Alternate Ranged Idea

[RushAss]

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.

[Fingolfin]

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"?

[gornhorror]

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. 

 

[Ostegun]

Can't wait to try the new rules.

[Fingolfin]

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.

[Hannibal]

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.

[Fingolfin]

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.

[Fingolfin]

A Question: What is the purpose of the 0/-1/0 penalty when changing targets?

[gornhorror]

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)

[gornhorror]

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.

[Karasu]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[BubblePig]

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.

[BubblePig]

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.