Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Battleground: Fantasy Warfare Discussion / Re: BGFW Excel Army Builder
« Last post by RushAss on July 19, 2017, 09:19:27 AM »
Yeah, it's probably something that somebody pasted in there by mistake and then forgot about since it's lower down on the spreadsheet.
2
Did you know that in row 49 of Dark Elves there is some text, "None, Men of Hawkshold, Undead, Orc, Elves of Ravenwood, Dwarves, Umenzi, Lizardmen, High Elves, Monsters and Mercs, Rome, Carthage, Dark Elves, Alexander, Persia, Wuxing"    that doesn't seem to do anything?
3
House Rules, Unofficial Variants and Proposals / Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Last 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.
4
House Rules, Unofficial Variants and Proposals / Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Last 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.
5
House Rules, Unofficial Variants and Proposals / Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Last 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.
6
House Rules, Unofficial Variants and Proposals / Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Last 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.
7
Session Reports / Re: Lizardmen - Dwarves 2000 Terrain
« Last post by RushAss on July 15, 2017, 03:24:06 PM »
RushAss = Marcus
gornhorror = Brook
BubblePig = Ron
Hannibal = Corey
NegeativeZer0 = Eric
Dave-SWA = Dave Cheng
IndyIrish = Tim
Kevin = ....sorry, I forget....
8
Session Reports / Re: Lizardmen - Dwarves 2000 Terrain
« Last post by sullivus on July 15, 2017, 02:30:28 PM »
Thanks for the welcomes!  Now I have to figure out what real names match the forum names....
9
Session Reports / Re: Lizardmen - Dwarves 2000 Terrain
« Last post by Hannibal on July 14, 2017, 04:13:37 PM »
Nice game!  And welcome to the forum, Blakely!

6-wde would've worked better if Dwarves didn't ignore hills. 

True, but at the same time Dwarves going over the hill move at the same speed as anyone else, so that 6-Wide build with a large terrain piece like that isn't a terrible plan.

It warms my heart to see the narrow line builds win...


I also wish I'd pulled my left flank back a bit more, that may have made some difference. 

You know, I was thinking exactly that.  S-curve your line where the guys on the left get an objective behind them to give the right flank time to come around.  It's hard to pull off and it'll likely cost you CAs early.


They're Elven rune dice, which I won at Dexcon the year I obliterated everything with the 5-die-charge Elder Blade Battlesquads.  :)
Hee hee. Yeah, I still maintain that if +2 dice charge was flat
You could take an army of nothing but Elder Blade Battlesquads and win more often than not.
There is no other unit in the game of which that could be said.

I'm still not entirely convinced that it's unbalanced because of how fragile & pricey those EB Battle Squads are.  I usually leave those in the box because the points they spend on Pow works against their purpose of delaying (same with Off Skill, but you don't really get a say in that if you want the Cge 13 and D:3/2).  Scott has been taking them a bit lately and I see how they can semi-grind out a win against that 200pt unit, but I'm not sure they do it quick enough to be worth it over concentrating the points in a couple of units.

Still, I think we made the right call to be cautious there, because Maneuver Mastery & Sprint is what drags High Elves to the top of the power curve IMO.  And 9 EB Battle Squads maximizes the use of that situational mobility.
10
Session Reports / Re: Lizardmen - Dwarves 2000 Terrain
« Last post by gornhorror on July 14, 2017, 03:32:23 PM »
I basically cursed myself on those route checks.  I needed a 14 to pass so I started thinking about how great it was that with Dwarves you know you're almost guaranteed to pass a route check and then, of course, I failed.  :(

Had I known that Kevin was going to take six units I would have traded in two of the cards for a second Longbeard.  But, of course, you can't gamble on that.

I also wish I'd pulled my left flank back a bit more, that may have made some difference.  It turned into a surprisingly interesting game given that I was contemplating conceding fairly early on after my two poorly-timed routes led to death, early pinches, and apparent doom.

Don't take it personally but, I like it when Dwarves fail rout checks.....It makes my day.....

but yeah, good to see you on the boards...
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10