ranged units better, but I think that some allowances should be made for reality.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Hannibal on December 01, 2016, 12:53:55 PM
I get what you're saying, but it's worth noting that we already do have that effect.  If a unit is 14.1" away from Hawk Bowmen, the penalty goes from (-0)-1/-0 to (-infinity dice) -infinity skill/ - infinity power.  That's a pretty steep drop off, for what could be said to be 10 feet.

And Battleground isn't alone in that.  Most games have maximum ranges where there's a de facto "negative infinity" penalty.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Fingolfin on December 01, 2016, 08:12:55 PM
We were discussing the alternate ranged rules. In those rules, Bowmen have no penalty when firing at long range. So you have a unit that is as accurate as it will ever be out to the end of its range, where it suddenly cannot hit any more. There needs to be a progression.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Fingolfin on December 07, 2016, 01:26:52 PM
A Question: What is the purpose of the 0/-1/0 penalty when changing targets?
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on January 23, 2017, 04:59:47 PM
Here is a new set of ranged rules that we tried out recently. Seemed to work well.

Point blank range (0"-3.5") (+0) +1/+1
Short range (>3.5" to 7") )(+0) +0/+0
Long range (>7") (+0) -1/+0 (No extreme range)
No move and shoot penalty
Maneuver and Shoot penalty of (+0) -1/+0 (Units currently with no move and shoot penalty can maneuver and shoot without penalty with this rule set)


Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: gornhorror on June 26, 2017, 03:25:25 PM
Here is another ranged rule proposal that I came up with last week.  Marcus and I have only played one game with it thus far.

0-7" range, no penalty
> 7" range, 0/-1/0
Firing at un-engaged +2/0/0
Firing at engaged 0/-1/0
Firing at cavalry -1/-1/0
Move and shoot 0/-1/0

Only pure ranged units get the +2 dice bonus.

Units that do not get the bonus: cavalry that has ranged attack
                                               spell casters
                                               skirmishers
                                               pila
                                               javelins
                                               any ranged unit that does not have at least a 14" base range.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Karasu on July 17, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
The Atlatlmen will be upset at being not defined as 'pure ranged', as will the Swarmling bowmen :)
That Immortals and Sparabara don't count I can understand a bit more.

There are also some weird ones that do count, if I understand this correctly:
The Hill Giant, when ordered to throw a rock
High Elf Battlemages.  Their ranged attack isn't a spell, AFAIK.
All of the siege weapon-style units, although the Bob-Chucker in particular.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: Kevin on July 17, 2017, 09:46:17 PM
Wasn't your goal to make a supporting archer or two better without overpowering move-and-shoot?  Giving a bonus vs. unengaged targets (or, effective, a penalty to shooting at engaged targets) does the exact opposite of that.  There used to be an engaged target penalty and it was removed for this exact reason.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: BubblePig on July 18, 2017, 08:42:39 AM
Firing at un-engaged +2/0/0

Only pure ranged units get the +2 dice bonus.

Units that do not get the bonus: cavalry that has ranged attack
                                               spell casters
                                               skirmishers
                                               pila
                                               javelins
                                               any ranged unit that does not have at least a 14" base range.
Why no spellcasters?

Elementalists, Coven, Lord of Dusk cost 2 to 3 times as much as an archer and with this proposal they are simply not worth that much more. In particular the Elementalists are stay in the box because there would never be an occasion where you would not want 2 Wildmen Archers or a Hill Giant instead.

What is your rationale? Why does your fear proposal specifically target DE as receiving a downgrade while your range proposal indirectly targets them more than any other non historical faction? Are Dark Elves still that terrible?

There are also some weird ones that do count, if I understand this correctly:
The Hill Giant, when ordered to throw a rock
High Elf Battlemages.  Their ranged attack isn't a spell, AFAIK.
All of the siege weapon-style units, although the Bob-Chucker in particular.
In a shootout between LOD and a High Elf Scorpion, now the Scorpion gets 2 extra dice in addition to being able to hide behind friendlies? Scorpion + Cygnet costs 437 compared to Lord of Dusk costs 429. I suppose that I would consider taking siege weapon units a lot more often because you get so many dice up front that not being able to attack engaged units is a very minor annoyance instead of a deal breaker. But it seems to me you are trading off making archers and seige weapons less situational units by making spellcasters stay in the box all the time units. I don't think that is an overall improvement, and that leaves aside Kevin's point about stand and shoot.

The GBC would be no joke. I remember more than one occasion where my opponent took 2 GBC and I was pooping my pants the whole game and when my opponent rolled a 9 or 10 on that first roll just praying the 9 or 10 'to hit' dice would be kind to me. Now you want GBC to get that many dice on a mediocre roll? I am not OK with that.
Title: Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
Post by: BubblePig on July 18, 2017, 10:11:47 PM
Here is another ranged rule proposal that I came up with last week.  Marcus and I have only played one game with it thus far.

0-7" range, no penalty
> 7" range, 0/-1/0
Firing at un-engaged +2/0/0
Firing at engaged 0/-1/0
Firing at cavalry -1/-1/0
Move and shoot 0/-1/0

Only pure ranged units get the +2 dice bonus.

Units that do not get the bonus: cavalry that has ranged attack
                                               spell casters
                                               skirmishers
                                               pila
                                               javelins
                                               any ranged unit that does not have at least a 14" base range.
Have you tried a stand and shoot army with these? After I got over my "Why are you kicking Elementalists in the nads? And what the hell are you trying to do to Dark Elves (again?)" moment, the 3 things that stand out to me are:
1. firing at unengaged bonus,
2. firing at engaged penalty
3. the lack of a penalty for assigning a new target/unit objective modifier (so no penalty at all for concentrating fire which was to my mind a key component of previous proposals)

These really seems tailor made for stand and shoot armies. After playing 2 games with I think the 3rd to the last proposal, I would tweak it to the following as the next iteration:

1. There are 3 range bands for 14" or more, 2 range bands for 7" to 10.5", and 1 range band for 3.5" to 5". Extreme Range = more than 10.5" for 14" units, more than 14" for 17.5" units, more than 17.5" for 21" units (doesn't exist for 10.5" or less ranged units.) Long Range = more than 5" for 7", more than 7" for 10.5" units, more than 7" for 14" units, more than 10.5" for 17.5" units, more than 14" for 21" units (doesn't exist for 5" or less ranged units.) Short Range = anything under Long Range.
This would be much, much simpler if all ranges were multiples of 3.5" and 5" range did not exist!!!
2. (+0) -2/+0 at extreme range
3. (+0) -1/+0 at long range
4. (+0) -1/+0 the turn you change your target (whether you are assigning a new target or taking direct control and changing the target for the turn) 
5. (+0) -1/+0 when moving and shooting unless you are moving one movement class slower than your top speed, this includes maneuvers (i.e. sideways, backwards, etc)
6. No bonus for firing on large/colossal units.
7. Units with 4 or more range dice get a (+1) +0/+0 bonus for shooting unengaged, except Lashmistress and low arc units (shooting at normal size units?).

Low arc units probably shouldn't get this bonus since they can't shoot engaged units and they get a discount for that AFAIK (Low arc units might possibly get this bonus against large/colossal units,) but any other exceptions should be minimal.

Note that, in terms of rule bloat, 6 is a subtraction from existing rules not an addition, though it might be a good thing to note all rule changes in successive versions of rules. 1 is slightly wordier than previously. Also note 2, 3, and 5 are the same as most previous versions of the rules. So taken as a whole I think this creates less "crap would you guys stop changing the rules" effect than most other proposals, while also avoiding "Dark Elves was my favorite faction; now I quit" effect.

Also note that this is nerf for most skirmishers, a slight nerf to crossbowmen, between a slight cookie and a slight nerf for 7" units with more than 3 dice (Atlatlmen), and an unambiguous cookie for 17.5" and 21" units except low arc units.