PDA

View Full Version : Changing the shooting phase



Lord Dan
14-01-2010, 02:38
The other night I played a few 500 point games with some friends. I was running:

Exhalted on Juggernaut
12 warriors of nurgle
10 marauders of slaanesh
5 warhounds

My opponent ran:

HE noble
10 archers
7 white lions
lion chariot
bolt thrower

During the game there came a crucial phase where I carefully screened my warriors from his relatively abundant (for 500 points, anyway) missile fire using my marauders. In his shooting phase he knocked off a couple marauder with the archers- just enough to allow the bolt thrower line of sight to my warriors. He shot the warriors with the bolt thrower, killing 3 of them. They failed their subsequent panic test (twice :rolleyes:) and fled, effectively putting them out of the small battle.

I lost the game, but it got me thinking- what if all targeting for shooting was declared at the beginning of the shooting phase? Rather than shooting units firing one at a time at whatever the best target is, they would have to all select where they will shoot without knowing how successful each unit will be. It would make sense, as it seems kind of silly for shooting units to be able to pick their targets based on the success of their allies. This would drastically reduce the number of gunline armies, and make expensive CC units with little in the way of defense against shooting more viable.

I'm obviously biased, as I'm tired of my 18 point warriors getting gunned down because of my opponent's absurdly patient war machines. Thoughts?

SuperArchMegalon
14-01-2010, 02:45
What are armies that rely on shooting to do against a fast CC army that can utilize cheap screens all too effectively already?

ChaosVC
14-01-2010, 02:49
It may seems like a logical and good idea but it is open to abuse i.e 1 long line of war hounds screening the whole army taking all the shoots in the all the shooting units in a single phase, "super cheap screeners syndrome".

Just take a deep breath and forget about it, its fustrating to lose a dice game to bad dice rolls but try to get use to it.

Red Metal
14-01-2010, 03:58
I think the shooting phase is fine. I can easily see the above referenced problems occurring by which people could negate the proposed solution. I know the HE Archer's shooting gave way to the BT having LOS, but it's just another "not-so-perfect" concept whereas WFB cannot truely duplicate life on the battlefield.

Besides, in using the proposed rules, suppose two units nominated shooting at the same enemy. Then the first unit shoots and obliterates the enemy unit, does the second shooting unit lose it's ability to shoot that turn? If so, then I'd say that shooting units should be much cheaper in points, since they may never get to use their primary ability. If they get to nominate a second unit to shoot against, then the proposed rule fails.

I think the OP just had a bad experience with a pseudo-gunline list in a low point value game; where one mis-step or lucky dice roll, too easily means game over. If this same event had occurred in a 2K point game, there wouldn't be cause to complain.

Lord Dan
14-01-2010, 05:54
I think the OP just had a bad experience with a pseudo-gunline list in a low point value game; where one mis-step or lucky dice roll, too easily means game over. If this same event had occurred in a 2K point game, there wouldn't be cause to complain.

Why are you speaking as though I'm no longer here to respond? It's rude and rather silly sounding.

This is something that occurs at all point levels, I just provided the example as a reference. In fact at the 2K level it's an even worse problem as the "pseudo gunlines" become real gunlines.

As far as uber screens go: there are still hills, large targets, and the inescapable fact that a screen half the size of the battlefield would inhibit more than it would help. I admit it's not a perfect solution, I just think the system as it stands is far to open to abuse, and brainstorming possible alternatives can't hurt.

The Red Scourge
14-01-2010, 06:19
..as it seems kind of silly for shooting units to be able to pick their targets based on the success of their allies.

Why does this seem silly?

SilentTempest
14-01-2010, 07:29
It's not silly or rude. The forum is simply discussing the ideas without feeling a need to reply back to the original poster. If they did, then they'd be ignoring everyone ELSE that had posted, and surely that would be even more rude! :)

As for the idea, I personally think it's at least worthy of a bit of playtesting, although do recognise the danger that it may be abused.

I think perhaps people have also noticed that your example is a 500 points example, where obviously every single die roll matters and a shooting army has a significant advantage compared to larger games because there's less screening and less target overload. Perhaps it would've been better to provide a larger game as an example next time so people don't latch onto the small game aspect of it. I know I certainly did as I was reading.

ChaosVC
14-01-2010, 07:41
Personnally, I think that would undermine shooting. Being a Warrior of Chaos(My first love)player and a High/dark elf player, I think the shooting rule is already as good as it can be. The problem with armies like Warriors of chaos facing against shooty armies is not really a problem with the shooting phase but the army design WOC. small elite melee armies facing gunlines is always dicy due to low model count, it can be avoided of course by changing list or tactics in bigger games but not smaller games.

And having played non shooty advancing armies longer than my shooty armies, I find the shooting rules okay and not silly.

Red Metal
14-01-2010, 17:54
Why are you speaking as though I'm no longer here to respond? It's rude and rather silly sounding.

This is something that occurs at all point levels, I just provided the example as a reference. In fact at the 2K level it's an even worse problem as the "pseudo gunlines" become real gunlines.

As far as uber screens go: there are still hills, large targets, and the inescapable fact that a screen half the size of the battlefield would inhibit more than it would help. I admit it's not a perfect solution, I just think the system as it stands is far to open to abuse, and brainstorming possible alternatives can't hurt.

I can direct my posts to the *forum*, rather than start every reply with "Dear, OP..." Really, it's a forum - we talk to each other sometimes. :rolleyes:

As for point levels, again, I think you're just upset because it happened in a way that damaged a larger percentage of your army. Read some BatReps to see how this same event happens in other games and no one complains about re-writing the rules for shooting. Gunlines are just another apsect of this game and do represent a fair, "real world" style of army where the enemy shows up to the fight with more guns than you. This style costs them more points and less armor (usually), so I still see it as fair. We can't all take armies made up of foot troops just crashing into each other. What next? Take the horses away from the Brets because you don't like how they outrun your Chaos Warriors, too?

gorenut
14-01-2010, 19:02
i can see your point, but I think shooting is fine as it is. If anything, its one of the rules that is actually decently done. With the exception of gunlines, most shooting isn't overpowering anyways. Rarely are games won with just shooting (again, with the exception of gunlines) and your proposed rule would just weaken shooting even more. Screens are already good as they are.. your proposed rules change would make screening units worth more than their points.

enyoss
14-01-2010, 19:49
I think the problem here is the very low points value followed by bad luck, rather than the mechanics of the shooting phase.

I've played it both ways many times (i.e. the current way and the nominate all shooting way) and it really made very little difference.

gorenut
14-01-2010, 21:32
I think the problem here is the very low points value followed by bad luck, rather than the mechanics of the shooting phase.

I've played it both ways many times (i.e. the current way and the nominate all shooting way) and it really made very little difference.

This is also a very well-made point. Shooting is definitely more powerful in smaller pointed games.

RGB
14-01-2010, 21:37
Shooting is the least of the phases of Warhammer, and gunlines are among the weaker builds for all armies because of frontage issues.

The only way I'd agree with you even in theory is if mages were forced to declare all their spells and all their spells' targets and how many dice they were going to use on each spell and what bounds they had BEFORE the phase started, because the magic phase has that precise issue that you described in the original post.

White_13oy
14-01-2010, 21:59
It also probably didn't help the fact that he was against HE who only need one core, thus opening the option for the bolt thrower without losing the chariot or WL's.

enyoss
14-01-2010, 22:21
This is also a very well-made point. Shooting is definitely more powerful in smaller pointed games.

It was well made by a couple of other posters before I waded in though, so no credit to me. :p

Lordsaradain
15-01-2010, 00:00
The only way I'd agree with you even in theory is if mages were forced to declare all their spells and all their spells' targets and how many dice they were going to use on each spell and what bounds they had BEFORE the phase started, because the magic phase has that precise issue that you described in the original post.

My sentiment exactly.

Tarax
16-01-2010, 11:01
...what if all targeting for shooting was declared at the beginning of the shooting phase? Rather than shooting units firing one at a time at whatever the best target is, they would have to all select where they will shoot without knowing how successful each unit will be.

That's how I play for a long time. And it works, both in small games and in larger (2000+) games. It is no problem to do and, to me, it seems more realistic, as all shooting is at the same time.

Whatever everyone else says, I'm here for you Lord Dan. :)

The Red Scourge
16-01-2010, 11:48
it seems more realistic, as all shooting is at the same time.

And why is this? Do you envision a combat round to be a 10 second interval and the entire battle fought out in a minute?

Lord Dan
16-01-2010, 16:58
That's how I play for a long time. And it works, both in small games and in larger (2000+) games. It is no problem to do and, to me, it seems more realistic, as all shooting is at the same time.

Whatever everyone else says, I'm here for you Lord Dan. :)
Thanks, Tarax. My friends and I have been playtesting the rules, and it's been working out great. Even my ranged-weapon heavy opponents seem to be enjoying it more, as they've been thinking more tactically throughout the game.


And why is this? Do you envision a combat round to be a 10 second interval and the entire battle fought out in a minute?
Conversely, do you imagine each shooting phase to be 5 minutes long? So the opposing army just stops and waits for your men to figure out where they want to shoot?

Honestly this isn't about realism, it's about trying to make a more balanced game. Heck, every other thread that pops up on these forums is "cheese this" and "how do we save fantasy?". I mean really guys, at least give it a playtest before you go off on how foolish I am for even proposing the idea.

The Red Scourge
16-01-2010, 17:47
Conversely, do you imagine each shooting phase to be 5 minutes long? So the opposing army just stops and waits for your men to figure out where they want to shoot?

Honestly this isn't about realism, it's about trying to make a more balanced game. Heck, every other thread that pops up on these forums is "cheese this" and "how do we save fantasy?". I mean really guys, at least give it a playtest before you go off on how foolish I am for even proposing the idea.

Sorry dude, but you started with the realism arguments:


It would make sense, as it seems kind of silly for shooting units to be able to pick their targets based on the success of their allies.

And I'm all for house rules :)

Lord Dan
17-01-2010, 05:36
Sorry dude, but you started with the realism arguments:

Fair enough.

Tarax
17-01-2010, 09:45
Thanks Lord Dan and The Red Scourge. I have nothing more to add. The good Lord has beaten me to it. ;)

Gorbad Ironclaw
17-01-2010, 10:53
Conversely, do you imagine each shooting phase to be 5 minutes long? So the opposing army just stops and waits for your men to figure out where they want to shoot?

Trying to equate a Warhammer turn to any kind of consistent time scale is bound to fail. The game simply doesn't work that way.

A game probably represents most of a days fighting and different turns and different parts of any given turn will represent a different amount of time depending on what needs to happen in that phase.

Just as there is no consistent ground scale, there is no consistent time scale. When you shoot with an archer unit the mechanics represent that unit shooting for a period of time. It's not just 5 arrows.

You could play it as if it was super realistic but then the game makes even less sense than it normally does (and it generally doesn't make sense to start with), but rather needs to be seen as an abstraction of the combat action.

rtunian
17-01-2010, 16:26
what if all targeting for shooting was declared at the beginning of the shooting phase?

i agree that it would make more sense.
i disagree that it would make the game play better.

for one, you'd need another whole set of markers for declaring shooting targets (akin to declaring charges). without that, it could become very difficult to keep track of who is shooting at what. annoying, but not necessarily a high hurdle to overcome.

imo the problem is with panic, which currently is resolved immediately. if all shooting happens "at the same time", then you'd have to hold all panic tests until after all shots are fired. or you could roll their tests when they need to test, and then wait to move panicked units until the end of the round. the reason panic would have to be held off is that it doesn't make sense to have the shooting "at the same time" and the panic results of the shooting "one at a time". besides, panic tests can change the battlefield even more than fallen warriors can (the premise of this thread is that fallen warriors can give enemy shooters new angles on shots that they did not have one dice roll earlier)

altogether, i think it's just easier to resolve the shooting "one unit at a time"

Entweasel
17-01-2010, 18:07
I've always played it like that - after all, you have to nominate targets for your chargers all at once, and your guess-range weapons. What's the big deal? and to bring "realism" into it, the orders would all be carried by runners to different units (in most armies), so for each unit to fire one after the other would make the shooting phase about 20 minutes long.

Idle Scholar
17-01-2010, 18:27
I've always felt a bit dirty when shooting from one unit has allowed me to hit something I couldn't see before. Not that it's stopped me doing it though :p

ftayl5
18-01-2010, 04:21
well that would make sense as it is exactly how charging works, if you cant see them at the START of the phase you cant charge, however all shooty armies would die instantly if this happenned

Lord Dan
18-01-2010, 05:45
however all shooty armies would die instantly if this happenned

I can't think of a single instance where this would be a bad thing.

RGB
18-01-2010, 07:27
I can't think of a single instance where this would be a bad thing.

So essentially, you don't like a particular play style and so would like to nerf it for personal reasons to favour your own build that revolves around 2A S5 troops. That seems eminently fair and reasonable.

I really don't like magic, for example, and thus I still stand by my suggestion that the magic phase should reveal all its spells, bounds and how much dice will be used by whom at what target in what sequence before the phase starts, much like your suggestion re: shooting. It would make my life much easier.

Tarax
18-01-2010, 10:33
i agree that it would make more sense.
i disagree that it would make the game play better.

for one, you'd need another whole set of markers for declaring shooting targets (akin to declaring charges). without that, it could become very difficult to keep track of who is shooting at what. annoying, but not necessarily a high hurdle to overcome.

In normal games, you don't have dozens of shooting units, including war machines. So it isn't that hard to keep track of what each unit is shooting at. Also, your opponent is there too, so he should also know which targets you have chosen.


imo the problem is with panic, which currently is resolved immediately. if all shooting happens "at the same time", then you'd have to hold all panic tests until after all shots are fired. or you could roll their tests when they need to test, and then wait to move panicked units until the end of the round. the reason panic would have to be held off is that it doesn't make sense to have the shooting "at the same time" and the panic results of the shooting "one at a time". besides, panic tests can change the battlefield even more than fallen warriors can (the premise of this thread is that fallen warriors can give enemy shooters new angles on shots that they did not have one dice roll earlier)

You are wrong there. Panic tests caused by shooting are at the end of the phase, not after each unit's shooting. Same goes for magic. Your reasoning is true for close combat.

rtunian
18-01-2010, 13:59
You are wrong there. Panic tests caused by shooting are at the end of the phase, not after each unit's shooting. Same goes for magic

oops. that's right, panic from 25% casualties is done at the end of the phase.

Lord Dan
19-01-2010, 00:54
So essentially, you don't like a particular play style and so would like to nerf it for personal reasons to favour your own build that revolves around 2A S5 troops. That seems eminently fair and reasonable.

That's an awfully large assumption based on what I said. To be fair, it would be more like:

I don't like a particular army build and so would like to nerf it for the betterment of society to favor every other army that isn't a gunline.

I'm all about making accusations and jumping to conclusions, but let's be reasonable...

Brother Edwin
19-01-2010, 01:16
I would like it very much.

Add a bit more thought to the shooting phase and more gamble oppertunities. And do over gunlines a bit more which is always nice.:)

Stronginthearm
19-01-2010, 01:44
I like the shooting phase the way ti is, did the OP jsut get chewed up by a gunline army? I dislike nerfing shooting because Warhammer seems already to be moving away from ranged towards big tank melee units and the all at once shooting nomination would jsut allow you to shield those tanks even more, meaning that the only way to kill that would be to magic it or to have a even BIGGER tank unit

Col. Dash
19-01-2010, 01:55
This is the inherent problem with a flawed one side goes, then the other side goes system. If it was the more sensible your unit goes, his unit goes system this wouldnt be an issue as you would be forced to strategically think about which unit was activating. But alas we are stuck with the faulty GW system we all know and love(lol) so as far as the system goes you dont have alot of room to complain. Just like you chose which unit to move in whatever order you want, the shooter gets to pick which unit he shoots and when. Maybe you should have used both the dogs and the marauders as screens?

soots
19-01-2010, 02:56
I think you rolled absolutely terrible to fail your panic. You had rerolls.

IT just wasnt YOUR day.

And his shooting was all he had, most armies can only but whittle down chaos because melee is never ever...ever pretty for the people fighting against chaos.

He had a plan with a small percentage chance to work.. And it worked. You only had to get across with 5-6 chaos warriors and it would be chow time for the elves.

It just wasnt YOUR day

Red Metal
19-01-2010, 02:58
I don't like a particular army build and so would like to nerf it for the betterment of society to favor every other army that isn't a gunline.

That's still pretty unreasonable, as...

1. It's just your own personal experience and I don't see others complaining as much against the gunline tactic (how many threads have been started about the problems with shooting recently?). Right now Deamons and Undead are everyone's favorite to bash on, with good arguements. Gunlines are hardly a threat to most, which brings...

2. ...The best gunlines are usually the Dwarves and it's not like they're top-tier armies that wipe the floor with everyone else. So, knocking them out of their primary tactic is that important to you? Other armies with capacities for gunlines are DE and HE, which both have other better build options - like DE double Hydra or HE Dragon Mage.

3. Gunlines are a realistic facet of warfare. Again, these guys show up to a fight with more guns than you, but they pay for it in points, lack of armor, and in the case of Dwarves, speed.

Again, at the end of the day, we can't just have a game infantry vs infantry. That just won't help WFB at all.

ChaosVC
19-01-2010, 08:18
I think it is pretty obvious that everybody hates gunline but no one except Lord Dan believes that the shooting phase is badly design. If we were to follow his suggestion about shooting, then armies similar to chaos will fields so many cheap screening units like hound etc to waste away armies that use shooting as part of their tactics to win the game.

If lord Dan is unable to see this as a huge problem...then he is probably playing a different game... warhammer fantastic battered?

Sand
19-01-2010, 09:25
This is the inherent problem with a flawed one side goes, then the other side goes system. If it was the more sensible your unit goes, his unit goes system this wouldnt be an issue as you would be forced to strategically think about which unit was activating. But alas we are stuck with the faulty GW system we all know and love(lol) so as far as the system goes you dont have alot of room to complain. Just like you chose which unit to move in whatever order you want, the shooter gets to pick which unit he shoots and when. Maybe you should have used both the dogs and the marauders as screens?I'm all for dissing GW for making a game that we all spend our time and money on, but I think their system is not only much more playable, but also much more tactical than what you propose.

As for the shooting phase, I think it's fine as it is, both from a "gameplay" and a "realism" view.
Gameplay-wise there's some tactical considerations to the way it is, too (although it's probably not all that often this comes into play) and of course the proposed solution would introduce a bigger problem, as has been mentioned.
Realism-wise, I think it's ok the way it is. The shooting phase is supposed to be an abstraction with a lot more than 5-10 shots per unit being fired (with the possible exception of warmachines), so I don't see the problem in assuming that it takes time and that windows of opportunity might open up at various points. And of course, speaking of realism, the shooters aren't firing at the advancing troops at one single point in time, but during their entire advance.

Lord Dan
19-01-2010, 17:43
I think it is pretty obvious that everybody hates gunline but no one except Lord Dan believes that the shooting phase is badly design. If we were to follow his suggestion about shooting, then armies similar to chaos will fields so many cheap screening units like hound etc to waste away armies that use shooting as part of their tactics to win the game.

If lord Dan is unable to see this as a huge problem...then he is probably playing a different game... warhammer fantastic battered?

I really have no idea what you were trying to say. That aside, I'm pretty sure you were trying to insult me, so from what I could decipher out of your post I'll say this: the idea that people keep proposing in that hundreds of cheap screens run around the battlefield preventing gunlines from doing anything isn't as bad as you're suggesting. In some of our test games I tried that out but found the screens still got shot to pieces, got in the way a LOT, and my opponent still had a hill from which his artillery bombarded my heavier units.

Many of the posts on this thread remind me of the terror that swept the community when the ogre kingdoms book was coming out. "Oh man, T4 multiwound infantry??!! That's so broken!!! It will crush _____ army!!!!" Lots of people throwing out really strong opinions on something they hadn't seen in action yet. I'm asking you guys to try it out, suggest some ways to improve it, and then we go from there. I don't think that's unreasonable.

RGB
19-01-2010, 19:14
I'm asking you guys to try it out, suggest some ways to improve it, and then we go from there. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Here's a reasonable objection: most armies' shooting is support. Most armies' shooting is very expensive points-wise.

What your change is doing is essentially denying armies with support shooting the flexibility of switching targets once the bare minimum objective has been accomplished. That is actually part of my strategy, and I don't run anything resembling a gunline.

You're trying to make the already unreliable shooting into an even bigger gamble. Do I try to counter both/all three of the threat units until they have to check for panic, and risk getting no panics at all, or do I fire all my shooting at one of them and thus ensure the others survive to kill me next turn?

Why on earth does shooting deserve this kind of nerf? So that new uber-killy armies have less to think about? Just throw enough units up there and since he can't prioritise flexibly now I am nearly guaranteed a path all the way to the back?

You still, I noticed, haven't answered my "What to do with Magic" question. Would not nominating targets, casters, dice spent, dice cast and bounds be equally fair? I mean, don't knock it until you try it?

Johnnyfrej
19-01-2010, 21:53
I think the problem lies in the shooters and not in the shooting phase itself.
What I would do is:

-War Machines can only pivot up to 45*, any more and they cannot fire that turn. This makes placement a more tactical decision.

-Units on hills block other units on hills if they are between the behind unit and the unit it wishes to shoot at. This is negated if target is a large target.

-Ranked units with ranged weapons cannot fire them if they reform in any way. Can only fire if not marching and may pivot only.

Souppilgrim
19-01-2010, 23:34
The problem with nerfing shooting, even a little, is that the guy you hurt the most is the one that brings the balanced army with low to moderate amount of shooting.

Lord Dan
20-01-2010, 03:23
You still, I noticed, haven't answered my "What to do with Magic" question. Would not nominating targets, casters, dice spent, dice cast and bounds be equally fair? I mean, don't knock it until you try it?

I haven't answered it because I haven't tried it, and have no experience on the matter outside of what I think would happen. That wouldn't help you much, would it?

ChaosVC
20-01-2010, 03:32
I really have no idea what you were trying to say. That aside, I'm pretty sure you were trying to insult me, so from what I could decipher out of your post I'll say this: the idea that people keep proposing in that hundreds of cheap screens run around the battlefield preventing gunlines from doing anything isn't as bad as you're suggesting. In some of our test games I tried that out but found the screens still got shot to pieces, got in the way a LOT, and my opponent still had a hill from which his artillery bombarded my heavier units.

Many of the posts on this thread remind me of the terror that swept the community when the ogre kingdoms book was coming out. "Oh man, T4 multiwound infantry??!! That's so broken!!! It will crush _____ army!!!!" Lots of people throwing out really strong opinions on something they hadn't seen in action yet. I'm asking you guys to try it out, suggest some ways to improve it, and then we go from there. I don't think that's unreasonable.

No I am not trying to insult you...but after reading some of your post...I must admitt I am really tempted to.

But here is the thing, being mainly a chaos player, I can see how advantageous a unit of cheap screen can be for an army like chaos, even its is for one turn, and of course these cheap screens still get shot to pieces, they are indeed cheap screens.

Now ask yourself, is it fair for a unit that cost 60 points (10 war hounds) to screen the entire advancing front of a charging chaos army agaisnt say 130 pts of shooting and die in that turn which is actually better than average or have it adsorb potentially up to 490 pts of shooting in a single turn and keeping everything behind it safe from shooting? This is a highly possible scenario when the shooters do not get a benefit of a hill.

Now ask yourself, what difference does it make if we practice your suggested shooting rule and give the shooty army a freaking hill? Are you then going to change the rules about shooting from a hill?

Cerraand
26-01-2010, 19:37
The idea of declaring what shoots what before doing it reminds me of the 3rd edition if I'm not mistaken... (am I? can someone confirm please, I'm curious)

I think I wouldn't mind using any of those two ways.

But for your unit being gunned by the bolt thrower after the archers took down your screen think of this : He needed 2 units to shoot at the warriors.
His archers didn't shot anything else (anyway archers are having a hard time taking down heavy infantry so the marauders were a good choice imho)

Gaargod
26-01-2010, 20:40
The example you provided is very heavily flawed however. Failing LD8 rerollable is a 1/81 chance. Plus, he had to hit and kill 3 chaos warriors - again, odds are not in favour of this happening. In other words, it was a fluke. As it happened at 500pts, this meant you lost the game - a necessary facet of the low points value.

Now that's out of the way, as to your original point: It wouldn't work. The game is currently not designed or balanced around it. Maybe it would work if you introduced a 'volley' mechanic for troops able to volley, meaning that you could hit something out of LoS. But to be honest, that's a worse situation than as now.

Skyros
26-01-2010, 20:50
It would make sense, as it seems kind of silly for shooting units to be able to pick their targets based on the success of their allies.

I don't think it's silly at all. I think arbitrarily restricting people to NOT be able to take advantage of the success of their allies is sillier.

grimkeeper
26-01-2010, 21:18
Im going to agree with Lord Dan in that it would be better if all shooting units had to declare their target at start of the shooting phase. Unfortunatly there would then need to be so many changes made ,allowing shooting in two ranks ,raising the cost of screen units reduceing the cost of shooters etc that it will never happen.

Tarax
27-01-2010, 14:28
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any problem with this 'rule'. I have used it in many battles and never had a problem with it.